Obama: More waffle! This time super-size it!
During his quest to get the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama made some direct statements and actions rejecting the Petraeus strategy for Iraq. His own policy toward Iraq is a direct rejection of same. In January 2007, he said the following:
Meanwhile, Obama said he told the president directly that an "escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake." Obama was among more than a dozen senators of both parties who were invited to the White House to discuss his plans for Iraq. Bush plans to continue to meet with lawmakers and is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy next week in an address to the nation. "It was an open-ended discussion," Obama told reporters after the meeting. "The president asked for our opinions. I think both Republican and Democratic senators expressed grave concern about the situation in Iraq.""I personally indicated that an escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake and that we need a political accommodation, rather than a military approach to the sectarian violence there," said Obama. Asked for the president's reaction, Obama said: "I think he is considering it very carefully. They've obviously run that possibility through the traps. He did not say definitively that that's the decision he had made." No specific figure was mentioned for the proposed increase in troops during the meeting, Obama said.
Around the same time, Obama also said this on MSNBC:
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse: I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there.
Not long after on Face the Nation, Obama said this:
We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil
war. And until we acknowledge that reality, we can send 15,000 more troops,
20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region
or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believe that that
is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.
Also in January 2007, Obama introduced his own piece of legislation, the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which capped troop levels at numbers no higher than what was there on January 10, 2007, and required that "redeployment" begin no later than May 1, 2007, with all combat brigades removed by March 31, 2008. This wholesale withdrawal could only be suspended if 13 benchmarks were met by the Iraqi government, and that suspension is only temporary. Obama's proposed legislation was a direct rejection of the Petraeus strategy.
On February 16, 2007, the House approved the following resolution: "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." It passed 246-182, but the Senate version failed to clear cloture. Obama voted in favor of putting the resolution to a vote.
As of this morning, the following was on Obama's website:
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. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Sounds pretty unequivocal to me. I don't see--and haven't seen--any language that Obama's withdrawal plan is "dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," or that he's "always said" that the pace of troop withdrawals was conditional. His former advisor said it, but the Obama campaign promptly disowned her remarks.
Now that the surge is working (and it has been for at least several months), Obama has a problem because he is on the wrong side of the strategy. George Packer, who is sympathetic to Obama, recognized that the Democratic nominee has an Iraq problem. Now just yesterday, Obama changed his tune on Iraq, all the while denying that he changed his tune. Must be that new kind of politics he was talking about. Michael Crowley at TNR has studied Obama's nuances about Iraq, and says the following after Obama's flip flop yesterday:
Not sure what to make of this: If Obama is laying the groundwork for a more gradual withdrawal, the safety of the troops wouldn't seem to be best emphasis. If anything withdrawal has presumably become easier as the insurgency has tapered off, not harder.Also curious is the line Obama throws in about a "stable" Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong but I immersed myself in Obama's Iraq plan for a recent story and don't recall him making withdrawal contingent on stability. If he really means this, it strikes me as a pretty significant new principle.
The New York Times is also concerned about Obama's waffling, and they didn't even bring up his sudden change about Iraq. In his follow-up news conference, Obama iterated (or was it reiterated?) that his original position hasn't changed. Interesting times.
--
"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Bird Dog's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Bird Dog,
I agree re: Obama's clear flip re: "stability" and Obama's doesn't-pass-the-laugh-test claim that it's the same thing he's been saying all along. Geez Louise!
I literally laughed out loud when I read this Obama quote:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. When I go to Iraq and have time to talk to the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303919.html?hpid=topnews
If anyone can produce a link to a quote from Obama during the primary battle in which he conditioned the pace of withdrawal on "the need to maintain stability", PLEASE DO.
If, as I suspect, he did not express such a conditionality, then (1) he is being disingenuous now in saying he did (so much for a higher integrity and "a new kind of politics"), (2) he is making a MAJOR change in his position -- a FUNDAMENTAL change -- and is now essentially saying something much closer to what McCain and Bush and everyone on the right has been saying: that we won't leave if our leaving will result in a terribly unstable situation, (3) he was either wrong then or is wrong now (so much for all that extraordinary "judgment" that was supposed to substitute for experience, which he sorely lacks), and (4) he may have been dishonest then or is being dishonest now (again, raising questions of integrity, putting America's interests first, and "a new kind of politics")
Which Obama supporters here agree with any/all of the above? And please, don't respond by just pointing out McCain's flips. These are arguments made about your guy, not an argument that McCain is less guilty of flipping. Deal with them on their own merits, with as little bias and as much frankess/openness/honesty as possible.
- Login or register to post comments
)Iraq
Barack Obama, Chicago 2002:
Prescient.
