Obama signals "flexibility" on Iraq withdrwal

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Flexibility? Oh no, anything but flexibility, please.

Ya no kidding. Everyone is so afraid that what they want will not happen that the average consensus of those who do not support Obama is that the idea of a candidate taking a flexible approach is nothing more than an excuse to be used later to dodge the "liar" bullet if someone claims that a promise has been broken. They seem to forget that while they do not want their candidates position on certain matters to change that doesn't mean that the world around us is not going to change between now and when it is time to take action. To not be flexible as the President is downright foolish even if the candidate's original position on a matter favors what you believe is right. Not to mention that even rock solid promises can easily be broken as long as they are not on paper.

And how exactly did the issue of marijuana decriminalization change?
And how exactly did the issue of campaign finance reform change?
And how exactly did the issue of wiretapping change?

What we have in Obama is someone without a concrete political philosophy from which he bases his stances on the issues. Instead, his stances are based off the latest public polls and his electability. What he is for one week, he may be against next week.

Certainly in regards to war, strategies need to be adaptive. But this isn't relevant to the many times he has changed his stance on the issues.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Flexibility? Oh no, anything but flexibility, please.

Exactly. Once you make a decision you stick with it right or wrong. I'd much rather be stubbornly wrong than a flexible flip-flopper! :laugh:

The real funny thing is most of those who are whining the loudest are the same ones in the 'surge is working' circle jerk. Go figure.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre
And how exactly did the issue of marijuana decriminalization change?
And how exactly did the issue of campaign finance reform change?
And how exactly did the issue of wiretapping change?

What we have in Obama is someone without a concrete political philosophy from which he bases his stances on the issues. Instead, his stances are based off the latest public polls and his electability. What he is for one week, he may be against next week.

Certainly in regards to war, strategies need to be adaptive. But this isn't relevant to the many times he has changed his stance on the issues.

So what would you prefer? You only have one other choice you know. That choice involves promises made by a candidate which may not happen at all. That or will happen anyways regardless of whether or not that candidate truly believes that it is the best decision for the country when it comes time to push the GO button because they are in campaign mode for their entire presidency. I have dealt with enough of that nonsense kind of thinking for the past 8 years. I want the guy who is capable of taking in new information and reevaluating his position as he sees fit in such a way that he believe is best for this country. Obama has convinced me that he is capable of thinking like that. You believe that 100% of his reason for such things is just to bag votes. I cannot disprove that anymore than you can prove it so in the end we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mxylplyx]

This is no big surprise. Sometimes elected officials cant follow the relatively ignorant, impulsive desires of the general(ly retarded) electorate. He just said what would get him through the primaries, which usually means catering to the nuts, and then starts moving back towards reality for the general election. It doesnt take a genious to foresee the disaster that would take place if we quickly withdrew troops, and we would receive full blame for that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Flexibility? Oh no, anything but flexibility, please.

Ya no kidding. Everyone is so afraid that what they want will not happen that the average consensus of those who do not support Obama is that the idea of a candidate taking a flexible approach is nothing more than an excuse to be used later to dodge the "liar" bullet if someone claims that a promise has been broken. They seem to forget that while they do not want their candidates position on certain matters to change that doesn't mean that the world around us is not going to change between now and when it is time to take action. To not be flexible as the President is downright foolish even if the candidate's original position on a matter favors what you believe is right. Not to mention that even rock solid promises can easily be broken as long as they are not on paper.

And how exactly did the issue of marijuana decriminalization change?
And how exactly did the issue of campaign finance reform change?
And how exactly did the issue of wiretapping change?

What we have in Obama is someone without a concrete political philosophy from which he bases his stances on the issues. Instead, his stances are based off the latest public polls and his electability. What he is for one week, he may be against next week.

Certainly in regards to war, strategies need to be adaptive. But this isn't relevant to the many times he has changed his stance on the issues.

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: AAjax
Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign is signalling more flexibility on his pledge to quickly pull U.S. troops out of Iraq if elected as part of a move toward the political centre.

Man, if Obama dosent win the election he can sure make some $$ patenting that bicycle with a reverse gear. So yet another turn around from his stated campaign vows, I quess it should be no surprise. This is gonna be one of the biggest loose/loose elections ever.

Did you people (i.e. morons who think this is a "flip flop") even read the article or are you people really that dense?

Aides say Obama is still committed to the 16-month goal but they appear to be leaving him wiggle room now that the U.S. troop surge is credited with bringing some stability there.

How is that a "turn around"? Illiteracy is running rampant in this forum. :thumbsdown:

There's little reality left on this forum anymore it seems. See my posts earlier this thread.

Obama has been consistent on his Iraq withdrawal policy at least since he introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007.

