Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline

[Bragi]

Source: NYT

FARGO, N.D. – Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.
Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.
“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information


Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/obama-ope...

---

I'm sure the Bush-appointed commanders on the ground in Iraq, along with the oil companies, will be pleased to put their case for perpetual war forward.

- B

[WriteDown]

1. ARE YOU KIDDING???

Proving once again to me that politicians are all the same.

[SlammerBC]

14. Wake up, smell the roses

They are all the same!

[jgraz]

18. No. They're not all the same.

Republicans are at least smart enough to know you don't pull this shit in the middle of a campaign.

[The Doctor.]

66. Uhh... precisely what "shit" has Obama 'pulled'?

Meanwhile, do you really believe that Republicans don't pull actual flip-flops during campaigns?

[PittPoliSci]

103. how about continued triangulation?

i used to be excited about this guy, but it seems lately that he's trying to show he's just as willing to please the powers that be as any other politician.

[The Doctor.]

106. You're confusing voters for TPTB.

He's working to get elected, and TPTB are working against him.

And you're falling for it.

WTG.

[PittPoliSci]

107. well, if he can't win voters by the strength of his own convictions...

why should he expect anyone to vote for him?

[The Doctor.]

108. Apparently you haven't been paying attention. "It's the Media, stupid."

(Not that you're necessarily stupid, just using the idiom)

If all the candidates were equally able to express their convictions to the American people without media meddling, then Dennis Kucinich would be on his way to the WH. When the corporate media is pitted against you, the 'strength of convictions' isn't enough to win voters because the media will twist, limit, and mischaracterize anything you do.

Obama is contending with that. There are traps laid for him everywhere that the media will spring in a moment while clearing the field for McCain. If his attempts to avoid the traps convinces people like you that he has no 'convictions', then you're simply not paying attention.

If you call yourself 'PoliSci', I shouldn't have to tell you this.

Yes, he should defend his convictions, but there are some battles that are more cost effective to avoid. The FISA trap was one of them.

[PittPoliSci]

113. oh i'm still 100% behind him.

but he's not doing himself any favors by turning his back to the left.

[The Doctor.]

116. If you were paying attention,

you'd know he hasn't done that.

Why are so many on the left tactically oblivious?

[PittPoliSci]

118. right. the media is forcing him to say all that stuff.

we don't have to take him at his word, we can just hope that he has the best intentions.

[The Doctor.]

119. All what stuff? You means everything he's said all along?

That's the point... there's nothing there, yet they're managing to dupe people, like you, into thinking he's 'abandonning' his principles.

The worst he can be accused of is running a traditional campaign at the moment.

[PittPoliSci]

127. yeah, but he said he wasn't going to play that game.

and if we take him on his word at that, then he isn't playing the game and actually believes in the shit he's saying.

[ryanmuegge]

115. Yeah, but the Republicans have the press on their side, so flip-flops aren't flip-flops for them.

Obama is acting as if he doesn't understand this.

[Skittles]

78. well, they are all politicians

but repukes absolutely STINK compared to Democrats. Mr. Obama at least has a PLAN to get the fuck out of Iraq which is more than I can say for ALL REPUKES PUT TOGETHER.

[Voltaire99]

128. Shocked, shocked to find flipflopping is going on in here!

And here he said it was flipflopping we could believe in.

[redqueen]

39. In that they all want to get in office... well... yeah.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[peace13]

65. Hey welcome to Du and relax.

Do your homework and listen to the video. He has not changed his position at all. And ...enjoy your stay.

[Arkana]

68. Perhaps you should actually read into the issue before knee-jerking.

Of course, there are so many people willing to tear Barack's throat out every time he so much as takes a piss the wrong way...

[downindixie]

71. Barrack beat the Clintons and that enough for

me!I believe he knows what he has to do to win! For the first time in my 63 years,I made a donation to Barrack.I'm sticking with him!

[mike_c]

2. words fail me....

I thought my disgust for politicians could grow no deeper. Obama seems intent on proving me wrong.

[The Doctor.]

64. So does comprehension, apparently. Are you actually fooled by this?

He's never 'changed his position' on Iraq, he still wants out. The hitch is that Bush fucked it up so bad that there's no easy way out.

Does the fact that Obama can acknowledge that mean he wants us to stay in Iraq?

No, but the choice to live in reality, rather than a media-induced hypnosis, is ultimately yours.

[mike_c]

72. see my comments down thread on the "easy way out...."

In short, any expectation that there is an easy way out is both operationally and morally wrong. The ONLY thing that should inform withdrawal policy is the criminal nature of the war against Iraq. Unless "flexibility," "further consideration," or "listening to the commanders on the ground" is likely to change the fundamentally criminal nature of wars of aggression, there is simply no justification for continuing to commit war crimes one more day beyond the day when we can possibly stop them. On January twenty-first the blood will begin accumulating on someone else's hands, presumably Barak Obama's.

