Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 49

• 0%

  Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

  There's been a lot written in the past couple of weeks about Obama supposedly backtracking on withdrawal from Iraq. To my knowledge, none of it has actually quoted him saying he's changed his fundamental position about it.

  This op-ed, written by Obama, shows he has not changed his fundamental philosophy, though he is taking into account the reality that we are now there, trying to preserve and secure the new government's self-determination. He sees the desire by Maliki for a specific plan and a timetable for withdrawal as our opportunity to exit.

  Reply

  9 Replies

  • 0%

    Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

    It's nice to know that he has a fundamental philosophy. I applaud him for that.

    But, Im a little different than many of my fellow Christian Conservatives. I see many of us commenting regularly how MASSIVELY important it is that candidates have CONSISTENT, RIGIDLY ADHERED to policies.

    Who do we know that has Consistent, Rigidly Adhered to policies?

    Why, our heero Goerge W. Bush!

    HE came to be our Touchstone Candidate because he brought with him a Clearly Defined, Rigid Moral Code.

    Yes ... you know what I'm going to say ... he brought with him a Military Expansionist Neo-Conservative ideeologie.

    And he has not swayed from that essential philosophy ... much to the detriment of our nation.

    Reply
  • 0%

    injest1 month, 3 weeks ago

    "THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity."

    Uhmm, so who gets to tell Obama, that's not what Maliki said?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7504571.stm

    From the BBC retraction

    There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.

    Mixed messages

    In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".

    What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."

    Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

      The difference between the word "presence" and the word "withdrawal" is purely semantic in this context.

      I wonder if the written version given out at his office was a translation. "Withdrawal" is a politically loaded word, and Maliki's office would be aware of the impace of using it.

      But whatever the reason the written version differed from the spoken one, the meaning in context is pretty clear:

      they want a plan for evacuation (Maliki's word), or a plan for benchmarks--and possibly timetables--leading to it ("understanding on programming their presence").

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        injest1 month, 3 weeks ago

        "The difference between the word "presence" and the word "withdrawal" is purely semantic in this context"

        You didn't read the BBC article did you?

        "Officials admit that the negotiations are in a state of flux, and that the Status of Forces Agreement, which was to have been concluded this month, may end up being a simple protocol or memorandum of understanding giving some sort of legal basis for a continued US presence after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year."

        In other words, if Iraq does not ask for another extension (as they have every year since 04) of the Current UN mandate for or troops top be there, how will our troops remain in Iraq.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

          Yes, I did read the article. I also read Maliki's words, both spoken and written.

          You're interpretation of what you quoted glosses over the word "may."

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            injest1 month, 3 weeks ago

            Uhm Beau7890, this is the impotant part

            The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year,

            "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".

            What he actually said was:

            "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence

            withdrawal means leaving

            presence means staying.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 month, 3 weeks ago

              This is important too.

              From Your Article:

              "Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word 'withdrawal' in the written version, replacing the word 'presence.' Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the WRITTEN VERSION REMAINED THE AUTHORITATIVE ONE, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.

              The impression of a hardening Iraqi government line was reinforced the following day by comments from the National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie. He was quoted as saying that Iraq would not accept any agreement which did not specify a deadline for a full withdrawal of US troops."

              It was not a misinterpretation of Maliki's words. It was a word deliberately added by the Maliki office, and they assert that this version is the "authoritative" version. Furthermore, there's no denying the increasing calls for U.S. "timeline horizons" for withdrawal.

              Reply
            • 0%

              Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

              injest:

              What ybdogsct said. ;-)

              Also, you said:

              "withdrawal means leaving

              presence means staying."

              Again, semantics. In the context of the full quote, it means debating whether there will be a presence, who will control it, and on what terms. You could substitute the word "withdrawal" and it would mean the same thing.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                lovemylibs1 month, 3 weeks ago

                That's why you should not read any semantics into McCain's statement about Iraq. 100 years is 100 years no matter what semantics you use to describe it.

                Reply
• 0%

  Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

  Though this short op-ed does not contain many specifics, Obama does lay out a few recommendations. He also notes the need to consult with those who know more about the situation than he does to develop the tactics for withdrawal and redeployment. He also specifies the need to regain the support and help of the international community in this effort.

