ROFL...Look who was right! OBAMA to "REFINE" IRAQ Strategy! ROFL

[recxjake]

http://thepage.time.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-iraq-plan/

ROFL... Obama is now going to hold another Press Conf in N. Dakota to clarify his earlier statements... click the link again!

[Taco John]

Maybe he'll have a talk with his mortgage broker, Rudy Giuliani, and the head of GM to come up with the best possible solution.

[Direckshun]

Honestly, WTF is wrong with you, Jake?

Are you allergic to continual reassessments of political strategy?

God damn you are an idiot. Not even the good kind of idiot, the kind you see in a movie that's pleasantly overweight and saying a bunch of cute mispronunciations wearing protective headgear. You're the very bad kind of idiot.

[recxjake]

Maybe he'll have a talk with his mortgage broker, Rudy Giuliani, and the head of GM to come up with the best possible solution.

They should add Ron Paul... He's not doing much either these days....

[recxjake]

Honestly, WTF is wrong with you, Jake?

Are you allergic to continual reassessments of political strategy?

God damn you are an idiot. Not even the good kind of idiot, the kind you see in a movie that's pleasantly overweight and saying a bunch of cute mispronunciations wearing protective headgear. You're the very bad kind of idiot.

WTF is wrong with me ROFL... You fools believe this guy... he is a FRAUD

[|Zach|]

WTF is wrong with me ROFL... You fools believe this guy... he is a FRAUD

Are you a good judge of that?

Honestly?

[Hog Farmer]

Voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for colonel Sanders.

[Direckshun]

WTF is wrong with me ROFL... You fools believe this guy... he is a FRAUD
Who HASN'T reassessed their political standpoint regarding Iraq?

Hell, Bush HIMSELF reassessed his political standpoint in Iraq. That's why we had the damn surge.

Refusing to continually reassess where you're coming from is to WILLFULLY IGNORE any and all new information that comes to pass.

I swear to god if you had a cock on your face where your mouth used to be and it just urinated all over your keyboard, I honestly couldn't tell the difference.

[Donger]

Will any present Barack Hussein voters change their minds and not vote for him if he changes his position on Iraq? I doubt it.

[Taco John]

Voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for colonel Sanders.



Who would a hog vote for to get the best hand job?

[Adept Havelock]

Are you a good judge of that?

Honestly?

The only thing jake cares about is trying to be "right". He doesn't care who or why, as long as he believes he "wins". It's very similar to the Midnight Douchebag dynamic, IMO. Granted, the fact either of them think there is anything to be "won" on an internet forum speaks volumes in of itself.

For example, take his belittlement of the troops carrying out the policy he championed, or his vile statements he made about the GOP candidate when he was backing Rudillary, but now disavows.

[dirk digler]

Good try jake

This is Obama's full response:
"These critics haven't based their comments on anything I've said or anything my campaign has said. It's pure speculation. We're planning to visit Iraq. I'm going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there. I have been consistent throughout this process that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, that we need to bring this war to a responsible end.

"I continue to believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq at a time when the conditions in Afghanistan are worsening, Al Qaeda has been able to establish bases in the areas of northwest Pakistan, resources there are severely ...
... strained, and we're spending $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq that we desperately need here at home, not to mention the strains on our military.

"So my position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I've always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground. I've always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and 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."

[|Zach|]

The only thing jake cares about is trying to be "right". He doesn't care who or why, as long as he believes he "wins". It's very similar to the Midnight Douchebag dynamic, IMO. Granted, the fact either of them think there is anything to be "won" on an internet forum speaks volumes in of itself.

For example, take his belittlement of the troops carrying out the policy he championed, or his vile statements he made about the GOP candidate when he was backing Rudillary, but now disavows.

And even trying to be right he is terrible at.

Hey, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Integrity isn't one of his better qualities.

[Adept Havelock]

And even trying to be right he is terrible at.

Hey, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Integrity isn't one of his better qualities.

LMAO

.

[HolmeZz]

Neither candidate has or should have a military strategy. That's not their job and would not be a strongsuit of any of them. The CiC sets the mission. The commanders on the ground will determine how to carry out that mission.

[Chief Henry]

Barry is back peddling or {soon will be} on Iraq faster than a KC Chiefs corner back during the DV era.

[Hog Farmer]

Who would a hog vote for to get the best hand job?


Probably You !