Remember too that the Nuremberg principle on individual responsibility for war crimes, which applies from the commander-in-chief to the bottom of the chain of command, uses only the standard of a moral choice being available to anyone whose actions result in war crimes. I've emphasized moral choice because that is the only standard cited-- other considerations, such as political considerations, legal considerations, monetary matters, and saving national face are specifically NOT given any weight in the matter. ONLY President Obama's moral choice counts--the one he'll make every day he chooses to continue the American occupation of Iraq-- and if you can think of any moral reasons for continuing an unnecessary war of aggression against Iraq then I'd love to hear them.

Yeah, I'm just hypnotized by the media.

[The Doctor.]

76. Right, but that's not the point, nor is it the hype that you've apparently bought into.

The OP is essentially an accusation that Obama has 'reversed' himself or left himself open to the possibility of staying in Iraq indefinitely.

Neither of those are correct. If you are 'disgusted' with him over this fallacy, then yeah... you're falling for the hype.

Other than that, you're spot-on. I'm actually for a total withdrawal, let the chips fall where they may, then send Bush et al to The Hague.

[mike_c]

77. I'm not disgusted by his "reversal" at all....

I didn't say anything about a reversal. I don't know where you came up with that idea. I have never supported Obama's withdrawal plan because it was always unnecessarily prolonged and because it was never a complete withdrawal (I think we might disagree on that point-- I think he WILL have U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely). I'm disgusted because he appears to be shifting even further away from doing the right thing-- which I believe is ending the occupation as fast as possible, i.e. as fast as the trucks can load and make for international transport.

[The Doctor.]

80. Right, you've fallen for it.

He hasn't 'moved' from his position at all. He's always said that withdrawal will take realities on the ground into consideration, but staying isn't an option.

I would love to see someone with the integrity and principles of Kucinich become President, but right now we have a guy who at least wants to appear to be more considerate of the ramifications, both for the sake of averting outright disaster and to appeal to more people.

There is no reason to be more disgusted with him now than at any time before... he hasn't changed. That's media artifice, and you seem to have fallen for it. Not that I'd blame ya, they're good at what they do.

[mcollier]

81. Swayed easily by the MSM are you?

Give me a break. Your pathetic attempt to "Define" Barack Obama is lame.

[mike_c]

82. um-- which attempt to define Obama would that be...?

I'm not even going to argue further unless you have anything substantive to contribute. Read my comments in this thread. Tell me how I've "defined" Obama. While you're at it, you might devote a neuron or two to thinking about how history will remember us all for the crimes that are being committed in our names, if you can spare them.

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Oh dear.

[mitchtv]

50. heh

won't say a word

[ronnykmarshall]

92. I think Obama is right with his words.

What's funny is the outrage and mashing of teeth around here.

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. Tickled pink?

Dreams of 2012?

[ronnykmarshall]

91. Oh shut up.

I'm over it, you seem to still want to drag it on.

[alcibiades_mystery]

104. Yeah, you sound over it

[ronnykmarshall]

111. Oh Miss Cleo

You're so powerful in your mind reading powers.

Ass.

[gateley]

4. It's a reasonable and realistic approach.

Haven't we learned that what looks good on paper might not pan out as expected when the plan is implemented? I think it's better than going in with an inflexible plan, flags waving, bands playing, only to learn that it might not be possible to execute the desired actions.

I have faith that Obama will get us out of there as safely and quickly as possible.

[mike_c]

5. there is absolutely NOTHING reasonable or realistic about prolonging...

...the illegal war against Iraq. Politically expedient, perhaps. But the day Obama takes office the blood is on HIS hands, and every day he prolongs the bloodbath will be another reason he was the wrong choice for president. Every day will be another nail in the coffin of his legacy.

An "inflexible plan" is exactly what is needed: America must get out of Iraq with all possible speed. Anything else is prolonging war crimes for politics, which only compounds their evil. Obama will inherit this, but he must end it.

[qazplm]

10. what's all possible speed mean

and how do you determine it?

Isn't at least a tiny part of it talking to the commanders on the ground?

What if they say we need 18 months instead of 16 months? That's not a big change.

I think we are all overreacting to almost everything that comes out of the campaign now.

It's as if we are not only bracing for Obama to be a horrible president but we are expecting it.

That's a little premature. Let's wait until the bridge is crossed before we start going crazy about this.

And believe me, if that bridge IS crossed, I will be at the front of the line protesting Obama.

[mike_c]

29. "isn't the tiniest part talking to the commanders...?"

