Barack's flippity-flopping on his Iraq "plan"

[AZhitman]

This warranted a new thread...

Thoughts on these comments from BO?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...shtml

Barack Obama: Well, there's no doubt the scary situation's improved. And it was very encouraging to see that markets are reopening; that in places like Anbar Province you have seen a complete reversal in terms of the attitude of Sunni tribesmen towards American forces there. That I think is a terrific momentum builder. And we've gotta keep on making sure that we're making progress on those fronts. What hadn't changed was there's still enormous suspicion between the Sunni and the Shii'a. And until I think that gets resolved and the central government is able to bring in Sunnis and give them confidence that their voices are heard, that their interests are met, that their constituencies are benefiting from oil revenues. Other steps that the government may be taking to improve economic opportunity, I think you're still gonna … have a fragile situation there.

...scary situation's improved

Hmmm. Surge, perhaps?

...complete reversal in terms of the attitude of Sunni tribesmen towards American forces there

I thought they wanted us OUT?

And we've gotta keep on making sure that we're making progress on those fronts

By pulling out?

What hadn't changed was there's still enormous suspicion between the Sunni and the Shii'a.

Ummm, which has been going on since the dawn of their modern civilization. Duh.

And until I think that gets resolved

Not our job, Homeboy. We ain't THAT good.

I'll keep going later, it's LOADED with good material.

[heliochrome85]

while im not wearing my obama(lama?) hat right now, i do think its respectable for a person to change their opinion/stance once they see compelling evidence to do so. id much rather have someone who is flexible in their planning because the end goal is worth it, than someone who is completely inflexible, to the point of it being detrimental to the end goal. that being said, my read of his comments is just the same as yours. he is changing his position. I also think though that it is incredibly difficult for anyone to be sitting there, in front of thousands of us soldiers, millions of iraqis, hundreds of millions of americans, and say, you guys are doing a crap job, and this country will never be stable, screw it, pack it up guys, were going home. any rational person can see there has been positive change in the region as the result of the surge. that being said, is iraq now a better country than it was in 2002? no. rolling power outages, rolling fuel outages, rolling water outages and general insecurity keeps opinion of the americans low on the ground. i dont know enough about mccain to say he is completely wrong. I hope to find out more. I just dont want bush style inflexibility, and as we all know, old people are scared of change. (maybe rightfully so)

[AZhitman]

He said he would "...consult with military commanders to determine how many troops to keep in the country to protect humanitarian operations, to train Iraqis and to conduct operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq. ..."

My question - How does that reconcile with the criticism of J-Mac's statement that we might be there longer than we'd like?

The point is, we WILL have troops there for a long time, regardless of BO's "plan" or "promise" for withdrawal.

[heliochrome85]

my feeling is that McCain's position, and statements are that US troops are the best suited to doing the work and training Iraqi's is a secondary objective.

BO's plan seems to be that US troops are ideally suited to train, since Iraqi troops know the culture/people better and can do a more effective job. This makes the goal the training of soldiers to take over, rather than a nebulous concept of victory. That was the failure of Bush. You can't WIN in Iraq. You can only do your job as best as you can and leave. By trying to win, the game has no end.

[skylndrftr]

I think Helio is on the right course there...

BO's general sentiment is to remove us from being involved as we are now. Yes some troops will untimately stay but I like his plan because I believe it is the right general idea. The goal should be towards less troops, and those troops that are there should be in noncombat roles as much as possible. Unfortuantely, as is to be expected in a war zone, theres no perfect answer and things will ultimately change. I think its fairly sad that after attacking Obama for not going, hes no being attacked, effectively, for going.

John McCain's plan is to not change a thing. Unfortunately, that is what got us into problems in the first place. The surge was a change. A change that was resisted for a very long time. Unfortunately, our enemies in Iraq will (if they haven't already) adapt to the surge. They know battling the US forces head on is a losing proposition...always has been. The only way we can win is making friends which more troops doesnt do.

[rn79870]

Helio, I for one, look forward to your posts with respect to middle eastern issues. I wish we had the time to sit and talk. Thanks for posting.

[rn79870]

Ah, Greg. What you call "change" I call "refining." What you call "flip-flopping" I call "intelligent reflection." Imagine, a president that sees when a plan isn't working and is willing to investigate ways of fixing it. That might not be a bad thing after all.

