Obama, candidate of change, changes his policy on Iraq, cites political expediency

[BedHead]

<p>^^^</p>

<p>McCain has come out in favor of a “Korea-style” basing of US troops in Iraq for perhaps generations to come, and the vision pre-supposes that we had actually, or will actually be successful in accomplishing what we really completely failed to accomplish (and what was promised as a result or at least strongly as an objective) which was to install a democratic govt. in Iraq. We haven’t done that, the surge hasn’t done that, and there is no glimmer of real hope that that is going to happen anytime soon. In fact, it is no longer even cited as an objective for our involvement there. We now just claim to want a working govt.</p>

<p>Obama says that the war was a silly diversion, uses too many resources and should end, but that he’ll be much more careful withdrawing troops from Iraq than Bush was putting them there in the first place.</p>

<p>I don’t see how you can see those visions as at all the same or headed in the same direction. McCain bases his future vision of Iraq on the pathetic pipe dream of a venture that got us there to start with. Obama is much more clear-eyed that this has been a big misadventure.</p>

<p>Why Bush won’t end it? Simple. Firstly, he doesn’t want to have to admit failure (especially not to Dad). Secondly, it’s a lot easier to punt the problem down the field to another group. He just needs to hold on for a few more months, declare that things got better on his watch, and quickly blame any problems on others (especially if Obama become president).</p>

[DocT]

<p>You’re naive - unless things change radically in Iraq, we’ll be there for a very long time</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

My disillusionment with Obama is not front slip of the tongues or silly issues but the fact that his 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>

<p>Oh c’mon AzureBlue, be straight with us. As a self-described conservative, were you ever for Obama in the first place? Why the disillusionment?</p>

<p>If you are so concerned about putative “flip-flops”, changes or lies, you’d really better put McCain under a microscope – or at least on your computer screen:</p>

<p>Look, it’s your choice to be for who you are going to be for, but just be clear and honest.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

You’re naive - unless things change radically in Iraq, we’ll be there for a very long time

</p>

<p>Well, I wasn’t naive as I protested against this war from before it started. I am NO pacifist. I just realized it was a stupid war that wouldn’t make us safer. And it was – and is.</p>

[WashDad]

<p>Obama was very clear: “We’ll absolutely have the troops out in 16 months unless we don’t.” He’s just another political opportunist. As I’ve written before, he might still be an effective president (hey, even Nixon was a lot more effective than Johnson), but it’s becoming more and more clear that he’s willing to “adjust” his previously-stated principles now that he might have to deliver.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>If the Bush administration gets the Status of Forces agreement signed–as I’ve no doubt it will–then we’ll have US troops in Iraq ad infinitum no matter what either of the candidates says.</p>

[DocT]

<p>The war may have been wrong from the beginning - history will answer that. At this stage it doesn’t make any difference. It doesn’t make any difference who voted for what - that is in the past. It doesn’t make any difference what either candidate says today, tomorrow or in November. The only thing that matters is what they will do, not say once they are president. From my perspective, there isn’t a lot that either can do except run it more efficiently and get out. Neither candidate is going to leave it in the unstable situation it is in today whether it takes 2 day or 2 years. When Hillary said at one point during the campaign, she hopes the war will be over by the end of her term but it may not be, she was telling the truth.</p>

[calmom]

<p>Obama never said that he would change his policy – he used the word [url=<a href=“http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refine]refine[/url”>Refine Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster]refine[/url</a>]. Admittedly, that os a fancy word he must have learned at Harvard, and people who work for the media and Republicans can’t figure out. But “refine” doesn’t mean “change” – it means " to improve or perfect by pruning or polishing." So he will go to Iraq and based on what he learns from visiting, he will improve and make more perfect his plan to get troops out of Iraq, which in the past has been criticized for being to vague or ill informed.</p>

<p>So here’s the history:</p>

<p>Obama: I’ll withdraw troops from Iraq.</p>

<p>McCain/GOP/ other primary dems: That’s an empty promise. Give us specifics!</p>

<p>Obama: Well, I will probably withdraw one or two brigades per month and have all troops out in 16 months. </p>

