Jul 03 2008
Changing policy on Iraq
The Republicans (and some Democrats) are attacking Barack Obama for, they say, changing his position on the war in Iraq. But did he?
Here is what is on his campaign website:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Here is the New York Times report on what he said today…
Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline
FARGO, N.D. – Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.
Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.
“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. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “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.”
As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country. He stressed that he has long called for a careful and responsible withdrawal of American forces, but he declined to offer a fresh endorsement of his plan to remove one to two combat brigades a month.
“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”
He added, “I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”
I don’t see a whole lot of difference between what he said today and what is posted on his website. He just fleshed it out a bit today.
But, you know what? Even if there is a difference, I am not really all that upset about it. It is, in my opinion, better to have a Commander-in-Chief who is willing to evaluate conditions and adjust his policies accordingly than one who stubbornly insists on “staying the course” no matter how things may change.
I have opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. So has Barack Obama. I’m still voting for him. He remains light years ahead of the alternative.
9 Responses to “Changing policy on Iraq”
I would think that a GOOD leader would have a flexible strategy for something volatile like taking over a despised debacle.
On this we agree; it’s better for him to re-evaluate his position based on new information than it is to stay stuck in the past. It’s not a flip-flop when the facts change.
A lot of the glee on the right comes from seeing the apoplectic reactions of the Kos Kids to the refinement of his position.
@Chris :
I guess y’all have to get your jollies wherever you can find them these days, huh?
However, it you will read my post in its entirety and view the accompanying video, you will find that Senator Obama has not refined his position at all. He’s just “fleshed it out” a little. It’s still the same position it’s always been.
(What are Kos Kids? Is that the same as Malkinites?)
I don’t see much difference between what was said today and what is posted on his website either. Of course, like Obama, the website changes quite often.
There seems to be, at least today, little difference between him and McCain on this issue.
We’ll see what tomorrow will bring.
@Len:
Politico.com says:
Senator Obama himself used the word “refine” so I’ll take him at his word that he is refining his plan. I happen to think it’s a wise move, too.
Inhabitants of the DailyKos web site. Surely you’ve heard of it? You link to it under “Americans” in your sidebar. Heh. Conservatives aren’t Americans? I’d be insulted except you categorize the Media separately from Americans too and I’d oftentimes have to agree with that.
@Chris :
I could have labeled them “People who care about their country” and “People who do nothing but whine and complain, who care about nobody but themselves and are out to enrich themselves by whatever means possible, either legal or illegal.” But those labels would not quite fit, so I had to settle for Americans and Conservatives.
Senator Obama says:
Republicans thought they had a gotcha, but they didn’t. Not really.
@jay :
The difference between 16 months and 100 years is rather minuscule, isn’t it? I guess there really is no difference between an honorable end to the war and a continuation of the Bush policy of never-ending war. So I guess you’re right… there is little difference between Obama and McCain on this issue.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like George Soros, the Hollywood elite, or any of the other Lear Jet Liberals who keep trying to tell me what to do! Certainly the narcissistic Hollywood types fit the bill. And judging by the parade of Democrats that the US Attorney for NJ (Chris Christie) keeps hauling off to jail that “legal or illegal” part might just be too broad a brush with which to paint.
BTW, I thought you enlightened types were against stereotyping?
BTW #2, comments like Jay’s are why I love reading Daily Kos. The netroots are completely divorced from reality.
BTW #3, since “Gay Republicans” get their own category too can I assume you don’t consider them to be “Americans” either? I’ll have to let my friend John know about that one, he’ll get a good laugh.
@Chris : Wow. If I were you, Chris, I surely would not be accusing others of stereotyping.
Perhaps, since my separating my links into categories seems to irritate you so much, I should just eliminate all links to anybody who doesn’t think like me and just have one list of links to people who do… You know, like you have.
Or, maybe I could separate them into 1) Hollywood elite, 2) Lear Jet Liberals, 3) Narcissistic Hollywood types and 4) Enlightened Types. Thanks, by the way, for including me in the latter. I’m honored.
Don’t forget to let me know what your friend John thinks of “Gay Republicans.” Perhaps someday I’ll take the time to explain to you why I believe they deserve to be in a category of their own. Or, perhaps, you’ll figure it out on your own. In the meantime, enjoy your laugh and thanks for dropping by.
@Len: No worries, I’m just messing with you man, it’s your world, your rules. As you noted I’m proudly partisan in my world too.
BlogExplosion dumped me on your site and it is interesting enough to keep me coming back.
Peace.