No it is not. The "commanders on the ground" do not dictate policy-- they prosecute wars or withdraw under civilian control in response to civilian policy. In fact, letting military commanders make ANY PORTION of decisions regarding whether or not to prolong or end a war is a terrible idea. That's how the military becomes involved in government. Further, the answer is a forgone conclusion-- commanders in the field who envision continuing their careers will ALWAYS advise continuing hostilities in one form or another until they're victorious. That is what they're trained to do. They are most definitely NOT trained or qualified to make national policy.

What is all possible speed? It means as quickly as is humanly possible. The war against Iraq is a CRIME. It is the direct moral equivalent of serial murder, or slavery, or genocide (international law actually defines wars of aggression as being WORSE than those crimes). Under what circumstances could you ever envision prolonging a serial murderer's killing because it isn't expedient to stop it just yet? How about letting bank robbers kill a few more hostages because the time for stopping that crime isn't right yet?

That sort of moral equivocation is VILE. There is no justification at all for continuing the war against Iraq for even one single more day. If there are still Americans occupying Iraq tomorrow then we have failed to stop a terrible crime. THAT'S what "all possible speed" means.

Eighteen months instead of 16 months? Sixteen is too long-- explain to the victims why we had to continue killing them for sixteen months after the day we could have stopped.

[gateley]

37. I agree with your statement about there being no justification for

continuing this war for even one more day. I can't express how furious I am that we're there at all.

But, if we stopped the war TODAY, how could we do that? Have our troops put down their arms and just wait around for a ride home? There is no logistical possibility to move that many people out immediately. In the interim, as they're waiting their turn to exit, do you think the insurgents are going to stop shooting at us?

Idealogically we sympatico. But I don't understand your expectations. So please explain to me how you would ideally like to see it go down.

[mike_c]

49. Of course I don't expect that we could stop "today..."

But continuing the war tomorrow, no matter how necessary, is no less immoral and criminal just because we've painted ourselves into a corner that's hard to get out of. THAT makes it necessary to do whatever we can to end it as quickly as possible. No, putting down the weapons and stopping the war this afternoon isn't likely to be a reasonable solution-- although it will always be the only morally correct thing to do, even if the consequences would be damned hard. But by the same token, if we recognize that every day we prolong it is another war crime we've committed, it becomes really hard to justify seeking the easy route out. The timelines we've seen politicians propose, like this sixteen month plan, have explicit goals of saving face, or saving national treasure, or saving something else. Minimizing the political costs. Helping the puppet government get on its feet a little longer. Whatever.

No one wants to face the COSTS of seeking those outcomes, however. Day after day of continued war crimes, month after month of crimes committed in our names, all so someone's pride could be saved or so that ending it would be less traumatic for American politicians, or the military. I just don't think that's justified.

So the real solution, from my perspective, is to negotiate an immediate withdrawal, i.e. as quickly as the trucks can be loaded and the personnel withdrawn to international transport. Negotiate with whom? Likely a third party willing to assist U.S. withdrawal-- the U.N. would be a good place to start (but I don't know if the U.N. would actually do the job-- perhaps Iran would). Withdrawal won't happen overnight, but it need not take 16 months-- 60-90 days seems possible-- and again, the most important point from my perspective is that there is no moral justification for continuing the war even one more day. Even if we cannot end it tomorrow, THAT knowledge is what should inform our withdrawal policy.

[Zhade]

120. I agree with you completely.

NT!

[gateley]

11. Is he prolonging it?

Is that what this says? You're interpreting it differently than I am.

I believe his goals are the same, but he's smart enough to realize shit happens.

What if we go in with our 'inflexible plan' which you support, and something unexpected occurs. For example, for some reason they're not able to safely move out two brigades a month -- what would you have them do?

Again, my belief is that he will end it and will end it quickly. He's just being realistic in acknowledging that we can't predict the future - which is what Bushco believed they could do.

[mike_c]

31. see #29....

The point for me is that one cannot justify continuing to commit crimes because it's not "safe" or "politically expedient" to stop them, or whatever. Yes, the consequences might suck. That's the price criminals often have to pay when they're forced to quit committing their crimes.

[Bragi]

7. Problem is...

There's nothing now to suggest that his withdrawal schedule *ought to be* changed.

I regret that it looks to me like one of those too-common situation where a politician has already made a decision to change a policy regardless of there being no change in circumstances, and is looking for credible new advice to provide a pretext for making the change.

I hope I am wrong on this, but man, I've seen this wretched movie before, over and over and over...

- B

(edited for spelling)

[gateley]

15. I hope you're wrong on this, too.

I don't get the same sinking feeling that you do, but you may be right.

I always remember GHW Bush's No New Taxes. Then, when in office, had to raise new taxes because he said he didn't realize fully what he'd be facing. I think that's reasonable. We don't know WHAT is going to happen in any situation until we are IN it.

