Obama: Rest assured, I’m still fully committed to abandoning Iraq

posted at 6:40 pm on July 5, 2008 by Allahpundit

Flip-flop-flip:

“I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement,” the expected Democratic presidential nominee told reporters flying with him to Missouri from Montana. “I am absolutely committed to ending the war.”…

“What’s important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics,” he told reporters. “The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions. I am not somebody — unlike George Bush — who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions.”

Noting that “we want to build on” the lessening of violence in Iraq, he added: “It doesn’t change my strategic view that we have to bring our occupation to a close.”…

“I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured,” Obama said. “I wasn’t saying anything that I hadn’t said before.”

That last bit, feigning shock that people are paying close attention to what the Democratic nominee says about the signature foreign policy issue of the campaign, must be the most precious bit of shinola to escape his lips since his rousing refusal to disown Wright a few weeks before he disowned him. But note the boldfaced part echoing what he said on Thursday about tying withdrawal to Iraq’s stability. The nutroots line over the past two days is the same as Obama’s, that what he said isn’t a jot different from what he’s been saying all along and any assertions to the contrary are McCain camp propaganda. In that case, meet McCain camp propagandist Tom Hayden, fretting at HuffPo over what Obama’s recent comments portend for escalation. Or revisit Michael Crowley’s post at TNR, calling the stability bit “a pretty significant new principle” — and having written this long recent analysis of Obama’s Iraq rhetoric, Crowley would know. Or just compare his new emphasis on stability to the statement on withdrawal at his website, which is not only unqualified but clearly imagines no reason for keeping troops in the country except (a) as a token force to protect U.S. diplomats, and (b) to target Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda only.

Beyond that, are Obama and the left really so naive as to think that vague platitudes about being as careful getting out as we were careless getting in register vividly enough with the public as to save him from the perception now that he’s tacking right? McCain’s been on record for more than two years as saying that the military option is the very last option when dealing with Iran. Even so, if he came out tomorrow in the heat of the campaign and noted that he was “refining his plan” in a way that hinted at greater diplomacy, don’t you think it would be news, his earlier platitude notwithstanding?

Here’s my favorite part, from CNN’s account of today’s comments:

“The belief that we have a national security interest in making sure Iraq is secure, I’ve been saying consistently,” he added. Noting “the worst-case scenarios and the parade of horribles that has been trotted out by John McCain and others about genocide if we left,” he said he has always reserved “the right to protect people from genocide.”

Associated Press, July 20, 2007: “Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide.”

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press…

“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”

In this as in so much else, there’s no real difference between him and Hillary. “Precipitously,” of course, means “sooner than 16 months,” the timeline he’s been pitching all along; there’s a hint here that he might suspend withdrawal to deal with an “emergency” (or actually re-invade the country with some phantom international force after an ill-conceived pullout has been completed), but of course Iraq’s not in a state of emergency at the moment — in which case, what gives with the “stability” rhetoric on Thursday? If anything, the fact that things are going well should accelerate his timeline for withdrawal, not make him want to linger to “build on” the security gains. Isn’t he really just embracing the logic — albeit certainly not the time horizon — of McCain’s “100 years” comment? He’s willing to consider keeping more troops in the field or slowing the pace of withdrawal precisely because there’s not an emergency anymore. Which is actually bad news for McCain politically, because once he and Obama agree on that, the only variable left to negotiate is how long troops should be kept in that non-emergency occupation role. Maverick’s opened the bidding at a century. In terms of drawing voters, Obama shouldn’t find that tough to beat.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

In that case we are polygamists since we have the same commitment to Korea, Japan, Germany, Philippines, and the UK to name a few of our spouses.

TheBigOldDog on July 5, 2008 at 10:49 PM

If we are polygamists, it might be time to stop or at least stop adding more spouses. Even the muslims have a limit of 4 wives!

mycowardice on July 6, 2008 at 12:08 AM

You remind me of the preacher passing by a beautiful farm. He calls to the farmer and says, “Brother the good Lord has seen fit to reward you with a beutiful farm.” The farmer replies, “Yes Reverend but you should have seen it when I got here.”