  In my opinion, that's an honest and thoughtful approach. What do you think?

  Reply

  14 Replies

  • 0%

    Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

    In my opinion, we must base our voting decision based upon our 'Gut Feel'.

    Now, I realize that many of my fellow Christian Conservatives will denounce me for this stance. But I must caution against this ... for after all ... our Presdient is KNOWN ... indeed PRIDES himself on his manner of leadership. He says that he leads by 'Gut Feel'.

    My Gut Feel is that Johnny McCain will make no fundamental changes to the way things have been for the last 7 plus years.

    My Gut Feel is that Johnny will Entrench our nation more deeply in Iraq ... which may then spill over into conflict with Iran.

    My Gut Feel about Johnny is that he is an ethically compromised individual .. based on me reading this article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10249...

    My Gut Feel is that Obama may indeed not fulfill his pledges.

    But my Gut Feel is that Obama will change the course our nation is on.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

      And considering that something like 65% of America feels we are on the WRONG path ... Obama can only be a good thing.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        ChefEOD1 month, 3 weeks ago

        I am not going to argue any of that Gobby, you are probably right or close on all. Except your conclusion. Any wrong path can have two directions of change; better or worse.

        Reply
  • 0%

    bigurn1 month, 3 weeks ago

    Beau, it's missing too many details. This well-crafted stump speech opinion piece is designed to reassure his Left base that he's not changing his position on Iraq; that's all.

    While Maliki does want a timetable for a reduction in forces, he has no specificity. While Iraq is not the "central front for terrorism", by definition there isn't one. That's not how terrorism works, and I can't tell if that shows ignorance or spin doctoring on Obama's part.

    Obama suggests our military is at the breaking point (it's not). But then he is suggesting we work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but we have no agreement to pursue terrorists in Pakistan. Then he offers two whole brigades for Afghanistan; I am struck by the logical discontinuity of these passages. We are either overburdened or we're not.

    Lastly, he refers in passing to the view of our country internationally. Does he think it will get better if we put troops in Pakistan? Oops, out of characters..

    Reply

    10 Replies

    • 0%

      Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

      Well, of sure it's missing details. But this op-ed was written to counter the idea that Obama has backtracked.

      Obama says he would "consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected."

      I personally think it's good for a presidential candidate to admit not having every answer to every situation, and to speak about how he'd go about getting those answers. Americans have come to expect easy and simplistic solutions from their leaders, when foreign and domestic affairs are FAR too complex for even detailed news analyses to cover.

      And no one person can know what to do about everything (regardless of what our current president might believe), especially before he has access to all the information and all the advice a president is likely to get.

      I can't find it, but there's a famous quote about the fool thinking he knows everything, and the wise man knowing he doesn't.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Spinward1 month, 3 weeks ago

        Hmmmm....

        Which other person (that we all hate) said he wanted to talk to the commanders on the ground and ensure that troop withdrawals would not jeopardize progress?

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

          But Obama would talk to those commanders "to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely." Not to "ensure that troop withdrawals would not jeopardize progress."

          In other words, he'd try not to be disruptive, though his goal is to withdraw; Bush's goal is "progress," whatever that might mean to him--and he'd only withdraw if that "progress" weren't jeopardized.

          Reply
    • 0%

      Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

      How do you know our military is not at the breaking point? We are fighting two wars and have a controversial "stop-loss" policy in place; have extended tours of duty in combat zones; have sent most of our reserves overseas; and yet continue to threaten new countries (Iran) if we don't get our way.

      I think Obama is saying we're not trying hard enough to work with Pakistan. (There's no doubt in my mind that our policy there against terrorists is not working, and that we're receiving little more than lip service in our fight against terror from Musharraf.)

      The brigades Obama offers to Afghanistan come from Iraq. I'm not sure he's speaking of placing combat troops in Pakistan.

      He did say that ending combat in Iraq will help us achieve our strategic objectives in Pakistan. (We'd certainly have more power behind threats if we had more forces available, and if we weren't undermining our public image in Iraq's neighbors.)

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        injest1 month, 3 weeks ago

        "and have a controversial "stop-loss" policy in place;"

        What's controversial about "stop-loss"?

