Jul 23 2008
Obama Ignoring Advice From All Corners
Reader Sally Vie pointed me to this Washington Post editorial which is noting the obvious – Obama is as oblivious to the opinions of world leaders and American leaders as he has been oblivious to the reality on the ground in Iraq:
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama’s own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq’s principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, “does not want a timetable,” Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that “there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn’t take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”
Is the junior senator from Illinois listening? Of course not, his ego has inflated so far his ears have been clogged and his mind has switched off. Obama is the epitome of the stubborn, bull-headed politician who will say anything without an ounce of candor or sincerity. He just wants all these nuisances (aka experts) to just shut up and follow his orders. America is noticing, and I expect Obama will actually see a drop in his support after his dismal road trip to the Middle East.
The Messiah is getting board with the masses.
so you are saying that our military should operate on a schedule set by iraq? if i was commander-in-chief i wouldn’t stand for it. maybe you would. but again…obama has always — ALWAYS — said that withdrawal “…will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the iraqi government…” that quote is from his website and it has been there for a long time.. maybe you should take a look at it. it appears that obama has always –ALWAYS — planned to do exactly what your post implies you want. i can only assume you will vote for obama, rather than someone who is completely unaware of when the awakening actually began.
We are in Iraq at the Iraqi government’s request. Weshould listen to their point of view on when we should set a time table. I am sure they will consult with our military for advice.
Obama has not said “will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the iraqi government…â€. He started out saying he would be out by 2008, then that got voted down, then he changed his mind and said he would talk to the commmanders, but even before he went onhis Magical Mystery Tour, he said he will pull out by 2010. Obama has had as many stances on Iraq as Clinton has girlfriends on the side.
stix…yes we should listen to iraq…which is what obama has always said.. iraq should not set the schedule as the qouted article said and i have to assume aj agrees with as he posted it and suggested obama should listen to it.
and yes obama has said it. you see that’s how quotations work. it’s on his website. again i suggest you go look instead making wild unsubstantiated, uninformed, and flat out infactual claims.
it cracks me up that you deny a factual quote…then go off on some completely infactual rant. if that is how you form opinions it shows the value of your opinions.
aj failed to quote the most interesting part of fred hiatts wapo editorial that he linked to; “…while the united states has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the afghan taliban, the country’s strategic importance pales beside that of iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the middle east and contains some of the world’s largest oil reserves…” once again we see that the prime interest or supporters of the so-called war in iraq is not our national security, not in defeating al queda, but oil. aj linked to this, and suggested obama listen to it, so i can only assume he agrees.
Hey Worm? another name change? how about NormTard?
Obama said he didn’t support the surge and knowing what he knows today if he had the opportunity to change his mind, he still would not support the surge. What he is clearly saying is he wants OUT of iraq and to hell with what happens there afterward. As long as it buys him the presidency, he is willing to say or do anything.
Obama has never used the quote you ‘quoted’,
and as far as what he ‘says on his web site’, that is changed daily. it follows his policy of CHANGE as in his mind, every conversation. Comes from too much gum chewing.
We must be on high alert for the polls that will come out after this visit of o’s. They will be rigged for him, I can gaa-run-tee it.
This is all flash and no substance. o is a faux candidate, pure and simple. Madison Avenue all the way.
A word to hollyweird and madison ave: YOU WILL NOT MANIPULATE/CON US….except for those who the dnc have treated as mushrooms.
AJ,
You need to stop thinking with your heart and start thinking with your head. You are the only person that I know who thinks that Obama’s trip has been a failure. If Obama’s trip is going so poorly, maybe you can explain why McCain’s campaign is so frustrated with the media coverage and is acting seriously desparate. How can you say that Obama’s trip is a failure when it includes the Iraqi Prime Minister and other high level Iraqi government officials endorsing Obama’s specific timetable for withdrawal? This completely changed the debate over Iraq to Obama’s favor. You can quibble all you want about the seven month difference between Obama and the Iraqi government’s timetable, but the bottomline is that the Iraqi government has specifically and expressly rejected Bush/McCain’s refusal to consider any timetable and/or consider a sooner rather than later withdrawal. Obama could not have scripted this any better. Not only that, but the images of Obama meeting with world leaders and being swarmed by US soldiers in Iraq will certainly help his commander-in-chief image. Thus far, he has made no gaffes or major mistakes.