What happened here is that the spoon-fed talking points over on the right started generating panic a few months ago that Obama wanted an immediate withdrawal, would 'cut and run' leaving Iraq in chaos, etc. Then, they are spoon-fed the actual details of Obama's plan, which they then term as a 'flip-flop' in contrast to the bullshit they were led to believe before.
In short, their chocolate ration is routinely fscked with, and they praise Big Brother every time it happens.

edit: granted, the opposite took place with the far left, spurred by panic over McCain's '100 years' comment, and some irrational hope regarding an immediate Iraq pull-out, but that's just further evidence of the reality vacuum in this election.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
So what would you prefer?

I would prefer a candidate with integrity, and an actual political philosophy.

You only have one other choice you know.

Bullshit, and this is the kind of mentality that has ruined this country.

I want the guy who is capable of taking in new information and reevaluating his position as he sees fit in such a way that he believe is best for this country.

And I have stated above that this is NOT the case. Obama has changed his stances on issues that did not involve "new information." This is just apologetic bullshit, and Party over Principle, something that, on both sides, is destroying this country.

It doesn't matter what Obama says or does, the apologists will just fall back on "he's better than McCain." America desperately needs more than that.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
So what would you prefer?

I would prefer a candidate with integrity, and an actual political philosophy.

You only have one other choice you know.

Bullshit, and this is the kind of mentality that has ruined this country.

I want the guy who is capable of taking in new information and reevaluating his position as he sees fit in such a way that he believe is best for this country.

And I have stated above that this is NOT the case. Obama has changed his stances on issues that did not involve "new information." This is just apologetic bullshit, and Party over Principle, something that, on both sides, is destroying this country.

It doesn't matter what Obama says or does, the apologists will just fall back on "he's better than McCain." America desperately needs more than that.

Well, when option 3 comes along I will give it a fair evaluation just as I did options 1 and 2. Also, I will say again that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree because neither of us can truly prove 100% of what we are claiming. Trust me. I really don't like the situation in its entirety any more than you do.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: loki8481
really, it's just funny that the Obamites trashed Hillary for the same kind of centrist appeasement that they're giving Obama a pass on now.

Haha. One of Hillary's problems in the primary was her overconfidence. She was so sure she was going to be the nominee that she started off right away campaigning as if she was in the general election. You don't run an appeasement, err I mean centrist campaign in the primary.

As has been pointed out, run to right/left during the primary. Run back to the center during the gen elec. Hillary violated this unwritten rule.

Fern

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, I will say again that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree because neither of us can truly prove 100% of what we are claiming.

I don't see it that way. I named three issues above on which Obama changed his stance, and none of those three were due to any kind of "new information." It's not a case of agreeing nor disagreeing, and just seeing it is for what it is.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: loki8481
really, it's just funny that the Obamites trashed Hillary for the same kind of centrist appeasement that they're giving Obama a pass on now.

Haha. One of Hillary's problems in the primary was her overconfidence. She was so sure she was going to be the nominee that she started off right away campaigning as if she was in the general election. You don't run an appeasement, err I mean centrist campaign in the primary.

As has been pointed out, run to right/left during the primary. Run back to the center during the gen elec. Hillary violated this unwritten rule.

Fern

Hillary's campaign was a train wreck comedy of errors. Had she won the nom, she would have made the 2004 Kerry campaign look good.
It wasn't even this unwritten rule either. Her managers were seemingly ignorant of basic campaign strategy, rules and laws, and even polling math.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, I will say again that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree because neither of us can truly prove 100% of what we are claiming.

I don't see it that way. I named three issues above on which Obama changed his stance, and none of those three were due to any kind of "new information." It's not a case of agreeing nor disagreeing, and just seeing it is for what it is.

You do not have proof of everything he is changing his stance on in addition to all of the details regarding why he is making those changes. You need both and they need to be complete in order for it to be worth anything. What you do have is a theory which happens to fit the facts. That's all I have as well. That is all any of us have about either candidate.

So, for the third time, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[PokerGuy]

I was against flip-flopping before I was for it. Now I'm all for flop-flipping, but I was against not flop-flipping before I was for it.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: AAjax
Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign is signalling more flexibility on his pledge to quickly pull U.S. troops out of Iraq if elected as part of a move toward the political centre.

Man, if Obama dosent win the election he can sure make some $$ patenting that bicycle with a reverse gear. So yet another turn around from his stated campaign vows, I quess it should be no surprise. This is gonna be one of the biggest loose/loose elections ever.

Did you people (i.e. morons who think this is a "flip flop") even read the article or are you people really that dense?