[recxjake]

ROFL... The AP is picking this up now too!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq_1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-my-p_n_110750.html

"Refine"... I love it.... the entire basis of Obama's campaign was to get the troops out asap... ROFL... the one year Democrats should have one the WH...

[J Diddy]

ROFL... The AP is picking this up now too!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq_1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-my-p_n_110750.html

"Refine"... I love it.... the entire basis of Obama's campaign was to get the troops out asap... ROFL... the one year Democrats should have one the WH...


well that should make me change who i vote for,

not really.

[Chief Henry]

ROFL... The AP is picking this up now too!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq_1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-my-p_n_110750.html

"Refine"... I love it.... the entire basis of Obama's campaign was to get the troops out asap... ROFL... the one year Democrats should have one the WH...



Will buyers remorse set in with the obamabots ?

[J Diddy]

Will buyers remorse set in with the obamabots ?

Doubtfull.
We wil probably just read the next article about McCunt doing the same thing.

[Messier]

ROFL... The AP is picking this up now too!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq_1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-my-p_n_110750.html

"Refine"... I love it.... the entire basis of Obama's campaign was to get the troops out asap... ROFL... the one year Democrats should have one the WH...

No, actually the basis of Obama's campaign is the economy.

[recxjake]

Will buyers remorse set in with the obamabots ?

Nah, not the hardcores.... but the middle will swing back to Senator McCain by election day... Obama is a fraud, and it's now coming to light...

[recxjake]

No, actually the basis of Obama's campaign is the economy.

Oh good.... run on higher taxes, and bigger goverment! That will win everyone over!

[Messier]

Oh good.... run on higher taxes, and bigger goverment! That will win everyone over!

That's the Rep equivalent of a Democrat saying McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years.

[dirk digler]

"Refine"... I love it.... the entire basis of Obama's campaign was to get the troops out asap... ROFL... the one year Democrats should have one the WH...

You do know what the definition of refine is don't you?

to improve or perfect
to make improvement by introducing subtleties or distinctions

[recxjake]

You do know what the definition of refine is don't you?

to improve or perfect
to make improvement by introducing subtleties or distinctions

It's liberal... for Flip Flop

[HonestChieffan]

The Obamabots yesterday almost shut down his website with screams over his flip flop on Telephone Intell bill. This will just add fuel...those who were nutso cause he was different, refreshing, young, represented change...well Obo just split you open and that was the very heart of why you cared, why you voted. Hurts to suckered that way.

[Donger]

You do know what the definition of refine is don't you?

to improve or perfect
to make improvement by introducing subtleties or distinctions

I'm actually proud of him for seeing the hippie-like error of his ways on this issue. Good for him.

[dirk digler]

It's liberal... for Flip Flop

No a flip flop would be if he came out and said we are no longer withdrawing troops.

[dirk digler]

I'm actually proud of him for seeing the hippie-like error of his ways on this issue. Good for him.

I don't know why he hasn't changed a thing. Go back and read what he has said when he started running. He has always stated that he would listen to the commanders on the ground.

Now if he comes out and totally flip flops on the Iraq issue he is going to lose big time.

[recxjake]

ROFL... Obama is now holding a second press conference to clarify his flip flopsss..

lol... http://thepage.time.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-iraq-plan/

[HonestChieffan]

My words were not artfully crafted.....

[dirk digler]

“I think what’s happened is the McCain campaign primed the pump with the press to suggest that somehow we had changed our policy when we hadn’t, and that just hasn’t been the case. I’ve given no indication of a change in policy.”


“I intend to end this war... That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”

[|Zach|]

“I intend to end this war... That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”

Another Jake thread runs its predictable course.

http://www.thejolleys.net/photos/british-fail.jpg

[patteeu]

That's the Rep equivalent of a Democrat saying McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years.

No it isn't. Obama has been very clear and unapologetic about his intention to raise taxes and pile nearly $1 trillion of new government on top of the already bloated Bush budget. McCain, OTOH, never said anything about wanting us in Iraq for 100 years, even under Germany or South Korea-like conditions.

[patteeu]

I don't know why he hasn't changed a thing. Go back and read what he has said when he started running. He has always stated that he would listen to the commanders on the ground.

Now if he comes out and totally flip flops on the Iraq issue he is going to lose big time.

How could he possibly ever "totally flip flop" on this issue with all the slack you're willing to cut him?

