RY62
Senior member
Something different from Obama's questionable judgement regarding his close relationship with the controversial Rev Wright.
From an American Thinker Article on March 14,2008:
Senator Obama realizes that his lack of experience and track record are liabilities in his quest for the Presidency. His campaign instead touts that he has superior judgment and that this judgment trumps experience. In his own words, "foreign policy is all about judgment".
A timeline of Obama wavering
Here is a convenient timeline of his changing positions (in his own words):
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."
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". (This history is beginning to get more attention -- see below).
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."
As for the troop withdrawal,
November 2005 speech He called for a gradual withdrawal of forces. "Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw'"
December 2005 He told the Chicago Tribune, "It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear, succinct message: 'Let's bring our troops home...But whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is."
January 2007 (just before announcing his run for the Presidency), for example, he outlined a plan to begin "redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007" and "remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008."
Today, he vows to "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."
The AP reported it this way in July 2007: "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." .
Obama and obligations
The following is a statement startling in its implications, and gives us insight into Barack Obama's reliability. In 2004, according to the Boston Globe, he stated:
...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.
That was a commitment to the Iraqi people -- an "absolute" promise that we would hold paramount our obligation to provide them security, to protect them from the ravages that would flow from a failed state. Yet a mere three years later he was ready to throw them to the wolves, genocide be damned.
This willingness of Senator Obama to turn his back on something he proclaimed an "absolute obligation" should be particular concern to the millions of supporters of Israel in America. When campaigning, Senator Obama has made similar promises regarding the safety and security of Israel? How long will those promises last? Until January, 2009?
When you start actually looking it becomes clear that Obama does not have good judgement. He, in fact, leans whichever way the political wind is blowing and takes whatever position he thinks will further him along. This is evident not only in his position on the war but the fact that he embraced the controversial Rev Wright when it worked to his advantage of proving to the Black community that he was "black enough" to deserve their support only to cast him aside when his long known views became a liability to Obama.
From an American Thinker Article on March 14,2008:
Senator Obama realizes that his lack of experience and track record are liabilities in his quest for the Presidency. His campaign instead touts that he has superior judgment and that this judgment trumps experience. In his own words, "foreign policy is all about judgment".
A timeline of Obama wavering
Here is a convenient timeline of his changing positions (in his own words):
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."
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". (This history is beginning to get more attention -- see below).
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."
As for the troop withdrawal,
November 2005 speech He called for a gradual withdrawal of forces. "Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw'"
December 2005 He told the Chicago Tribune, "It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear, succinct message: 'Let's bring our troops home...But whether that's the best policy right now, I don't feel comfortable saying it is."
January 2007 (just before announcing his run for the Presidency), for example, he outlined a plan to begin "redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007" and "remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008."
Today, he vows to "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."
The AP reported it this way in July 2007: "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." .
Obama and obligations
The following is a statement startling in its implications, and gives us insight into Barack Obama's reliability. In 2004, according to the Boston Globe, he stated:
...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.
That was a commitment to the Iraqi people -- an "absolute" promise that we would hold paramount our obligation to provide them security, to protect them from the ravages that would flow from a failed state. Yet a mere three years later he was ready to throw them to the wolves, genocide be damned.
This willingness of Senator Obama to turn his back on something he proclaimed an "absolute obligation" should be particular concern to the millions of supporters of Israel in America. When campaigning, Senator Obama has made similar promises regarding the safety and security of Israel? How long will those promises last? Until January, 2009?
When you start actually looking it becomes clear that Obama does not have good judgement. He, in fact, leans whichever way the political wind is blowing and takes whatever position he thinks will further him along. This is evident not only in his position on the war but the fact that he embraced the controversial Rev Wright when it worked to his advantage of proving to the Black community that he was "black enough" to deserve their support only to cast him aside when his long known views became a liability to Obama.