Aides say Obama is still committed to the 16-month goal but they appear to be leaving him wiggle room now that the U.S. troop surge is credited with bringing some stability there.

How is that a "turn around"? Illiteracy is running rampant in this forum. :thumbsdown:

There's little reality left on this forum anymore it seems. See my posts earlier this thread.

Obama has been consistent on his Iraq withdrawal policy at least since he introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007.

What happened here is that the spoon-fed talking points over on the right started generating panic a few months ago that Obama wanted an immediate withdrawal, would 'cut and run' leaving Iraq in chaos, etc. Then, they are spoon-fed the actual details of Obama's plan, which they then term as a 'flip-flop' in contrast to the bullshit they were led to believe before.
In short, their chocolate ration is routinely fscked with, and they praise Big Brother every time it happens.

edit: granted, the opposite took place with the far left, spurred by panic over McCain's '100 years' comment, and some irrational hope regarding an immediate Iraq pull-out, but that's just further evidence of the reality vacuum in this election.

Yup. People believe spoon-fed propoganda and can't think for themselves. This article about Obama's aides saying he now has "wiggle-room" (but still remains committed to the 16 month goal) does not constitute a flip flop. Gullible with a capital G.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Flexibility? Oh no, anything but flexibility, please.

Ya no kidding. Everyone is so afraid that what they want will not happen that the average consensus of those who do not support Obama is that the idea of a candidate taking a flexible approach is nothing more than an excuse to be used later to dodge the "liar" bullet if someone claims that a promise has been broken. They seem to forget that while they do not want their candidates position on certain matters to change that doesn't mean that the world around us is not going to change between now and when it is time to take action. To not be flexible as the President is downright foolish even if the candidate's original position on a matter favors what you believe is right. Not to mention that even rock solid promises can easily be broken as long as they are not on paper.

And how exactly did the issue of marijuana decriminalization change?
And how exactly did the issue of campaign finance reform change?
And how exactly did the issue of wiretapping change?

What we have in Obama is someone without a concrete political philosophy from which he bases his stances on the issues. Instead, his stances are based off the latest public polls and his electability. What he is for one week, he may be against next week.

Certainly in regards to war, strategies need to be adaptive. But this isn't relevant to the many times he has changed his stance on the issues.

:thumbsup:

Oh come on. You expect a candidate not to consider his or her electability? Because guys like Ron Paul don't give a sh!t about electability, they are never going to be president. Its the sad truth..but when you're dealing with the general public, one absolutely has to put electability high on the priority list if they want to actually win.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Oh come on. You expect a candidate not to consider his or her electability? Because guys like Ron Paul don't give a sh!t about electability, they are never going to be president. Its the sad truth..but when you're dealing with the general public, one absolutely has to put electability high on the priority list if they want to actually win.

It's true. There is a political game out there and you need to play it so that it works in your favor if you expect to get anything accomplished. Obama is well aware of that. So is McCain.

 

[Corbett]

The surge was considered a success months ago when Obama was still neck and neck with Clinton, yet Obama was still promising to get our troops out immediately. Why wasn't he "flexible" about it then like he is now?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett
The surge was considered a success months ago when Obama was still neck and neck with Clinton, yet Obama was still promising to get our troops out immediately. Why wasn't he "flexible" about it then like he is now?

Define what you mean by 'get our troops out immediately'.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Corbett
The surge was considered a success months ago when Obama was still neck and neck with Clinton and Obama was promising to get our troops out immediately. Why wasn't he "flexible" about it then like he is now?

From the article:

"But he has said over and over again we have to be as careful getting out as George Bush was careless getting in. So he will redeploy our forces responsibly, at a rate that our commanders say is safe and sustainable."

Obama has stood his ground with that idea for a long time now including back when he was neck and neck with Clinton. What is your issue with this exactly? Would you prefer him to rush in head first leaving a lot of room for careless mistakes? This is a serious issue that requires paying attention to detail. You cannot pay attention to detail properly unless you are take your time.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Oh come on. You expect a candidate not to consider his or her electability? Because guys like Ron Paul don't give a sh!t about electability, they are never going to be president. Its the sad truth..but when you're dealing with the general public, one absolutely has to put electability high on the priority list if they want to actually win.

It's true. There is a political game out there and you need to play it so that it works in your favor if you expect to get anything accomplished. Obama is well aware of that. So is McCain.

Yeah, and when he wins, and electability is no longer an issue, is he going to go back to supporting the decriminalization of marijuana? Stand up to those trampling on the 4th amendment? Keep his promise of withdrawing the vast majority of troops in Iraq within 16 months? Keep zero permanent bases in Iraq?

