Obama-styleBarack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.
"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. "The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," said McCain, adding that Obama "refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding."
Just Another Politician™, indeed. I almost feel sorry for the people who once believed in him.
(For more, here's a timeline of Obama's statements in which he claims the surge would make no difference in the security situation on the ground. Hat tip: Campaign Spot, again)
I almost feel sorry for the people who once believed in him. I suppose I have a little sympathy for them. But truly, aren't they just part of a culture that emphasizes style over substance. And isn't it really not that hard to figure that out. It's like feeling sorry for a guy who buys a car that has an ad featuring a super model but that has whole websites showing what crappy car it is. Do you really feel sorry for him because he didn't do the minimum amount of research on the car?
"And isn't it really not that hard to figure that out."
No, it's not.
And, sadly, the best thing the Republicans could come up with as a contrast is John McCain.
He has a ways to go in order to catch up with McCain but he may make it.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/mccains-to-profit-from-inbev-anheuser-busch-deal/
But IP decides that Obama's mortgage is more important. What a crock...
Anon 11:30... this isn't about Obama's mortgage. It's about his shifting rhetoric on Iraq. Something even the RNC is using in ads now:
The bit that bugs me is that even though Obama is sure what he would have done now... his comments years ago about the decision to go to Iraq directly contradicted his hindsight confidence. "What would I have done? I don't know." It's great that he had the 'judgment' to have doubts, but by his own admission he didn't have access to all of the information to make any real judgment, just make popular assumptions. His assumptions on the surge show his judgment is hardly a selling point, as much as a game of craps. But that's just my opinion.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Just Another Politician™, indeed. I almost feel sorry for the people who once believed in him.
Why? While I appreciate your attempt to damage Obama on something besides irrelevant topics like his mortgage or a lapel pin, I am just not seeing some glaring contradiction here. It seems to me that he has pretty consistently said that the surge would tamp down the violence, but a political solution would require the removal of our troops. Something that even the Iraqi government is now calling for.
Obama may be in the process of shifting his position on Iraq. If that is the case, the gamble for the GOP will be that the "flip-flop" tag will overcome the new positioning of the Obama campaign on Iraq. I think it is a smart move for Obama. The framing of the debate, fwiw, is that the surge has worked. Obama's positions need to respond to that frame instead of insisting that the frame is wrong (which it very well may be). I believe they call this "responding to conditions on the ground". It would be unwise to do otherwise.
Which leaves you folks with no other options but to pull out the "flip-flop" card one more time and hope the label sticks. Lacking any clear ideas about how to lead this country and reeling from the results of implemented conservative think-tank strategies, all you have left is trying to destroy Obama.
Will it work? If Obama was just another politician then it might. But if his campaign is as smart about the general election as they were about the primaries then I think it won't. Plus your candidate really, really sucks.
"It seems to me that he has pretty consistently said that the surge would tamp down the violence..."
The quotes that this article points out seem to be for an argument exactly the opposite. On the political solution requiring withdrawals he has been consistent... on the surge helping in any significant way, he has not. I think it is smart of their campaign to dodge on this particular aspect of the war issue and focus on the war as a whole and his early opposition, as hedged as it was over the years, and paint him as having the overall smarter policy where these kind of sub-issues on the war issue wouldn't even have to be debated, thus making them far less relevant to his judgment argument.
As the campaign fight thickens I'm sure we'll see similar RNC and/or McCain ads, youtubes, etc similar to the 'evolution of John Kerry' video they put out in 2004 that used every quote put to a calendar of war-related events and popular polling to suggest that the constant shifting in the rhetoric was the result of gaming the political atmosphere more than any concern for a better policy for winning the war as opposed to just winning an election. Some of it fair, some of it not, as is the way with political propaganda. On the war issue Obama will be faced with his comments on the war since the beginning while sculpting the message for the times and the audience... which will of course be presented devoid of context that may shed light on the political realities that he was facing.
To be fair, Romney drove me up the friggin wall with what I considered 'hedging his bets' on Iraq policy, that many of his supporters felt removed too much context or distorted what he meant when the quotes were dragged out in the primary fights. Obama's back on forth on the war has been on factchecker sites for a while now with similar (and imo worse hedging) so I'm obviously not a fan of it. The Washington Post had a great 'factchecker' timeline on Obama vs Clinton on Iraq comparing their progression from their original stances to the adaptation to their policies from it, but the link isn't working. The gist was that Obama started off anti-war, moved towards the 'you break it, you buy it' powell mantra... was careful to avoid criticism of fellow dems who voted for the war by essentially arguing he didn't know enough to say if they did the wrong thing... usually supported funding the war and opposing a solid date for withdrawl and sometimes supporting troop increases... to his more modern stances of not wanting to support funding without withdrawal timetables as the presidential race formed on the horizon. Obama has been consistent on two things... never wanting to have gone in the first place... and wanting something more definitive about how to get out... though his opinion on how to do that has varied throughout the political and strategic realities.
With his latest progression of rhetoric on the surge, both by himself and his campaign folks, and the flare up whether or not he would stand fast on his primary campaign Iraq promises or 'refine' them in ways that would make his FISA flip look minor in comparison... he seems to be getting everybody a bit edgy on the left, and people on the right thankful for the free ad material. The people who are currently being courted, the undecided voters and those with loose support for either candidate, will be the big question. Can Obama keep the focus on the bigger picture and not the details, or will the GOP successfully paint him as more concerned with fulfilling his ambition than doing the right thing via a flip-flopping campaign? All politicians flip-flop it seems... but on matters of war it seems to get more attention/reaction when it's matched with an impression of doing it for political gain at the expense of our nation's interests.
Fortunately for Obama and his campaign, they've been doing quite well at explaining what he 'meant' as opposed to what he 'said' which has gotten all sorts of complaints from the right-wing bloggers. In some cases the context or corrected quoting put the meant/said into the same ballpark... others seemed to try to put hockey in the same league as figure skating... which with the right spin, seems to work alright for some not paying very close attention, or those who really wanna 'believe.'