TheBigOldDog on July 5, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Well, OK then, you remind me of that that kid that Reagan talked about who just had to believe with all the $hit at a certain local, well there just had to be a pony around someplace.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:10 AM

Well, OK then, you remind me of that that kid that Reagan talked about who just had to believe with all the $hit at a certain local, well there just had to be a pony around someplace.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:10 AM

And you reminded me of the classless know-it-all who is never man enough to admit he’s wrong.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:13 AM

The meaning of the word is the meaning of the word. If you don’t agree with the definition, start your own dictionary and see if you can generate any business for it.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Don’t try to be “cute”, it’s not working for you as you must surely understand the difference between a MILITARY surrender and “surrender a contractual right” and “give up (a lease)”. God I hope so anyway. Or do you think that Iraq is just one big Donald Trump business deal or bailout?

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:18 AM

Don’t let George hear you say that as he has said many times that there is no civil war in Iraq.

MB4 on July 5, 2008 at 11:28 PM

There’s nothing civil about war. Bloody uncivil, it is.

platypus on July 6, 2008 at 12:22 AM

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:18 AM

How hard have you been unsuccessfully searching for a definition that wouldn’t make you look so ignorant?

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:22 AM

And you reminded me of the classless know-it-all who is never man enough to admit he’s wrong.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:13 AM

I am waiting for you to get it right first.

You sound like a real estate agent with your NON MILITARY use of surrender when the subject was clearly MILITARY surrender.

Do you think that WWII was some kind of real estate deal and the Japaneses just “surrender a contractual right” and “give up (a lease)” ?

Heavens to Murgatroyd !

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:23 AM

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:23 AM

See, you are that person.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:25 AM

MB4-

Surrender“, meaning, to give in to chaos steered by jihadists and their global sympathizers (whether Syrian Baathists, China and Russia working to destablize the last coherent superpower, Saudi dissidents who hate their cousins/ rulers, or just bored and seduced Muslim youth looking for some cheap route ultimate meaning, etc).

Killing jihadis wherever we can is a worthwhile exercise.

However much the Iraqi situation (obnoxious and undermining Shari’a Law elements in their U.S.-engineered Constitution, etc.) is, it is still better to smash your way out of a nest of maniacs than to run away and leave them un-smashed.

It only encourages the theocratic terrorists to try 9/11, part 2, misjudging American resolve, again.

Although there’s more reason for them to judge us as self-divided thanks to a Congress that votes for war, then tries to pretend it didn’t, and a vocal and delusional segment of the populace who think you can bargain with those who slice your head off when they gain power over you.

Not Lee surrendering his sword to Grant, but America surrendering to defeatist opinion (anarcho-socialist-pacifist fanatsies) and anti-Western (essentially anti-U.S.) propagandists.

profitsbeard on July 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM

I am not somebody — unlike George Bush — who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions.”

“Except when I ignore the progress of the surge and the maturing of the Iraqi army and the defeat of AQI because of my preconcived notion that George Bush didn’t know what he was doing and shouldn’t have gotten us into Iraq in the first place.”

You keep it consistent Barry, you keep it consistent Bro. You know eventually Barry will have to throw himself under the bus.

Mallard T. Drake on July 6, 2008 at 12:28 AM

How hard have you been unsuccessfully searching for a definition that wouldn’t make you look so ignorant?

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:22 AM

How hard is it for you to understand that the subject was MILITARY surrender, MILITARY ! M I L I T A R Y !! M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y !!! and not some kind of “give up (a lease)” surrender? I didn’t even know that we had leased Iraq.

You are being so silly.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Killing jihadis wherever we can is a worthwhile exercise.

However much the Iraqi situation (obnoxious and undermining Shari’a Law elements in their U.S.-engineered Constitution, etc.) is, it is still better to smash your way out of a nest of maniacs than to run away and leave them un-smashed.

It only encourages the theocratic terrorists to try 9/11, part 2, misjudging American resolve, again.

profitsbeard on July 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Most of the 9/11 terrorist murderers were Saudi. None were Iraqi that I know of anyway.