Because if he doesn't, I'm damn sure gonna be here bitching. And likely, listening to you all apologize as well.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Yeah, and when he wins, and electability is no longer an issue, is he going to go back to supporting the decriminalization of marijuana? Stand up to those trampling on the 4th amendment? Keep his promise of withdrawing the vast majority of troops in Iraq within 16 months? Keep zero permanent bases in Iraq?

Because if he doesn't, I'm damn sure gonna be here bitching. And likely, listening to you all apologize as well.

Well, as is with every election, the answer to that million dollar question is "only time will tell." Like I said earlier, I really don't like this anymore than you do. I think that is the one thing most Americans agree on during an election year.

 

[AAjax]

[/quote]

"Oh come on. You expect a candidate not to consider his or her selling out? Because guys like Ron Paul don't give a sh!t about selling out, they are never going to be president. Its the sad truth..but when you're dealing with the general public, one absolutely has to put selling out high on the priority list if they want to actually win. "


[/quote]

fixed

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AAjax

"Oh come on. You expect a candidate not to consider his or her selling out? Because guys like Ron Paul don't give a sh!t about selling out, they are never going to be president. Its the sad truth..but when you're dealing with the general public, one absolutely has to put selling out high on the priority list if they want to actually win. "

fixed

Holding your chin up too high during an election year does not get you elected.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Corbett
The surge was considered a success months ago when Obama was still neck and neck with Clinton and Obama was promising to get our troops out immediately. Why wasn't he "flexible" about it then like he is now?

From the article:

"But he has said over and over again we have to be as careful getting out as George Bush was careless getting in. So he will redeploy our forces responsibly, at a rate that our commanders say is safe and sustainable."

Obama has stood his ground with that idea for a long time now including back when he was neck and neck with Clinton. What is your issue with this exactly? Would you prefer him to rush in head first leaving a lot of room for careless mistakes? This is a serious issue that requires paying attention to detail. You cannot pay attention to detail properly unless you are take your time.

September 12, 2007 · Sen. Barack Obama's plan for Iraq includes immediate withdrawal of one or two brigades every month and completing a full withdrawal by the end of 2008.



The first part of this strategy begins by exerting the greatest leverage we have on the Iraqi government - a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months.

When I first advocated steps along these lines over a year ago, I had hoped that this phased redeployment could begin by the end of 2006. Such a timetable may now need to begin in 2007, but begin it must. For only through this phased redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the U.S. is not going to hold together this country indefinitely - that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq.

Let me be more specific. The President should announce to the Iraqi people that our policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces















For all the chatter about Obama adviser Samantha Power's calling Clinton a "monster," another set of remarks made on her book tour in the United Kingdom may be equally threatening to the Obama campaign: Comments in a BBC interview that express a lack of confidence that Obama will be able to carry through his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months.

"He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he?s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," she said at one point in the interview.

Power downplayed Obama's commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama's Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which says that Obama "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

"What he?s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you ? at best case scenario ? will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That?s what they?re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.








Bringing Our Troops Home
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.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Corbett
The surge was considered a success months ago when Obama was still neck and neck with Clinton and Obama was promising to get our troops out immediately. Why wasn't he "flexible" about it then like he is now?

From the article:

"But he has said over and over again we have to be as careful getting out as George Bush was careless getting in. So he will redeploy our forces responsibly, at a rate that our commanders say is safe and sustainable."

Obama has stood his ground with that idea for a long time now including back when he was neck and neck with Clinton. What is your issue with this exactly? Would you prefer him to rush in head first leaving a lot of room for careless mistakes? This is a serious issue that requires paying attention to detail. You cannot pay attention to detail properly unless you are take your time.

September 12, 2007 · Sen. Barack Obama's plan for Iraq includes immediate withdrawal of one or two brigades every month and completing a full withdrawal by the end of 2008.



The first part of this strategy begins by exerting the greatest leverage we have on the Iraqi government - a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months.

When I first advocated steps along these lines over a year ago, I had hoped that this phased redeployment could begin by the end of 2006. Such a timetable may now need to begin in 2007, but begin it must. For only through this phased redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the U.S. is not going to hold together this country indefinitely - that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq.

Let me be more specific. The President should announce to the Iraqi people that our policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces















For all the chatter about Obama adviser Samantha Power's calling Clinton a "monster," another set of remarks made on her book tour in the United Kingdom may be equally threatening to the Obama campaign: Comments in a BBC interview that express a lack of confidence that Obama will be able to carry through his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months.

"He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he?s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," she said at one point in the interview.

Power downplayed Obama's commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama's Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which says that Obama "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

"What he?s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you ? at best case scenario ? will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That?s what they?re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.








Bringing Our Troops Home
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.

Thanks for helping prove my point.