<p>Obama’s anti-war policy is to be “refined” to resemble a “get out of Iraq when it’s safe to do so” policy. Feel free to split hairs, but how is this much different than McCain’s Iraq policy?
I guess this is why Hillary is still hanging around.</p>
<p>He didn’t cite political expediency. Of course a withdrawal has to have the safety of the troops in mind. No one would expect anything else. Making a story out of this is a real stretch.</p>
<p>Anybody who thinks that a presidential candidate is really going to do what he says particularly when he is staring at the reality of the situation is foolish. In the end, the Iraq situation will be handled the same way whoever becomes president.</p>
<p>Seriously, AzureBlue, where did Obama say anything about political expediency?</p>
<p>Obama’s been consistent on the issue, and the funny thing is that if you’re such a John McCain fan, wouldn’t you welcome it if Obama actually had changed positions and was backing off withdrawal?</p>
<p>No, the basic differences in how the war is viewed – Obama thinks Iraq was a stupid, unnecessary war while McCain puts it at the centerpiece of national security importance (and Obama’s right, by the way )-- will drive vastly different strategies.</p>
<p>However, the facts on the ground may change how quickly certain tactics are applied. This is why you think the same things will happen. But they won’t.</p>
<p>I am actually relieved Obama frames it this way because otherwise, if he were elected president, he’d be really tied to a policy of no flexibility at all.</p>
<p>Its irrelevant. Neither of the candidates are stupid enough to listen to fickle voters on issues when they’re president. No matter who is president, if pulling out troops will destabilize the region, they’ll keep them there as long as it takes.</p>
<p>cartera, i was making a rhetorical point, obviously he didn’t literally cite political expediency. i think a good number of the Democratic primary voters “would except anything else”- namely a firm withdrawal, as he promised them. remember, that was the center of his platform?</p>
<p>To use the verb cite suggests he did something quite particular. You could impute that motive by saying something like “Obama seized an opportunity for political expediency and…”. This would still be a distortion, but wouldn’t be quite as egregious.</p>
<p>Sorry, AzureBlue, you should just hope this thread dies, since you showed your deceitful hand…</p>
<p>Obama is shifting his policy for several reasons. The first is he doesn’t have to worry about alienating his base - they’ll never vote for McCain. Secondly, he wants to be elected - looks smart to me. Most importantly, he can now start being realistic. The bottom line is there is no quick way out of Iraq and both of them know it. The whole situation reminds me of Nixon and his plan to get us out of Vietnam.</p>
<p>Epiphany, in terms of the freedom “to distort,” I would have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of McCain’s 100 years comment, as that seems to be a distortion of the context surrounding that town-hall comment. </p>
<p>Mini, would you be upset if a conservative said “I’m not supporting Obama because he thinks there are 57 states”? That is how a conservative viewed your comment that McCain doesn’t know where Iraq is. </p>
<p>Bedhead, I am having a difficult time following your logic. You say “Obama’s been consistent on the issue” and then you ask why I am not happy if “Obama actually had changed positions.” Your statement and question seem to contradict.</p>
<p>As you can see this is a pretty tough crowd, especially when you start a thread that might in any way malign their POTUS-in-the-making.</p>
<p>I learned a long time ago that most of the posters here are radical left wing (i.e., Obama supporters). It’s amazing some of the rhetoric you will read here in support of a candidate who is probably the most liberal we have ever had in the history of our country.</p>
<p>Do you understand the difference between “I will” or “I would if I could”? Do you know what a conditional statement is?</p>
<p>Go back and re-read what I wrote, study up on what the word conditional means, and for extra credit, read the following passage. I can see whence you drew your talking point to suggest Obama “cited” political expediency.":</p>
<p>When the premise of your campaign is that you are the foreign policy and national security expert, and you don’t get the details right about the most essential of differences between factions that relate to a war we are actively fighting now as a nation, you as a candidate have demonstrated crucial ignorance regarding what you say is your strong suit.</p>
<p>Since economics is not McCain’s strong suit – he himself acknowledges – what does he offer?</p>
<p>Obama made a slip of the tongue about 57 states – a slip for which he apologize – and last time I checked his pitch to the American people isn’t based on delivering results to all 57 states.</p>
<p>It appears that Obama has a plan for Iraq that is so different than Bush or McCain. One has to wonder if it is so easy to get out, why wouldn’t Bush do it. Is he so stupid (winning at least 1 presidential election perhaps 2) that he won’t get out or he has so much malice towards his party that he wants to see them lose in November?</p>
<p>BedHead, forgive me for not being as enlightened as you are. I will be sure to find out what conditional means, and “study up” on it. I do hope you find me worthy of extra credit. </p>
<p>By your own logic, a slip of the tongue does not discount a candidate (except when it’s a republican, but I won’t go there now). I agree. That is why I was explaining to mini that the location of Iraq is just as silly as 57 states. “distractions” Obama likes to call them. </p>
<p>Now, the premise of Obama’s campaign was
a new kind of bipartisan straight-shooting politics
firm withdrawal from Iraq. </p>
<p>My disillusionment with Obama is not from a slip of the tongue or a silly issue but the fact that his fairly partisan voting record and policy statements (primary vs. general election) i.e. FISA, public finance, and now Iraq, do not hold up to his soaring rhetoric for change.</p>
)-- will drive vastly different strategies.</p>