Obama's past statements on his Iraq policy
To believe that Obama has moved his position on Iraq toward the Bush/McCain position requires a staggering credulity that boggles the mind until the realization dawns just how desperate McCain is to undercut the popularity of Obama's stance. We don't need a strict timetable for withdrawal folks, we need a process and Obama will begin that process while letting go of the hegemony and the requirement of permanent bases with which to threaten Iran or dibs on Iraqi oil. John McCain quite simply, will not. Which is why Obama is the game changer we need to end this long national nightmare.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yeesh, I guess some folks will defend their guy and attack the other side's guy no matter what. Spartacvs, you're exhibiting quite a bit of bias here. Obama has shifted his position substantially on Iraq. Just face it. It's not the end of the world. It doesn't mean you can't still think he's much better than McCain. But don't kid yourself. Obama has shifted his position.
Throughout the primaries (at least until it was fairly clear he'd be the nominee) he was all about a commitment to get most of our forces (combat brigades) out of Iraq ASAP within the constraint of the safety of our troops (which he said meant having all combat brigades out within 16 months) NOT also within the constraint of ensuring stability in Iraq ("dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability").
He made one reference to "stability" (his first, as far as I know) in a speech on March 19 -- March 19, 2008 mind you -- and did so in the context of repeating his commitment to withdrawing and his plan to do so per his 16 month timetable, and even then he did NOT condition the pace of withdrawal on "the need to maintain stability":
Again -- AND I SAY THIS TO SUPPORTERS OF BOTH OBAMA AND MCCAIN, respectively -- you can support your guy without being blinded by bias or a sense of absolute obligation to support him in every single battle even if doing so makes little sense or doesn't square with the facts. You can concede a point (some failing or weakness of your guy) and then point out that there are larger points that make him still clearly preferable to the other guy. I suggest that everybody try to avoid double standards, overwhelming (and knee-jerk) bias, and the general resistance to conceding anything negative about your guy.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You are assuming stability in Iraq is only assured by the presence of 100k+ US troops and that removing them will bring about a descent into insecurity and chaos. Obama believes differently, which is why he is the game changer McCain cannot hope to be.
Relative stability in Iraq was always a tacit part of his withdrawal proposal, because leaving troops 'to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda' in the relatively small numbers proposed would not be compatible, given the degree of instability the right assumes will occur, 'within the constraint of the safety of our troops'.
No one on the right has pointed out this 'flaw' in Obama's thinking, because they are too busy bemoaning the loss of coercive influence consequent on withdrawal.
Obama may not have previously used the words 'within the constraint of ensuring stability in Iraq' but it was always there nonetheless. Obama's solution just doesn't rely on indefinitely prolonging the coercive effort of 100k+ troops is all.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Whooooeee, I don't know if you're deliberately spinning (via straw men, etc.) or if you are so biased that you just can't see straight on this matter.
You are assuming stability in Iraq is only assured by the presence of 100k+ US troops and that removing them will bring about a descent into insecurity and chaos.
Whether or not that's what I assume, what does that have to do with OBAMA'S position (whether or not his timetable for withdrawal is contingent upon it not jeopardizing stability) and with whether or not his position has substantially shifted? I've been asking you a very simple question over on the other thread (starting here http://theforvm.org/diary/spartacvs/obama-reverses-position-iraq#comment-101850 ) and it's been like pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer from you. I even tried presenting the bare essence of the question in very simple terms here http://theforvm.org/diary/spartacvs/obama-reverses-position-iraq#comment-101891
Relative stability in Iraq was always a tacit part of his withdrawal proposal, because leaving troops 'to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda' in the relatively small numbers proposed would not be compatible, given the degree of instability the right assumes will occur, 'within the constraint of the safety of our troops'.
Huh? Was that a serious argument? Seriously??? Obama was saying all along that we will be "careful getting out" in the sense that we will ensure the safety of our troops, and he has said that he'd leave that residual force, but -- if you don't mind my getting back to the actual question at hand -- the commitment he emphatically expressed throughout the primary phase, the commitment to getting the bulk of our combat troops out starting immediately and proceeding as quickly as possible within the constraint of our troops' safety, was NOT stated or implied as contingent upon a withdrawal per such a timetable NOT jeopardizing stability in Iraq. ok, can we please stay focused on the actual question here rather than spinning off into a field of straw men?
And as for your quote, I addressed it upthread http://theforvm.org/diary/bird-dog/obama-more-waffle-this-time-super-size-it#comment-101843
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the rationale that an unstable Iraq does not equate to much in the way of safety and security for the residual forces Obama intends to leave in Iraq do you not get?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What part of the rationale that an unstable Iraq does not equate to much in the way of safety and security for the residual forces Obama intends to leave in Iraq do you not get?
You are apparently arguing that making the pace of withdrawal contingent upon ensuring the safety of our troops during the withdrawal and the safety of the residual force equates to making it contingent upon that pace of withdrawal not jeopardizing the overall stability of the country of Iraq, as if there is no space between the two, which is absurd. The level of stability needed for our troops to get out reasonably safely ("reasonably" given the alternative of their staying and related risk of THAT) is far short of what one would think of when one says that the "the pace of withdrawal will be dictated by the need to maintain stability" in the country. Ditto for the level of stability required for a reasonable level of safety ("reasonable" in context of the mission) of the residual force (which, in any case, could be withdrawn as well if conditions became exceedingly unsafe, albeit perhaps with some danger involved in their leaving then as well, and possibly after some loss of life prior to departure). For one thing, our residual troops could be on fortified and otherwise highly secured mega-bases (granted, no security is 100%, but I'm speaking relatively and within reason, given the mission). You are trying to conveniently equate two different things -- two very substantially different levels of stability -- to try to force the square peg in the round hole and make it sound like Obama was saying something that implied the other. Doesn't pass the straight-face test.