[mike_c]

41. there is a fundamental difference though....

In the case of 41's "no new taxes" equivocation the issue at hand was not an international crime of the worst possible sort-- it was simply a matter of having to recognize that changing conditions demand changing responses. Unless you're proposing that the war against Iraq is going to morph into something that isn't innately abhorrent it seems doubtful that there can ever be any justification for changing our response to it. It's a crime-- one of the absolute worse crimes one nation can perpetrate upon another. I just can't see that changing, no matter who is president. How the president responds to our involvement in that crime will tell us much about his character, IMO.

[gateley]

46. Agree - BIG difference,

but I think my statement applies to any and all circumstances - we can't predict how events will transpire until we wade in and begin.

[Kolesar]

8. The political leaders in Iraq are going to have to grow up fast no matter what President Obama does.

eom

[jgraz]

16. This is not about *President* Obama. This is about *Candidate* Obama.

And candidate Obama had damn well better not flip-flop on Iraq. He does this, and say hello to President McSame.

[Carni]

55. I think you hit the nail on the head

If both candidates are vague about a timeline for getting out of Iraq and the public thinks we're staying in no matter who they vote for... then the average voter may choke at the last minute and choose *the military guy* even if they initially preferred *the new guy*

WTF is his campaign thinking making a statement like this at this time?

[niyad]

48. what in the hell do you mean, "the political leaders will have to grow up fast?

what incredibly arrogant bs. the leaders in iraq ARE adults, and it is "THEIR country, which bushco invaded and is currently occupying. or do you mean that they need to just bend over and take it?

[Kolesar]

89. The NY Times editorialized that the Iraqi leaders are playing us

They won't settle or solve their problems. As long as the USA is there, they just use our occupation as a means for those individuals to play for power on their own behalf.

No rape process or imagery involved

[Zhade]

121. Oh, the same NYT that printed Judith Miller's outright lies?

Right, they're to be trusted.

[jgraz]

12. It's a political CLUSTER FUCK. Are you kidding me?

He's going to be painted as a flip-flopper on the CORE ISSUE of his campaign. What. The. Fuck?

[gateley]

19. I don't see where this differs much from the statement on his website

and what he's been saying all along.

It doesn't seem like a flip flop by any means.

No. I'm not kidding.

[jgraz]

21. Fuck the website. "Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline" is all they need.

Get out the fucking flip-flops. This is going to be a bumpy ride.

[gateley]

23. I understand and agree with your point --

it doesn't matter what his statements REALLY mean -- it's how they will be spun. Like Clark's statement.

[jgraz]

26. Exactly. I thought Obama was smarter than this.

I can understand Clark blurting out something that the MSM can take out of context. What I can't understand is mentally competent Democrat -- someone who has watched us lose the last 7 out of 10 election -- thinking that waffling on your core issue is somehow good politics.

[tidy_bowl]

94. If you have to add, 'No. I'm not kidding.', Then you know he did. nt

[niyad]

44. you need to read this transcript from DN

Jeremy Scahill: Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come
Jeremy Scahill reports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will not “rule out” using private military companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. Obama also has no plans to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009. Despite their antiwar rhetoric, both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton have adopted the congressional Democratic position that would leave open the option of keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for many years.



Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill joins us now in our firehouse studio. Author of the bestselling book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His latest article is “Obama’s Mercenary Position.” It appears in the upcoming issue of The Nation magazine.

Jeremy Scahill's article, "Obama's Mercenary Position"
JUAN GONZALEZ: “A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not ‘rule out’ using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq.” That’s the lead sentence from a new article by independent journalist Jeremy Scahill. The adviser to Obama also said that the Illinois Senator does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new president will be sworn in.
AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill joins us now in the firehouse studio, is author of the bestselling book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His latest article in The Nation is called “Obama’s Mercenary Position.” It appears in this issue of The Nation.
Welcome to Democracy Now! So, what did you find out, Jeremy?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I started looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Iraq plans, and one of the things that I discovered is that both of them intend to keep the Green Zone intact. Both of them intend to keep the current US embassy project, which is slated to be the largest embassy in the history of the world. I mean, I think it’s 500 CIA operatives alone, a thousand personnel. And they’re also going to keep open the Baghdad airport indefinitely. And what that means is that even though the rhetoric of withdrawal is everywhere in the Democratic campaign, we’re talking about a pretty substantial level of US forces and personnel remaining in Iraq indefinitely.
In the case of Barack Obama, I wanted to focus in on what his position is on private military contractors, particularly armed ones like those that work for Blackwater. And the reason I focus on Obama instead of Hillary on this is because Barack Obama has actually been at the forefront of addressing the mercenary issue in the Congress. In February of 2007—this was way before the Nisour Square massacre, where Blackwater forces killed seventeen Iraqis and wounded twenty others—in February of 2007, Barack Obama sponsored legislation in the Senate that sought to expand US law so that—
JUAN GONZALEZ: This is just after he got into the Senate, right?
JEREMY SCAHILL: This was in 2007. This was a year ago. And so, this was a major piece of legislation by Obama, and it was done in concert with Representative David Price from North Carolina in the House, a Democrat. And Obama’s legislation basically said we realize that there are loopholes in the law that allow Blackwater and other contractors to essentially get away with murder, and so what we need to do is make it so that US law applies to not only Defense Department contractors, but State Department contractors like Blackwater. If they murder someone in Iraq, we can prosecute them back in the United States.
Now, that legislation hasn’t passed at this point, and it may never pass. I mean, the fact is that the Bush administration actually issued a statement opposing that legislation, and I want to read to you what Bush said. He said that law would have, quote, “intolerable consequences for crucial and necessary national security activities and operations."
And so, I started to look at this reality. Obama is saying he wants to keep the embassy. Obama is saying he wants to keep the Green Zone. Obama is saying he wants to keep the Baghdad airport. Who’s guarding US diplomats right now at this largest embassy in the history of the world? Well, it’s Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp; it’s these private security companies.