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"It seems to me that he has pretty consistently said that the surge would tamp down the violence, but a political solution would require the removal of our troops."
Keep trying.
From the link in the original post:
Now the Obama-worshippers are going to come on here and tell me that what he really meant "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." is that he knew all along that the surge would reduce violence.
Judgment, indeed.
Nice work IP.
Go here and here.
...and here.
I like this.
When opponents of a political candidate focus on highlighting every negative they can uncover about that candidate because there's so little positive to say about their own, I think that's significant. I wonder what the ratio is for instances of the word "Obama" on this site vs. the word "McCain."
Then there's the following, which is just one more unfortunate piece of info:
"Um, yeah. For instance, take, you know, take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television."
-- potential McCain VP candidate Mark Sanford (governor of SC), asked on CNN to name differences in economic policy between Bush and McCain
"When opponents of a political candidate focus on highlighting every negative they can uncover about that candidate because there's so little positive to say about their own, I think that's significant. I wonder what the ratio is for instances of the word "Obama" on this site vs. the word "McCain.""
Well, I've said a bunch of times that I'm disappointed that, at a time when our countrie's problems are so serious, that the two men competing to lead it are so unworthy and unserious.
And I think it's pretty significant that, when a candidate's primary reason for campaigning is judgment, and that judgment turns out to be so spectacularly wrong, that so many of his hagiographers would rather change the subject.
John McCain is not a very good candidate for President. But he was right about the surge, and Obama was hugely wrong about the surge. And yet Obama wants to be President because of his judgment on Iraq and related issues, and so feels the need to scrub his previous statements and hope the media and his sycophants will cover for him. And this is someone about whom you're proud?
I am no Obama hagiographer -- me eyes are open a lot wider than you assume. And rather than changing the subject, I was making an observation about the nature of this particular thread and the similarities I see between it and numerous other discussions of the presidential campaign.
Now, if you want to get back on-topic, why don't we widen the discussion? There's plenty more to cover (I did the numbering):
"Before the foreign policy speech in Washington, at least, Mr. Obama’s apparent efforts to defy the McCain campaign’s liberal caricature of him merely served to invite charges of waffling, if not outright flip-flopping, designed to dilute his promise of “a different kind of politics.”
(1) In the past month, Mr. Obama abandoned his commitment to public financing in order to avoid restrictions on his ability to raise massive sums online.
(2Normally, a staunch defender of abortion rights, Mr. Obama seemed to reject a mental health exception to the ban on late-term abortions in an interview with a Christian magazine.
(3) He commended the Supreme Court’s reading of the Second Amendment to protect individual gun ownership rights.
(4) In a speech about patriotism, he deliberately placed distance between himself and the adoring left-leaning Netroots by attacking MoveOn.org for last September’s “General BetrayUs” ad.
(5) His vote in favor of a Bush-administration-endorsed version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act further infuriated online liberals to the point that his own Web site became a forum for grievances.
(6) And Mr. Obama’s July 3 remarks that he was willing to “refine” his Iraq position to reflect the realities on the battlefield, while not substantively different from his earlier positions, led to charges of flip-flopping from the left and right, first prompting a follow-up press conference to “try this again,” then on July 9, a petulant-sounding explanation at a town-hall event that his critics “haven’t been listening” closely enough, and then, on July 14, an Op-Ed in The New York Times restating his position on withdrawal.
Each clarification from the campaign, or from the candidate himself, came to seem, as one donor put it, like an 'apology du jour.'"
Keep trying.
The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that the surge is working and progress is being made in Iraq because the violence is down. Having the violence down is definitely a good thing, but does that mean the problem is solved (see first two Obama quotes)? You can't come out and attack Obama for saying the surge isn't solving the problem unless you can really show us that the surge is solving the problem, not just applying an expensive band-aid for the short term. Plus, you and the NRO have cherry-picked five or six fairly vague quotes while ignoring (of course) the hundreds of other quotes that were made much more clearly.
But what is most interesting to me is the absolute lack of discussion about the political positioning of the two parties on Iraq. It is like you just want to get out your little Obama hammer and pound away for fun. You used to have a saying about the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" or something to that effect. This seems to be getting closer and closer to the Obama Derangement Syndrome.
But, as Politcalalchemy stated, you guys aint got nothing else to talk about. We've seen what 25 years of conservative ideas have wrought, bashing Obama is all you've got.
The Washington Post (shockingly) has been paying attention:
Emphasis added.
Are you OK with our prospective Commander-in-Chief retroactively claiming positions that he didn't take?
Was that an editorial? There are a large pile of assumptions in that piece. Please tell me it doesn't fall under "reporting".
Yeesh.
"The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that the surge is working and progress is being made in Iraq because the violence is down."
Well, so is Obama. At least, that is what he is claiming now - that the surge has reduced the violence, and that he always knew it would. Despite claiming for months that the surge wouldn't and couldn't and wasn't reducing the violence.
"You can't come out and attack Obama for saying the surge isn't solving the problem unless you can really show us that the surge is solving the problem, not just applying an expensive band-aid for the short term."
I'm not. I'm criticizing Obama for claiming that the surge wouldn't reduce violence, and for being so spectacularly wrong about it that he now feels the need to scrub his own website so he can pretend he always knew the surge would reduce violence. Note - not "solving the problem," but "reducing the violence." Is that specific enough for you? Because those are Obama's words, not mine.
The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that the surge is working and progress is being made in Iraq because the violence is down.
No, the problem with your defense of Obama is that he said that violence would not go down because of the surge - and it did.
And you said that he has consistently said violence would go down because of the surge - and he didn't.
But you can keep trying.
In fairness to Boon, while I think he mischaracterizes Obama's current position, what he's stating is a position that Obama is likely to hold for a few days sometime between now and election day...so he's kinda right.
LOL! :-)
Whoa. You're getting this:
From this?:
You've GOT to be kidding me. I don't have time to go dig up the quotes, I am sure the Obama people will do that themselves, but I distinctly remember the positioning on the surge being that the troops will bring down the violence, but a political solution is needed. He may have stepped to one side or the other on that positioning during the long campaign, but I have always assumed (and heard Obama voice the same position) that the violence would decrease but the political situation would remain difficult, if not impossible. And that is what has happened.