Moreover, if Obama DID mean to say during the primary phase that "the pace of withdrawal will be dictated by the need to maintain stability" (and not jeopardize stability) in the nation during and after withdrawal of the bulk of our combat forces, he was being misleading on a scale that is not just antithetical to "a new kind of politics" but even beyond most politicians, and his promise would be seen as extremely wishy-washy (as opposed to the impression he wanted to give -- and gave -- that it was essentially unconditional, that we'd get combat forces out ASAP within only the contraint of their safety).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And try to refrain from marveling at one another's profound lack of comprehension? I.e. no calling each other "Sherlock" outside of Basil Rathbone diaries. :)
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Made me look him up; he's scheduled as a guest in a future "Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew" show. Which I had never heard of, and now blame you for making me learn about, while at the same time popping my bubble about him being related to Rodney Dangerfield. I hate Mondays.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I made a toast on her birthday to 'the best woman a man ever had.' The waiter joined me.
The other day this girl calls me and says come over, nobody's home. I went over. Nobody was home.
The way my luck is running, if I was a politician I would be honest.
My wife was afraid of the dark... then she saw me naked and now she's afraid of the light.
My psychiatrist told me I was crazy and I said I want a second opinion. He said okay, you're ugly too.
I was so ugly my mother used to feed me with a sling shot.
I remember the time I was kidnapped and they sent a piece of my finger to my father. He said he wanted more proof.
I looked up my family tree and found out I was the sap.
Nothing like reverse insult comedy to brighten up a Monday. :)
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My wife likes to talk during sex. Just the other night she called me from a hotel.
Last month we put a mirror on the ceiling over our bed. My wife said she likes to watch herself laugh.
I was such an ugly baby. My mother never breast fed me. She told me that she only liked me as a friend.
Once when I was lost, I saw a policeman and asked him to help me find my parents. I said to him, "Do you think we'll ever find them?" He said, "I don't know kid. There's so many places they can hide."
I went to the doctor because I'd swallowed a bottle of sleeping pills. My doctor told me to have a few drinks and get some rest.
I actually bought a Rodney Dangerfield record after I saw him on Johnny Carson.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ok, ugly baby/person joke, not from Dangerfield:
You're so ugly, when you were born the doctor slapped your mom.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Dangerfield just does insult comedy in reverse. Did.
You're so ugly, when you were born the doctor spanked your face.
You're so ugly, your dog has to close his eyes when he humps your leg.
Your mother's twice the man you are.
Hmm...maybe a diary idea in here somewhere....
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You're so ugly, when you were born, the doctor turned you over and said "Hey look, twins!"
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, as a nitpick, my recollection is that Rodney King said "Can we all just get along?" (not "can't"), although I assume his meaning was the same. By the way, Rodney King was an a**hole. No, I'm not saying cops should be allowed to beat someone up, but let's not forget, the guy could have killed people racing that car around, he probably resisted arrest at least initially, and he continued to get into criminal trouble after his lawsuit made him a millionaire.
Also, a couple of years after that incident, a friend of mine was working at a bank that was experiencing some really bad P.R. for allegedly discriminating against African-Americans in their lending. I suggested to me friend that the bank launch an ad campaign featuring Rodney King, with him saying "Can we all just get a loan?"
As for Dangerfield, some favorites I recall:
- At the airport, I asked my wife to check my bag. He started feeling up my wife.
- My wife told me she wants to have sex in the back seat of our car. She wants me to drive.
- My wife, during sex she always wants to talk to me. Last week she called from Chicago.
- The first time I had sex, I was scared, I was real scared, I was all alone.
After Steven Wright, Dangerfield was perhaps the best comedian of the 1980s. At least of the early 80s.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but I never heard the kidnapped/finger one before.
Here's a bunch of them on video. Starts a bit slow but just gets better and better. Man, he could fire them off.
I told the bartender to make me a Zombie and he said "God beat me to it."
I don't get no respect, I tell you. The other day Karl Malden stole my Travelers' Checks.
\Wwhen I was a kid, I used to play in the sandbox but the cat kept trying to cover me up.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )exasperation.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No problem. The "Sherlock" comment didn't bother me at all in terms of any feeling of insult. Did bother me a bit in that your reference and point in using was unclear (were you saying that it's obvious that you're incurably blinded by overwhelming, knee-jerk bias? That EVERYONE is so? that I am so along with you? or just me? something else?) and that your subsequent argument was so weak as to suggest extreme bias, substantial confusion, or deliberate spin (the latter as opposed to good-faith discussion/debate). As for someone throwing out an insult like that while simultaneously presenting (another) weak argument, usually the comedic value of the irony more than compensates for the infinitesmal offense (if any) that I might feel.