Iraqi-centric belief system:

1) All roads start in Iraq.
2) All roads end in Iraq.
3) The Sun revolves around Iraq.
4) The Moon revolves around Iraq.
5) The Stars revolve around Iraq.
6) If the United States does not keep sufficient troop mass in Iraq, the orbital stability of the Earth will become unbalanced and all Muslim terrorists will slide into America.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:34 AM

Try actually reading the definition. Let me limit it to the first 2 to make it really easy for you:

ur·ren·der (s-rndr)
v. sur·ren·dered, sur·ren·der·ing, sur·ren·ders
v.tr.
1. To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion.
2. To give up in favor of another.

Now where’s these extra qualifiers in that definition that you keep mentioning?

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:36 AM

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:34 AM

You’re committed to defeat just so you won’t be proven wrong. You are that person.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:41 AM

“Except when I ignore the progress of the surge and the maturing of the Iraqi army and the defeat of AQI because of my preconcived notion that George Bush didn’t know what he was doing and shouldn’t have gotten us into Iraq in the first place.”

Mallard T. Drake on July 6, 2008 at 12:28 AM

I think that George W. Bush had it exactly right … … before something got him all confused.

Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military’s meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. But I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.
- George W. Bush on October 11 2000

And no 9/11 did not override that. It should have reinforced it.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:41 AM

You’re committed to defeat just so you won’t be proven wrong. You are that person.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:41 AM

I am committed to the defeat, of among other things, Iraqi-centric binary thinking, although I will confess that I am not making a whole lot of progress on this web site. However the election will not be decided here so will shall see what happens in November.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM

And no 9/11 did not override that. It should have reinforced it.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:41 AM

And therein lies the truth of your belief system. That America is ultimately responsible for 9/11.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:47 AM

1. To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion.
2. To give up in favor of another.

Now where’s these extra qualifiers in that definition that you keep mentioning?

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:36 AM

Even after you have picked and chosen from your own list (What did you do with your others? Throw them under the bus?), they still don’t match the situation in Iraq as if we left it would not be by “demand or compulsion” as we would be leaving Iraq because that’s what the American people wanted. Nor would it be “give up in favor of another” unless you mean in favor of the American people.

Yet again, the subject was, I’ll go s l o w, M I L I T A R Y surrender!!! Hint: Think of the German and Japaneses M I L I T A R Y surrenders of WWII.

Good Lord, I have had some ridiculous arguments before but this one has got to take the prize.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM

[MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM]

Have you considered the possibility you are not making a whole lot of progress because you are not very persuasive and tend to wield a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel in your dissection of arguments by others?

Just curious. Anyway, it does help to find common ground on basic matters. Here, with TheBigOldDog, you seem content to engage in a death match about the meaning of a word rather than come to mutually agreeable understanding so you can actually make progress on the concerns central to you.

Dusty on July 6, 2008 at 1:02 AM

And therein lies the truth of your belief system. That America is ultimately responsible for 9/11.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 12:47 AM

America is ultimately responsible for 9/11?

You sound like a lunatic.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:03 AM

America is ultimately responsible for 9/11?

You sound like a lunatic.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:03 AM

Then explain what you mean by this:

And no 9/11 did not override that. It should have reinforced it.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:06 AM

Have you considered the possibility you are not making a whole lot of progress because you are not very persuasive and tend to wield a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel in your dissection of arguments by others?

Do you really think that, other than as a very rare event, anyone on this web site has turned anyone?

it does help to find common ground on basic matters.

Dusty on July 6, 2008 at 1:02 AM

“Common ground” is overrated.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:10 AM

Dusty on July 6, 2008 at 1:02 AM

And just what would “common ground” be with someone who says that I believe “America is ultimately responsible for 9/11″?

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:12 AM

And just what would “common ground” be with someone who says that I believe “America is ultimately responsible for 9/11″?