By the way, I’m surprised that you failed to write a post on a breaking story that covers your two favorite topics – lying politicians and the bias media that covers up for them. Last night on CBS Evening News McCain told Couric that the Surge brought about the Sunni Awakening. That is a complete lie – the Sunni Awakening was well under operation before Bush even announced the Surge. McCain knew about the timing of these events because he spoke about the Sunni Awakening in the fall of 2006 before Bush even announced the Surge. McCain is trying to fool Americans into thinking that the Surge alone was the reason for our security success in Iraq – dismissing the Sunnis who risked their and their families lives by turning on Al Qaeda. Unbelieveably, CBS tried to bury this gaffe/lie by editing it out of the interview that ran on TV. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html
So AJ, what kind of action are you going to take on this issue? Are you going to prove that you are against all politicians lying to the American public and the bias of the media that tries to cover their tracks by pointing it out, or are you going to prove that you are a partisan hack and only care about the beloved GOP?
Conman,
Clearly you don’t know many of the right people!
[…] July 23, 2008 · No Comments In a searing editorial today, the Washington Post takes Barack Obama to task for his simplisitc and misguided view of the situation in Iraq. The Post also corrects the record and straightens out common misunderstandings about Obama’s position and its relevance to reality. It also rightly points out that Al-Maliki has a history of misleading statements that do not always translate well. Memo to Rachel Maddow: get a little more education when you try to speak about the situation in Iraq. Update: AJ Strata has his own view of this situation. […]
Here is an even more detailed post about McCain’s CBS comments about the timing of the Sunni Awakening and Surge. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/not-a-gaffe-a-fundaemtnal_b_114394.html How can you ignore this comment? Either McCain is outright lying to the American people in an act of desparation because he is so frustrated that the debate on Iraq, his strongest issue, completely shifted when the Iraqi government endorsed Obama’s withdrawal plan OR McCain exposed his complete lack of understanding about the Surge. Either option is a serious problem for a presidential candidate.
AJ,
Maybe you can “educate” me about what the failures entail. This post points out two things that hardly qualify as failures.
The first point you elude to is the fact that there is a 7 month difference between the Obama withdrawal plan and the Iraqi government withdrawal plan. You fail to realize that before Obama left on his trip there was no Iraqi government withdrawal plan. The Iraqi government was parroting Bush’s conditions-based withdrawal plan. So even if there is a 7 month difference, the Iraqi government’s shift is a huge boon for Obama. How can you possibly interpret this any other way?
The second point you make is that Petreaus reiterated that he does not want a specific timetable for withdrawal. That is old news. We knew that before Obama left on his trip, so why do you think his inability to get Petreaus to change his mind is a failure? Did you honestly think that Obama expected the military leader in Iraq to throw the current President under the bus and adopt the plan of a presidential candidate? You cannot call the trip a failure when it doesn’t change anything we already knew about the candidiate and/or his position on issues before he left on the trip.
So AJ, please explain to us why you think his trip is a failure. Is it simply because you don’t like Obama and/or his positions on the issues so you think anything he does is a failure, or do you think there is something he did or said that will change the dynamics of the election. Your posts thus far have demonstrated to me that it is the former, but I’m open to you convincing us otherwise.
Conman,
Educate thyself
AJ,
I don’t know why you make such simple tasks so difficult. First of all, you linked to your own post. This is at least the third time you have responded to one of my questions/challenges by citing yourself. Note to self, when someone challenges your opinion and invites you to cite some support for your position – citing to yourself is the absolute least persuasive way of responding. The ole “I am right now because I said I was right before” just doesn’t cut it. In fact, it only serves to confirm that you have no support for your position because if you had you obviously would have cited to it rather than yourself.
Second, the post you cited does not address why you think Obama’s trip is a failure. It addresses a different topic – why you believe that Obama’s withdrawal plan is bad policy. The topic of this post and my question is not why you think Obama’s withdrawal plan is bad policy – god knows you tell us virtually everyday why you think it is bad policy. The question is what is the basis for your statement that Obama’s trip is a failure.
No need to answer the question anymore – it is pretty clear to us now that you think it is a failure because you like McCain better than Obama.
Here is a tip. If you are going to cover a major political event on your blog, such as Obama’s overseas trip, provide something insightful. The interesting thing about his trip is the political dynamic – will it help or hurt his candidacy? Simply reiterating that you disagree with Obama’s views on policy issues that he held long before he went on the trip is not interesting.
