McFlip / McFlop - Page 3

Deson · 07-03-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

Ummm - hate to break it to you, but he's been saying the same thing all along.

Really? I seem to recall him stressing withdrawing within 16 months of withdrawal and assailing Petraeus on us being in a catch 22. Also, if there was any nuance in debate 20, I sure didn't hear it. Going through old transcripts now though.

Edit: Found one--

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...te.transcript/

Quote:

OBAMA: But the -- but I do think it is important for us to set a date. And the reason I think it is important is because if we are going to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds to actually come together and negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are.

Edit 2: Found debate 20 and the quote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us...gewanted=print

Quote:

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that.
So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.

SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus.
Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.
Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief.
And what I have to look at is not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, we are overstretched in a way -- we do not have a strategic reserve at this point. If there was another crisis that was taking place, we would not have a brigade that we could send to deal with that crisis that isn't already scheduled to be deployed in Iraq. That is not sustainable. That's not smart national security policy, and it's going to change when I'm president.

Also, in early 2007 he proposed, oh Heck, here it is right on his website: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/index.html

Quote:

To set a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007. The legislation would have begun a redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that was consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group.

Also in a speech in March 2007 he said: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/07032...ks_of_sena_11/

Quote:

There is no military solution to this war. No amount of U.S. soldiers – not 10,000 more, not 20,000 more, not the almost 30,000 more that we now know we are sending– can solve the grievances that lay at the heart of someone else’s civil war. Our troops cannot serve as their diplomats, and we can no longer referee their civil war. We must begin a phased withdrawal of our forces starting May 1st, with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 30th, 2008.

While true there is no military solution to Iraq, had we followed his "judgment" we'd have no surge and we wouldn't have the level of success ( yes I know no small part of it was luck) we are having now.

Also found another gem: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15840

Wonder why he won't answer McCain now? Hmmm, must be the same as his aggressive pursuit of a public finance agreement.

Deson · 07-03-2008, 07:19 PM

Just to note the earlier news link I posted (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT) has changed the story. I'm deleting it and calling it a bullshit practice by the host. It's one thing when the story is updated, entirely another when they wholesale change it.

Edit: Hopefully this one won't completely change:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-iraq-qua.html

Edit 2: found another-- http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...g_view/?page=1

Quote:

...Obama struck back, declaring that Clinton "doesn't have any standing to question my position on this issue." And he added that, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused."

Pinski · 07-03-2008, 08:05 PM

I'd like to add how much the Democractic and Republican parties both suck and are the bane of all evil and that people should stop voting for them even though they don't agree with them.

Daedalus · 07-03-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinski

I'd like to add how much the Democractic and Republican parties both suck and are the bane of all evil and that people should stop voting for them even though they don't agree with them.

The less normal people vote, the more power the crazy, psychotic party supporters get.

Xrin · 07-04-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illuminator

Then how much more relevant is Obama's promise to get us out of the war in Iraq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

We'll find out in another 6 months or so - heh

Obama opens door to altering his Iraq policy - Barack Obama News - MSNBC.com

Yeah I guess we will won't we... oh wait! Sorry, I fogot this was another Anti-McCain thread that proves that McCain is the only politician in the upcoming election the flip-flops. My bad!

Otis · 07-05-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

Just to note the earlier news link I posted (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT) has changed the story. I'm deleting it and calling it a bullshit practice by the host. It's one thing when the story is updated, entirely another when they wholesale change it.

Edit: Hopefully this one won't completely change:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-iraq-qua.html

Edit 2: found another-- http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...g_view/?page=1

Looks to me like everyone (including you) is just itching to jump the gun on this guy. I see no changes in policy, or even that his 16 month timetable has changed.

The guy tries to sound reasonable and the sky caves in.

Perhaps now we can dispense with the ridiculous notion that Obama gets any kind of pass from the media.

Balbasur · 07-05-2008, 12:33 PM

otis <3

Alesis · 07-05-2008, 01:31 PM

Contrary to popular belief, it doesnt matter what color you are, what you use to inspire your orgasms or where you grew up. There are 2 kinds of people in this world, the "haves," and the "have nots."

If you have the ability to competitevly run for president, you are a "have," and if you stand a chance of winning, you are most likely a "have more." This is the problem with our political system as I see it.

These "have mores" will lie, cheat and steal an election to muscle thier way to the top of the power chain, and then stand proud that thier social jockeying put them there.

This whole country, top to bottom, is simply all about money. Who has the most money? 99% of the time its corporate America, and so they get thier dicks sucked the most often.

It makes me fuckin sick. There is no party more concerned with the people, its all about the money, all the time.

They say capitolism won all the time, but its kind of strange, I dont feel like Im living in a eutopia....its still a paycheck to paycheck struggle for me, and by middle class standards I make a damn good paycheck.

These people who are trying to struggle to win the presidential race will say and do whatever it takes, just like a giant International game of Survivor on Thursday night prime time.

You dont really even have a clue who your going to vote into office until you actually do it, and then watch them perform for 4 years, because you can pretty much chalk up everything they say as horse shit until that point.

Deson · 07-05-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

Looks to me like everyone (including you) is just itching to jump the gun on this guy. I see no changes in policy, or even that his 16 month timetable has changed.

The guy tries to sound reasonable and the sky caves in.

Perhaps now we can dispense with the ridiculous notion that Obama gets any kind of pass from the media.

At this point the pass doesn't matter since the damage is done but until I stop seeing messianic imagery in every news isle, the pass is still valid.

The reason everyone is pouncing on him is that the tone of his statements have changed from the unequivocal to the "we'll see". When all you have to go on are a man's words, such shifts can be feel titanic and offer glimpses into just what a future with the guy is going to be like. Note the surprise of many about his abortion stance, death penalty stance, faith based initiatives stance and his NAFTA stance. Sure the supposed underlying logic behind all of those can be said to be the same but over 21 Dem debates, numerous speeches and interviews, he either emphasized the more populist portion of his views or kept his mouth shut. If he's had these views forever, why don't you know about them and why would you have to have purchased his books to actually be informed about them?

Hillary barely lost to him. Had some of his views that are currently being aired now been aired the same way back during the early part of the campaign, we would probably be looking at her as the nominee-- assuming he still edged out Edwards.

Oizen · 07-07-2008, 05:57 PM

I'd like to hear a rebuttal to the disenchantment that I share with Alesis as of the last two elections. I seem to have hit this same wall in my faith of rocking the vote. That's why I've stayed fairly quiet in the political threads this year.

I love the USofA as much as the next American but, I've recently decided to focus on my local community issues and write off what matters that I'm not permitted to truly participate in. My vote feels very insignificant in the rich man popularity contest.

The more I read about Obama the more the hype is sinking in but, honestly I'm considering abstaining for the first time since I turned 18.

/looking for inspiration