Awwww... Another Obama flip-flop. He shifts positions on Iran and Iraq

[wyldwolf]

My entry into the awww series

In today’s NPR debate, Sen. Obama criticized re-structuring our forces in Iraq to blunt Iran’s influence on the war:

There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea.

A year ago, Sen. Obama said we should keep forces in Iraq to 'send a clear message' to Iran:

A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/11/20/a_way_forward_in_iraq.php

The Obama campaign links to a transcript from Tim Russert where he says he supported leaving troops in Iraq to blunt the power of Iran as a way to protect Israel. This transcript only further illustrates that he has shifted positions on this issue.

(Facthub)

[Perry Logan]

1. Corporate shill!

[Rock_Garden]

2. You're up and at 'em early this morning.

[William769]

3. With the bullshit that some post about Obama

It's refreshing to see the truth come through. Theres probably a backroom meeting going on right now to figure out how to spin this.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. 2013 Is Too Late

www.2013IsTooLate.com

Just sayin'...

[Lerkfish]

8. um...HRC was in the exact same postion, as I recall

kettle, meet pot

[MethuenProgressive]

32. Follow the link. Richardson calls out Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

"kettle, meet pot"? Richardson is the one saying 2013 is too late. What kettle? What pot?

[rjones2818]

64. Of course, Bill doesn't get it!

2007's too late. Period.

[Bitwit1234]

5. He shifts position when ever it is expedient have you noticed.

He's for it, except when he is against it. And especially when he can bash Hillary for being for it, when he doesn't even vote for it. He has the worst sit out record in the senate.

[Alamom]

6. Worse than a flip-flop.

He's clueless.......rec'd

[Tellurian]

7. Exactly, the word incompetence come to mind..

while wondering if Obama has a grasp of the facts or is he just playing Iraqi scrabble?

He gets 10 pts. for every time he uses the letter "Q"

[zulchzulu]

28. The definition of incompetence was for Hillary to VOTE FOR WAR!

I guess you gave her a free pass on that shit long ago. We wouldn't even be talking about this Iran problem if it wasn't for hawkish windbags like Hillary Clinton who helped get us in this mess in the first place.

[zanne]

9. Do you stay up all night digging for dirt, wyldwolf?

I can always count on the first Obama attack to be from you. What a waste of time.

[Renew Deal]

11. No, he plagiarized it from Hillary Hub

It's the highest form of intellectual dishonesty and wyldwolf id a repeat offender.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4519

[wyldwolf]

15. attribution was given. Reading is fundamental

[Renew Deal]

17. Facthub is not attribution

A lot of people don't know what that is. The URL is attribution. It's intentionally dishonest.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4519

[wyldwolf]

20. maybe not to you but, of course,my posting style doesn't have to meet your approval

[Renew Deal]

23. Apparently not the adherence of intellectual honesty either

Like I said last time, it's your credibility. The worst part about this is that it's intentional. It's so easy to post a source link.

[wyldwolf]

27. As defined by you and no one else

Like I said last time, I don't give a rat's ass if you think I'm credible. Like before, you're trying to divert from the content of the post.

[Renew Deal]

31. I don't care about the content of the post

I read through it, thought it was interesting. Then I looked for a source or link and found nothing. It's so easy to be honest, yet you chose not to. There's no reason for it.

[wyldwolf]

33. which is why you're trying to divert from it

[Renew Deal]

36. huh?

Like I said. I am not interested in arguing about the content. Why didn't you post the source URL? It's not a difficult question to answer.

[wyldwolf]

38. and now you're acting like you're not.

[Renew Deal]

43. Why didn't you post the source URL?

Simple question

[wyldwolf]

46. All that is required is attribution. bleachers can't address the content so he attacks the poster.

[Renew Deal]

49. Yes, and you didn't provide attribution.

[wyldwolf]

52. yes I did. Last line of the OP

[Renew Deal]

55. That's not attribution

This is attribution: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4519

[wyldwolf]

57. yes it is.

You seem to be confused between attribution and a link.