[96Qowner]

Imagine a President who basically has no clue, given that he has no experience in military matters, who then changes his mind when he learns more.

Imagine that he maintained his old position through thick and thin for 5 long years before he finally learned enough to change it.

This was Obama's Big Advantage, remember? The anti-war Libs loved him because he refused to modify his position. He was ALWAYS for quitting, no matter what. ALWAYS. In the last debate against Hillary, he said he'd TELL the generals what to do. People loved him for that, remember?

So now ... people love him for changing his position? Okayay. Is he saying he was a dolt for 5 years, or that he really never meant it?

It's always a good thing when a politician abandons a truly bad position, but he doesn't get kudos for having the bad position, or for taking so long to realize it.

[heliochrome85]

lets say that during those 5 years, things were truly bad and not worth the sacrifice of our country men due to lack of planning, oversight, direction. duriing those 5 years, lets also say obama was an advocate for pulling out, when the rest of the goverment was too busy readjusting their flag lapel pins and finding clean respectable vetrans to take pictures with. THEN, the surge happened and slowly but surely things began to actually improve. Is it wrong for someone to chage their position? Was he stupid for saying the Iraq situation was deplorable and our war efforts were criminial? No. Just because things are relatviely good now, doesnt mean they werent very bad before. The people who recognized how bad it was before should not be called flip-floppers because they have changed their opinion AS OF LATE.

For me, id rather have someone who demonstrates the capability of changing their position than someone who is blindly oblivious to the truth.(mission accomplished?) be it republican or democrat, its the least id expect from someone seeking the highest office.

[96Qowner]

But "the surge" didn't just happen. Some people fought for increased troop levels while others fought to just quit. Obama was not one of the ones who fought for increased troop levels, so it's pretty cheesy to come in now and declare that things are more stable and NOW we can quit.

Some may not agree, but I think the consensus now is that we always should have had more troops in Iraq. The mistake, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's, and Bush's because he backed them, was in thinking that we could occupy the country with less than 200,000 troops. If we had had more troops in at the very first, the insurgents would not have gotten out of hand, the country would not have been in such chaos, and the Iraqis would not have been so angry and disgusted with the US.

So, some consistently fought for more troops, some consistently fought to just quit. Now that the chaos has subsided, Obama wants to try to claim that he was right then and that he's right now. Bullsh!t.

But otherwise, yes, it's better to admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, than to stick to your guns in the face of all evidence that you were wrong. If only he'd now admit that increased troops levels were a good thing, he might get some credibility back.

When he wanted to quit no matter what for 5 solid years in the face of ever changing circumstance in Iraq, was he correct? Should he have been so stubborn?

[heliochrome85]

what you forget is that the discussion a few years ago was quite differrent that it is now. we now know that most of the retired generals that appeared on tv in support of the war, stopped first at rumsfield's office to get his talking points. Was he right then and right now? YES. he was right then because the situation was NOT ever changing. it was just bad. Go back and reread articles from that time and see if things were ase "open" as they are now. You asked the government how the war was going, bush would say, Great, we are winning. In the face of blatant lies by one's government, you think its a good idea to add MORE soldiers? We all were under the impression that the planning that lead to the war was of the highest quality and detail. In the time since then, we realize otherwise. You can't base yesterdays judgements on todays information. I honestly believe that to be against the surge initially is not a damnable offense. We simply didnt know the facts of the situation. You cant blame anyone, obama or otherwise, for that decision.

[96Qowner]

But ...

There's a big ol' pile of cognitive dissonance in there somewhere.

Why did the country descend into chaos after the invasion? Because we destroyed the police and Guard structure but didn't have enough of our own troops to substitute for it, so law and order disappeared.

So we had few choices:

1.) Quit. That's easy, lazy, shameful, etc.

2.) Tough it out, hoping something magical might happen. Another bad idea, as it turned out. Go figure.

3.) Add more troops. Some may think it was just coincidence that violence fell dramatically right after we added the troops, but it seems more like maybe they caused it, especially since that was the purpose.

The discussion on TV and in the press a few years ago was between choices 1 and 2, both bad choices. You say the situation was not ever changing, yet it changed.

