Posted on 07/23/2008 11:08:23 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Senator Obama refuses to be boxed in between what he considers two “false choices”, either:
1) …On such and such date, come Hell or high water we’ve gotten our troops out, and be blind to anything that happens in intermediate months
2) …completely defer to whatever the commanders on the ground say (because his military and strategic knowledge is better than theirs)
By dismissing out of hand the absoluteness of a calender date by which all Americans will be out of Iraq, Senator Obama has just capitulated the political left’s dogma for the past six years (a debate that started in 2002 before the invasion in 2003). Since the time of the DLC Conference in early 2002, Democrats have demanded a deadline for the war, a schedule, and President Bush has resisted. Instead, President Bush has offered various plans for Iraq which since 2003 have included “benchmarks” which would enable US forces to withdraw; actual accomplishments rather than some sort of pass/fail political challenge based on dates on a calender.
Senator Obama no longer sees the dates on a calender as the important thing.
Now, contrary to his own party’s demands since 2002, he will base his own Iraq policy on a bigger picture than gotcha-politics (the only thing that dates on a calender were really intended).
Buh-bye nutroots. Your dreams of bringing the troops home regardless of the situation in Iraq…is now over. Senator Obama is effectively endorsing the same future Iraq policy on President Bush’s benchmark strategy (albeit with perhaps different benchmarks since we are talking half a year from now), and Senator McCain’s commitment to accomplishments rather than politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
And here- to add to the list:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTk1Yzk1ZTgwZDc2YjJlZTk1NjEyMzFjNzgxNGE0MjY=
Obama, Without Preconditions or Preparation [Byron York]
The McCain campaign is pointing out that it was one year ago today, during a Democratic debate, that Barack Obama was asked the famous would-you-meet-Ahmadinejad-without-preconditions question. This was it:
QUESTION: In the spirit of…bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous.
This morning, in Israel, Obama was asked whether he would still give the same answer. His response:
I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation.
You can check out the transcript of the whole 2007 debate here. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/24transcript.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1216836944-0aKA0n1Jk0J4Jlx+uNRsOg
Obama just didn’t talk about preparation.
07/23 12:55 PM
ernie,
lets build more sand castles
just for fun
If you have time...some good comments and wrestling back and forth in the FA comments...
Dems love to build sand castles.
So Obama, with no military experience, plans to ignore what the commanders on the ground recommend? That sounds about right.
Thanks Ernest.
Mr. Obama in Iraq Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?
Washington Post | Editorial
Posted on 07/23/2008 3:54:28 AM PDT by WilliamReading
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2049842/posts
[snip] by Mr. Obama’s own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq’s principal political leaders actually support his strategy. [end]
JULY 22, 2008
Obama Backs UN Bill to Disarm Americans
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show
I think Israeli reporters gave him the toughest questions of his trip. One questioned whether they could believe him or would he change his position again.
HORRAY OBAMA SUPPORTS CHANGE BECAUSE WE CAN CHANGE AND CHANGE IS GOOD AND WE BELIEVE IN CHANGE!!!!!
(/sarcasm)
Yeah, well ... they're the ones who are actually on the front lines of the WOT on a daily basis. They have a rather personal interest in what Obama might do.
A close likeness...ears a bit small however.
********************EXCERPT INTRO*********************
Washington Post ^ | July 23, 2008 | Max Boot
Posted on Tue 22 Jul 2008 10:09:28 PM PDT by flyfree
There is some irony in the fact that Democrats, after years of deriding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a hopeless bungler and conniving Shiite sectarian, are now treating as sacrosanct his suggestion that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Naturally this is because his position seems to support that of Barack Obama.
A little skepticism is in order here. The prime minister has political motives for what he's saying -- whatever that is. An anonymous Iraqi official told the state-owned Al-Sabah newspaper, "Maliki thinks that Obama is most likely to win in the presidential election" and that "he's got to take preemptive steps before Obama gets to the White House." By smoothing Obama's maiden voyage abroad as the Democratic nominee, Maliki may figure that he will collect chits that he can call in later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.