It's official. We'll call it the Obama Derangement Syndrome. When do we get to yell at you for disrespecting the office of the President for criticizing anything Obama does?
"I don't have time to go dig up the quotes, I am sure the Obama people will do that themselves, but I distinctly remember the positioning on the surge being that the troops will bring down the violence, but a political solution is needed."
Really? That must be why he said, "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." And repeatedly echoed those same erroneous sentiments throughout the campaign. To the point where he now has to scrub such references off his own website, lest someone question his judgment.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
Obama derangement syndrome indeed.
"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."
To D Boon this means what exactly? The derangement is on the side of those who read anything into Obama's statements other than he opposed the surge and thought it would not work and thought it would make the situation worse. He was wrong. His judgment was wrong.
"He was wrong. His judgment was wrong. "
Unpossible.
So what you're saying is that you're not criticizing Obama for being "wrong," just not for leaving that portion of his website intact in perpituity?
Nowhere on the website does it say he "always knew the surge would reduce violence." You're putting words in his mouth.
We were sold the surge as a means to give the Iraqi government some breathing room in making poltical progress. That was the whole reason to have the surge in the first place. There hasn't been a lot of progress.
From what I understand, Baghdad is more ethnically segregated than ever before. Previously joint Sunni/Shiite neighborhoods have been abandonded for single-sect ghettos. Violence is down, to some extent, not because the situation is any more stable, but because the roaming ethnic militias have run out of easy access to new victims. Saying that all the progress is due to the surge is classic post hoc ergo proper hoc reasoning.
D. Boon said: "It seems to me that he has pretty consistently said that the surge would tamp down the violence,"
Just curious Narc, when you who exactly were you criticizing for putting words in Obama's mouth ? You guys are funny. Your candidate can't figure out what he believes, and you can't figure out which of his opinions you have to go the mat with. Join the club. You're in the same position as higher ups like Goolsbee and Samantha Power. Get ready to get thrown under the bus.
"So what you're saying is that you're not criticizing Obama for being "wrong," just not for leaving that portion of his website intact in perpituity?"
I'm criticizing him for both. For being blatantly wrong, and then scrubbing his website so he can try to pretend he was right all along.
"Nowhere on the website does it say he "always knew the surge would reduce violence." You're putting words in his mouth."
Uh. Really?
And you may want to discuss the whole putting words in Obama's mouth with D.Boon:
Keep trying.
I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.
Yeah, that's the quote. I must have heard that line 50 times during the primaries. Not that anyone would know that from your cherry-picking.
You folks are doing a good job trying to make a complicated position simple so you can claim it is a lie. It is what Republicans do, of course, so it is understandable. But, believe it or not, it was possible to be against the surge and claim that the surge would reduce violence. It is also possible to think the surge is not working just because violence is down. It is also possible (gasp!) to say that the surge has worked in reducing violence, but there has not bee adequate political progress and there won't be until we leave. Yes, it is a complicated stance, but perhaps everything isn't simple black and white after all?
So ... where is the political progress? Has Obama said the surge has worked to create political progress? Is there any political progress that can be shown to be a result of the surge?
Moreover, if the surge is such a success, when can the troops come home? If the problems in Iraq have been "solved" by the surge, why aren't the troops board planes for home as we speak?
I get the feeling that none of us know what is really going on in Iraq, but the temptation to bash Obama over any and every thing is just too much to resist.
Again, that statement isn't on the website. I'm looking at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, is there Iraq policy page I don't know about?
Seeing as the last thread was about how horrible Obama was for saying high school students could get better jobs if they knew a second language, I can't help but think, "cosign."
"But, believe it or not, it was possible to be against the surge and claim that the surge would reduce violence."
But that's not what he's saying. He's claiming that he knew all along the surge would reduce violence. Yet:
And there's a whole series of quotes to prove this isn't cherry-picking. He said for a year or more that the surge wouldn't, couldn't and wasn't working.
Yet:
"I get the feeling that none of us know what is really going on in Iraq, but the temptation to bash Obama over any and every thing is just too much to resist. "
It's not nearly as much fun as watching Obama's worshippers twist themselves into pretzels to try and justify his retroactive claims of good judgment about the surge. I can almost understand, though, as it must be disappointing to have such an ironclad belief that someone is a transformational leader ("Americans crave his leadership..."), only to have him revealed as just another lying politician all along.
"Again, that statement isn't on the website. I'm looking at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, is there Iraq policy page I don't know about?"
From the original post:
On BO.com, the quote is:
It's nice that Obama is saying that the surge has reduced violence. That's an admirable recognition of reality. But it's audacious of him to claim that he was saying all along that the surge would reduce violence, when he said exactly the opposite so many times and in so many different ways for so long.
"But, believe it or not, it was possible to be against the surge and claim that the surge would reduce violence."
But that's not what he's saying. He's claiming that he knew all along the surge would reduce violence.
Yeah, exactly. Read the above two lines and tell me what I am missing here. He was against the surge but acknowledged it would reduce violence. Why was he against it? Because he didn't want to just reduce violence, he wanted a political solution, which has not been forthcoming.
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.
And there's a whole series of quotes to prove this isn't cherry-picking.
No, there's one real quote and that is the one you keeping posting. Out of the millions of words the man has spoken on Iraq, you have pretty much one sentence and you're making a REALLY big deal out of it. The other quotes talk of solving the problem, which even you must admit has not happened.
But keep trying. It is entertaing to watch you twist yourself into knots over perceived screw ups by Obama that really aren't screw ups at all.
"Read the above two lines and tell me what I am missing here. He was against the surge but acknowledged it would reduce violence."
No - he's confusing you with all his position changes, which is understandable. At the time when the surge was proposed, he was against the surge because it would do the opposite of reducing violence. In his words:
Got that? Obama thought (using his impeccible judgment) that "it will do the reverse" of solving sectarian violence.