Now I want to remind the readers of the thread that there was a Senator who is now a Presidential candidate that was fighting for increased troop levels since the invasion was first contemplated, and it wasn't Sen Obama. Someone was right and it wasn't Sen Obama.

[heliochrome85]

remember how the war started before Obama was even a senator? remember how obama made his first major appearance in the summer of 2004? remember how he hasnt been in office 4 years yet? is he inexperienced? maybe. was he wrong? No. you dont have to have 50 years experience to know wrong when you see it. just because some poeple take longer to recognize right and wrong doesnt mean that they should be the norm. some people dont need to fall into the ditch to know to stay away from it.

you wanna know why im not gung ho for McCain? because there isnt one thing i can think of that Bush has done that has been good. We shouldnt have gone in to iraq. we shouldnt have wiretapped the nation. we shouldnt have opened up guantanomo. we shouldnt have opened up the goverment to big business. we shouldnt have run with NO energy policy for 8 years. we shouldnt have hired brownie for FEMA. ditto gonzales. etc...............then mccain is like, i like this guy, he can campaign for me. i dont mind supporting him and giving him credit when it isnt due.

i dont want to be reminded of the past 8 years and i cant imagine how mccain will take office and NOT keep the status quo in relation to the party politics. guess what, as bad as clinton was made in terms of his personal relationship, (which i personally dont think was any of our business, but was made our business by the hypocritical repubs in pwer) he pales in comparison to the Bush years. you wanna lose McCain? Continue to schedule press confrences with Bush. Make sure you are always within 5 feet of him and defer to him for judgement. Wanna know why obama is hailed as the second coming? cause most of the world gave up hope that there was rational thought and kindness in the US. trust me, i dont own any obama stuff, nor have i paid a dime to his campaign, but given the choice between the two, i would vote for him 100 times over mccain. give me someone who is willing to make a difference, not just talk about how we cant do anything drastic. mccain, your time was 2000. your view no longer works for america. even republicans are saying so, but they are voting for you because of either party lines, or because of a dislike of obama. show me one diehard mccain voter, and i may be persuaded otherwise.

[rn79870]

you wanna know why im not gung ho for McCain? because there isnt one thing i can think of that Bush has done that has been good. We shouldnt have gone in to iraq. we shouldnt have wiretapped the nation. we shouldnt have opened up guantanomo. we shouldnt have opened up the goverment to big business. we shouldnt have run with NO energy policy for 8 years. we shouldnt have hired brownie for FEMA. ditto gonzales. etc...............then mccain is like, i like this guy, he can campaign for me. i dont mind supporting him and giving him credit when it isnt due.

I owe you the biggest beer you can drink, and if we ever meet, you've got it.

I think everyone here respect McCain and the sacrifices he has made for our country. He was a true American hero, but he just isn't the man I want running our country. No bashing intended.

[AZhitman]

John McCain's plan is to not change a thing.

Really? You're certain of this?

Apparently no one has read my thread which discusses how their "plans" DO NOT differ all that much.

The REAL difference is while Oscar Proud (oops, I mean Obama) is flapping his gums this way and that, J-Mac is watching and waiting - NEITHER man is the President, so ANY expectations of "action" are totally inappropriate.

[96Qowner]

There's a term people use on the acbnews politics forum for folks who are helplessly blinded by their obsessive hatred of Bush. They have BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome.

you wanna know why im not gung ho for McCain? because there isnt one thing i can think of that Bush has done that has been good.

If you can't stomach McCain because you hate Bush so much, fine. That's not rational or informed, but you're certainly entitled to believe it and vote accordingly.

[heliochrome85]

its not that i hate bush, its that i am disapointed by McCains inability to distance himself from the man responsible for thousands of US Soldier's deaths, quarterly scandals, and potentially an economic recession affecting millions of people in the US and billions of people world wide.

[rn79870]

There's a term people use on the acbnews politics forum for folks who are helplessly blinded by their obsessive hatred of Bush. They have BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome.

That BDS group must include what, 70% of the country?

If you can't stomach McCain because you hate Bush so much, fine. That's not rational or informed, but you're certainly entitled to believe it and vote accordingly.

It isn't a matter of hating Bush. I don't hate GW, I simply lack respect for the way he has led (not led) our country.

