Obama remarks on Iraq prompt flip-flop charge

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gunny, Jul 5, 2008.

  1. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Anyone, regardless political affiliation that uses the term "flip-flop" (and nobody can say it as many times in one breath as that animated cadaver Alan Colmes) should have duct tape welded over their freakin' mouthes.:mad:
     
  2. Dirt McGirt
    Offline

    Dirt McGirt Bad Mother****er

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Thanks Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +503
    ....except Sean Hannity. :razz:
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    That dude doesn't say it. He's a freakin' muppet. Frank Oz has his hand up his ass to make his head bounce around on his shoulders and his hands flail about (and adjust his flag lapel pin), and likewise does the bass-less voice.

    Colmes though has definitely got his mouth hooked up to 225 Mercruiser and the throttle wide open.
     
  4. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    I’m confused by your comment. Are you saying that Sean Hannity never uses the phrase “flip flop” or that someone makes him say “flip flop”? It is my understanding that each individual is responsible for his own statements. Anyway, as I expected, the dirt is starting to fly from both camps. McCain and Obama better get ready to take a bath to get all of the mud off of their bodies come early November.
     
  5. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    This is confusing, because isn't McCain the flip-flop candidate this year? Anyways, if Obama gets soft on ending the war, then he might lose my vote along with A LOT of support from young people. I don't think I can make myself vote for a candidate who would continue to send my friends into bush's failed war of terror.
     
  6. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,681
    Thanks Received:
    10,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,387
    Okay, I'll oh so very carefully avoid using the f-f word. :eusa_angel:

    But, how about a sampling of some of the history re Obama's stances on Iraq?

    October 2, 2002, Chicago Wearing a war is not an option pin, he thrilled the anti-war rally by disparaging the Iraq war as a "dumb war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." (Multiple sources)

    The Audacity of Hope When America was obtaining clear victories on the ground in Iraq, Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, "I began to suspect that I might have been wrong [about the war]"


    March 28, 2003, on CNN, Obama claimed that he, "Absolutely want to make sure that the troops have sufficient support to be able to win." He was invested in winning at that point.


    Democratic National Convention July 2004 His only mention of the war was, "There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it." The day after his speech, Senator Obama told reporters that the United States had an "absolute obligation " to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. He stated that failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster and would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective". (CNN).


    Same month He was no longer certain how he would have voted. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." (The New York Times on July 26.)


    2004 election To keep in line with his party's candidates Kerry and Edwards, who had voted for the Iraq War, he told The New York Times, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought [the war] was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence,"


    After the election Obama regained his certainty on the Charlie Rose Show. When Rose asked him if he would have voted against the Iraq War resolution had he been in Congress, Obama's answer was a simple, "Yes."


    July 2004 Obama told the Chicago Tribune "[t] here's not that much difference between my position [on the war] and George Bush's position at this stage."

    But we'll avoid the f-f word, but who wouldn't be in awe of such clarity of vision and strength of conviction (cough) on a key issue in the presidential race?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Anti-PC
    Offline

    Anti-PC Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    I'm just trying to figure out exactly how Obama's position on Iraq is different than President Bush's. As far as I can tell, Obama is saying exactly what Bush has been saying the entire time. Maybe someone can explain the difference to me. BTW, I'm fairly new here, so hello all.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2008
  8. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Bush is not running for president. Bush will be out of office come 2009. McCain is the Republican candidate for president.

    Read his perspective here:

    John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President

    He does not seem to provide any specifics concerning our leaving Iraq. Yet, here is his comment in which he says that it is fine with him if American soldiers remain in Iraq for 100 years.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk]YouTube - McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me"[/ame]

    On the other hand, here is Obama’s position:

    Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Iraq

    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.

    You decide. I prefer Obama’s strategy.
     
  9. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,681
    Thanks Received:
    10,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,387
    Hi Anti and welcome to the forum.

    I think Mattskramer in all due respect picked two things out of the whole history and misrepresented one of those.

    The one he misrepresented was McCain's "100 year" statement which, when put into its proper context, was not in any way suggesting prolonged combat but was representing it as the same kind of presence we have had in Germany and Japan for the past 60 years, our presence in Korea and any number of other places around the world where we have troops based for both peaceful and strategic reasons.

    Re Obama's position, that is the whole thesis of the thread--he has said what Mattskramer has said and then he has made numerous statements that reverse or change that. (See my immediately preceding post for example as well as the piece Gunny used for a thread starter.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2008
  10. Anti-PC
    Offline

    Anti-PC Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    Well first, thanks for pointing out to me that Bush is not running for president again, because that was not blatently clear to me. Also Mattskramer, you seem to be more concrete in what you think Obama said, as compared to what he actually said. But i can understand why you might be confused because he is talkin out of both sides of his mouth, just like every other typical politician.

    While he is saying he is setting a timetable for withdraw, he is also saying he is going to listen to the Commanders on the ground. Now, unless he is just listening to them just to hear them talk, then his timetable is null and void isn't it? I mean, if they say that his plan is not going to work, then what is he going to do? Ignore that? No, he is going to listen, just as Bush has this entire time. He did say he would continue to refine his policies as warranted did he not? But hey, it's just a difference of opinion between us i guess, because nothing he is saying there is concrete and certain as far as getting out in 16 months is concerned.
     

Share This Page