Conman,
It is the answer. Whether you get it or agree is irrelevant.
AJ,
So you think that Obama’s trip is a failure because the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters demonstrate that schedule-based decisions are more dangerous than conditions-based decisions. Got it. The connection between Obama’s trip and these shuttle disasters doesn’t make any sense to me, and I highly doubt that others will make that connection when they are evaluating if Obama’s trip will help or hurt his candidacy, but I clearly understand that you think there is a connection.
By the way, a new NBC/WSJ poll being released tonight shows that 60% of registered voters are in favor of setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq while only 30% are against it. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/23/1217484.aspx. Given all of the positive press about the success of the surge in the last few months, it is absolutely amazing to me that public opinion is moving in favor of Obama’s Iraq plan. To me, this is pretty persuasive evidence that the Iraqi government’s endorsement of Obama’s withdrawal plan during his trip has been a huge boon for Obama and major blow to McCain.
I can’t imagine how frustrated McCain is at this point. McCain’s support of the surge and its contribution to improving the situation in Iraq was his greatest political asset and the Iraqi government completely upended it with its endorsement of Obama’s plan. McCain must be fumming because people seem to be overlooking the fact that Obama was wrong about the surge to begin with. It reminds me of how I felt when we discovered that there were no WMDs or Al Qaeda connection in Iraq after we invaded and Bush just said “oh well, we are really there to spread democracy” and everyone initially bought it. Or when conservatives claim that the current successes in Iraq as a result of the surge prove that “Bush was right all along,” ignoring the fact that the initial post-war plan was a disaster and it took Bush more than 2.5 years to recognize it and implement a new strategy. Oh Senator McCain, I feel your pain!
AJ, it just cracks me up when these leftists want to assail our BOLD president, George W. Bush.
The fact is that the leftists saw themselves as becoming irrelevant with his popularity and his BOLD and COURAGEOUS decisions to “take it to the enemy where they reside” after 9/11.
The Iraq invasion accomplished many things one of which being that it burst the terrorists’ fantasy bubble that they could continue attacking the US with NO PENALTIES ala the clinton administration’s weak responses to terror during the nineties and during which time the World Trade Center was FIRST ATTACKED. The terrorists believed we were weak. See Osama’s own words to this effect…and also see Tom Friedman’s words, no fan of this administration.
The Iraq theater in the War on Terror has, is, was a success because it has precipitated unprecidented CHANGE!!!! in the Middle East and around the world. CHANGE, I tell you, that the leftists DO NOT LIKE because it exposes them as the weak and dysfunctional, and frankly, America-hating group that they are… and shows America as the strong, powerful Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. The country that LIBERATES those who live under tyranny. And that is part of what will and is keeping us safer. Because the leftists did not originate this boldness, it must be denigrated, denigrated for a purely raw political power grab, NOT out of any principled belief.
The Afghanis and Iraqis love America. Maybe you should think about doing that, too, leftists. If not, please move to parts of Europe where you may be received with open arms.
Ivehadit,
What change in the Middle East do you think Bush’s bold leadership has brought about? Is it the fact that the Taliban/Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan has been steadily increasing 6 years after we supposedly finished the job there? Is it Al Qaeda’s new sanctuary in Pakistan, a country with WMDs and strong local support for Al Qaeda, where they can plot the next attack? Is it Hamas electoral win in Gaza? Is it the Lebonese government’s recent capitulation to Hezzbullah and agreement to give Hezzbullah a parliamentary block and veto power over major government decisions? Is it Iran’s increasing power and influence in the region now that Iraq has been converted from a Sunni-controlled government who considered Iran an enemy to a Shite-controlled government with strong ties to Iran? Is it that Iran has been moving full steam ahead with its nuclear program and Bush has been unable to do anything about it? Sorry dude, other than the Lybian government coming clean about its WMD program shortly after we invaded Iraq, which I believe was a result of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, I don’t see any other positive changes in the region as a result of Iraq.
As for who kept us safer, do you not realize that 9-11 happened on Bush’s watch? I love the accountability of conservatives – the worst terrorist attack on the US homeland happens during Bush’s presidency despite the fact that we had intelligence of Al Qaeda’s desire to hit the homeland (are you not aware of the presidential briefing on this specific issue in Aug. of 2001) and you all are blaming the prior president. That is so classic!