<p>McCain: You don’t know what you’re talking about because you only visited Iraq one time and it was a long time ago.</p>

<p>Obama: I’m going to visit Iraq with a Congressional delegation this summer. If I learn new stuff I will refine my plan.</p>

<p>McCain/press: Gotcha!!! </p>

<p>Now… suppose instead of “I will go to Iraq”, Obama had said, “visiting Iraq would be a political stunt and I don’t need to go there to know that the financial costs and the costs in American lives are too high for our country to sustain.” </p>

<p>Then of course McCain & the GOP would happily continue to point out that Obama hasn’t gone to Iraq. </p>

<p>Here’s what Obama actually said:

“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,” he said. “That assessment has not changed. 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 and will continue to refine my policies.”

</p>

<p>I suppose McCain & the GOp would prefer that he say something like this: “My mind’s made up. I’m just going to Iraq to participate in a political stunt, but no matter what I see or learn I’m going to stick with the plan I drew up during the primaries when I had no access to classified information, because I just get all my ideas from reading DailyKos.”</p>

<p>Sorry- get used to it: this time around, we are going to elect a person who is capable of holding 2 thoughts in his head at the same time president. No more “bring 'em on” Bush, no “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain – but a really intelligent man who is going to think carefully about the decisions he makes and listen to the input of both those who support his policies and those who disagree with them.</p>

[calmom]

<p>From the NY Times article quoted at the beginning of this thread:

Republicans are attempting to put Mr. Obama in the political equivalent of a double bind: trying to paint him as impervious to the changing reality on the ground if he sticks to his plan, and as a flip-flopper if he alters it to reflect changing circumstances.

</p>

[kluge]

<p>Calmom, you can’t blame the 'pub’s for pulling these stunts - but you can blame the knuckleheads who fall for it. Seems like some people can’t learn from the fact that they pull this same stale old stuff every four years. Granted, it’s mostly just a tactic used to energize those who are already true believers, and relatively harmless in the real world, but seriously - anyone over 35 years old who can’t spot these scams at fifty paces deserves the kind of government we’ve had for the past 8 years. (Of course, the rest of us get stuck with it, too, but hey - that’s democracy!)</p>

[mini]

<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>That’s fine with me. Mine just happens to be true. Even after being corrected by Lieberman, the very next day, he still couldn’t remember which side was being armed by Iran (which of course is itself backing two sides - the Iraqi pro-Iranian government, and the Sadrists), and who had armed Al-Qaeda in Iraq (answer: the U.S. - up to 115,000 AK-47s, among other equipment). Even after being told, he couldn’t tell how many troops there are in Iraq.</p>

<p>I honestly, truly don’t believe he has a full grip. (And, mind you, I voted for him.)</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>How dare someone say that they could change there mind if they gain a better understanding of the situation!</p>

<p>That is such an undesirable quality…</p>

[TerpDad]

<p>Let’s be honest all politicians morph before our very eyes when they’re this close to becoming Potus! I suppose Obama was just trying to gain a better understanding when he voted present all those times. I do not consider this an example of maintaining a cogent position, a requirement for the leader of the free world.</p>

[azure_blue]

<p>Kluge, I’m not sure who you are defining as “the rest of us.” All that I’m pointing out is that the political left is a victim of “these scams” too. Obama seems to be playing you all like a fiddle. When he needs to pander to a different crowd, he can just “refine” or adjust or clarify questionnaires his staffers “mistakenly” filled out, or justify protectionist rhetoric as being amplified…. and the best part is, .the people who he abandoned are the first ones to defend him. I can’t quite figure it out. </p>

<p>Mini, remember, it is McCain, more than any other candidate, who is open to talking to reporters for hours and hours. If Obama, or you!, or most anyone else had that many words on record, I bet we could find some pretty unintelligent ramblings. I hope this isn’t your voting criteria. </p>

<p>Tyler09, when exactly did Obama obtain “a better understanding”? What has changed in Iraq between the Democratic primaries and today? </p>

<p>TerpDad, I certainly agree with you. at the end of the day, politicians are just politicans, McCain included. Plenty of those “present” votes made by Obama on controversial issues in the Illinois Senate represent a political calculus that has very little to do with core values.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>“Obama seems to be playing you all like a fiddle”</p>