That said, I appreciate your erring on the polite side with an apology, and I appreciate Jordan's suggestion that you abide by such etiquette if that's protocol here. Again, not needed for my sake, but appreciated as a gesture.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )To paraphrase, "He didn't use the words but the words were always there!" Criminy, you could spin yourself out of any uncomfortable situation with that tack. Michael Crowley has followed Obama's "stability" comments pretty closely, and it's pretty clear that he tried to change his position while denying that he's changing his position. Crowley's giving Obama enough benefit of the doubt to float an oil tanker through.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )with the previous administration (meaning anything McCain proposes also) is the key point to take away from this.
Read the comments at the link you provided and prepare to be better informed.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )before making any more statements on Iraq. Not that complex, really. I can't tell whether his campaign fixers are worried that the soldiers will diss him (they won't) or that he'll lose the support of the farther Left if he even appears to support the war. It's just such an obvious thing to do; actually, to have done towards the beginning of his run. Even Pelosi knows it's important to travel to the Mideast, even if her travel agent accidentally booked her a flight to the wrong country.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
)Maybe all the folks who've been opining here regularly should go there and talk to the troops before making any more statements on Iraq. And maybe some of the Iraqi troops. In Arabic.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )AFAIK no one here is running for office. Very weak talking point.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The whole idea is pretty dumb. What makes anyone think that Candidate Obama would receive anything other than whatever the Commander in Chief told his people to say? It would be moronic -- not to mention borderline insubordinate -- for a career officer to make any statements which would imply that a change in policy would be appropriate.
So no, Obama should totally not go to Iraq and get publicly told that Bush is doing a good job, whether or not that's true. As usual, thanks for the advice, but those of us who view our national security as something other than a political football will have to pass.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and during the debates (if he doesn't chicken out and insist on canned questions to cover his inability to act statesman-like in impromptu situations) he will be made to eat his 900+ days of criticizing the war, defending his vote against the surge by claiming it hasn't work, and generally claiming knowledge of what's going on on the ground over there without having even seen the ground.
Extending your logic, why has Obama toured the scenes of fires in California and floods in Illinois? Does he need to confirm that fire burns, or that water is wet? Aren't those subjects a bit simpler than the situation in Iraq?
I think it's simply a case of his handlers being afraid to have him go where the entire event can't be scripted. And god forbid he should end up talking to an Iraqi on the street (some of those Brown People actually speak English, believe it or not) without knowing what that person is going to say. And without the ability to confiscate the videotapes of independent reporters if it goes badly.
Over to you to claim that any conversation Obama has with an Iraqi chosen at random by him will be scripted in advance by Bush. Or to retreat to the same evasive "those are just talking points" response.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Will be scripted, but not by Obama's people.
Don't get me wrong, Obama should go to Iraq and he will. But the expected choreography will pose problems he will have to surmount.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If one is a rabid ideologue, that is.
Partial birth late term abortions are about the hottest hot button topic there is and despite accusations of "waffle" now coming from Hillary's die hard supporters on Obama's latest comments, I would also assert he has been rock solid consistent in his underlying views on the topic.
Obama refuses to cave to the "abortion on demand - no questions asked" wing of the Democratic party even as he has always been very strong on the fundamental right to choose.
Here is (IMHO) an (almost) accurate summary of a current battleground:
IMHO, Obama would not say that mental distress can NEVER constitute a serious adverse health consequence but it appears he rejects the idea that a casual assertion of "mental distress" absent at least some factual showing of clinical evidence should be sufficient for a late term abortion.
Recall the "Roe v Wade" compromise:
A non-viable fetus is not a "person" entitled to legal protection therefore there is no compelling state interest to permit the trumping of the privacy rights of the mother. Same with birth control.
If a religion deems birth control (or pre-viability stage abortions) immoral, well fine. That is a personal decision they are entitled to. But it cannot be outlawed by civil authorities just as laws to outlaw non-kosher food would also not be permitted.
But! Once a fetus attains viability (mid to late 2nd trimester?) state interests come into play.
Thus, a willingness to add restrictions and safeguards to late term abortion procedures is altogether reasonable IMHO and I deny anyone can find genuine inconsistencies in Obama's views on abortion.
Even though some Hillary die-hards are screaming "Waffle" just like Bird.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)I think someone's staff has been getting angry phone calls from NARAL, et al.
Edit: Or maybe just the et al--Earl Ofari Hutchinson scolds NARAL for not getting in Obama's face about abortion position shift.
Memo to EOH: Dude, you *were* around during the Lewinsky scandal, right?
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .the position is a rational one--IMO it's probably the best possible approach to the legal monstrosity that is Roe and its progeny*. Problem is, this doesn't seem to have been his position in the past, and any Justices he's likely to appoint to the Supreme Court probably aren't going to go along with it even if he is sincere about it. The main significance of this comment on Obama's part will be to see how the radical feminist left--presumably mostly still annoyed HRC supporters--will react to being made the centerpiece of a pseudo-Sister Souljah moment.