. . . .

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_de...

[Voltaire99]

129. Fuck your meaningless "faith" in him

What a despicable phony. You don't give a damn about when the war ends. Otherwise you'd be outraged that your candidate has proven to be less than assiduous in his opposition.

His opposition was supposed to be what made him "different." He isn't different; he's Hillary without the bad pantsuits.

[stillcool]

6. yup...he has always said...

we would be as careful getting out as we were careless going in. He has also always said that he would leave a certain number of troops to guard our embassy and other vital interests to our national security. The one thing he has always said that he wants to 'end the war'. And yet people are surprised? I guess those that really don't like the guy never heard or read anything he had to say.

[Journeyman]

36. How very true. Anyone who believed this war was going to end immediately. . .

or even anytime soon after anyone replaced George W, set themselves up for a resounding disappointment.

I've stated numerous times before, and I'll repeat again today, this war won't end until it rips this country apart.

[ihavenobias]

9. Uh-Oh...he might need that free advice after all...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[jgraz]

13. You beat me to it.

Seriously, is there any way we can submit Cenk's name in Denver? Just askin...

[ComtesseDeSpair]

17. Seems Reasonable To Me

It seems that the 16 month timeline is just a beginning guesstimate anyway, so why wouldn't Obama say that he is flexible? He's not saying that he's not going to get us out of Iraq - just that he may have to adjust his timeline. He's being realistic. I don't see anything in this statement to be worried about. Personally, I'd love for the troops to come home the day after Obama starts his first term, but that's not realistic, is it?

[jgraz]

20. Let me guess: you thought Kerry and Gore were eminently "reasonable" too...

In case you haven't noticed, "reasonable" has nothing to do with winning elections. The Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 presidential races. When will we fucking learn that nobody wants to vote for weak-ass flip-floppers?

[bluestateguy]

22. Obama needs to clean the neo-cons out of the Pentagon

Most of them are in peckerhead civilian jobs at the Pentagon. Obama needs to promptly get rid of them, otherwise they will spend his entire presidency undermining everything he is seeking to do.

I think Obama realizes that if he does not have virtually all troops out of Iraq by the middle of 2011 he will have to deal with a primary challenger in 2012.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

27. At least the 06 Congress was smart enough to wait until *after* they got elected.

I just don't understand what they're thinking on this.

[stray cat]

25. Do you really want a Bush who is incapable of redefining anything?

[jgraz]

28. That's not the message that anyone will take away from this

What they'll take away is that Obama is waffling on the core issue of his campaign. End of story.

[stillcool]

32. what's the waffle?

he has always said he would be as careful getting out as we were careless going in. He has always said he would leave a number of troops to guard the U.S. embassy and for protection of U.S. 'national security interests' in the region. He has also said his #1 priority is 'ending the war'. Susan Rice said months ago that he would not state a rigid timeline for how all this would come about, and that actions would be dictated by events on the ground. That there is not way of knowing what will be in January of 2009.

[leftofcool]

34. His web site says different

[stillcool]

40. whatever..

Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/america/26textde...
TRANSCRIPT
Debate transcript
Published: February 27, 200
MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You both have said you'd keep a residual force there to protect our embassy, to seek out al Qaeda, to neutralize Iran. If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly? You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. Get out now. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. Go home now." Will you leave?



SEN. OBAMA: Well, if the Iraqi government says that we shouldn't be there, then we cannot be there. This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us.

Now, I think that we can be in a partnership with Iraq to ensure the stability and the safety of the region, to ensure the safety of Iraqis and to meet our national security interests.