        No one is being kept beyond their contracted enlistment (8 years).

        From 2002 through April 2008, 58,300 soldiers were affected by stop loss, or about 1% of active duty, Reserve, and National Guard troops. (oddly enough 98% of IVAW, LOL)

        45% of these soldiers are sergeants through sergeants first class, (career soldiers) in combat units.

        The rest are Special Forces (career soldiers) and needed technical skills like aviation.

        The average "stop-loss"is an extra 6.6 months.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

          Stop-loss means the service is breaking its contract with you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. (Regardless of whether you really wanted to stay active.)

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            injest1 month, 3 weeks ago

            Beau7890

            "Stop-loss means the service is breaking its contract with you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. (Regardless of whether you really wanted to stay active.)"

            "the service is breaking its contract with you"

            Bull the contract is for 8 years. NO ONE has been kept AGAINST their will for longer than 8 years (unless they committed a crime and are in the brig).

            Everyone who enlist knows this. Anyone who tells you they did not know their contract was for 8 years is lying.

            The contract has an initial period usually 4 years of active duty followed by 4 years of reserve duty which you can be recalled AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON.

            paragraph 10a of the enlistment contract, states

            If this is my initial enlistment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component, unless I am sooner discharged.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              injest1 month, 3 weeks ago

              paragraph 9c of the enlistment contract states

              In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.

              And yes this has passed all legal challenges. To put it bluntly Beau7890 you don't know what you are talking about you are factually wrong.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

                I guess I misspoke about the service "breaking" its contract with you. I should have said "implements a desultory clause in your contract which alters your expectation of an end of term of service date." It's a fully legal loophole written into the contract to which I'd bet most who sign up don't pay attention.

                I say "to-ma-to," you say "edible spheroid progeny of a herbaceous member of the Solanaceae family, specifically lycopersicum, literally meaning 'wolf-peach.' "

                _____

                You asked what was controversial about stop-loss, right?

                The Wikipedia article about stop-loss you link to has an entire section called "Controversy."

                Reply
    • 0%

      Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

      By the way, bigurn, I never mind if you post more than one comment when you run over 1000 characters. Even when I disagree with you, I still consider your comments thoughtful.

      Reply
• 0%

  Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

  From the article:

  "As I've said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in....

  "In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq's stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq's refugees."

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

    (continued)

    "Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won't have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq."

    Reply
• 0%

  Beeboppin711 month, 3 weeks ago

  It really is amazing how a person's words can be twisted like a pretzel. I have to admit that I was becoming a victim of the games that are being played in the media and that is not like me. I was upset with Obama because certain networks were making it sound as if he had flip-flopped on the war in Iraq. This article has restored some of my faith in Obama. I am glad that he has chosen to publish his views on the Iraq war in this timely manner and I appreciate Beau for alerting me to it.

  Now, where is his statement on the FISA Bill vote?

  Reply

  7 Replies

  • 0%

    jordan111 month, 3 weeks ago

    I have to admit that I was becoming a victim of the games that are being played in the media and that is not like me. I was upset with Obama because certain networks were making it sound as if he had flip-flopped on the war in Iraq.>>>

    That's why I flipped off the MSM a very long time ago. When something comes out, I wait for the emotions to simmer down, & for the facts. It used to be a journalists job to look at a story from all sides, and present the story with balance so that citizens could make informed decisions. We do not have 'journalists' of that caliber in the MSM.

    I too am waiting and compiling the reasons that Obama didn't filibuster the FISA bill. Obviously, there IS a reason. It remains to be seen if I'll agree with it.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

    Here's Obama's statement about his FISA vote:

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/r...

    It's interesting--he makes no bones about the fact that it's not the way he'd have drafted the bill, but that it's better than others that were floated.

    Again, I think it's honest and thoughtful to admit that compromise is sometimes necessary, though I haven't seen him address why he believes the current FISA law is now inadequate and must be fixed.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Radiofreeeuropa1 month, 3 weeks ago

      There was never any flip flop on Iraq, despite the sound bite talking points issued to MSM. Go back and watch the debates, Obama said redeployment would begin quickly, never gave a date for all troops to be removed, in fact said some would likely have to remain as security for diplomats expected to more involved.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

        it's quite amazing how suddenly this "flip-flop" story caught on. Where did it come from?