"No, there's one real quote and that is the one you keeping posting. Out of the millions of words the man has spoken on Iraq, you have pretty much one sentence and you're making a REALLY big deal out of it."
Just one quote, huh?
Contrast that with what The Messiah is saying about the surge now.
Man, this must be really hard for you.
This is the new politics of unity. First, Obama scrubbed his website of all mention of his foresight about the surge so as not to embarrass the current occupant of the oval office. Of course, those seeking to divide America are falsely suggesting that this scrubbing is to cover his tracks. It's cynical people like that who keep America from moving forward.
Second, Obama is letting everyone agree with him. By shifting his positions to every conceivable spot on the spectrum he allowing all of us to unify behind him.
I AGREE WITH BARACK
It's the one political button we can all sport.
Man, this must be really hard for you.
What is really difficult is your apparent inability to understand the difference between someone saying "The surge will never work, the violence will never go down" - which you have ONE quote of the man saying - and someone saying "the surge will not work, it is not the solution, even if the violence will go down" which is pretty much the meaning behind all the other statements.
This is pointless. If one year ago Obama said the surge isn't working, then to you that means he declared that there will never be reductions in violence. If six months ago Obama said the surge is working to quell the violence but it isn't solving the problem then that means he declared there will never be reductions in violence. Apparently when the man utters the word "surge" you are going to be there to go "Ah ha! You said the surge would never work - didn't you? Didn't you?"
Do yourself a favor - go re-read the quotes above and point to the one, besides the first one, that shows Obama believed the surge would not reduce violence. Not that the violence hadn't been reduced in July, 2007. That the violence would never be reduced.
You can't do it. If I wanted to I could look back at all the debates, all the speeches on Iraq and bring forth 50 or 60 instances in which Obama said the violence would be reduced but the surge wouldn't work to solve Iraq's problems. You've got one quote and a bunch of others that are not on point.
It is infuriating because you're usually much smarter than this and you usually don't sink to these levels of twisting people's words to prove some political point. It is disappointing that you're buying into the "slam Obama repeatedly and maybe we'll win" theory, but I guess a GOP guy has gotta do what a GOP guy has gotta do, eh?
I realize you have been talking about Obama's flip Flop on the Surge which he attacked at the time and now as its working he agrees with. I guess when you're president you can't have a "I didn't mean it that way, you miss-understood" foreign policy, other countries expect consistency.
One of the things ignored by the News Media is that Obama didn’t just say he was going to pull the troops out over a 16 month period he said flatly; he was going to pull the troops out in 2009.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/hayden
It is infuriating because you're usually much smarter than this and you usually don't sink to these levels of twisting people's words to prove some political point.-- I just re-read this, that's funny.
"Now the Obama-worshippers are going to come on here and tell me that what he really meant..."
At least somebody's prediction came true (without the benefit of hindsight).
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Do yourself a favor - go re-read the quotes above and point to the one, besides the first one, that shows Obama believed the surge would not reduce violence. " Are you serious? So Obama gets a mulligan or something? So IP only can point out one quote and somehow he's wrong? So let's play this game. Show me one time, just once, where Obama addresses the statement that you tell us doesn't matter and clarifies it. You admit he said something and then come back with "I don't have time to go dig up the quotes, I am sure the Obama people will do that themselves, " well take a little time instead of charging us with somehow taking direct quotes and actually saying they mean something...you know that whole "Don't tell me words don't mean anything" Or was that just a load of BS too?
"What is really difficult is your apparent inability to understand the difference between someone saying "The surge will never work, the violence will never go down" - which you have ONE quote of the man saying - and someone saying "the surge will not work, it is not the solution, even if the violence will go down" which is pretty much the meaning behind all the other statements."
I don't know what Obama would do if he didn't have you around to explain what he really meant by all those statements saying that the surge wouldn't reduce violence.
"Do yourself a favor - go re-read the quotes above and point to the one, besides the first one, that shows Obama believed the surge would not reduce violence. Not that the violence hadn't been reduced in July, 2007. That the violence would never be reduced."
OK.
Even Obama recognizes he was wrong about the surge (by scrubbing his website) even if he is hoping nobody will notice.
So IP only can point out one quote and somehow he's wrong?
Right. He can only point out one quote and he is wrong because Obama said the following about a million other times:
This was the standard stump speech line. So if you want to look at everything Obama has ever said (and yes, Rush has minions who will do nothing but that all day long) and find a quote where he says the surge won't reduce violence, you can do that. You could probably also find a sentence in which George Bush or John McCain once said the same thing. But in order to understand the campaign's message on the surge you have to look at what was continually repeated in speech after speech. That message is above. And, in my opinion, there is nothing in that original message the shows he was "spectacularly wrong" about anything, or that he is lying about this issue. If he was spectacularly wrong then the troops would be having ticker-tape rain down on their heads right now in Times Square. But since no one in GOP fantasyland is advocating troop withdrawals any time soon, I am going to go ahead and assume that the troops are still needed in Iraq. And, therefore, the surge hasn't "solved" anything.
This wasn't much fun. I feel like I am trying to get 10 year olds to understand Shakespeare, but the kids just wanna read comic books.
Spider Man anyone?
Thanks for your efforts. Please point out to me where he says the violence will never be reduced.
Right, he never said that. He said the improvements hadn't happened in November, 2007, and he said that the situation was worsening. Which, in 2007, it would have been hard to argue against. But "the situation" doesn't just mean violence levels. You do understand that simple point, don't you? It also means the overall situation - like, stability, political progress, etc.
Oh, forget it. Your blinders are firmly in place. Look! Isn't that the Green Goblin? Better grab Mary Jane while you still have the chance!
"Thanks for your efforts. Please point out to me where he says the violence will never be reduced.
Right, he never said that. He said the improvements hadn't happened in November, 2007, and he said that the situation was worsening."
Boggle.
He spent over a year saying the surge wouldn't reduce the violence. Now he says that the surge reduced violence. And he's scrubbing his website to hide the fact, while claiming that he said all along the surge would reduce violence.
