|
Post by jeffolie on Jul 3, 2008 14:52:53 GMT -6
Obama rewrites Iraq plan Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his Web site: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month. A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan. “I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he told reporters in Fargo, N.D., according to CBS News. "When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." But he went on to maintain: “I have been consistent throughout this process that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, went even further during remarks Wednesday on CNN’s “Situation Room,” telling guest host John Roberts that Obama has actually advocated “a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks, and advice on the commanders on the ground.” www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.htmlObama changes Iraq policy - sounds like McCain Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 3, 2008 15:44:45 GMT -6
What? Obama flip-flopping on a previous promise? What a surprise. Maybe his next flip-flop will be to invade Iran. Or ratify all pending "free" trade agreements. Or make all of Bush's tax cuts permanent. Or convert to Hinduism. Or re-register as a Republican after he's elected. (He's almost there already.)
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jul 3, 2008 17:17:41 GMT -6
I saw this one coming a year ago when i started seeing how petreaus was changing things. Back then, the democrats would have been smart to have labeled the surge "petreaus's surge" thereby making it "petreaus's war." This would have gave them a convenient out if the war turned around. ("bush's war" was a loss, "petraeus's war" was a win) The verdict is still out on whether that has happened, but Obama's flip on this position is likely not to hurt him as much chiefly because the war has dropped lower on the list of priorities in the voter's mind.
If there is another flip to come, it may be a slower "re-implementation" of tax rates out of concern for the economy. He still hasn't really handled the issue of immigration reform (so it might not even be possible for him to "flip" in the first place). "free" trade agreements will be recast by another name. The challenge will getting the media (and the populace) to analyze them for what they are.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jul 9, 2008 2:37:46 GMT -6
heh- well damn, this story is turning into more and more of a fiasco. not that everyone here would like to visit the huff-po, but jon soltz writes about how withdrawal is now an issue that could make McCain and Bush both look badThere you have it. The Iraqis are basically telling the US that they endorse Obama's policy -- they want us to set a timetable to bring the troops home. John McCain in 2004 said we'd respect such a requestNot that the Obama supporters should be doing the happy dance just yet, and fortunately one of them doesn'the quotes analysis from the nation: Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States.and then proffers his own analysis: One thing that is not clear is what Iran wants from all of this. I have read analyses that Iran wants the US out and analyses that Iran does not want the US out. Another factor is how Sadr fits into all this. He clearly wants the US out, and clearly thinks his non-violent protests are the way to make gains in the upcoming elections. Most analyses I have read indicate that he is not friendly with the Iranian government: what is unclear, then, is to what exetent his and the Iranians' goals line up.
As the next few weeks go by, these are things to watch:
(1) Will Maliki demand a timetable?
(2) Will Maliki allow parliament to vote on the final agreements?
(3) Will the White House reaction to Iraqi demands for a timetable remain as flatfooted as this?
(4) Who will become the winner in the local Iraqi elections?the comments are worth a go- this one stood out: last week's killing of a maliki relative was a major impetus, according to juan cole:
us kills maliki relative
ooops. a us military operation in karbala province at janaja resulted in the arrest of one iraqi and the killing of another. the dead iraqi is said to be a relative of prime minister nuri al-maliki. the governor of karbala province, uqail al-khazali, complained that the us military had acted unilaterally and had not coordinated with him. (he was probably deeply embarrassed that one of al-maliki's kinsmen had been killed on his watch, and wants to make sure to fix the blame where it belongs). al-khazali is said to be from the islamic mission party (da'wa), to which al-maliki also belongs.
the us had been negotiating a status of forces agreement with al-maliki, and arguing for the us military to retain the prerogative of launching operations at will and without coordinating with the iraqi government. if that provision had not already been dead, i think it is now.
the next day ...
meanwhile, the dispute between the al-maliki government and the us military in karbala province, over the us operation that killed a relative of prime minister nuri al-maliki, has worsened, according to mcclatchy. hannah allam writes:
'kurdish legislator mahmoud othman called friday's operation "unacceptable" and had strained relations between the countries. "this is a big embarrassment for prime minister maliki because he was in that area two days before the incident, telling his people that we are the masters in our country and the decisions were ours to make," othman said. "this is why we are afraid of agreements and immunity. ... if there are wanted people in any area, why not send an iraqi force to do the job?"'
kinda hard to see how maliki could put his john hancock on any u.s. agreement that didn't mention withdrawal now.
ok kids- say it with me... Quagmire (Political Quagmire)
|
|
|
Post by db on Jul 13, 2008 17:55:20 GMT -6
I am afraid America is firmly in the hands of the corporatist. Hell, maybe America always was in the hands of the corporatist; that might be why, they hated FDR so. He was a rich man and a turncoat to the rich men.
|
|