*--in case anyone has forgotten or doesn't know, I believe in unrestricted pre-viability abortion rights for women, but I also believe that "privacy" was an extraordinarily stupid place to justify them as far as the Constitution goes (as opposed to contraception, where the argument was far more reasonable, if arrived at out of left field), and that the fact that Blackmun--as demanded by Potter Stewart--was compelled to take the provocative step of declaring fetuses non-persons (see Dred Scott for historical evidence of why this sort of thing is a bad idea) to make the privacy argument "work" is ample evidence of its weakness.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Ruth Bader Ginsburg would agree with you about the infelicitous nature of the privacy argument. She would have preferred an equal protection rationale.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )For me to honestly comment on this, the 93rd Waffle diary. Except to say that repetition has not made the thinking behind it any clearer or more relevant to the election at hand. However, as stated previously, it is a handy way to keep up with the day's GOP talking points.
There's a larger issue here, of course, and one that peeves me. Obama made the mistake of thinking out loud, and offering a small amount of nuance on a complicated subject. And for this he had to call a second press conference to pretend he didn't. That's too bad, and shows just how degraded the political process has become.
It also shows the difficulty in being what Isaiah Berlin would call a pluralist -- rather than a monist. Heaven forbid we should allow for nuance when a far simpler option is available -- dedicated adherence to a single idea, endlessly repeated.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)Obama painted himself into his "16-month withdrawal" corner during the primary season, and it's a position that is untenable and potentially disastrous. Personally, I'd rather he do a complete flip-flop on Iraq and fully adopt the Petraeus plan, but as it is right now, he is completely and wrongly on the other side, in my opinion of course. Iraq is in the top two of the two most important issues, and I see nothing wrong in pointing out how stupid his "plan" is, and I see nothing wrong in pointing out his trying nuance his way out of it. We were supposed to vote for him--in lieu of his lack of experience--for his policies, his judgment and his character. On present-day Iraq, his "solutions" speak directly to his policy ideas and his judgment, and his trying to change his positions (all the while denying that he's changing anything) speaks to his character.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As Bill points out below, the 16 month corner is a bit of a straw man. But worse? I don't want to live in the Waffle House anymore. There's handy internet list compiled elsewhere -- I don't have a link, but someone posted it in one of the waffle diaries -- regarding McCain's "flip flops" in the last two weeks (there are many), and then in the last few months (there are manier). Does this speak to his character? I'm guessing you don't believe it does.
We can complain when a politician changes his mind on a subject, particularly when it seems to be a political calculation. But the latter is not always easily judged, and I think the rush to shout "Waffle" is a little lazy and often inaccurate. And frankly? I'm not interested in the fact that Senator McCain changed his mind on off-shore drilling, better to simply address his position on the issue as it currently stands.
And as for Obama? I think the real fear among conservatives, and the driver behind much of the current complaining, is that by allowing his position re Iraq to evolve, Obama is starting to cut the legs off the only chair McCain has to sit on.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obama NEVER painted himself into a 16 month withdrawal window as something that cannot be modified in consideration of facts on the ground.
I know you would rather run against the Obama "you wished you faced" and are trying desperately to create that imaginary Obama however the "Obama we have" does not fit into the cartoon caricatures the McCain-iacs are telling to peddle.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .until Tomsyl (or another second arbitrator) signs on, Harley--though I'm in resistance training mode, so I'll behave. Cut loose if you've got the mind to.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sorry, just woke up, read Harley's model of restraint post above, figured I'd entered Cloudcuckooland a few years early, then nodded back off. Anyone with that level of strengthful restraint could whip Angry Ahnold in ahm wrestling.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .unless you say otherwise. :-)
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But each of you need to call each other on an ostensible violation before I can whistle the ball dead (always loved that sportsism) and then play that Russian ice dancing judge.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's on!!!
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I too am in training.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )post this extensive list of McCain flip flops in every diary that talks about Obama "waffling". Between BD and Timmy, just re-posting this looks to be a full time job.
It's funny, every time Obama speaks his words are hyper-parsed to see if there's any way that what he's saying now isn't an exact perfect synonym for what he has said in the past ("He never said safety and security of our troops was important before!") as if that matters to his stated positions. He's getting more specific on how he's going to accomplish his goals, not changing what his goals are. Playing word games doesn't change that.
Here's a suggestion - rather than pick apart his words, try comparing his approach to McCain's - that's what most voters will be doing in the fall. But of course, that would be counter-productive because given a choice between unending occupation and withdrawal it becomes clear what the losing position is.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
)Just to pick the first one. Dana Milbank neglected to mention that McCain's position on offshore drilling is that it should left to the states to decide. That position hasn't changed, and it's one reason why Milbank is a dishonest hack. McCain did a minor flip on ANWR, saying he was willing to reconsider the issue.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which is the only policy the President can actually try to affect. McCain supported the federal ban in 1999, now he doesn't. That's a flip flop.