I've heard somewhere - I can't remember where - that words have meaning; one can't just pretend that the mean the exact opposite of what they actually mean.
"Oh, forget it. Your blinders are firmly in place. Look! Isn't that the Green Goblin? Better grab Mary Jane while you still have the chance!"
Now we've moved on to projection, I see.
Blind devotion to a very flawed idol is tough, but I give you credit - you've stuck to claiming his words actually mean something entirely different even when he's not willing to make that claim any more. He's just trying to hide the incriminating words instead, hoping that the media and his most devoted supporters will cover for him. And some are clearly trying, so at least when it comes to that, his judgment is spot on.
Boggle.
He spent over a year saying the surge wouldn't reduce the violence.
Maybe, but he sure didn't say that in the quote you provided:
Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.
He said it in the first quote, no doubt. But surely you are capable of finding more than one quote where he actually said it again, since he "spent over a year saying the surge wouldn't reduce the violence". Over a year. That's an awful lot of speeches with him running around saying the surge wouldn't reduce the violence. You can only find the one quote? Really?
Tell you what - if I have time tomorrow I'll find you a quote from Bush and McCain telling us to not expect the violence to be reduced during the surge. It probably won't take me more than five minutes, but I'm hitting the hay. Enough of the free English tutoring for one day.
A very small part of what you should look for in a candidate is how he "feels" or what he "hopes" at any particular moment in time. We all hope that none of our troops die in war, but the issue is not whether my son or yours dies in Afganistan, but whether the policy is the right one. When you are dealing with National Security, however, you should err on the side of safety of the American people, because if you are wrong, bad things happen. It was the same issue when this country had to decide whether to enter WW2.
There are some major differences between democrats and republicans on policy.(1) Republicans are more free market while democrats look to government for more and more answers. (2) Republicans take a longer view-while democrats are short term people. (3) Since Bill Clinton arrived, democrats are willing to play identify politics which is (ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country-Republicans recognize that the cost of dividing up the spoils exceeds the what you can get from those evil business men and doctors. (4) Democrats are more than willing to play the moral equivalancy game which is that a misdemenor of a republican is equal to the felony of the democrat. Doesn't George Ryan look good now that we have seen Blago?
Free market vs government taking control. The free market is made up of millions of different people acting out of economic interest. In a global economy these people are not even from the US and we have very little control over foreign investors, producers, or governments except through treaties. If govenment hinders how we compete, but no one hinders them, they have an unfair advantage. It is like sending our high jumpers to the olympics, but making them wear 5 pound shoes. Because government does not itself pay taxes, it has very little multiplier effect in an economy.
These liberals also do not understand basic economics. They assume that if you want to make more you go to the government and have the government give you a pay hike. Thus they propose higher taxes.Take the sales tax increase inside the City of Chicago for example. People pay taxes based on their sales less their expenses (which includes the taxes they pay). If people have to pay $600 more for a car inside the City of Chicago, they are going to go to the suburbs. If they do, the gross sales go down. (lower sales times increased tax rate=less revenue for government) The fixed cost of doing business stays the same unless they lay off employees, so their income goes down which results in exactly the opposite of what the liberals thought they were doing.
Long term vs short term- Seven years ago Bill Clinton said that if we drill in Alaska, there will not be one more barrel of oil at the refinery. Nancy Pelosi said the same thing yesterday. But that is exactly the point. You have to plan now for tommorrow. You have to maintain your roads and bridges. You have to set money aside for depreciation and to replace capital assets.
Identify politics and the high cost of bureacratic spoils. Chicago politics seems to be on the spoil system. Take a look at the Chicago schools. Until Paul Valas took over a large portion of the Chicago Board of Education, it was one big sink hole. The Catholic Schools did a lot more for a lot less because everyone's had was not out waiting too be greased. The Interagency Authority I sat on was the same way. Every child serving agency that placed kids (though Medicaid) in one of our residential facilities, spent about half their money trying to throw the poor kid onto someone elses budget. A seperate and unified intake system (like Texas-of all States) would have saved billions. Just two of many examples.
This is getting too long, so all will close with this one thought. We all have our philosophical views depending upon what we know. (Like the killer in Silence of the Lambs) But if you are going to judge a president you have to do it on three basic things. A. The issues will generally depend upon whether you believe that government should have more or less control of your life B. Your character. Are you trustworthy, loyal, brave, clean and reverant-or better yet, what do you do when no one is looking. Do you hang with sleeze bags, do you cheat on your wife, do you tap on restroom floors, do you go to church because it helps your career or because ?? C. Your experience including your educational experiences.
Am I happy it is not Romney? No, but as far as these three are concerned, McCain is a better choice-Maybe in 4 years, Obama can get the experience, but right now he is way over his head in foreign policy, free markets economics, his Rezco and Blago associations are very troubling, and he has absolutely zero executive experience and hasn't even proven he can run a Senate Committee,
"Maybe, but he sure didn't say that in the quote you provided:"
Only in Bizarro World, where up means down, and increase violence means reduce violence.
"He said it in the first quote, no doubt. But surely you are capable of finding more than one quote where he actually said it again, since he "spent over a year saying the surge wouldn't reduce the violence". Over a year. That's an awful lot of speeches with him running around saying the surge wouldn't reduce the violence. You can only find the one quote? Really?"
Again:
Here's another one:
Would you please translate: "with 20,000 troops, we will not be able to accomplish any new progress..."?
Keep trying.
If you would have kept reading:
Clearly, he's saying that Iraq's fundamental problems are political and all the troops we can throw at the situation won't fix that.
When someone says the surge is "working" that can mean multiple things:
Bush sold us the surge as a means to accomplish #2, not #1. Now there may have been a reduction in violence -- I hope we can all agree that's a good thing -- whether or not that was a result of the surge or due to other factors.
So it's even possible that the surge worked (1) even while it failed (2). Then again, that would require acknowledging that complicated situations are, well, complicated. You know, nuanced.