I’m constantly amazed that conservatives like yourself continue to use the worn out slogan – you hate America if you don’t agree with everything Bush says and does. The ability to criticize the government is one of the fundamental rights of a democracy. That is why nobody accused conservatives of being anti-american when they criticized Clinton when he was president, including sharp criticism of the war in Bosnia despite the fact that it turned out to be a success. If you don’t want to live in a country where the citizens can disagree and voice their opposition to the government and elected officials, I suggest that you move to a country that has a dictatorship form of government. In fact, there are a number of them in the Middle East – maybe you should move there and reap the rewards of all of the wonderful change our couragous leader Fhurer Bush has bestowed upon us!
Hell, Obama sounds like a war monger himself when he prattles on about Pakistan and now he is actually sounding more like Bush when it comes to Iran.
Obama has been wrong about Iraq all along and he is wrong now. The left can prattle on about Maliki’s socalled endorsement all they want, but he has not endorsed Obama and he signed a security agreement with Bush for a time horizon plan just a couple of weeks ago.
obama has even gone so far as to say, he will not be rigid in sitting up his plan and might give it more time and he refuses to tell us how large his “residual” force will be.
The guy is full of it.
The truth is if it were left up to Obama and norm and conman Maliki would not be the Prime Minister and Iraq would not be on its way to becoming a decent place to live.
Terrye,
No offense, but your responses are overly simplistic and partisan. Let’s be honest – no matter what Obama says or does, it is clear you will find something to criticize. If Obama is not taking as tough a response as Bush on a particualr issue, you criticize him as too weak. If he is taking a tougher response than Bush, he is too dangerous. If Obama stands firm on a particular position, you accuse him of being too rigid. If he changes his position, you accuse him of being a flip-flopper. On and on. Simply put, you will always find something to criticize about him because he is a democrat.
You also really need to pay closer attention to the news. Maliki did not sign a security agreement with Bush a couple of weeks ago setting a time horizon. The US had been trying to negotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis for months and had to abandon it when the Iraqi’s pushed for a timetable for withdrawal and no immunity for US security forces. Earlier this month, the US scraped the Status of Forces Agreement and decided to push for a stop-gap measure referred to as the Bridge Agreement – essentially a temporary agreement to buy time while we continue negotiating the Status of Forces Agreement. That Bridge Agreement now is in jeopardy over the same issues. It has not been fully negotiated or signed by either party. Here is an article that explains it all – I suggest you get up to speed. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=82&sid=1445534.
Given the Iraq government’s insistence on a timetable as part of the Status of Forces Agreement negotiations and Maliki and other Iraqi officials public endorsement of a 2010 timetable, I think it is pretty safe to say that Iraq wants a specific timetable for the withdrawal of US troops that is very close to Obama’s timetable. Other than the negative political implications for McCain and the GOP, I don’t know why you wouldn’t be happy to hear that the Iraqi government is willing and believes it is prepared to take over the security situation and allow our troops to come home soon. I thought that was the whole point of the surge? I never thought I’d see the day when conservatives, who have been declaring victory in Iraq for months, are now suddenly arguing that Iraq is still unstable and the Iraqi government is still unprepared to take over such that if we withdraw our troops in the next 2 years it will lead to a total disaster. I’d say it is funny, but it is actually pathetic to see yet another instance where Americans are more concerned about getting their political party elected than they are in achieving the best results for our country (just like those democrats that hoped for failure in Iraq to boost their political party’s chances in 2008).
Please spare me the soap-box lectures about how Iraq wouldn’t be a decent place to live if not for your hero Bush. First of all, Iraq is not even currently a decent place to live. There are still persistent bombings, a poor economy and an unstable political situation. It is markedly better than last year, but it still has a long way to go before you can declare it a shining example of American foreign policy. More importantly, America should not be running around the world trying to correct all of the injustice and lack of decency in the world. There are all kinds of problem areas in the world where people are suffering under dictatorial rule – Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea – we can’t invade all of those countries. I’m a realist – I believe that the US should only use its military forces if it’s strategic interests are threatened – not out of some lofty goals of making the world a better place. We now know that Saddam was not an imminent threat in March of 2003 – we could have, and should have, finished the job in Afghanistan before we even considered opening a new front in Iraq. Conservatives used to prescribe to the realist foreign policy theory, but conveniently forgot it when they jumped on Bush’s “let’s spread democracy throughout the Middle East (except for those dictatorships that are friendly to the US)” mantra.