No, jake's got this one right. If you can't recognize this as the kind of flip flop that falls in the "opportunistic political expediency" category, you're too much of a true believer to ever hold Obama accountable for his campaign statements.

Obama is a Clintonian liar and the two pillars of his campaign, that he is a new kind of politician and that he is the anti-war candidate, will have both been eviscerated by the time he "refines" his Iraq policy after visiting Iraq and talking with the commanders on the ground.

Obama seems to "refine" his position on Iraq every time he needs to for political reasons:

1) Against the Iraq war as a state senator from a very liberal district
2) Virtually the same position as George W. Bush as a US Senator before sectarian violence drove the popularity of the war into the ground
3) For a withdrawal to begin immediately and take no more than 16 months when public sentiment turned against the war and when Obama needed to pander to his MoveOn base
4) And now, with a need to pander to a different group of voters, he's preparing the battlefield for the final flip flop.

[Direckshun]

Well it's good the troops will finally get to see the Presidential candidate they've donated more money to by far.

[Direckshun]

1) Against the Iraq war as a state senator from a very liberal district
2) Virtually the same position as George W. Bush as a US Senator before sectarian violence drove the popularity of the war into the ground
3) For a withdrawal to begin immediately and take no more than 16 months when public sentiment turned against the war and when Obama needed to pander to his MoveOn base
4) And now, with a need to pander to a different group of voters, he's preparing the battlefield for the final flip flop.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all four of these instances happened well apart from one another, I believe they're all separated by at least a year.

I'll actually ask you this one, because for once I'm actually interested in what you have to say: isn't it entirely possible to have an ever-evolving perspective on the war based on new circumstances as they arise?

For example. I was against the war in 2002 before we went in. Let's say everything the Bush administration made up came true, and Iraq stood today as a pillar of democratic purity. No civil war. No increased influence of Iran. Etc. It would be consistent of me to say that knowing what I know now, invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Take Obama's positioning, now, using your list. (1), when he opposed the invasion, happened before the war. (2) occurred after knocking down Baghdad. Obama's position as that time was to "stay the course," which didn't contradict (1) at all, because (1) no longer applied. Obama didn't agree with the invasion, but now that we've hauled our titanic asses over to Iraq, we've got to commit.

(3) happened when Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz's heads were up their own asses the farthest. Iraq's political landscape had deteriorated towards the point of no return, Iran became the biggest dog in the neighborhood, and of course, sectarian bloodshed was escalating to the heights of civil war. At this point, Obama sees no respite from this madness, especially when you have a drunk driver at the wheel, and he calls for the troops to return ASAP.

He's ignored. Of course. Bush instead somehow makes a right decision and puts Patreus in the mix. Patty's surge makes the most strides to stave off violence since the initial invasion, and while it has done very little in terms of political progress, it's given us a long shot. At this point, Barack's patience level may have increased, and he's willing to see Iraq's political processes for himself. If there's hope, perhaps staying the course may be a viable option. But who knows. And that brings us to (4).

This all seems sensible. It doesn't adhere to the black-and-white, cross-your-fingers-and-pray-your-decision-was-right-when-the-smoke-clears -and-stick-with-it-no-matter-what mentality, but that mentality doesn't work in areas this complex.

[patteeu]

The only way he can flip flop on this issue is if he comes out and says we are not withdrawing any troops because that is the biggest difference between him and McCain.

He has always said that he will listen to the commanders on the ground and that will determine the speed, fast or slow, of the withdrawal.

Yeah, I get how flexible you are in defense of Obama, but it doesn't wash. McCain isn't against withdrawing troops, he just won't withdraw them until the job is done and we have a result in Iraq that can be considered a success. What do you think Obama means by "responsible end"? Do you think "responsible end" includes handing Iraq over to al Qaeda or Iranian proxies by leaving before the elected Iraqi government can defend itself?

It looks to me like Obama is moving back to the point where his position is virtually the same as GWBush's. How can a man who has flipped back and forth so many times on Iraq continue to say that he's been the only consistent voice in the Presidential contest against the war in Iraq with a straight face?

[dirk digler]

Yeah, I get how flexible you are in defense of Obama, but it doesn't wash. McCain isn't against withdrawing troops, he just won't withdraw them until the job is done and we have a result in Iraq that can be considered a success. What do you think Obama means by "responsible end"? Do you think "responsible end" includes handing Iraq over to al Qaeda or Iranian proxies by leaving before the elected Iraqi government can defend itself?