But in order to do that, we have to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there permanently, which is why I have said that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed. We will provide them continued support. But it is important for us not to be held hostage by the Iraqi government in a policy that has not made us more safe, that's distracting us from Afghanistan, and is costing us dearly, not only and most importantly in the lost lives of our troops, but also the amount of money that we are spending that is unsustainable and will prevent us from engaging in the kinds of investments in America that will make us more competitive and more safe.

[mike_c]

33. we're talking about moral equivovation over stopping an international crime....

No one has yet demonstrated any justification for prolonging it. The war is a CRIME. How often do we let criminals continue crime sprees just because we don't want to be dogmatic and inflexible about the point? Should we be more open to allowing serial murder to continue so as not to appear incapable of redefining our response to serial murder?

[Zhade]

122. Mike, too many people won't even ADMIT that it's a crime.

NT!

[Jeroen]

30. Did somebody "talk" to Obama?

He is not stupid. What's going on here?
Don’t get me wrong. It’s the timing that worries me, not the flip-flop itself.

Now, where’s my tinfoil?
Nah, too much The Sopranos

edit: spelling

[niyad]

35. jeremy scahill pointed this out about obama several months ago on DN.

[redqueen]

38. Don't fall for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Middle finga]

42. Obama will be just a new face for the same old american imperialism

my enthusiasm for this guy diminishes every day

[The Doctor.]

112. Bwhaahahahaaaa!

Sure buddy!

If you're that easily fooled, you need another hobby.

[Mugsy]

43. Last Sunday, Kristol predicted this.

On "Fox Newz Sunday" last weekend, Bill Kristol "predicted" that "the big news next week" would be that Obama would "flip-flop" on pulling out of Iraq "after talking to General Patraeus".

Is Obama out to prove Bill Kristol right???

[Pirate Smile]

54. As usual, Kristol is WRONG.

Don't fall for the media's BS spin.

[liberal1973]

96. kristol is a right wing tool

[hedgehog]

45. WHat if he goes to Iraq and comes back and says he can get all the

troops out safely in 10 months instead of 16? Would that count as refining the time line?

[Zhade]

123. I like that line of thinking, but I'm doubtful it's what he means.

: (

[fascisthunter]

47. Any Confirmation by Obama on This?

I'll wait....

[redqueen]

57. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[fascisthunter]

61. Cool... thank you redqueen!

the MSM is disgusting. It truly is corporate republican propaganda.

[redqueen]

75. My pleasure of course... and yes... they are trying to play us... as usual!

Hope you have a safe & happy fourth.

[fascisthunter]

88. Thank You, I Will

Happy Independence Day... may our forefathers possess our souls and take back our country.

[Zhade]

126. Um, that poster's opinion isn't confirmation.

NT!

[Mugsy]

51. Fox is already spinning this "flip-flop".

On Fox's "The Bourbon Room" (???), this Obama "flip-flop" is big news:

The Bourbon Room sent Obama’s full answer to Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and specialist in Iraq policy, to ask if he thought Obama flip-flopped on Iraq or was at least trying to create more flexibility in his approach to timelines for troop withdrawals.

<...>

In essence, O’Hanlon would not call it a flip-flop but a path to a possible evolution,

One HAS to wonder what the Obama camp is thinking.

[stillcool]

59. Well if FOX is on the band wagon..

we know it's not spin. It's not like Obama has 'ever said' anything like it, especially in the debates...

TRANSCRIPT
Debate transcript
Published: February 27, 2008
MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You both have said you'd keep a residual force there to protect our embassy, to seek out al Qaeda, to neutralize Iran. If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly?
You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. Get out now. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. Go home now." Will you leave?


SEN. OBAMA: Well, if the Iraqi government says that we shouldn't be there, then we cannot be there. This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us.

Now, I think that we can be in a partnership with Iraq to ensure the stability and the safety of the region, to ensure the safety of Iraqis and to meet our national security interests.

But in order to do that, we have to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there permanently, which is why I have said that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed. We will provide them continued support. But it is important for us not to be held hostage by the Iraqi government in a policy that has not made us more safe, that's distracting us from Afghanistan, and is costing us dearly, not only and most importantly in the lost lives of our troops, but also the amount of money that we are spending that is unsustainable and will prevent us from engaging in the kinds of investments in America that will make us more competitive and more safe.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/america/26textde...

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

52. Ummm

"but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders"

That has been his position since early into the primaries. The MSM sure is working the "Obama is disappointing his base" meme to death. I wonder how many uninformed supporters are going to fall for this bullshit.

[redqueen]

58. Quite a few by the looks of this thread.

Pretty disappointing, ain't it?

