There has been a lot of focus on Barack Obama’s movement toward the political center. But lately it’s been the Bush administration doing the moving – toward Obama. Administration officials met last week with Iranian officials about Iran’s nuclear program (just a couple of months after President Bush labeled as “appeasement” Obama’s willingness to meet with Iran). The administration also agreed last week to a “time horizon” for reducing troops in Iraq (after years of opposing any sort of withdrawal deadline, even a vague “horizon”). And the administration has been acknowledging the problems in Afghanistan, which Obama has long said should be a main focus in the war on terror.
Obama’s position on withdrawing from Iraq also appears to have the support of the Iraqi government, though that has been difficult to keep straight. Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki appeared to endorse it, then the next day indicated he had been “mistranslated.” But today his government issued a statement saying that it hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq by the end of 2010, which almost matches Obama’s timetable.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
48 Comments
Phillip
How do you know what Obama’s position on Iraq is?
What he said last week, last month, last year, or will say next week? Which one is it?
Get real. Get over your man-crush and grow up.
When is Sidney going to blast Bush as an appeaser?
Wake up Heckler!
I know I’m awake. At least enough to know that Obama’s vast two years experience will help no one.
Can the man make a stand on his own?
He’s a bigger appeaser than Clinton.
I think Korea should be divided along the DMZ, with a “no man’s land” in the middle, seperating both sides.
Is that what we did in Korea?
Hey, look the country agrees with me!
Elect ME President!
Get real, Phillip.
Obama would be in NO position to change his mind again on Iraq, if not for the success of current policy. Policy which Obama opposed!
The Obama Spin Machine: FACT versus Myth Part I
FACT: Barack Obama Said He Opposed The Surge In Iraq Because It Would Not Work Or Reduce Violence.
* October 2006: Barack Obama Says We Cannot “Through Putting In More Troops Or Maintaining The Presence That We Have, Expect That Somehow The Situation Is Going To Improve.” Obama: “Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/22/06)
* January 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violence In Iraq. Obama: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
* January 2007: Barack Obama Says He Did Not Know Of Any Middle East Expert Or Military Officer That Believed That The New Strategy Would “Make A Substantial Difference On The Situation On The Ground.” Obama: “We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)
* March 2007: Barack Obama Warns The Troop Surge Would Not Make A Long-Term Difference. Obama: “[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/19/07)
* May 2007: Barack Obama Says He Does Not Believe The Surge Is Working. Obama: “And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Chicago, IL, 5/25/07)
* July 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)
* November 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Has Not Worked, And Had Potentially Worsened The Situation In Iraq. Obama: “Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a search and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/11/07)
http://americassentinel.com/2008/07/14/mccain-press-release-myth-vs-fact-barack-obamas-iraq-op-ed/
The Obama Spin Machine: FACT versus Myth Part II
FACT: Military Commanders And Troops On The Ground Say That There Is “No Way” For The 16-Month Timetable To Work.
* ABC News: Commanders In Iraq Say “No Way” Barack Obama’s Withdrawal Plan Could Work. “While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was ‘no way’ it could work logistically.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
* ABC News: “Physically Removing The Combat Brigades Within That Kind Of Time Frame Would Be Difficult, As Well.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
* ABC News: Removing The Equipment From Iraq Could Be “The Real Problem.” “It is the equipment that is the real problem. In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters. And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks.” (Martha Raddatz, “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult,” ABC News, 7/11/08)
FACT: Iraq Has Been Called “The Most Important And Serious Issue Today” By Al Qaeda And “The Central Front” By Our Commanding General.
* Osama Bin Laden: “The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq].” BIN LADEN: “I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.” (Text Of Bin Laden’s Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
* General Petraeus: “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq.” (Gen. David Petraeus, Press Briefing, Arlintong, VA, 4/26/07)
http://americassentinel.com/2008/07/14/mccain-press-release-myth-vs-fact-barack-obamas-iraq-op-ed/
The Obama Spin Machine: FACT versus Myth Part III
FACT:
Barack Obama Voted Against Providing Funding For Operations In Afghanistan.
* Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
FACT: Barack Obama’s “Residual Force” Could Be As Many As 80,000 Troops In Iraq.
* The New York Sun Reported That A Key Adviser To Obama Is Recommending That 60,000 To 80,000 Troops Remain In Iraq As Late As 2010. “A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.” (Eli Lake, “Obama Adviser Calls For 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops To Stay In Iraq Through 2010,” The New York Sun, 4/4/08)
* Barack Obama Would Not Say How Many Troops He Would Keep In Iraq. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “But you could imagine a situation where, if the Iraqi government wanted it, 30,000 American troops are still in Iraq 10 years from now.” Obama: “You know, I have been very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like.” (CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” 7/13/08)
http://americassentinel.com/2008/07/14/mccain-press-release-myth-vs-fact-barack-obamas-iraq-op-ed/
New York Times blocks McCain’s Opinion Piece on Iraq and Afghanistan
The New York Times on Friday blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday.
