Advertisement
OBAMA and Iraq.
I have been saying that Obama was going to change. The Obamanites have not wanted to hear it. I have said that he’d have hard realities to face the substance of which The Obamanites don’t know much of anything about. The Obamanites don’t know about it not because The Obamanites are dumb but. because The Obamanites don’t get the same information the President gets. OK maybe it's because they are dumb.
I have observed Obama changing his language, caging it differently, even changing the hard words of commitment by which he bonds himself. I observed him doing this as he studied Iraq more and more.
Obama has gone back and forth. His thinking has not been linear. It has not been consistent. His thinking has evolved. It hasn’t been in line with most of you.
Here are his positions in the chronological order of him having presented them:
June 21, 2006
-++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
On Wednesday June 21, 2006 Obama said this in the Senate:
obama.senate.gov/speech/06...atement_6/
(the below are Obama’s own words that he posted on his Senate Web Site My comments are inserted and bracketed this way: {{{ }}} so that you may easily distinguish my comment from the original transcript)
I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home.
{{{This sounds a lot like the Bush plan (a)Stable government (b) Crush the terrorists; (c) bring the troops home (GW adds: leaving a base) And mind you there are no deadlines. Obama REJECTS DEADLINES. }}}
What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.
{{{Doesn’t Bush say this? Using different words but doesn’t he say exactly this?}}}
For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in fifty thousand troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional three or six months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.
{{{{ This is almost identical to GW’s statements just using different words: GW says He is listening to the Generals. Obama tosses in the language of withdrawal and inserts the idea of deadlines – but none of them are hard deadlines. In fact Obama has already rejected a deadline}}}
It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry Amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.
{{{ More language of withdrawal but not that he has rejected Kerry’s withdrawal and says it loud. }}
Essential to a successful policy is the Administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress - especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home.
{{{“listening to its generals” he says. Isn’t that what GW says? Then he adds “it is time to start bringing the troops home.” It’ has been time to “start” since it began but, circumstances kept getting in the way. Notice how Obama never puts his ass in a sling with any real clear commitment? }}}
The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin Amendment builds on this approach.
{{{ Obama says “should be a period of significant transition” but what does that mean? “Should be” “significant transition” Those words don’t mean anything at all. These are the sentiments of GW. He says the same exact things. He expects that there should be significant transition too. GW says he wants the Iraq government to take the lead . GW wants a phased withdrawal too he simply refuses to set a deadline and Obama refuses to set a deadline too. GW and OBama use different language. Obama sprinkles plenty ot language that speaks of withdrawals and will even use vague references to hinted at deadlines but the only hard words Obama uses are almost exactly like GW’s.}}}
There are no easy answers to this war. I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come home. […]
{{{ This is exactly what GW says.}}}
Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a day longer than they have to be. And that's why we must find the most responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world.
{{{This is exactly what GW says}}}
(End: Obama’s Senate address of June 21, 2006)
-++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
April 26, 2007
In the South Carolina debate Obama said this:
OBAMA: “Well, Brian, I am proud that I opposed this war from the start,[…] I'm proud of the fact that I put forward a plan in January that mirrors what Congress ultimately adopted, and it says, there's no military solution to this. We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.
{{{“phased withdrawal” A mere reference to the Senate speech of June, 2006}}}
We have seen our Army and our Reserves and our National Guard all being stretched to a breaking point. And that's one of the reasons why I've proposed that we're going to have to increase the size of our ground forces […].
{{{Obama wants MORE TROOPSs not less. The reasons are irrelevant because he wants MORE TROOPS not less. }}}
July 30, 2007
Obama said that is elected he would immediately assemble the Joint Chiefs to "get a plan to begin withdrawing […]." Obama did not say he’d withdraw immediately. In fact he said: "People who say we'll just pull them out are irresponsible." tinyurl.com/2o9kpn
August 18, 2008
Iowa Debate (tinyurl.com/2nzxm2)
OBAMA:
“I think would begin to bring this war to an end. I think we also can all agree that it's going to be messy, that there are no good options.”
{{{“I think” He’d “begin” That’s what GW is doing. They talk about it differently. And he says it’s “messy” that there are “no good options.” Doesn’t that sound like whatever he does he’s prepared for the possibility that you won’t like it? That is isn’t the “cut and run” of the others? It seems so.}}}
OBAMA:
If we have not began a withdrawal by the time I'm sworn into office, then the next task is to call together the Joint Chief of Staff and to give them the mission, which is to begin an orderly, phased withdrawal,
{{{ “orderly, phased” What does that mean exactly? Has he ever said~?}}}
September12, 2007
In Iowa (on 09/12/2007) Obama insisted on immediately withdrawing all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq. He said he wanted all troops out the end of next year.
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama said.
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now," Obama said.
graphics8.nytimes.com/package...iraq.pdf
tinyurl.com/38sdph
{{{That’s when you fell in love with him. You may have liked him before but this rhetoric about GET OUT NOW was what really tied the knot.
But he wasn’t always all about getting out. Stepping back in time to 2006 it is clear that he has been on a different path the whole time. Has Obama Lied to you~?? Did he say GET OUT NOW just to suck you in and deceive you~?? }}}
My thinking is that Obama isn’t nearly as stupid as most people are and certainly not so dumb as most people want him to be. Once ha has insisted that the USA get out of Iraq immediately. He hasn’t repeated that and has consistently rejected deadlines, hard commitments and has repeatedly said it’s messy difficult and that he’ll rely on the military to inform him how best to proceed.
Isn’t this George Bush’s position?