[Kolesar]

105. There could be a few trolls in the mix...eom

[Zhade]

125. Keep in mind how many times politicians have lied to us or played us.

Remember the Dems in 2006 - and how they didn't do anything we were promised before they won?

This kind of reaction is not unexpected, or even unprecedented.

[dbonds]

53. This isn't a change in policy for Obama, just media spin.

He said every time he was asked he would consult with the military leaders in order to do it the safest way. This is just a spin on that statement.

[bajamary]

60. He's Flip-Flopping on Iraq?

God help us as it appears that Barack is Flip-Flopping on the withdrawal from Iraq.

Now he's trying to "blame the media" for getting this story wrong. Oh, really Mr. Obama? I think this time you're the one who's playing triangulating politician trying to "have it all".

Where is Molly Ivins? Molly, Obama is seriously looking like a "triangulating pol". You warned us about this kind of politician.

We can not stay one day more in this illegal, immoral Iraq . Out of Iraq means OUT.

If Obama keeps this up, he'll loose my vote.

[stillcool]

62. Did you by any chance listen to the Debates?

or anything that Senator Obama has said in the past about withdrawing from Iraq?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/america/26textde...

TRANSCRIPT
Debate transcript
Published: February 27, 2008
MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You both have said you'd keep a residual force there to protect our embassy, to seek out al Qaeda, to neutralize Iran. If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly?
You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. Get out now. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. Go home now." Will you leave?


SEN. OBAMA: Well, if the Iraqi government says that we shouldn't be there, then we cannot be there. This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us.

Now, I think that we can be in a partnership with Iraq to ensure the stability and the safety of the region, to ensure the safety of Iraqis and to meet our national security interests.

But in order to do that, we have to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there permanently, which is why I have said that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed. We will provide them continued support. But it is important for us not to be held hostage by the Iraqi government in a policy that has not made us more safe, that's distracting us from Afghanistan, and is costing us dearly, not only and most importantly in the lost lives of our troops, but also the amount of money that we are spending that is unsustainable and will prevent us from engaging in the kinds of investments in America that will make us more competitive and more safe.

[The Doctor.]

63. No, actually he's not. Is this really fooling people?

But by all means, if you're so keen to get out of Iraq, then I'm sure that helping McCain get in the WH by not voting for Obama will really do the trick.

That would be a "Loose-Loose" situation.

[Arkana]

69. He has never said that he would reverse his "we're getting out" policy.

But I think HOW is what he's willing to refine. I don't give a shit how he does it--as long as he does it.

[peace13]

67. Everyone who has responded to this without watching the video

is guilty of Obama bashing. Do your homework people. He has not changed his position at all. DU is on it's last leg if this is called support.

[mrs_p]

70. and the progressives

fell into the msm trap again...

http://www.jedreport.com /

[Le Taz Hot]

85. Um, the progressives got this bozo the nomination.

Obama to Progressives: "Thanks for getting me elected. Now, fuck off." No problem, there sport, no problem. And good luck in winning the general without us.

[rayofreason]

73. I must admit...

...I really have very little clue as to what Obama will do in office once elected. That space under the bus seems to be cavernous. I am not sure that anything he says now will hold water in 6 months.

I guess that we will all find out then.

[stillcool]

74. You might want to actually ..

listen to what he says. It is one thing to disagree, dislike, and not trust the man. It is another thing to misrepresent what he says. I don't understand the penchant to suck up like a sponge the bullshit that is spewed and then go rabid with it like a wild dog.

[rayofreason]

100. "...trust the man..."

Yep, that is the real issue. I started out trusting Obama. Now, I am not so sure.

And I do read what he says. That is the problem.

[stillcool]

109. You don't have to trust him..

there are very few people I trust, and certainly no politician. But I do listen to the words they speak, and read what they say. I am amazed at how many people have not yet heard his position on Iraq, and believe that he has changed it one bit. But then, why should I be surprised?

[Algorem]

79. big huge surprise.

[Bucky]

83. If this bothers you, I'll remind you that wars are uncertain things.

I want the troops out too, but the bottom line is what will result in the fewest number of dead people in the long run. If you can't be flexible about how to conduct military operations, you're not ready to discuss military operations. This is the basic lesson of the Bush administration.

[mike_c]

84. this is a WAR CRIME-- it's a war of aggression....

By the logic you've employed, Hitler was justified in continuing aggression against Europe because he was just being flexible about his objectives.

There isn't any justification for continuing a crime against humanity.

[Bucky]

86. Sigh

Rhetoric aside, Obama seems to be creating room for himself to carry out the exit from Iraq in as responsible a method as possible. If it feels better to call people names, please enjoy yourself. Sadly, all the instructors for how to organize the usual Democratic circular firing squad have encountered unforseeable occupational hazards, so you're on your own.

Obama's trying to act responsibly, not score points for being right in the first place.