Obama’s piece detailed his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain’s proposed piece also discussed Iraq, The Times told McCain’s advisers that it would not accept the op-ed in its current form because it did not offer new information. Obama’s speech previewed a series of speeches leading up to a highly publicized trip to war zones in the Middle East.
“I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the op-ed page. However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach,” Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote the campaign via an e-mail later distributed by McCain’s team.
“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan,” Shipley wrote.
McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.
“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.
“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.
The New York Times has not yet responded to requests for comment about its editorial decision-making. Obama’s op-ed ran on July 14, days before the Democratic presidential candidate departed for Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a congressional delegation that received coverage from all three broadcast networks’ news services. It is the first time the networks have traveled overseas with a candidate.
Hazelbaker said that it’s not her job to police the media coverage, but the campaign would have liked to have “made our case directly to the voters.”
“We think the American voter is smart enough to make the call on their own,” she said.
FOX News’ Shushannah Walshe contributed to this story.
This is pretty common sense stuff here.
At some point, of course there is going to be a “timetable” for “withdrawl.”
Simplu because the administration didn’t agree with it right from the start doesn’t mean that there would never be one.
The anti-war people have been crying for a timetable from day one, and at that time it would have been absurd to have one.
Now that things have been winding down, as the Security forces in Iraq continue to take control over more regions, and as more of the “benchmarks” are met, we can start looking at a timeline for troop reductions.
This is not giving in or changing our stance to meet people like Obama at all.
The way people like you in the media (Phillip) can skew everything still amazes me.
I personally don’t think our generation will see the end of this war on terrorism because I believe our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is coming back soon to Rapture His church.
“This is not giving in or changing our stance to meet people like Obama at all.”
So why does McCain want to stay in Iraq for 100 years?
Personally, I don’t think the administration is moving toward Obama; it’s finally been forced to acknowledge after nearly eight years of attempted dictatorship that just maybe the American public has a say in what our government does. Obama simply agrees with the rest of us!
RWB,
Well, that’s been the christian’s best hope for the last 2000 years. Every generation since then has been sure they saw the signs and He was coming soon. It didn’t happen for them and it probably won’t happen for this generation either, so it would do you well to have a plan B.
WSClark
Posted July 21, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
“This is not giving in or changing our stance to meet people like Obama at all.”
So why does McCain want to stay in Iraq for 100 years?
——————
WS after a while your stupidity is wearing. This has been explained to have been taken out of context. See the original statement and for heavens sake cover up your ignorance it is shining brighter than the sun today.
Jed, I have been hoping for that to happen the last 4 predictions (since 2005) But alas, every morning I wake up, Nathaliel, Regular and all the other professional Bible Readers are still here.
I cut you a break today Regular because of your half-way decent impersonation of Mr. Mackey on the 3000 thread. You are starting to develop a sense of humor. My work is done.
“So why does McCain want to stay in Iraq for 100 years?”
This is what he said, and you know it:
“Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Wow, looks like the neo-cons are working on severe damage control. Obama is endorsed by Malaki, Bush and McCain change their positions to reflect Obama’s on foreign affairs, and this has the Republicans in an uproar. Now the Republicans are claiming they thought of the ideas all along. I mean, nothing was said for over six years but when Obama comes along and presents rational ideas everyone, including the political opposition, reluctantly admits his positions are correct.
So Paul, how do you like your crow served?
What can I say, you can only makes so many stupid mistakes before you learn from them.
Some many stupid mistakes before other quit depending on your judgment and do the job themselves.
Perhaps the times refused the McCain piece to save him embarrassment, him might have written that if we pull out of Iraq then Al-Qaeda who is in Pakistan which is right next door will win!
McCain made that statement today on camera, his knowledge of foreign affair is said to be his strong suit.
But Geography does not seem to be his strong suit along with economy.
Do you think that if enough voting machines are rigged and McCain wins that he’ll appoint Senator Obama as his Secretary of State to fix all the problems McCain and Bush created?
Dubya isn’t moving to Obama. He realizes that Maliki is getting even more pressure than Dubya was getting.
That’s the point Fleetwood, it is starting to not be fine with the Iraqi’s. Maliki knows this. So I think McCain is going to need to go to Iraq and tell the Iraqi voters that it should be allright with them that we stay 100 years. Democratic traditions can be a bitch sometimes. Just ask Palestine.
The NYTimes editor was saying in a nice way that they couldn’t print John Sydney McCain the 3rd’s op-ed piece because they don’t print sh!t.
Don’t blame them for your guy’s lack of ideas.
LLTVET,
“Jed, I have been hoping for that to happen the last 4 predictions (since 2005) But alas, every morning I wake up, Nathaliel, Regular and all the other professional Bible Readers are still here.”