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:12 AM

I’m busy waiting for an explanation while you stall for time trying to dig yourself out of the hole.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:14 AM

Then explain what you mean by this:

And no 9/11 did not override that. It should have reinforced it.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:06 AM

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five to explain it to TheBigOldDog [updated].
- Groucho

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:15 AM

I’m busy waiting for an explanation while you stall for time trying to dig yourself out of the hole.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:14 AM

If I’m in a hole then your hard head must be what I am standing on.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:17 AM

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five to explain it to TheBigOldDog [updated].
- Groucho

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:15 AM

Still stalling? Explain it. Talk to me like a child if it will help you but explain how 9/11 should have reinforced the notion that our troops shouldn’t be engaged in nation building unless nation building had something to do with what happened on 9/11.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:18 AM

If I’m in a hole then your hard head must be what I am standing on.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:17 AM

Explain it.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:19 AM

I’m busy waiting for an explanation while you stall for time trying to dig yourself out of the hole.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:14 AM

This may come as a great shock to you but I am not glued to my PC terminal hitting refresh every few seconds to see what further “pearls of wisdom” you have come up with.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:20 AM

This may come as a great shock to you but I am not glued to my PC terminal hitting refresh every few seconds to see what further “pearls of wisdom” you have come up with.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:20 AM

Explain it or be a man and stand up for what you truly believe.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:21 AM

Explain it.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:19 AM

Can’t you find any five year old children to explain it to you? Just read the whole thing again, it’s not very long, and this time don’t try to read anything between the lines. I’m trying to help you.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:23 AM

You seem to have no problem insulting me but are having great difficulty explaining your own simple sentence. I’ve now waited 45 minutes

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:23 AM

Can’t you find any five year old children to explain it to you? Just read the whole thing again, it’s not very long, and this time don’t try to read anything between the lines. I’m trying to help you.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:23 AM

If it’s simple enough for a 5 year old to understand what does that say about your inability to explain it?

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:25 AM

I think that I will go find a child of five to talk to as it just about has to be a big improvement over your “And therein lies the truth of your belief system. That America is ultimately responsible for 9/11.” fantasies.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:28 AM

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:28 AM

I don’t blame you. First rule of holes is stop digging. But at least now we know where you are coming from.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:30 AM

If it’s simple enough for a 5 year old to understand what does that say about your inability to explain it?

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:25 AM

I guess it says that if I want you to understand it then I should make it so that even a 2 year old could understand it I suppose. I can’t go that low.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:30 AM

I don’t blame you. First rule of holes is stop digging. But at least now we know where you are coming from.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:30 AM

You apparently still don’t have a clue.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:31 AM

You apparently still don’t have a clue.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:31 AM

I’ll be sure to point people to this thread every time I come across your posts and let them draw their own conclusions.

TheBigOldDog on July 6, 2008 at 1:33 AM

I think it means that ol’ MB4 disagrees with the mission creep aspect of Iraq. He thinks the military should break things and kill enemies and nothing else.

Of course, this whole thing presumes that we are all clear on the US purpose of deposing Saddam in the first place. I’m not sure that we know everything on that point.

Big point – we are winning. Bless our troops. Curse our enemies, foreign and domestic.

And God bless HA.

platypus on July 6, 2008 at 1:37 AM

And just what would “common ground” be with someone who says that I believe “America is ultimately responsible for 9/11″?

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:12 AM

Um, how about common ground on the meaning of surrender. I thought that abandon might fit between you two, as in, say, abandon the field of battle. In a circumstance such as Iraq, such an act, would fit fairly well — it’s a form of military surrender, the prime concern of yours and it doesn’t require a clear “surrender to someone”, nor giving up weapons, nor being taken prisoner, which you I think must admit is not a requirement of all surrenders. You’d be half happy and he’d be half happy.

Then you can fight the next phase. I think there are several others that came before the tooth and nail of “America is ultimately responsible for 9/11″. I took your longer comment to mean in short, “Bush said not getting involved outside our borders is sound policy. The events of 9/11 reinforce that sound policy.”

To me, those are asserions. It is reasonable to ask the follow up “Why?” TOBD, took a Rusher-esque “don’t get mad, get even”, way of asking why, which was very mallet wielding of him and I’d probably have a few hairs on my back up too.

Dusty on July 6, 2008 at 1:47 AM

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 1:23 AM

Well, I may not be a “child of five,” but I am 58 Viet Nam Marine combat vet. I understand war.

I’ve been following your post here for the last few minutes…read it all and frankly, I have NO idea what you’re talking about or what it is you’re trying to say. What point is it exactly is it you’re trying to put across? That you use a combination of loose fitting words that mean nothing to make an argument such as: “Iraqi-centric binary thinking” Huh?