Wise of you to not delve too deeply into the list, though. I'd recommend all conservatives stay far away from this one.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In 2000, McCain opposed ANWR and he still does. His recent change in position on ANWR is prospective because he said he was willing to take a second look at the issue. Regarding offshore drilling, his position that it should be left to the states hasn't changed, and your borrowed link does not support your contention. Here is what McCain said during the 2000 campaign:
McCain's position on offshore drilling is a federalist one, that the decision to drill or not drill should be pushed down to the state level. On McCain's website, the following:
The one wrinkle McCain added was the national security angle. And here's another cite from the LA Times:
That is why Milbank is a dishonest hack.
And there's a another reason why Milbank is a dishonest hack. McCain didn't adopt cap-and-trade a month ago as Milbank claims, because McCain supported the idea at least as far back as during the primary season, and I remember him talking about that issue at least as far back as last November. I remember this because of the skirmishes I had with fellow Redstaters.
The point is this, Hank. There's no point going further on your link when the first one is so full of bullsh*t.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If prospective flip-flops aren't really flip-flops, then Obama musing that the 16-month withdrawal of combat brigades might be tweaked isn't a flip-flop either.
Frankly, this whole idea that great leaders never change their mind is what's sunk this country in the hole it's in. Do we really have to continue to play this silly game? Do you really think this is a good measure of the men we're trying to choose between? And of all the criteria available, do you seriously believe that this is a good way to distinguish your guy positively? He changed a lot of positions to get the nod, BD. Your refusal to consider the list won't change that.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but if he's going to be criticized for flip flops, then he should be taken to task on issues where he's actually flip-flopped. In the case of offshore drilling, McCain was a federalist in 2000 and remains a federalist in 2008. It was dishonest of Milbank to portray McCain in the fashion that he did, and it's really too bad that Hank is buying this nonsense (and apparently you, too). If this kind of tripe is in the very first link of that stupid pile-on, then I conclude that it would be a supreme waste of time to separate fact from tripe in the succeeding links. Hank would provide a better service to Forvm readers if he did his own research and kept the half-stories to a bare minimum, but he's shown no proclivity for doing that.
On ANWR, McCain said he'd be willing to reconsider the issue. The simile is when Obama--a few months ago--said he was reconsidering public financing. Back then, it was a prospective flip-flop because he was still trying to beat Hillary and could not finalize his decision. The flip-flop came to fruition when he actually opted out. If McCain does change his mind and say that ANWR should be opened up oil exploration, then yes, that would be a flip flop.
As for "this silly game," consider the situation. On your side, you have a candidate with little experience in the U.S. Senate, no executive or managerial experience except for running campaigns, no military experience, barely any foreign policy experience, and skimpy experience on bringing sides together for getting things done. He is selling himself on his judgment and on the words that come out of his mouth. If he says one thing during the primary season but says different things when he's the nominee, then it's perfectly appropriate to put a spotlight on it because there's damn little else to go on.
It leads me to ask, what else is he going to change on? Maybe those other issues where he waffled aren't that important to you, but what if he waffles on something that is? And then claims that he didn't waffle? Do you make noise and protest? Or do you act like a good soldier and soldier on?
The other issue is this: If you're changing your principles, that's one kind of flip-flop, and I would say that that is a serious piece of waffling. If your issue is the kind that changes as the facts change, then that's something else.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Whether we can get combat brigades out Iraq in 16 months, or whether it might take a little longer? That's not a difference in mission or strategy he's proposing. That's just a flexibility in tactics.
Does the DC gun ban lie on the far side or the near side of the red line protecting the 2nd amendment individual right to bear arms, which Obama recognized BEFORE the SC decision? That's not a difference in philosophical outlook on a constitutional issue, it's a shading.
These are details. Nuances.
But when McCain in 2001 says we can't afford the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because it would be fiscally irresponsible, and today he one-ups Bush by pressing for even more tax cuts for the wealthy, when we are no longer in surplus but instead deep in deficit and getting deeper... that is not a detail. That is not a nuance. That is probably the most fundamental question of governance today... who bears the tax burden? Will the next generation be crippled with debt?
Like I said, I don't mind politicians changing their minds with new information. I even understand when they sacrifice a stand on an issue because they want to win a larger war. But I like to sense their bottom line, what they won't give up.
I think McCain does have a bottom-line, but that bottom line is Iraq almost exclusively. His switch on taxation is politically interested, sure, but it also impacts millions of people's lives in a negative way. If it's not his bottom line it should be.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it's already taken him longer than sixteen months to admit the situation is more complex than it appeared when he made the sixteen month commitment. Shouldn't this "refining" have been done long ago, with maybe a trip to Iraq itself thrown in?
I'd like to see something a little more definite than weasel words from Obama, particularly when it comes to energy policy. He is heavily invested (policy-wise, not personal $$ like Gore is, AFAICT) in cap and trade (more about the frauds and fallacies of that later) and his nuclear energy policy is nothing but a punt. Example: he lists "proliferation" as one of many issues he wants to study before proceeding with more nuclear plants. Wha-?
