• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Barak the Bass flopping on Iraq

Sandhusker

Well-known member
When will Barack Obama explicitly acknowledge progress in Iraq? The evidence is almost overwhelming. More than a few articles have been written documenting the success of the surge. Reports of drastic drops in violence can be heard from NPR all the way to Fox News. While it’s true that many of these reports carefully point out that the situation is still fragile, they all nonetheless point to measurable success as a result of the surge.

So, where is the Barack Obama of the primary season? Remember him? He’s the one who beat an entire field of notable Democrat luminaries, because he was able to energize the anti-war far left. He’s the one who once called for an immediate withdrawal, said the surge would never work, and ran on the premise of having opposed the war from the beginning.

Today, that Barack Obama is making a dash to the center. Still mostly silent about progress in Iraq, he nonetheless recently told reporters that he might “refine” his policy. Obama then had to defend himself only a few hours later, stating forcefully “I have not equivocated on that position” -- lest anyone should doubt.

Anyone surprised at this quick turnaround shouldn’t be. Obama has a long record of waffling, specifically about Iraq.

In an excellent piece by Peter Wehner titled “Obama’s War”, it’s clear that Obama has never been serious about Iraq, and has always put politics first in deciding where to stand. As the article accurately states, Obama’s ever shifting views demonstrate “a record of problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Barack Obama was right in 2002, what does this subsequent record say about his fitness to serve?”

Wehner thoroughly breaks down Obama’s long record of Iraq waffles since 2002, an embarrassing timeline that goes something like this:

Oct. 2002: Obama, then an Illinois state senator, gives an anti-war speech to an anti war gathering in Chicago.

Mar. 2003: Obama, seeing the success of the initial invasion and toppling of Saddam’s statue, thinks he may have been wrong for opposing the
war (documented in “Audacity of Hope”).

July 2004: Obama says, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

Sep. 2004: Obama says in an AP report that pulling out of Iraq would make things worse, and even says he might support sending more troops.

Nov. 2004: Obama goes on Charlie Rose and says “Once we go in, then we’re committed”.

Obama holds this view -- until he decides to run for President. By this time, public opinion of the war is very low, so accordingly…

Oct. 2006: Obama calls for a phased withdrawal, and is against sending more troops.

Jan. 2007: Obama says the surge won’t work.

May 2007: Obama votes against funding for combat operations, and says he wants the “troops out now!”

Jan 2008: Obama utters a ridiculous statement crediting early signs of success -- not to the US Military, Gen. Petraeus, or President Bush --
but to the results of the November 2006 US elections. Said Obama:

“Much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?—the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shiites. We should start negotiating now.”

Interesting judgment to say the least.

Obama has since said that he will reserve the right to do and say exactly the opposite of whatever he said about Iraq before, and anything in between, as long as all political bases are covered.

Remember, according to the article, Obama did say in 2004, that he “would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.”

At this point, would anyone be surprised if -- upon completion of his long overdue second trip to Iraq -- Obama tried to use that statement to claim that he actually supported the surge all along?

Would anyone be surprised if the mainstream media let him get away with it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So Sandy-- what should we call these neocons that made the following statements- flipfloppers, liars, idiots, or all the above... :???:

CAKEWALK!

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03

HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

MY favorites:

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
None of them have been proclaimed a "visionary" and is running for President. Besides that, I don't expect anybody to have a crystal ball and be right all the time, but I have no use for idiots who change their positions on subjects everytime the wind shifts. That must be what the Llama is talking about when he promises "change".

That's not presidential material. That's not even post master material.
 
Top