I keep wondering what would happen if, the day after the rapture, I wake up and Nathan, Reggie and all the other professional bible readers are still here. Their screams may blow out all my windows!
Of course I’ll still be here, and looking forward to a more rational nut-free world.
The Presidential Race as Batman Comics
Obama–Batman
Michelle–Catwoman
John Sydney McCain III–The Joker
Bush–Two Face
Condi Rice–Poison Ivy
Hillary Clinton–Talia Al Ghul
Dick Cheney–The Penguin, obviously
Don Rumsfeld–The Scarecrow
Karl Rove–Mr. Freeze
WS Clark,
Why did we never leave Korea? Germany? Japan?
McCain was clearly drawing a comparison to staying in Iraq the same way we have in many other countries in which we have as well.
The way you and other liberals still continue to outright lie about this crap is amazing.
You have all been telling yourself the same lies so much that I actually think you believe it and are not just saying it to be the parisan hacks you appear to be.
PS Am I ever going to get that apology you said you would give me?
Not setting a very good example for your granddaughter when you are not a man of your word.
“WS after a while your stupidity is wearing. This has been explained to have been taken out of context. See the original statement and for heavens sake cover up your ignorance it is shining brighter than the sun today.”
What does “Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me” that mean if not “staying” in Iraq?
“The way you and other liberals still continue to outright lie about this crap is amazing.”
What did I “lie” about, Price.
“Why did we never leave Korea? Germany? Japan?”
We do not occupy Germany, Korea or Japan, idiot.
“PS Am I ever going to get that apology you said you would give me? Not setting a very good example for your granddaughter when you are not a man of your word.”
Phuck you, Price, you two-faced, hypocritical, self-righteous, holier than thou, lying son of a bitch.
How’s that for an apology, asshole?
*More shock*
WS Clark,
You continue to prove to be a man NOT of your word.
DA is a grumpy old man. The end.
“You continue to prove to be a man NOT of your word.”
And you, Nathaniel Price, are the most disgusting poster on this blog since Ian Santiago.
Dave the Golfer is an old man with a big gut and bad breath. The end.
WS Clark,
Asking that you apologize for insulting my mother, your saying you would, and then your not doing so makes me the most disgusting poster here?
Alrighty then….
DA: spokesman for the Department of Redundancy Department.
“Asking that you apologize for insulting my mother, your saying you would, and then your not doing so makes me the most disgusting poster here?”
No, idiot, your self-righteous, holier than thou, hypocritical, “better Christian than you” self-serving, judgmental attitude makes you the most disgusting poster since Ian Santiago.
But, have faith, Price, you are gaining on him – just make a few anti-Semitic comments (you know you want to) and you will have claimed the title.
Cherry boy.
“the Department of Redundancy Department.”
That’s my line, Golfie, use your own jokes, moron.
WS Clark,
So no apology then? Like you said you would?
Now tell me, when you say you are going to apologize and then don’t, does that make you a liar?
“So no apology then?”
Nope. You pissed me off (yet again) so no apologies.
I will apologize to the dog, however, since she was an innocent victim.
WS Clark,
I didn’t realize you were this easy. I was not even trying to upset you this time.
Ol’ DA is hitting the pipe early tonight. He’s getting more and more angry. We could be in for an entertaining night.
=)
Pissing DA off is never a challenge.
“We could be in for an entertaining night.”
No pipe, but hang around, Golfie, you’ll get your ass handed to you once again – maybe you’ll stay away this time.
“I didn’t realize you were this easy.”
I don’t swing that way, Price. When it was suggested that you get laid (to cool your anger), that is not what they meant.
Bahahaha…
He’s mad as all hell. =)
Slapping down Dave the Golfer is never a challenge.
“The way you and other liberals still continue to outright lie about this crap is amazing.”
What did I “lie” about, Price.
I guess you were just lying again, right Price?
. . . and the bickering continues.
Meanwhile Credenza Tatertots has banned all foreign diplomats from partying with Obama: http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Night_before_Obama_flies_abroad_Rice_0721.html
O, of course she said it included anybody running for president, except McSame (wink, wink).
When news came out that Al Maliki wants the same plan Obama put forward, a McCain insider sent an e-mail to an Atlantic Monthly blogger saying, “we’re f***ed.”
Yup. Couldn’t have said it better my own self . . .
I think Barrack Hussein Osama has been hand picked and groomed by some group for the presidency. I also think the forces behind him are satanic and supernatural. It may be part of God’s plan for him to be elected, but personally I’d just as soon get raptured rather than witness what I think we are going to witness.
And if he is elected, I think he will be so controlled by this “group”…. you wont see a senator, you wont see a president, you will see a “figurehead” used for evil purposes.
Say Brownlee, you should write comic strips.
Good one!
Ha!
Ha.
what is it about?