[Renew Deal]

60. Not at all

What you call attribution is intentionaly confusing. I have a simple question. Why didn't you post the URL?

[wyldwolf]

63. yes it is. You're the only one confused

[Renew Deal]

66. So why didn't you post the URL?

I wasn't the only one confused about the source. Zanne thought you did the work. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3795559&mesg_id=3795823

[wyldwolf]

68. So you didn't see the attribution?

[Renew Deal]

70. There was no attribution

At least nothing appropriate. It looked like it came from Obama's site. That was the only clear URL. We've beat this horse to death. I hope you understand it's nothing personal.

[wyldwolf]

72. the last line of the OP (hint: People don't take their posting cues from you)

[Renew Deal]

74. They don't?

That's too bad. I try to be as forthcoming and accommodating as possible. I like to post lots of easy to find links. I'll often post the source link at the top and bottom of an item so the URL is clear. The one thing I don't do well on DU is adding link to text. It's a pain in the ass, so I avoid it.

[wyldwolf]

75. you act surprised.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. why is it a waste of time? Does it not matter to you what the candidate will do?

How is telling the truth about what a candidate says an attack?

There is a difference between the attacks on Clinton's character and giving information about his stances on issues.

Or are we now like the freepers where everything our candidate does is dismissed, of justified, or ignored, while we attack viscously the other side with lies and distortions?

What has DU come to?

[wyldwolf]

16. ha ha! You can tell tall tales quite easily, can't you.

[Renew Deal]

19. Pot meet kettle

lol

[wyldwolf]

22. show me a tall tale I've told? lol. Or do you not know the meaning of the "pot kettle" phrase?

[Renew Deal]

24. You posted this without sourcing it again.

That's intellectually dishonest.

[wyldwolf]

29. #1, I did source it as anyone can plainly see. #2, a "tall tale" is something that isn't true.

The content of the OP is clearly accurate.

[Renew Deal]

37. You did not source it.

Writing (facthub) at the bottom is not a "source." A lot of people don't know what that is. It's not as common as Wikipedia or descriptive as Hillary Hub. Also, you didn't provide a URL, even though you conveniently provided a URL to some DU post about Hillary's Celine song.

[wyldwolf]

39. bleachers can't address the content so he attacks the poster and the posting style

[Renew Deal]

42. If dishonesty is a posting style, we don't need it.

[wyldwolf]

47. bleachers can't address the content so he attacks the poster and the posting style

[Renew Deal]

50. If dishonesty is a posting style, we don't need it.

[wyldwolf]

53. bleachers can't address the content so he attacks the poster and the posting style

[Renew Deal]

56. If dishonesty is a posting style, we don't need it.

[wyldwolf]

59. bleachers can't address the content so he attacks the poster and the posting style

[Renew Deal]

61. If dishonesty is a posting style, we don't need it.

The gigabytes are free.

[wyldwolf]

65. bleachers denies the facts in the OP because he doesn't like the source

[Renew Deal]

67. I don't deny the facts at all.

;)

[wyldwolf]

69. deny, divert, spin.

[Renew Deal]

71. Not at all

The mods should delete all of our crap and include the URL. I would be perfectly satisfied. I have an even better idea. Repost the same content with the URL. I won't bug you at all.

[wyldwolf]

73. complete divert, dodge, deny, spin...

The mods should delete all of our crap and include the URL.

Well, then. Alert the mods.

[Renew Deal]

76. Done

Like I said, it's nothing personal. I look forward to the primaries being over so we can all get along again (until the next crisis). :hi:

[wyldwolf]

77. good.

[Renew Deal]

78. Thanks

[wyldwolf]

79. you are quite welcome

[Renew Deal]

10. Why didn't you post the source link again?

What you're doing is dishonest. And there's no question whether it's intentional or not. You wrote (Facthub) which a lot of people wouldn't recognize. It's OK to link a source.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4519

[Lerkfish]

12. propaganda must be catapulted

[wyldwolf]

14. psst.. look at the final line of the text

[Renew Deal]

18. Yes, Facthub

what is that?

[wyldwolf]

21. yes, the source.