Narc, you know that IP and the other Republicans here don't do nuance. Why, that would require them to acknowledge that their world view is wrong, and Republicans don't admit such things. BTW, nice job on pointing out that, by Bush's own justification for the troop escalation, it hasn't yet worked.
Governing is for grownups, and Obama's the only grownup running right now.
Boon, you are incredible. Obama said the surge would increase violence in January 2007 but you want us to ignore that "judgment" on his part and look at his hindsight observation in January 2008 (American military deaths in December 2007 were 25) and claim that he actually had foresight.
Is this anything like the fact that in 2004 Obama told a Chicago reporter that he went to Trinity every Sunday but then told Newsweek this month that sometimes they didn't go for months at a time. For Obama the story is always subject to change depending on the time, circumstances, and audience.
Truly, if you want to keep defending your guy, I can appreciate that. Rationalize all you want about what his position is today and why it's kinda like his position a year or two years or five years ago...or five minutes ago. He changed his position on Iraq twice in one day in North Dakota last month.
But drop the preaching to those who call him on this. The calls are coming from both sides of the aisle and from places like the Washington Post and LA Times, hardly part of the VRWC.
And once again, prepare to get thrown under the bus. Because as strong as you and others are about defending this current position, remember that it's likely to change before your next power bill is due.
Narc, you know that IP and the other Republicans here don't do nuance.
Yeah, if we can't understand the brilliance of the Dem position (ok, he said violence would increase, but only one time), it must be because we are just stupid or hateful.
"Yeah, if we can't understand the brilliance of the Dem position (ok, he said violence would increase, but only one time), it must be because we are just stupid or hateful."
Or maybe it's that Obama's worshippers haven't yet properly translated his profound wisdom into verbiage simple enough to be understandable by those of us in the great unwashed masses?
Remember - in Obama World, the "opposite" of "reduce violence" is still "reduce violence." It's like a double-negative. Or something.
And Obama is never wrong, even when he says two things which directly contradict each other. Because Obama can never be wrong. He's got judgment.
This is now, by far, the most ridiculous conversation I have ever had on this blog.
IP - I will try to make this simple. This entire discussion is based on the idea that, according to you, Obama spent "a year" saying that the surge "wouldn't reduce violence in Iraq". Ok, you have provided one quote in which he actually says the surge wouldn't reduce violence in Iraq. When asked for more quotes (to prove that this wasn't a thrown-off line, but a stated, repeated belief) you produced the following:
Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.
Now, I am a simple man. I don't claim to be an Einstein. But where, in this sentence, does the word "violence" appear? I don't see it. Am I blind? Am I missing something? And if the word "violence" is not in this sentence, how can this sentence be a second instance of Obama saying that the surge would not reduce violence?
And the rest of your quotes:
Where is the word violence? How 'bout this one:
Nope, still no reference to violence. Let's continue:
Hey! I see the word violence TWICE. That's a new record, I think. Unfortunately, in this quote Obama is assessing the situation in September, 2007 and actually conceding that the violence has diminished, though only to the intolerable levels of July, 2006. Am I misreading this quote? Again, where is the reference to the prediction that the surge will never reduce violence?
Uh ... isn't he actually saying here that he expects an improvement in "security"? How can this quote be used to show that he continually insisted that the surge would not reduce violence. Boggle? or Bizzaro?
The rest are barely even relevant, except the one that has already been acknowledged.
Would you please translate: "with 20,000 troops, we will not be able to accomplish any new progress..."?
Could you please explain the word "progress"?
Keep trying.
No, I am done trying. You brain is made of concrete when it comes to Obama. You decided long ago that he is Just Another Politician and you've spent countless hours trying to prove that theory correct. Instead of using your astute analytical skills to discern the meaning behind the issues in this election you have chosen the low road of open contempt and pathetic reaching for issues that don't really exist.
As I have said before, there are a lot of reasons to slam Obama. FISA, public financing, etc. There are tons of ways he has shown himself to be less than ideal. This just isn't one of them, and any outside observer can clearly see that you are stretching and reaching to prove something that is not proveable.
Obama did not spend a year saying the surge would not reduce violence. He spent a year saying the surge might reduce violence but would not solve the problems in Iraq. So far that analysis has proven correct. And I reckon that is the part that makes you so irrationally angry in the first place.
Cheers! See you in some other thread when you regain your perspective.
As fun as it was to watch Boon flail in the wind in his revisionism, that not using the word violence somehow proves that he wasn't referring to that in his statements at all, and calling everyone else thick (brains of concrete), stupid (thought you were smarter than this), irrational, angry, etc by taking his words as what they meant as opposed to some great semantic diversion in hopes nobody will notice the underlying statements do in fact allude to the point...
...I had a prediction come true from earlier on the thread that the GOP would issue a Kerry/Iraq-style documentary (as they did in 2004) video tying his various Iraq shifts to putting politics ahead of winning the war:
Video here: http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/documentary.htm
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Boon, for someone who is criticizing another for his lack of substantiation, you sure have a lot yourself. Your "I had no doubt" quote comes in January 2008, a whole year after his quote saying the violence would increase (interesting that you left out the all important time frame of that quote). That is his first definitive statement about violence being reduced. What you are telling us is that sometime in the previous year he had come to some realization that the violence was going to be reduced, but didn't want to tell us about it. You can provide no other quote showing his recognition of the violence being reduced but want us to believe that his view had changed.
But once again, you bring up a good point. What Obama said in the past is always subject to change. In fact, it may have already changed but we don't know about it. He's just waiting to tell us about the change when we're ready for the message. Good news for some perhaps. Maybe we're going to drill in ANWR next year because Obama's position on that has already changed, he just hasn't told us. Or maybe it will change next week, or next month. Then those of us who criticize his flip flop will be assaulted by you who will point to the absence of quotes in support of the ANWR ban as evidence that he has always been open to drilling.
It's all part and parcel of the Obama message. Just trust him, and his everchanging judgment, to lead America where he knows we ought to go. Don't ask too many questions...just trust him. In fact, all these charges of flip flopping are really a result of America's obsession with knowing where candidates' stand on issues instead of being willing to just throw our lot in with the best guy...who is Obama. You want change...well, don't ask me what change I'll bring, just elect me...I'm the change you want.