What the hell are you raving about anyway?

You just don’t make any since.

My point curly, I couldn’t find a “child of five” on such short notice.

Give em’ hell OldDog

1GooDDaDDy on July 6, 2008 at 1:49 AM

I think it means that ol’ MB4 disagrees with the mission creep aspect of Iraq. He thinks the military should break things and kill enemies and nothing else.

[platypus on July 6, 2008 at 1:37 AM]

I agree. I don’t think that is realistic, unfortunately.

And, yes, God Bless the troops that serve in the US military, which is also the country I was born and have always resided in.

Dusty on July 6, 2008 at 1:56 AM

I am committed to the defeat, of among other things, Iraqi-centric binary thinking, although I will confess that I am not making a whole lot of progress on this web site. However the election will not be decided here so will shall see what happens in November.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM

It seems like what you want is happening more and more, even as we speak. The focus is changing from war to policing in Iraq, and from Iraq to other dangers. You didn’t wait long enough. Iraq is not Vietnam. Both Vietnam and the US should have been so lucky.

Sometimes I get the feeling you are fighting past demons. I say that because I know it myself.

fwiw, I truly hope you don’t vote for Obama. He’s really the wrong kind of protest to make. (But I will join you in DC to protest against stupid stuff President McCain does if you would like. I still haven’t made it inside the National Gallery.)

JiangxiDad on July 6, 2008 at 6:59 AM

This is a clear sign of why Obama worries me. He owes his success to a radical, anti-American, pacifist movement who believes that Iraq—an even Afghanistan—will be peaceful if the evil Americans leave, that there is no such thing as al-Qaida, that both wars are about Big Oil, and that the UN can enforce peace.

The world is going to be a very, very dangerous during and because of the next four years:

Iran will have the bomb. It will give said bomb to Hezbollah

Iraq will be split into two pieces one ruled by Iranian Shiite puppets and the other by al-Qaida affiliated Sunnis. But that doesn’t matter to these people because: IT’s ALL BUSH’s FAULT. This regardless of the danger that al-Qaida in control of so much oil wealth will present a terrible danger to the Western world. When AQ nukes several American cities: IT WILL BE BUSH’S FAULT.

Afghanistan will be ruled by the Taliban again.

Radical Muslims will take control of Pakistan and it’s nuclear arsenal.

Four years of pacifist influence in the United States will prove that there is no peace except through strength.

fleiter on July 6, 2008 at 8:21 AM

I am committed to the defeat, of among other things, Iraqi-centric binary thinking, although I will confess that I am not making a whole lot of progress on this web site. However the election will not be decided here so will shall see what happens in November.

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM

No, you’re not. So . . . perhaps you should search for another forum to spew your asinine hyperbole.

rplat on July 6, 2008 at 8:59 AM

“It doesn’t change my strategic view that we have to bring our occupation to a close.”…

This use of the word “occupation” will have significant bearing on his outlook towards Israel since it is Obama’s cronies that use this term all the time about Palestine.

wepeople on July 6, 2008 at 9:16 AM

“It doesn’t change my strategic view that we have to bring our occupation to a close.”…

I agree. After he gets trounced in the general election, the next step is for the good people of Illinois to vote him out of that Senate seat he has been sitting in all this time while doing two things for Illinois, namely diddly and squat!

pilamaye on July 6, 2008 at 9:21 AM

fleiter, only in PC revisionism is it a “pacifist movement”, I think you’d agree. These “pacifists” are either

1. paid domestic agitators using aggressive and radical socialist techniques and tactics to beat their impact into the ground while bashing the skulls of opponents;

2. or they are sophisticated pencil pushing bastards who would deprive you of work in order to force you into submission.

We all sigh a moment’s relief with the news that the US officials removed Saddam’s yellow cake from Iraq successfully. There goes bobama’s chance to “refine” his covert alliance with the terrorists.

maverick muse on July 6, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Give em’ hell OldDog

1GooDDaDDy on July 6, 2008 at 1:49 AM

+1

maverick muse on July 6, 2008 at 9:53 AM

“What’s important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics,” he told reporters“The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions. I am not somebody — unlike George Bush — who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions.”