Anytime a politician says they want to study something before proceeding to implement it, they essentially are saying they have no intention of proceeding towards anything concrete. He needs, for example, to look at the enormous body of studies on Yucca Mountain before claiming we need yet another study on nuclear waste disposal. The original studies were done over twenty years ago; now the Dem Congress is engaged in passive-aggressive stalling by cutting the DofE's budget for waste disposal. Conclusion: elect Obama, and the chances of the US building even one new nuclear plant within the next eight years approaches zero. We'll have lots more studies saying what shouldn't be done, though.
And what does he mean by "reengaging with the UN" on energy policy? Clear and obvious answer: give multiple billions from the US Treasury to developing countries that have no commitment whatsoever to GG reduction - Obama says as much in thinly disguised language on his website.
Anyway, enough here on the ozone holes in Obama's energy policy; I'll save it for later. I get all het up when I think about it, which itself contributes to AGW around my computer.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )For Obama and Iraq, is it the flip-flop or the principle? For me, it's Obama's principle of completely rejecting the current strategy and withdrawing troops regardless of the situation on the ground. Somewhere in this thread or somewhere else, I said I'd rather see him waffle and adopt the Petraeus plan than go through a massive withdrawal process and likely cause all those hard-won gains to reverse.
With McCain on taxes, his proposal to not let the tax cuts expire is a reasonable principle because letting the sunset happen is tantamount to a tax increase (and it's not a good idea to increase taxes in a slowing economy), and he hasn't voted for a tax increase ever, at least that I can recall. Additional tax cuts are also fine, provided that the rate of spending growth can be cut. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened since Newt quit as Speaker. McCain has a record of fiscal restraint, and it looks he'll be putting more emphasis on deficit reduction, so a number of those tax cut proposals will be deferred.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )he simply acknowledged that they worked.
And if you want to start taxing the wealthly start taxing assets.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In what way did the Bush tax cuts "work"?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He means the rich got richer, public debt got larger, wages stagnated, and job growth for Bush's whole term will probably come to about what the average was for each year of Clinton's. Good times!
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )with respect to job growth, the rich getting richer and as for the balanced budget, who controled Congress.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Suffice it to say that the act of pretending that we didn't get the exact same result -- that the deficit went down under Clinton's Democratic Congress more quickly than under the Republican Congress, and that spending went down at approximately the same rate under both Congresses -- is essentially falsehood.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They refused to sign an FTA agreement w. Colombia and harrassed major sporting industries with congressional hearings.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is what you are descibing and they promised so much.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )not sat back and let the Republican growth machine take its course.
We're losing our focus in this brainstorming session.
There's an obvious niche for the 'D Congress ruined the economy' product and if we don't develop it someone else will.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the Dems took control of Congress, the economy tanked.
These would be the same Dems who promised an energy bill in 06 which would lower the cost of gas.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Now we just need a few memes re: the causal mechanisms that account for the correlation, e.g.
-- they raised the minimum wage
-- they humiliated the stalwarts of a multi-billion $ industry, MLB, with nanny state congressional hearings
-- they disrupted minority worker productivity by passing the NATIVE AMERICAN METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT OF 2007
... your turn.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )honestly, how can you even type this tripe?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which had a D Senate majority for part of its term.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which is always the best measure, er the JFK effect.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Talk about setting a low bar
Well said, Wagster.
Timmy, the economy tends to grow regardless of tax policy (i.e., in the subsequent couple of years after a tax cut, tax increase, or neither), even in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. First, you are making the mistake not only of observing "simple correlations", but of missing the entire point of correlations by cherry-picking your data (rather than looking for consistent correlations, with one value moving in one direction or with one degree of magnitude if X happens, and moving differently if X does not happen. Second, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Third, even IF a particular fiscal policy produced one positive result, even if that was the main intended result, it is missing a lot to say simply that it "worked". What about the additional debt caused by the tax cuts at a time when we should be significantly reducing our debt-to-GDP ratio, since we know the retirement of the baby boomers is going to cost a fortune even if we scale back their Social Security and/or Medicare benefits somewhat? Heck, if I say I want to improve my standard of living and I go out and buy everything I want on credit, would you say my policy "worked"?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but steady growth is a good thing.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but I've missed your Iraq updates and think this would be a good time to look at the #s again. You used to do one nearly once a month.
Anyway I personally would find that more interesting than these he-said she-said diaries.
Naturally you're busy but I jsut wanted to throw that out there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Also, the guy who produces the nifty graphs hasn't written a post since June 5th.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )yes, McCain supports "cap and trade" and then says he doesn't support "mandatory caps", which of course is what the "cap" refers to. Without the cap there's nothing to trade.
Keep avoiding the other 40+ flip flops, I'll be sure to keep posting them in the "waffle" diaries you and Timmy post every other day.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Dana Milbank remains a dishonest hack. You should try to come up with your list, Hank, instead of unoriginally piggy-backing on that piece of nonsense. Maybe your list will contain fewer half stories, but I kind of doubt it.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for someone who rejects 40+ examples because they disagree with the first one. I'll have to remember to use my "high dudgeon" mode the next time you hyper-parse and fill in the blanks on Obama's positions.