Again, your willingness to go to bat for this guy is admirable. Your smug attitude toward those who criticize him I'm afraid poorly masks your own insecurity about where he stands on the things you care about. But keep trying. After all, what choice do you have. I'm in the same predicament with McCain. I just don't attack those who attack him.
"Again, your willingness to go to bat for this guy is admirable. Your smug attitude toward those who criticize him I'm afraid poorly masks your own insecurity about where he stands on the things you care about. But keep trying. After all, what choice do you have. I'm in the same predicament with McCain. I just don't attack those who attack him."
I can certainly understand this position, although I won't go so far as to say I'm at the "what choice do I have?" point. However, I do wish Obama would have recognized that his prediction that a significant troop increase would not reduce violence was incorrect. (We can continue to debate the relative success or failure of the surge in other terms; I hope I'm not the only one for whom the metrics of success are cloudy at best.)
Instead, Obama attempted to deflect criticism for that prediction -- to focus on the larger issues in Iraq, to avoid looking wrong, to be Just Another Politician®, take your pick. Unfortunately, he failed to deflect that criticism and thereby also lost a good opportunity to put the focus on a fairly specific, detailed plan (read the July 15 speech).
I am continually disappointed at politicians' assumptions that we as voters cannot accept imperfections, mistakes, or even cases of poor judgment. We are all guilty of these missteps ourselves. Have we trained them to make that assumption?
I am continually disappointed at politicians' assumptions that we as voters cannot accept imperfections, mistakes, or even cases of poor judgment. We are all guilty of these missteps ourselves.
I agree. In this case, Obama could have even said, "yeah, I predicted that more US troops would lead to an increase in violence - thankfully, I was wrong. I will never again underestimate the power of the determined US fighting men. We still have a ways to go on the political front, but ....."
Would that have gotten him in so much trouble with the anti-war left?
"Would that have gotten him in so much trouble with the anti-war left?"
I don't think so. But would the right have allowed him to say he was wrong, praise the efforts of the troops (which he did), and then point out why reducing violence alone didn't equal success in Iraq, without skewering him anyway?
It's a valid observation to say he never gave either side a chance.
But would the right have allowed him to say he was wrong, praise the efforts of the troops (which he did), and then point out why reducing violence alone didn't equal success in Iraq, without skewering him anyway?
Maybe. But now he is getting hammered for being wrong and trying to hide it. If I was running as a "new kind of politician", I might have given honesty a shot.
Alchemy, your way would be great, but that's not the path that Obama has chosen. And he's likely to get away with it. Look at Boon's rationalizations...he refuses to concede the point that is obvious to anyone who's willing to look at Obama's statements with an open mind. Millions in America, and virtually all in the media, will be happy to adopt the Boon line.
The dream of a new kind of politician is dead. But happily for liberals, the dream of an ultra liberal is quite alive. Of course, I can always dream that Obama will sell out the liberals.
Boon, for someone who is criticizing another for his lack of substantiation, you sure have a lot yourself.
Against my better judgement, and to defend my good (albeit fake) name, I feel compelled to try one more time.
Let's make this really simple with a real world example. Let's say that Joe and I are talking about the weather. Joe says that his favorite kind of days are summer days when the temperature is around 80 degrees and the skies are clear - it is sunny. The next day, the temperature is 78 degrees but it is raining. Is this Joe's perfect day? If I were to say to Joe, "Hey! It is 78 degrees today. How 'bout that? Isn't this your perfect day?" And Joe was to respond, "No, this is not a perfect day, it is raining!" Would Joe be wrong?
With the surge we were told that violence would be reduced and the political situation would stabilize. Those were the goals. If Obama said, "sure the violence may be reduced, but the political situation isn't solved" does that make him wrong about the surge?
The quotes listed above mostly refer to the ambiguous "situation" or "solution". So, if "the situation" is defined solely as a reduction in violence then Obama was wrong when he said the situation would not be improved. It's 78 degrees, so today must be a perfect weather day! If, however, "the situation" includes a reduction in violence and a stabilized political situation, then Obama isn't wrong - he is right on target. Just as Joe can't say the weather is perfect because the barometer has reached 78 degrees but it is raining cats and dogs.
When I read Obama's quotes I see a man including both prerequisites in his assessment of "the situation". Apparently I am the only one who is picking up on that analysis. Which is fine, perhaps I live on Neptune or am struggling with nuance when nuance is not required. I don't know. But it seems clear as day to my admittedly deranged mind.
If I have insulted anyone's intelligence because they disagree with me on this analysis of these statements then I apologize. I would just mention that there was quite a bit of goading in this thread ("Keep trying", "boggle") as if anyone who disagrees with the analysis of the conservatives is also out to lunch.
It is the same with music, I suppose. When I hear someone extolling the virtues of the latest John Tesh cd I usually want to ask how they can be so blind as to like such obviously bad music. It is clear as day to me that Tesh sucks, why would anyone like it. Listen to that three note repeated melody. That is the definition of "suck". Why don't you realize that?
Perhaps I should just let them enjoy their music and turn up the Bad Brains one more time.
Have a great day!
that is all perfectly fine, except for that one quote where Obama says the surge is going to increase violence. If you can make that statement go away, you have a shot at winning this argument.
Boon, since you were nice enough to come back I'll try to be nice. First, the analysis that Obama's position and/or views have changed is not one held solely by conservatives. Lots of people from across the spectrum have said that same thing. Second, as rsw says, you can't erase his one statement. But Obama is trying to do that. If he had adopted alchemy's line, he'd have some argument. But he didn't. He tried to act as if it didn't exist, like he did on campaign finance, or NAFTA, or the host of other positions that have evolved in the last month, just coincidentally after he secured the nomination. I think there can be little doubt that politicians who say one thing and do another are a big part of the cynicism of the American public. Obama is feeding straight into that, despite promising his fawning supporters six months ago a new kind of politics. for the record, we've been having a debate here about whether Obama thought the surge would reduce violence and at what point he started to hold that view. No one should take that as an acknowledgement that there hasn't been real political progress. I think Obama was wrong about that as well. Maybe we need a fresh start of a thread to have that debate.