Both words refer to a plan of action to achieve a goal. Was his plan to withdraw from Iraq surrender by March 2008 a strategy or a tactic?

Buy Danish on July 6, 2008 at 10:12 AM

What is with this guy? He’s simply not to be trusted. He never says what he said or does what he did or thinks what he thought or meant what he meant…. Just imagine foreign powers trying to make sense of what he says(or didn’t say)or agrees to(or didn’t agree to). Run, not walk, away from his name on the ballot. He is the makings of disaster.

jeanie on July 6, 2008 at 10:22 AM

I’ve always been curious something BO says quite frequently. He keeps repeating that he will “End this war in Iraq”. How about the larger war on terror of which Iraq is only a piece? Will he end that too? If so how?

Oldnuke on July 6, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Obamessiah should be asked why he thinks those who want the war to end immediately support him if he’s always been putting so many qualifiers out there. Are they too stupid to understand his oh so clear formulations or they dont mind him lying now to everyone else so he can get elected?

aikidoka on July 6, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Obama is totally inconsistent and as a result deserves to be called a charlatan.

That won’t stop him being President though.

Ares on July 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM

I don’t know, I think the facts on the ground are going to be so embarrassing to him by November that he just might lose. There may be only a handful of Al Qaeda left in Iraq by then, and they’ll be living in caves like Osama. Our troops will be preparing for a return home in triumph, not defeat.

October Surprise: 50,000 U.S. troops come home to a gigantic heroes’ parade down the Mall in Washington.

rockmom on July 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM

October Surprise: 50,000 U.S. troops come home to a gigantic heroes’ parade down the Mall in Washington.

rockmom on July 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Yep! A parade led by Petraeus, with John McCain as grand marshal giving the welcome home speech.

Oldnuke on July 6, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Rest assured, Obama is still fully committed to Marx and to abandoning his grandmother, abandoning his spiritual adviser, abandoning his to-be VP and military adviser, abandoning his word, abandoning Iraq, yes. He wouldn’t know what to do otherwise. Abandoning everything is what Obama is experienced doing. It is all he has on record OTHER THAN his full commitment to Marx who is already dead.

Obama The Malleable wants to be marx reincarnate.

maverick muse on July 6, 2008 at 9:09 PM

MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Yo, we just moved 550 metric tons of Saddam’s enriched uranium out of Iraq. So… there’s that.

Akzed on July 6, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Obama: Rest assured, I’m still fully committed to abandoning Iraq… because Iraq is just like Vietnam, and we Dems cut off funding for Saigon, didnt’we? And we allowed the Reds to take over, didn’t we? And the Reds wanted to crush us just like the radical Muslims do, don’t they? So you expect the same thing this go ’round, don’t you?

Akzed on July 7, 2008 at 9:17 AM

Obama: Rest assured, I’m still fully committed to abandoning Iraq

“abandoning”

Guess what suckuh, there’s still a few buses left to to throw you under.

byteshredder on July 7, 2008 at 12:08 PM

newsflash/

The pilot of Obama’s plane landed in St. Louis siting “controlability issues” with the candidate’s mechanical problems. The teleprompter had broken.

/snark

maverick muse on July 7, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Would it be possible to keep a sticky post on here that catalogues all of Obama’s flip-flops? It would be nice to have a reference site as he continues to run towards the center.

LeaningRt. on July 7, 2008 at 7:48 PM

On OBAMA, a must read @ American Thinker!
“What Barack Obama learned from the Communist Party”
By Andrew Walden

maverick muse on July 8, 2008 at 8:14 AM

fits @ Shooting the Messenger:

Has there ever in recent political memory been so much calculation and bad faith by a politician who has made so much of eschewing both?

We now know that Obama isn’t naive – but his ardent supporters are. Obama exhorted them to “believe” (one of his favorite words) in him and his virtue above all – and as soon as they gave him the nomination he wanted, he showed how foolishly credulous they’d been. When it comes to triangulating, he’s Hillary Clinton without the baggage.

Touché!

maverick muse on July 8, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2