[mike_c]

87. trying to end it "responsibly" is the problem, IMO....

People seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around the notion that the war against Iraq is just like any other crime except in magnitude.

Let's cast this in a different light. Imagine that the police corner a serial murderer-- catch him in the act. They can now put an immediate stop to a series of heinous crimes that have terrorized a city.

Instead, the serial murderer says, "Whoa, wait a minute, I can't just stop killing. I need to figure out how to stop RESPONSIBLY." Or "I need to stop slowly so that it won't seem like I was wrong to start." Or whatever. "Look, I propose to kill two fewer people a month until I'm completely finished killing-- that means I'll completely stop in 16 months. Unless, of course, something comes up and I have to continue killing for a little longer. I need to keep all my options on the table. And of course, even if I stop, I'll need to keep my knives and other tools in case it becomes necessary to begin killing again."

The cops shrug. "That sounds reasonable," says the inspector and they depart. God it feels good to close a case!

Ok, that little bit of theater is exactly what Obama's "responsible withdrawal" is designed to produce, only the crime is far worse. It's ludicrous, isn't it? We don't negotiate how long crimes are permitted to continue when we have the means to stop them and punish the perpetrators. Not willingly, anyway. This isn't about politics or democratic party circular firing squads-- it's about war crimes being committed in our names and the struggle to STOP THE CRIME without equivocation.

[Zhade]

124. It's not rhetoric. This was an aggressive war against a non-threat.

It defines the term "war crime".

Don't believe me? Read up on the Geneva Convention.

[lebkuchen]

90. Troop deployment in Afghanistan just got "refined" to another month

Bush "refined" deployments to Iraq for three months.

I don't understand the issue here. Americans should be well accustomed to "refinements" by the Bush administration on everything from deployments, to the environment, to the economy, to education, and especially to the Constitution.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pokercat999]

95. He said he was going to REFINE his withdrawal plans. I

can show him a way to have all of our people out safely within 90 days if not less. It would involve less casualties than we would sustain if we stayed the 90 days and in the end Iraq would be free from US occupation and interference in their country.

[liberal1973]

97. Just goes to tell you-

how far right some of the media are today.

[droidamus2]

98. Think about it...

We have spent the last 8 years with a president who was not interested in the facts at all. He has not been willing to listen to advisers (except a few ass kissers) or experts in any area. He is a man with limited intellectual capabilities that thinks he can do no wrong. Now we have a candidate that is willing to admit he doesn't know it all and though he has a tentative plan he is willing to look at the reality of the situation, listen to experts and then adjust his plan as necessary. Yes, I would like to see the troops pulled out immediately on Obama taking office. Is that logistically possible? I don't know. Could it be done without putting the troops in a great deal more danger? I don't know and Obama is smart enough to know that he doesn't know either. Unlike Bush with Obama I think you will at least have a president that is willing to listen and consider other points of view and options. I think that will be a breath of fresh air that I can't wait to have.

[Zachstar]

99. Just fucking great.

After Obama we will be lucky to have another democratic president in the next few decades.

[nolabels]

101. And just more BULLSHIT corporate news media spin again

Anybody that thinks they can get real news from them bastards should wake the hell up already

[Catherina]

102. It's time to revisit Obama's Yes vote to confirm General Petraeus

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

That yes vote was AFTER Petraeus testified in support of the "surge" to send an additional 30,000 US troops to occupy Iraq and escalate the conflict in preparation for a confrontation with Iran.

Nothing says hard right like voting to confirm Bush's war commander and now looking to him for advice.

NAFTA
FISA
guns
Cuba
Iraq


What next? An overt backtrack on Iran to start selling a "smart" war?

[stillcool]

110. Could you explain to me..

his position on Cuba, and how he has changed his position on guns? I did read what he wrote on his website regarding his reasoning for joining Feingold and Dodd to strip the immunity for the bill, but if that was not passed, how he planned to vote for it anyway. I hope he changes his mind. I did read excerpts about NAFTA from one article, but since the article from which the excerpts were taken has not come out yet, I am not sure how one would reach a definitive judgment. I understand why someone would not like his policies, his votes, his speeches, and anything else about him. What I don't understand is the flip-flop meme that is uttered by the propaganda machine being regurgitated by supposed Democrats on a Democratic board. Surely there is more than enough information on the net that people are not still reliant on the 'media' to tell them what is what. Like puppets on a string.

[EbenezerMcIntosh]

114. Obama is as meeley-mouthed as McCain

I have a time line suggestion:

GET THE FUCK OUT

[The Doctor.]

117. LOL!

Well, at least he's not nearly as melee-mouthed as McCain.

How about people start learning some basic campaign tactics so they don't look silly when they despair over non-existant catastrophes?

Just a thought. Go with it.