Perhaps you might want to read Steve Chapman. Unlike the reflexive anti-Obama commenters here, he's both honest and right.
Chapman is a much better writer than I am.
you can't erase his one statement. But Obama is trying to do that. If he had adopted alchemy's line, he'd have some argument. But he didn't. He tried to act as if it didn't exist
I didn't try to erase his one statement. I said that particular statement doesn't represent his position because he said that the surge would reduce the violence about 5000 times during the primaries. My position is that a lot of people said the surge wouldn't work to reduce violence. In fact, many on the right said the same thing - probably to reduce expectations.
I asked for more statements. IP's claim was that Obama spent "a year" saying the surge "would not reduce violence". Yet when asked for another statement from that year full of these statements I got nothing. Just statements about "the situation" or "solutions".
I love my wife dearly. That is true. 365 days of the year I try to tell her I love her and act like a loving husband. Yet there may have been a time last month when she made me so mad I said to myself (or the car radio) "I hate that woman!". Does that mean I hate her? Or are my daily actions a better testament to my feelings about my wife?
If someone could show me that Obama made "the surge will not reduce violence" statements repeatedly from late 2006-late 2007 (about six months ago) I would be happy to concede the point. But no one has been able to do that. And as a person who has followed Obama's position quite closely, I know they can never do that because that was not his position, even if he mistakenly said something to that effect one time.
Finally, I think it is pretty sad that this is how Republicans have chosen to spend their summer before the big election: trying to make molehills into mountains. It shows that the party is sorely lacking in passion for their candidate and lacking in substantive arguments for the issues. I had hoped that maybe there could be some good debate about the best course for this country in the coming years. But instead we seem doomed to repeat the election cycle of 2004. And we can all see what a success that election was for this country.
When I read Obama's quotes I see a man including both prerequisites in his assessment of "the situation". Apparently I am the only one who is picking up on that analysis.
When I see comments like this I see a politician trying to have it both ways so he can cover his butt. It does little for good foreign policy, how can a foreign leader tell what part of the story is reality?
The Chapman piece is merely biased in the other direction, mainly through omission. Obama's rhetoric has certainly been against going into Iraq in the first place, few would deny that. Obama's rhetoric has also been supportive of getting out sooner as opposed to later. Few would deny that either. And he's also right to note the frustration that many on the left have that his views haven't been anywhere near as dramatic as Kucinich's over the years.
What he leaves out though is that many on the left have also been frustrated by his hedging on his actual actions to do anything about it. His opponents of course will happily note it too, but the facts remain a thorn in Obama's side and Obama's own words in defense of his hedging are now being used against him. His various stances on whether or not it was appropriate to keep funding the war, especially without time tables to withdraw, has left him open to criticism on whether he'd actually take action to end the war or merely do what was politically expedient for himself, rhetoric aside. And though Chapman accurately notes Obama's rhetoric about being concerned over withdrawing in an irresponsibly dangerous way... that has played out in different ways over the years, from opposing timetables for withdrawal (and his infamous line about being in line with the Bush admin) to being fully supportive of them as the presidential race became imminent.
Obama himself put his own initial judgment in doubt with his defense of his fellow democrats who had voted in favor of the war. Though he made it clear he didn't find the Bush admin's reasons compelling, he refused to challenge the reasons Democrats may have had for doing so... and he made the compelling argument that he did not know what action he would have taken under the circumstances because by his own admission he wasn't fully informed on the matter. Of course this was back in 2004 when he was still arguing that he'd be too inexperienced generally to run for president in 2008... so perhaps we can dismiss all of this as election year rhetoric aimed at riding the prevailing winds (such as concerns he was just using the Senate election as a springboard for presidential politics and concerns that leaving Iraq, regardless of whether it was right or wrong to go in the first place, could make even bigger problems.)
So here we are. In another election year. The winds have changed... but this time he really means it. But it's hardly shocking that many of the more adamant anti-war folks have their doubts and certainly not surprising that his opponents in both the primary and now the general have been pointing out, and yes sometimes exaggerating, his prior hedging.
But what's the relevance? As Chapman points out, we can be pretty dern sure where Obama stands on the war generally. With McCain we can be pretty dern sure where McCain stands on it, even when his specific stances and general stances are unpopular. For those of us with our minds made up on what the proper course of action is, there's little debate on who we think is running on the best plan for America's interests... even if we vehemently disagree with each other. The relevance is to Americans who aren't so sure about what the best course of action is. One candidate is telling them exactly what they want to hear, that we can get out of this awful mess without serious consequence... but his record on taking action on his rhetoric has been mixed. With his opposition to the surge, there wasn't really a flip-flop in action since he had always opposed it, but with his belief that it would make the situation worse... which shifted towards making no difference... to making little difference, etc. The first strikes at leadership, the other at judgment.
Meanwhile those voters see another candidate whose rhetoric and actions seem to be leading to positive results. We can argue and the pundits can opine all day long about whether those results are as positive as being depicted lately... we can even argue all day long about whether the policies McCain supported had more to do with it than other factors. But it is hard to objectively claim that Obama's earlier dire predictions about the surge came to fruition... and pretty difficult to mesh his later rhetoric about it making little difference, with the perception of voters, who are seeing and hearing about significant differences. As the Iraqis make greater headway on their administrative and security goals with the violence reduced, it'll become more and more difficult for people to buy into Obama's claims that it isn't happening.
When deciding who will be making the big decisions in the next four years with the conflict in and around Afghanistan... which both candidates intend to continue... and with who will be using the right judgment on Iran... a situation where both candidates have refused to take military options off the table... and in any number of other matters of national security that are pressing or may arise in that time... undecided voters may start seeing the improving Iraq situation as a plus for McCain and a negative for Obama. But for most peo