I have been saying that Obama was going to change. The Obamanites have not wanted to hear it. I have said that he’d have hard realities to face the substance of which The Obamanites don’t know much of anything about. The Obamanites don’t know about it not because The Obamanites are dumb but. because The Obamanites don’t get the same information the President gets. OK maybe it's because they are dumb.
I have observed Obama changing his language, caging it differently, even changing the hard words of commitment by which he bonds himself. I observed him doing this as he studied Iraq more and more.
Obama has gone back and forth. His thinking has not been linear. It has not been consistent. His thinking has evolved. It hasn’t been in line with most of you.
Here are his positions in the chronological order of him having presented them:
June 21, 2006
-++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
On Wednesday June 21, 2006 Obama said this in the Senate:
obama.senate.gov/speech/06...atement_6/
(the below are Obama’s own words that he posted on his Senate Web Site My comments are inserted and bracketed this way: {{{ }}} so that you may easily distinguish my comment from the original transcript)
I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home.
{{{This sounds a lot like the Bush plan (a)Stable government (b) Crush the terrorists; (c) bring the troops home (GW adds: leaving a base) And mind you there are no deadlines. Obama REJECTS DEADLINES. }}}
What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.
{{{Doesn’t Bush say this? Using different words but doesn’t he say exactly this?}}}
For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in fifty thousand troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional three or six months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.
{{{{ This is almost identical to GW’s statements just using different words: GW says He is listening to the Generals. Obama tosses in the language of withdrawal and inserts the idea of deadlines – but none of them are hard deadlines. In fact Obama has already rejected a deadline}}}
It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry Amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.
{{{ More language of withdrawal but not that he has rejected Kerry’s withdrawal and says it loud. }}
Essential to a successful policy is the Administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress - especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home.
{{{“listening to its generals” he says. Isn’t that what GW says? Then he adds “it is time to start bringing the troops home.” It’ has been time to “start” since it began but, circumstances kept getting in the way. Notice how Obama never puts his ass in a sling with any real clear commitment? }}}
The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin Amendment builds on this approach.
{{{ Obama says “should be a period of significant transition” but what does that mean? “Should be” “significant transition” Those words don’t mean anything at all. These are the sentiments of GW. He says the same exact things. He expects that there should be significant transition too. GW says he wants the Iraq government to take the lead . GW wants a phased withdrawal too he simply refuses to set a deadline and Obama refuses to set a deadline too. GW and OBama use different language. Obama sprinkles plenty ot language that speaks of withdrawals and will even use vague references to hinted at deadlines but the only hard words Obama uses are almost exactly like GW’s.}}}
There are no easy answers to this war. I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come home. […]
{{{ This is exactly what GW says.}}}
Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a day longer than they have to be. And that's why we must find the most responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world.
{{{This is exactly what GW says}}}
(End: Obama’s Senate address of June 21, 2006)
-++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
April 26, 2007
In the South Carolina debate Obama said this:
OBAMA: “Well, Brian, I am proud that I opposed this war from the start,[…] I'm proud of the fact that I put forward a plan in January that mirrors what Congress ultimately adopted, and it says, there's no military solution to this. We've got to have a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward.
{{{“phased withdrawal” A mere reference to the Senate speech of June, 2006}}}
We have seen our Army and our Reserves and our National Guard all being stretched to a breaking point. And that's one of the reasons why I've proposed that we're going to have to increase the size of our ground forces […].
{{{Obama wants MORE TROOPSs not less. The reasons are irrelevant because he wants MORE TROOPS not less. }}}
July 30, 2007
Obama said that is elected he would immediately assemble the Joint Chiefs to "get a plan to begin withdrawing […]." Obama did not say he’d withdraw immediately. In fact he said: "People who say we'll just pull them out are irresponsible." tinyurl.com/2o9kpn
August 18, 2008
Iowa Debate (tinyurl.com/2nzxm2)
OBAMA:
“I think would begin to bring this war to an end. I think we also can all agree that it's going to be messy, that there are no good options.”
{{{“I think” He’d “begin” That’s what GW is doing. They talk about it differently. And he says it’s “messy” that there are “no good options.” Doesn’t that sound like whatever he does he’s prepared for the possibility that you won’t like it? That is isn’t the “cut and run” of the others? It seems so.}}}
OBAMA:
If we have not began a withdrawal by the time I'm sworn into office, then the next task is to call together the Joint Chief of Staff and to give them the mission, which is to begin an orderly, phased withdrawal,
{{{ “orderly, phased” What does that mean exactly? Has he ever said~?}}}
September12, 2007
In Iowa (on 09/12/2007) Obama insisted on immediately withdrawing all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq. He said he wanted all troops out the end of next year.
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama said.
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now," Obama said.
graphics8.nytimes.com/package...iraq.pdf
tinyurl.com/38sdph
{{{That’s when you fell in love with him. You may have liked him before but this rhetoric about GET OUT NOW was what really tied the knot.
But he wasn’t always all about getting out. Stepping back in time to 2006 it is clear that he has been on a different path the whole time. Has Obama Lied to you~?? Did he say GET OUT NOW just to suck you in and deceive you~?? }}}
My thinking is that Obama isn’t nearly as stupid as most people are and certainly not so dumb as most people want him to be. Once ha has insisted that the USA get out of Iraq immediately. He hasn’t repeated that and has consistently rejected deadlines, hard commitments and has repeatedly said it’s messy difficult and that he’ll rely on the military to inform him how best to proceed.
Isn’t this George Bush’s position?
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
