Obama remarks on Iraq prompt flip-flop charge

[Gunny]

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain's campaign again called Sen. Barack Obama a flip-flopper after the Democratic candidate held two news conferences to clarify his remarks on the Iraq war.

Obama on Thursday denied that he's shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

However, he told reporters questioning his stance that he will "continue to refine" his policies as warranted.

His comments prompted the Republican National Committee to put out an e-mail saying the presumed Democratic nominee was backing away from his position on withdrawal.

Obama called a second news conference later Thursday to reiterate that he is not changing his position.

"Apparently I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end," he said.

more ... Obama remarks on Iraq prompt flip-flop charge - CNN.com

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.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

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)....

....except Sean Hannity.

 

[Gunny]

....except Sean Hannity.

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

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.

 

[CharlestonChad]

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.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Okay, I'll oh so very carefully avoid using the f-f word.

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?

 

[Anti-PC]

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.)

 

[Anti-PC]

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.

 

[Anti-PC]

Hi Anti and welcome to the forum.

Please ignore Mattskramer who 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 examle as well as the piece Gunny used for a thread starter.)

Thanks for the welcome fox and I saw your previous post, which I thought was well done by the way. As far as the 100 years statement, I knew in what context McCain had said it and I figured it was old hat around the boards by now, so I didn't even address it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Yes, but because Obama's position here seem to change related to the way the wind is blowing, THAT is the difference between him and President Bush who tends to adopt a position and stick with it until he is compelled to realize that a change of course is necessary. President Bush and Senator McCain have not always agreed on how the war should be managed in Iraq and now, with advantage of hindsight, we know that Senator McCain was the one more often right. And as Commander-in-Chief, a Senator McCain with his maybe better instincts and advantage of hindsight, would probably be an overall more efficient manager of the war than President Bush has been.

And as for what we can expect from Senator Obama as Commander in Chief? I'm sorry, but given his MANY declared positions on what to do about Iraq so far, I don't think anybody has a clue.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

I did not misinterpret it. I did not even paraphrase it. You can see the video for yourself. I think that the video is long enough to show full context. It was not cut at the end of just one sentence. Watch it and listen to it for yourself. It includes references to other nations. It includes his disclaimer: “as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed”.

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.)

The position that Obama has is a quote that comes straight from his web site. When did he contradict himself or change his mind about the time-table? It would seem to me that if he changed his mind, he would have changed his statement on his web site. Please point out to me explicitly the incompatibility of his official web site position and something that he said. Also, provide a link. I’d like to compare them for myself.

 

[mattskramer]

And as for what we can expect from Senator Obama as Commander in Chief? I'm sorry, but given his MANY declared positions on what to do about Iraq so far, I don't think anybody has a clue.

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.

That is clear to me.

 

[Anti-PC]

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.

That is clear to me.

So he said he would do this regardless of what the Commanders on the ground said?

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not misinterpret it. I did not even paraphrase it. You can see the video for yourself. I think that the video is long enough to show full context. It was not cut at the end of just one sentence. Watch it and listen to it for yourself. It includes references to other nations. It includes his disclaimer: “as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed”.

That clip has been used to misrepresent McCain's position re that 100 years so often so as to make it particularly disgraceful to keep using it for that purpose. I could of course be wrong, but my perception is that you fully intended to leave that wrong impression on this thread with your statement. and hoped that the incomplete clip would reinforce it.

The position that Obama has is a quote that comes straight from his web site. When did he contradict himself or change his mind about the time-table? It would seem to me that if he changed his mind, he would have changed his statement on his web site. Please point out to me explicitly the incompatibility of his official web site position and something that he said. Also, provide a link. I’d like to compare them for myself.

Gunny provided a link to the statement being discussed in this thread. I provided another related one in a previous post. As for the 'list', it is all valid but I don't have the links on this computer and don't have the time right now to hunt them up--I did have the dates/sources however. But anyway, Gunny's linked article and the one I linked should at least give some pause for thought re the statement you continue to cite as his absolute, unchanging, and clear opinion.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

I am not confused. I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. Obama may listen to commanders. The commanders might give their opinions about what people they think can leave and what replacement services might be needed before the 16 month deadline that Obama mentioned is reached. Comments that they make and suggestions that they give do not make timetables null and void.

My mother wanted me to have the lawn mowed and my room clean in 4 hours. We talked about how I could get it done so quickly. She gave me pointers and I gave her suggestion. Yet, in the end, the lawn was mowed and my room was clean in 4 hours. If I didn’t get it done in time, she would have probably blistered my butt.

I prefer the notion of striving toward a deadline. Bush and McCain seem disinterested in such a thing. Without one, it looks like we have a war that would go on indefinitely. We defeated Saddam. Iraq has a new government, military, and police force. It is time to bring our soldiers home and force Iraq to take care of itself. If Iraq is not ready to go it alone in 16 months, too bad.

 

[greenpartyaz]

Barack Obama is labeled a flip-flopper because he thinks that adjustments in Iraq policy are necessary. He will re-evaluate the situation and make the necessary adjustments necessary, after he returns from the trip. This sounds like sound policy to me. Evaluating the situation, and making adjustments to ensure the proper outcome, from what you have learned. This is the same stupid, hard-headed military and administration leadership, policy makers that have royally fucked up this war from the beginning. And now we should listen to them on sound Iraq policy? Obama has not changed his policy of the 16 month draw-down of American troops. The Manchurian Candidate "McCain" is the ultimate flip-flopper: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c]YouTube - McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare[/ame]

 

[Anti-PC]

I am not confused. I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. Obama may listen to commanders. The commanders might give their opinions about what people they think can leave and what replacement services might be needed before the 16 month deadline that Obama mentioned is reached. Comments that they make and suggestions that they give do not make timetables null and void.

My mother wanted me to have the lawn mowed and my room clean in 4 hours. We talked about how I could get it done so quickly. She gave me pointers and I gave her suggestion. Yet, in the end, the lawn was mowed and my room was clean in 4 hours. If I didn’t get it done in time, she would have probably blistered my butt.

I prefer the notion of striving toward a deadline. Bush and McCain seem disinterested in such a thing. Without one, it looks like we have a war that would go on indefinitely. We defeated Saddam. Iraq has a new government, military, and police force. It is time to bring our soldiers home and force Iraq to take care of itself. If Iraq is not ready to go it alone in 16 months, too bad.

First of all, you comparing getting an entire military force out of a country overseas and back home in an orderly, safe, and timely fashion, to you having to clean your room and and mow the lawn in 4 hours or get your butt blistered, is ridiculous. Second, I believe your last sentence says it all for me: "If Iraq is not ready to go it alone in 16 months, too bad."

 

[Chris]

First of all, you comparing getting an entire military force out of a country overseas and back home in an orderly, safe, and timely fashion, to you having to clean your room and and mow the lawn in 4 hours or get your butt blistered, is ridiculous. Second, I believe your last sentence says it all for me: "If Iraq is not ready to go it alone in 16 months, too bad."

F*ck the Shia in Iraq. Bring the troops home and put them on the Mexican border.