The fact remains, I like the list and I'll keep posting it, and you and Timmy will keep avoiding it.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in summary
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )More and more of it around these days.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They're afraid of what Obama does stand for: a position they've always taken themselves, to wit, Throw Out the Rascals. Now that they're the rascals who are being thrown out, they still can't see why it's happening to them. They still believe people will take them seriously.... hmm... that Obama, he's just a flip-flopper, we can't trust him. Yeah right. Like we can trust John McCain to be anything other than Just Another Republican.
If the Republicans had any sense at all, and they manifestly do not, they'd cynically howl about how different McCain is from the Received Doctrine of yore. That would get people's attention... hmmm, that John McCain, he really does stand for Conservative Principles of Personal Integrity and all that. He's not just another old Republican Hack, let's give this guy a try. This the Party Faithful just can't do. They won't do. They'd rather lose this election than change their wicked ways. And they're gonna lose it. The Republicans could win this thing, if only they'd led McCain be the Straight Talker of yore. They won't. They're forcing McCain to flip-flop, despite his better judgment, he's letting them flip him.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it's simpler than that. It's the old problem of trying to run as a reformer when you've been in office for a quarter century. It's especially hard for McCain since despite cosmetic differences he's tied pretty solidly to the pro-war position, and as the list I linked to shows he's actually flip flopping from his earlier reform minded positions to the party line positions - really, a stunningly bad idea in an anti-incumbent environment.
I'm afraid that isn't getting much traction for the Republicans, for the reasons you laid out. I would be happy to allow them a decade or so in the wilderness to let them run on that theme again at some point in the future.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Look, if we're really going to adhere to this no-name-calling dictum, let's get a bit more serious in our analysis of what's getting said by these people. More importantly, let's consider why are they saying this stuff.
McCain is cranking that old organ once ground to the tune of Wafflin' Kerry, and advised by the same crew of assbitin' crocodiles who tried to crank that organ last time. The monkey that's sposta be dancing is a bit old and arthritic, he's sourly shuffling a bit, poked and prodded by Charlie Black. Nobody's putting money in the tin cup.
Krauthammer's fussing and frothing about the same stuff over at WaPo. It's just not working.
Why isn't it working? Unlike John Kerry, Obama represents a fresh start. It's not a question of policy but of a change in the tenor of the conversation. Obama just isn't Kerry. He's not McGovern, he's not even Bobby Kennedy. He's more closely paired with Al Gore, a man who over time would reverse himself on many different issues. A thinking man will change his mind as the situation changes. Unlike Gore, who didn't leverage the goodwill of his predecessor, Obama forms devastatingly effective coalitions from all corners of his disparate party.
Once, John McCain's heart was in the right place. He bravely stood athwart the fecklessness of his own party, and earned many enemies thereby. A man may be judged by his enemies, it's perhaps the best yardstick to measure anyone: who hates him. But look at McCain now, softly acquiescing to the general will of his party faithful, reversing himself on pretty much everything he ever stood for. It's pitiful, to see a strong man reduced to grovelling. Frankly, it's contemptible in a man like McCain, whose one virtue among his many flaws was his independence. Where is McCain now on all the shibboleths of his party? In complete congruence.
The old expression "the third degree" was used of torture. The first degree was the threat of torture, the second was to bring the victim into the torture chamber and show him the implements. The third degree was of course to torture him. Galileo was given the Second Degree. The Republicans have always been assiduous in the rooting-out of doctrinal heresy, and they have shown McCain the instruments of torture. He has meekly submitted.
The Devil's Dictionary defines Flop as : Suddenly to change one's opinions and go over to another party. The most notable flop on record was that of Saul of Tarsus, who has been severely criticized as a turn-coat by some of our partisan journals.
If any Flopping has been done, it is by Mr. John McCain, who went over to his own party line after a lifetime of standing up against it.
- Login or register to post comments
)hasn't leveraged the "political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there". Because even after withdrawing all the surge troops, we will still have more troops deployed in Iraq than before the surge and no defined policy under Bush/McCain of when we will begin withdrawing those troops, even as sectarian violence has been significantly reduced.
If the surge has proved successful in its military goal of reducing sectarian violence and ousting pockets of AQ, now is the best time to end the occupation and withdraw the core of our forces to allow the Iraqis to settle their own affairs. Of course, this necessarily means giving up on permanent US bases in the country and the ability to project force against Iran while pressuring the client government of Iraq to accept exploitation of Iraqi oil reserves by western oil companies on favorable terms dictated by the US.
As we celebrate our independence on this July 4th the question remains what is really at stake looking forward in Iraq? Will it be protecting US interests or will Iraqi interests be paramount? At stake in the US Presidential election is to what extent those interests overlap and the nature and level of US support required to assist Iraq in reaping the benefits of independence and the free exercise of its sovereignty.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
)Right now we're in the 45-day pause period, and Petraeus has hinted that likely further reductions will be made in August-September, with actual numbers based on the facts on the ground. So far, there is sufficient progress to justify continuing the present strategy. I agree that we should withdraw our forces, but I'd rather those withdrawals be on our terms and not some artificial timel