If I were McCain, I'd do everything I could do to distance myself from the errors, omissions and ignorance of the current administration, even if it meant calling a spade a spade. The multitude of failed Bush policies are at the heart of Obama's successful "Change" campaign.

[AZhitman]

Probably not a great place (or time) to bring GWB into this, but he did accomplish SOME good while in office.

Rather than point out these things (most of which center around his tax cut of 02 and some foreign relations stuff), I think the wise thing would be to distance ALL discussion from what will soon be a PRIOR administration.

Here's why:

To ASSUME that JM will continue with the status quo is retarded. Do you know how many Republicans hate this guy? How the HELL did he get the GOP nod? In AZ, he can't get a break from his own party, and he seems to like it.

So, why wouldn't someone who leans left want to "stick it" to the GOP by considering a candidate that the majority of the "hard right" can't stand?

To reiterate the original point of this thread: This is ALL about BO's inability to keep his mouth shut until he knows what the hell he's talking about.

Will you defer to military commanders? You said you wouldn't. Will you consult with them? You said you would. Will you accept their assessment of the ground conditions? You did then didn't then did. Initially you said you'd stay the course" for firm withdrawal timelines regardless. Now you say you'll adjust your course based on conditions on the ground. Are you qualified to assess those? Or will you defer to your military commanders? Were you aware that the current administration has already agreed to a withdrawal timeline? Oh, but it's such a novel idea, it must have been yours.

Cripes. He talks more than a damn woman.

And for all his supposed "experience" in coordinating and working with groups (whatever that means), he sure as hell didn't do any favors to his own city, where he supposedly "organized" and "coordinated" to reduce gang crime. There was certainly no immediate effect, and there's been no residual impact. Wonder what he did?

Less blabbing, Senator. Much less.

[AZhitman]

If I were McCain, I'd do everything I could do to distance myself from the errors, omissions and ignorance of the current administration, even if it meant calling a spade a spade.

Kinda like BO did when his moronic pastor was talking about "the U.S. of KKK A."?

Riiiiight.

Not as easy as it sounds. Actually, it WOULD have been easier for him to say his pastor was an idiot. At least then he's not alienating those who just MIGHT be "party-liners".

Anyway, enough with the glaringly obvious hypocrisy....

One thing you'll learn if and when you spend enough time around politicians - It's NOT wise to come out and openly bash your predecessor. It's a *little* more acceptable for the opposing party to do, but the bottom line is, that would be simply dumb.

Even when JM has pointed out areas he'd change, one of two things happens: It never gets widespread reporting, OR the Obamallamas start jabbering on about it being "their" idea....

Come to think of it, he should try to copyright the word "change".

Still waiting for a definition of what that means, since his "change" is looking more and more like the way things would go WITHOUT his amateur interventions... which he'll take FULL credit for, I'm sure.

[rn79870]

There are many people who see this "flexability" as a desirable trait. Anyone who recognizes a problem and reacts to it by changing his focus isn't failing us, he's leading us responsibility.

What some see as a fault, others see as an asset, and I think you're describing an asset here.

[telcoman]

http://www.toddalbert.com/file...k.swf

click on fist

[heliochrome85]

lulz. not normally my kind of thing, but funny none the less.

WHY CANT US GOVERMENT BE LIKE THE WEST WING?!?!?!

[mtcookson]

Speaking of flip flopping, just saw this on TV and immediately thought of this thread.

http://www.bothwaysbarack.com/

Quote »People are saying that Senator Obama’s recent changes of position have made him a flip-flopper.

He’s not!

Flip-floppers only hold one position at a time.

Senator Obama is different: he holds two positions at the same time.

Both ways on banning handguns.

Both ways on public campaign financing.

And now, both ways on withdrawing from Iraq.

He’s ‘Both Ways Barack.’ Worse than a flip-flopper!

People are saying that Senator Obama’s recent changes of position have made him a flip-flopper.

He’s not!

Flip-floppers only hold one position at a time.

Senator Obama is different: he holds two positions at the same time.

Both ways on banning handguns.Both ways on public campaign financing.Both ways on NAFTA.

And now, both ways on withdrawing from Iraq.

He wants to have them all, both ways.

He’s “Both Ways Barack.”Worse than a flip-flopper. [/quote]