MyDD :: Obama on Iraq again

Obama on Iraq again

by pollbuster, Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:10:38 PM EST

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/ap_o n_el_pr/obama

There has been a lot of media hoopla concerning Barack Obama's recent comments on Iraq. There are those that would like people to believe that Obama has somehow flip-flopped on the issue, and that he is no longer committed to ending the conflict and bringing our troops home safely. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth. In his own words Obama has now made his policy on Iraq very clear:

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

On Thursday in North Dakota, Obama said that "I'll ... continue to refine my policy" on Iraq after an upcoming trip there. With a promise to end the war the central premise of his candidacy, the Obama campaign has struggled over the past two days to push back against Republicans and others who say his recent statement could be a softening or change in policy.

Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility.

"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," he said. "I am not somebody -- unlike George Bush -- who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."

The important thing to remember, here, is to keep an eye on the media and to always be ready to correct their distortions, which play into the hands of the republicans, while making sure we help keep things in their proper context.

We need to also recall how durng the Dan Rather incident four years ago the media took the issue of Bush's non' military service and turned it into an issue against John Kerry. We can't allow anything like this to ever go on again.

In regard to Obama's remarks on Iraq, we saw seeds of the same type of activity. They took the remarks way out of their actual context, and then managed to label it a "controversy." Of course it was a controversy of their own making, but this gets lost in the media shuffle once these things get started.

We should expect to see a lot more of this as this campaign progresses, so we need to be tuned into what's going on. Which means it is way past time for us to stop sparring with each other about the recent primary, or other petty grievances. This all has to end. It is now time for all of us to work together in unison. If recent events have taught us anything, it's that the road ahead will be difficult and it will be paved with traps. We need to be ready to meet each of those challenges. We can only do this if we stay united and strong.

Tags: Iraq War, Barack Obama, John McCain, 100 years war (all tags)

Permalink :: 12 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama on Iraq again (2.00 / 1)

Nice. Turns it round on Bush. Good strategy.

by conspiracy on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:41:09 PM EST

Exactly (2.00 / 1)

Give a smack down to Bush.

by puma on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Iraq again (2.00 / 1)

I basically agree. He's committed to shutting down this war in 12-18 months and bringing our people home.

by ottovbvs on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:58:13 PM EST

Re: Obama on Iraq again (none / 0)

People forget that Samantha Power said, back in March, exactly what Obama is saying now: he's gonna bring them home as fast as he can, but he's gonna do it safely, in consultation with military leaders. And, back in March, he was accused of (wait for it) flip-flopping.

by jere7my on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Iraq again (none / 0)

Hey, we're Democrats, this is what we do.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:16:06 PM EST

You mean like Pelosi and Reid who ran under the (none / 0)

false premise/illusion that they would vote to bring our troops home within a year? Please give me a link where it shows they actually lived up to their promise and if I'm not mistaken, aren't they democrats too in a position to end it tomorrow? Aren't they our democratic leaders? Are you making them pay for not living up to their promise?

Do you really believe that Obama will take a chance a botching up the end of the war therefore ruining his re-election chances in 2012 - trust me, with his lack of courage, nothing will be done until 2012 if that because he'll need this subject to run on AGAIN! and you'll let him get away with it, simply for winning! How noble?

by suzieg on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:56:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Iraq again (none / 0)

McCain scored on this. That one word "refine" turned into "We are staying in Iraq" thanks to the 24 hr news cycle. Talk about Trigger happy.

by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:25:45 PM EST

Has McCain visited Afghanistan (2.00 / 1)

since his last visit with the Armed Services Committee in 2006 (which included HRC) as I'm not sure if McCain's most recent sojourn to the Middle East included a stop to Afghanistan. If not, Obama may be able to come back from Afghanistan, demanding that McCain go visit Afghanistan and talk to the commanders there about the Taliban's resurgence and their inability to get more troops in the country because all of our resources are committed to Iraq.

by Blazers Edge on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM EST

Re: Has McCain visited Afghanistan (none / 0)

Blazer you raise a good point and it also makes me wonder how many troops will be diverted to Afghanistan after we start puling out of Iraq.

by Politicalslave on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:19:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Read this: (none / 0)

www.counterpunch.com/whitney07062008/htm l

excerpt:

ONWARD FIELD-MARSHALL OBAMA

Presidential candidate Barak Obama, "The Peace Candidate", supports a stronger commitment to the war in Afghanistan and has proposed "sending at least two additional combat brigades -- or 7,000 to 10,000 troops -- to Afghanistan, while deploying more Special Operations forces to the Afghan-Pakistan border. He has also proposed increasing non-military aid to Afghanistan by at least $1 billion per year." (Wall Street Journal) Obama, backed by Brzezinski and other Clinton foreign policy advisers, has focussed his attention on the "war on terror", that dismal public relations coup which conceals America's desire to become a major player in the Great Game, the battle for supremacy on the Asian continent. Obama appears to be even more eager to repeat history than his opponent, John McCain.

In November, voters will be asked to pick one of the two pro-war candidates. McCain has made his position clear; his focus is on Iraq. Now it is up to Obama to point out why it's more acceptable to kill a man who is fighting for his country in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq. If he can't answer that question, then he deserves to lose.

by suzieg on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:39:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama on Iraq again (2.00 / 1)

The media is attempting to find that one defining label they can stick on Barack. They've been doing it for quite awhile now to every Democratic candidate.

With Gore, it was the idea that he was a liar and exaggerated things. They took quite a few true statements, blew them out of proportion and then labeled them false. They were false, once the media got through twisting them. The only thing is that they were no longer the things Gore actually said. That didn't keep the media from settling on that definition of Gore and pushing it with everything they had.

In 2004, it was the idea that Kerry was a flip-flopper. They sold the idea that a politician should be inflexible. That he should 'stay the course' no matter what. This is supposed to be a virtue? It didn't matter. That gave Bush a chance to revel in his idiotic stubbornness.

Apparently, this year they are trying to reuse the flip-flop charge against Obama. I don't think it will resonate with the voters the way it did in 2004. People have seen what damage stubbornness can do.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:59:38 AM EST

Re: Obama on Iraq again (2.00 / 1)

It won't work because the polls show tha people think McCain is just as much, if not more of a flip-flopper. The reason it worked against Kerry was because people saw Bush as ''resolute''.

by conspiracy on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:58:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.