[Renew Deal]

25. What is that? Facthub? How do I get to it? Do you have a URL?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

30. bleachers can't address the content so he attacks the poster and the posting style

[Renew Deal]

34. I have no interest in the content

I asked you good questions. What is that? Facthub? How do I get to it? Do you have a URL?

How is that an attack?

[wyldwolf]

40. right. Your interest is diverting from it

[Renew Deal]

45. No, my interest is in some form of honesty

What is Facthub? How do I get to it? Do you have a URL?

[wyldwolf]

48. why do you think the content in the OP is dishonest?

[Renew Deal]

51. I think the way you posted it is dishonest.

By not sourcing it. You made it appear that you did the research. You didn't. And there's nothing wrong with that. You should at least post a source link.

[wyldwolf]

54. so? Who cares what you think?

[Renew Deal]

58. I think that goes for the both of us.

:D

In this case, anyone that's interested in intellectual honesty.

[wyldwolf]

62. Which is why I posted facts in the OP and not my opinion like you're doing

[zulchzulu]

26. A slight policy shift that's certainly better than handing Bush the reason to attack Iran

You can moan that Obama didn't vote NO on the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. Yes, he did not vote for it.

On the other hand, when Hillary Clinton voted for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, she gave Bush a nice big kiss and patted his butt so he can attack Iran any time he wants. Did she cackle at him? Who knows. She voted FOR WAR. AGAIN.

But wait! There's more! You forgot to add this part of the speech that Obama made that correctly looks at using diplomatic efforts to work on the region, which of course is in a sorry state due to people like Hillary Clinton VOTING FOR WAR in the first place:

Finally, we have to realize that the entire Middle East has an enormous stake in the outcome of Iraq, and we must engage neighboring countries in finding a solution.

This includes opening dialogue with both Syria and Iran, an idea supported by both James Baker and Robert Gates. We know these countries want us to fail, and we should remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions. But neither Iran nor Syria want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region - and within their own countries.

And so I firmly believe that we should convene a regional conference with the Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, the Turks, Jordanians, the British and others. The goal of this conference should be to get foreign fighters out of Iraq, prevent a further descent into civil war, and push the various Iraqi factions towards a political solution.

Thanks to the "experience" that people like Hillary Clinton has, we are in a fucked up war. I guess you want to blame Obama for that too...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. wyldwolf, you buried the bigger story!

The Obama quote from the NPR debate followed Edwards (or Dodd?) saying that the problem with Kyl/lieberman is designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization.

Then the question goes to Obama, and he begins:

There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea.

The clear implication is that he agrees with the previous speaker that a major problem with Kyl/lieberman is designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror organization.

But Senator Obama disagrees with the preceding comment. He is a long-standing proponent of designating the IRG a terror organization!

The flip-flop cited in the OP is a product of Obama's political need to pretend to be against K/L, but knowing he cannot criticize the IRG designation because he supports the designation. So he tries to pick some other little aspect of K/L as the supposed problem with it, and that leads to the flip-flop on troop deployments within Iraq.

There is a reason Obama is incapable of framing an coherent objection to K/L, which is that he is a long-standing AND CURRENT supporter of the most controversial aspect of K/L.

[zulchzulu]

41. And you have buried the real story behind this ruse

Hillary Clinton voted for possible war with Iran by voting for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. I'll start a new thread with all the comments from her collegues about her STUPID vote.

Stay tuned!

[wyldwolf]

44. Excellent point!

[BenDavid]

80. Mr O co-sponsored a bill R.Guard a terrorist group in April 07

“Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006,” it adds. “Nevermind that he he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.


Ben David

[Tellurian]

82. Yes, and his subsequent actions scream political expediency...

I'm glad Mr O is not retained as my attorney.

[AtomicKitten]

81. Hillary voted YES on IWR and YES on Kyl-Lieberman.

Your spin is spectacular.

[Occam Bandage]

83. That's nice. We're talking about Obama's positions.

[quinnox]

84. Obama needs to be consistent

oterwise it appears he is changing his positions based on politics only.