<p>“seems” to you, perhaps, but not to others necessarily. My position appears to be in line with Tyler’s. For all candidates of all parties, I prefer honest reassessments of issues to rigid, predictable party traditions. I have often wished previous Democrats in the past to be more flexible as they became more informed on issues. For example, members of congress whom I most appreciate are those whose affiliations I may have to guess & who appear to have put a lot of thought & research into ultimate proposals & voting decisions. Call me weird.</p>

[azure_blue]

<p>epiphany, i don’t think anyone is against “honest reassessments of issues.” That’s not what we are talking about. What we are against is holier-than-thou politicians who switch not because the facts and circumstances have switched, but because it is politically expedient to do so. The end result is politicians in office who are only looking out for themselves (Nixon and Clinton come to mind-- both good orators who could seem to talk and reason their way out of anything, rather dangerous if you ask me) </p>

<p>Take campaign public finance. When Obama was the underdog it served him well to support the financing system and make that pledge. Again, we can split hairs on the technicalities of what he said, but it was pretty clear what he meant at the time. </p>

<p>Fast forward, he raises a lot of money, all of a sudden it is in his best interest to opt out, and he does. The public financing system he once loved is now “broken” beyond repair and since St. Obama got enough small donations he can do what he wants. </p>

<p>Iraq is his most recent example. In a Democratic primary, it is best politically to be strictly anti- Iraq war. Here comes general election (----again, anyone feel free to tell me what has changed in Iraq----) and now it is best politically to adopt a John McCain-stay-until-we -can-get- out-safely mindset. </p>

<p>If you look at this guy’s whole career, it is fairly clear he will do whatever it takes to get ahead. I don’t think you can really say the same about John McCain. </p>

<p>Now, if you still think Obama would do a better job for this country, by all means, vote for him, but let’s all please stop pretending this guy is anything other than a typical politician.</p>

[calmom]

<p>Obama, Sept 12, 2007:

If commanders came to me and said, “We are making progress in reducing violence,” and I see continuing political progress taking place, then obviously that’s going to be weighed … that is all part of a decision that the president makes in consultation with his generals, but not in deference to them.

Source: [Obama</a> Outlines Plan for Iraq Pullout : NPR<a href=“broadcast”>/url</a></p>

<p>Obama, November 1, 2007:

My first step would be to call in the joint chiefs of staff, the military commanders who are on the ground and most familiar with the situation there… It is going to be responsible… It will be conducted at a pace that will ensure the safety of our troops…I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won’t … I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what’s happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad.

Source: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/politics/02obama-transcript.html?pagewanted=all[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/politics/02obama-transcript.html?pagewanted=all](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14359099]Obama”>Obama Outlines Plan for Iraq Pullout : NPR)</a></p>

<p>Obama, February 4, 2008:

I think there is going to be some flexibility and, obviously, I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say.

Source: [CBS</a> News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3785358n?source=search_video]CBS”>http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3785358n?source=search_video)</p>

<p>Obama, March 19, 2008;

Ending this war is not going to be easy. … We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground…

Source: <a href=“http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/19/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_55.php[/url]”>http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/19/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_55.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Anybody who thinks there is a “change” or a “flip-flop” simply hasn’t been listening.</p>

[calmom]