        Just to clarify though, he is saying here that combat brigades would be entirely redeployed or withdrawn within 16 months of his taking office.

        Reply
  • 0%

    CRYMTYPHON1 month, 3 weeks ago

    Beeboppin71's traitous attack on the american pretzel as 'twisted' is as cowardly as a hot dog facing a fat man at the fourth of july picnic.

    Not really, but I wanted to twist his words cause I am hoping a scout from the major networks will pick up my contract hey you never know.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Beeboppin711 month, 3 weeks ago

      Cute Cry!

      Reply
    • 0%

      gamahuche1 month, 3 weeks ago

      "his words"

      her words; and equally valid regardless of gender.

      Reply
• 0%

  automan9091 month, 3 weeks ago

  Just another flip flop.

  Will the real Barraq Hussein Obama please stand up?

  Reply

  7 Replies

  • 0%

    Goppy1 month, 3 weeks ago

    Awwww!

    I LOVE it when the Willful Liars and Propagandists arrive!

    These members do SO MUCH MORE than any other method in pointing out the HATE BASED nature of the Right Wing.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Radiofreeeuropa1 month, 3 weeks ago

      Never let a fact get in the way of a slogan.

      I think people for the most part have seen how that goes.

      That has been th modus operandi of the administration for the last 8 years. How's that workin' out for 'ya?

      Reply
    • 0%

      gamahuche1 month, 3 weeks ago

      automatons can't help themselves.

      Reply
  • 0%

    Sabretooth1 month, 3 weeks ago

    "Just another flip flop.

    Will the real Barraq Hussein Obama please stand up?"

    Oh boy, Mr Automan is getting desperate for material.

    Reply
  • 0%

    CRYMTYPHON1 month, 3 weeks ago

    He will stand up.

    Then he will put his hand on the bible.

    And the chief justice will swear obama in.

    Reply
  • 0%

    lum-chate1 month, 3 weeks ago

    Why does he even bother to put forth a PLAN FOR IRAQ. Even his

    most avid supporters realize by now the flip-flopper in chief will turn on a dime and devise a new plan when it suits him.

    One thing I will say about Obama, he is the candidate of CHANGE! Sportsbooks are probably taking odds on when he will CHANGE his stance on one issue after another.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

      How has his plan changed? Show me a source giving his words, rather than someone's interpretation.

      I posted this op-ed to let YOU and others know that Obama's stance is no different now than it was earlier, even though the media appears to have bought in to a false narrative.

      By the way, have you seen this article?

      http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/07/11/...

      Reply
• 0%

  Poulenc1 month, 3 weeks ago

  For me, at this point, it all boils down to which candidate is most likely to help America move forward--to sever ties with the endlessly self-serving oligarchic policies of the last eight years.

  The answer, in my opinion, is self-evident: Obama.

  Reply
• 0%

  Charlson1 month, 3 weeks ago

  Sounds like a plan, a good plan, unlike McBush.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Beau78901 month, 3 weeks ago

    Yes, and one that actually respects the fledgling Iraqi government's desire for self-determination. That's refreshing.

    Reply
• 0%

  Secret_Asian_Man1 month, 3 weeks ago

  Confucius say man who walk straight path get there sooner.

  Reply
• 0%

  bamababy1 month, 3 weeks ago

  Interesting that our own Military Leaders in Iraq are also calling for troop drawdown there. We totally missed the boat over in Afghanistan and now look. We've made this collossal mis-step in Iraq and do not have the required troops to deploy in the "other" war, remember "Operation Freedom"? We have more troops being slaughtered there than in Iraq because they are ill man to get the job done. We as usual have shor changed the most valiant our country has, our military men and women who fight and die and are left without basic needs and support from the very government they've vowed to fight for. Sad state of affairs for sure. Obama has never lost track of where our prioities should lie. The war on terrorism, that is the war in Afgahanistan or at least it was untill we invaded Iraq and drug it over there. Death met with more death and I venture to guess I am no safer today than I was on September 11, 2001.

  Reply
• 0%

  rightfromwrong1 month, 3 weeks ago

  regardless....American should leave Iraq and prove to the world it wasn't just about OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Reply