<p>Now a quick lesson in politics.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Barack Obama is a masterful politician who surrounds himself with exceptionally competent people. Anyone who hadn’t figured that out by the end of January simply wasn’t paying attention. That he is a good politician does not mean that he is inconsistent – he also has a solid progressive, left-leaning background stemming from his days as a community organizer. His political history and voting record is clear as to where he leans-- and that is where he is going to end up. But he’s smart enough to avoid boxing himself in with statements and he also demonstrates very good judgment, which means he will change his mind when the facts dictate that he should. </p></li>
<li><p>A story: I used to be a criminal defense lawyer. If I was able to construct a clear defense for a client, with a cohesive narrative that was consistent with the evidence, I won my case. Every time. One time I even had a jury come back in 45 minutes and insist on shaking my client’s hand after the verdict of acquittal was announced. But often I had clients who were guilty as sin and there wasn’t much that could be done for them. In those cases I focused on trying to create as much confusion as possible, attacking every piece of evidence or witness the prosecution introduced in piecemeal fashion. I was doing my job and my clients were generally happy to see me so aggressive in the courtroom, but that strategy almost always lost. Juries generally saw right through it -at most I could manage to hang a jury if there were one or two jurors ditzy enough to buy into that. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>That is what the McCain campaign is currently doing – they have failed entirely to craft a coherent narrative as to why McCain should be president – all they can come up with is a scattershot argument as to what is wrong with Obama. So every day they make some accusation or another against the Obama campaign to try to keep Obama on the defensive, to try to drive the media narrative away from reporting on what Obama has really said and done, and to detract attention from the fact that there is no substance to the McCain campaign. Their whole strategy is to try to raise doubts about Obama, because they don’t have a case they can make on their own. </p>

<p>It’s not going to work. The problem is that they are blowing all their ammunition in the early part of the summer – and while they are doing that Obama is methodically building up his base with a 50-state strategy that is going to leave McCain struggling to hang on to borderline republican states in the fall. McCain is slowing the flow of undecided voters to Obama, but he is failing to build or strengthen his own base or inspire people to support him. </p>

<p>McCain may be a military hero, but if you look at this campaign from a military standpoint, Obama is clearly the better tactician.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>“Now, if you still think Obama would do a better job for this country, by all means, vote for him, but let’s all please stop pretending this guy is anything other than a typical politician.”</p>

<p>He’s not typical. He’s way smarter. He knows how to think outside the box --both in policy & in strategy – & has the courage to do so. </p>

<p>You, however, are a typical voter: judging superficially by sound-bites presented to you on major news media sources for their “shock” or “controversy” effect, then thoroughly discarding every shread of value in the politician (any politican, doesn’t matter who). You are the kind of voter who projects sainthood/heroism onto a politician, then condemns that same politician for revealing his humanity.</p>

<p>I get so tired of the American electorate – not the media, not the candidates themselves – expecting a messiah and then blaming that candidate for not living up to some gospel – or Freudian --wish-fulfillment.</p>

<p>Politicians aren’t supposed to rescue us and, like mommy & daddy when we were toddlers, make it all seem to go away. They’re supposed to lead us, bring out the best, boldest, & bravest in us. They shouldn’t pretend to embody perfection within themselves, as some kind of contrast to a supposedly inferior electorate who has surrendered all trust over to them. They’re supposed to enjoin us to work with them to achieve visionary goals.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

2. A story: I used to be a criminal defense lawyer…</p>

<p>…McCain may be a military hero, but if you look at this campaign from a military standpoint, Obama is clearly the better tactician.

</p>

<p>As usual, another cogent analysis by Calmom. It’s not only because I agree with probably 99% of what she has to say, but also because she lays her case out thoroughly and thoughtfully and in evidence-based fashion.</p>

<p>The only thing I will say here is that it is clear McCain is in the process of promoting Rove’s proteges within his campaign staff. They are going to pull out every stop in terms of trashing Obama that they can. I’d say this is going to be a bitterly fought race, and it is by no means certain that Obama will have the upper hand, even though he has demonstrated he is ten times the campaigner that McCain is so far. The time between the convention and election day is what will really count.</p>

<p>Having said all that, Obama is smart and steady, knows how to parry the tactics that are being used against him, has a tremendously solid campaign apparatus, and is doing the methodical work Calmom talked about. I am really confident in his abilities. </p>

<p>For one thing, even though the Republicans are now trying out the narrative that he has shifted his position on Iraq – what informed the OP’s post here either explicitly or without the OP really being aware – he’s laid out very clearly a) that he will early establish a framework that assumes an expedited but tidy withdrawal and b) that, like any good executive, he won’t be entirely impervious to new data and new developments in adjusting how the withdrawal takes place. It was in talking about what he hopes to accomplish by a foreign, campaign trip that he was emphasizing the latter point. And if one looks at the latter point, isn’t that really an eminently sensible thing? He himself said he is in no ways looking for room to maneuver with respect to the former point.</p>