It looks to me like Obama is moving back to the point where his position is virtually the same as GWBush's. How can a man who has flipped back and forth so many times on Iraq continue to say that he's been the only consistent voice in the Presidential contest against the war in Iraq with a straight face?

I deleted my previous post because I wanted to post the video of his second press briefing which should put all this to bed. I couldn't figure out how to delete my embedded video.

Anyway he says very specifically he is withdrawing troops 1-2 brigades a month depending on the facts on the ground. It is the exact same position he is had since running for POTUS.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-speaks-on-iraq-stance-in-north-dakota/

[patteeu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all four of these instances happened well apart from one another, I believe they're all separated by at least a year.

I'll actually ask you this one, because for once I'm actually interested in what you have to say: isn't it entirely possible to have an ever-evolving perspective on the war based on new circumstances as they arise?

Yes, absolutely. And if Obama said this it would be completely reasonable (although IMO it would indicate a lack of faith in our ability, but that's a different thread). But that's not what Obama has said. He claims to be Mr. Consistent Anti-War as if he's never waivered in his opposition to Bush's War. At least that's what he was saying when he was beating up on Hillary and pretending that she wasn't anti-war enough for the MoveOn base of the democratic party during the primaries.

[dirk digler]

"Let me be clear as I can be. On the first day in office I will bring in the joint chiefs and give them a new mission, and that is to end this war."


End of thread

[Direckshun]

Yes, absolutely. And if Obama said this it would be completely reasonable (although IMO it would indicate a lack of faith in our ability, but that's a different thread). But that's not what Obama has said. He claims to be Mr. Consistent Anti-War as if he's never waivered in his opposition to Bush's War. At least that's what he was saying when he was beating up on Hillary and pretending that she wasn't anti-war enough for the MoveOn base of the democratic party during the primaries.
Consistency doesn't mean that his point of view never changes.

Like earlier, if I had changed my mind under reasonable circumstances, I'm still being consistent.

So has Obama.

[whoman69]

Leave it to rexjake to list this as a flip flop when he hasn't even announced what the refinement might be. He's guilty before he even acts. You have followed Rove's tactics for too long.

[jettio]

The thing that is interesting during this lull between the primaries and the general is that the GOP and McCain keep thinking that they are making headway everyday with the crybaby act and the misrepresenting everything act.

Maybe they are, but I doubt it.

Obama is focussing on building the grassroots and getting the ground game ready.

The McCain campaign is about nothing other than feeding a media that made a lot of money during the primaries but that has very little to do when they are no natural newsmaking events that anyone other than political junkies would watch.

[orange]

"Let me be clear as I can be. On the first day in office I will bring in the joint chiefs and give them a new mission, and that is to end this war."


End of thread

"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."

Dec. 17, 2007

[J Diddy]

"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."

Dec. 17, 2007

I don't know what this means

[orange]

It means Obama's definitive statements - like the one you posted and I quoted - mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

[Direckshun]

It means Obama's definitive statements - like the one you posted and I quoted - mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Holy moly, would you like to do this with McCain?

[J Diddy]

Holy moly, would you like to do this with McCain?

to his defense mccain is so old he probably doesn't remember what he said one week to the next

[orange]

Holy moly, would you like to do this with McCain?

I'm beginning to think a vote for McCain doesn't look so bad. There's no chance of the Republicans making up any ground in Congress - they're poised to lose seats in both houses, in fact. Four years of divided, paralyzed government that can be blamed on the Republican in the White House is at least a known quantity.

I don't have any idea what to expect from Obama.


... That's not entirely true. It seems like he's going to give the stamp of Democratic approval to many of Bush's excesses - government support of churches, warrantless searches, the whole "unitary executive" claptrap. With a pliant Congress going along with him rather than opposing him.

That plus the Obamabots' willingness to eat up his Orwellian trashing of the language are kind of scary.

[J Diddy]

It means Obama's definitive statements - like the one you posted and I quoted - mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


no it means he opposes giving immunity to people who helped nsa break the law


yep
he's a bad man for sure

[J Diddy]

I'm beginning to think a vote for McCain doesn't look so bad. There's no chance of the Republicans making up any ground in Congress - they're poised to lose seats in both houses, in fact. Four years of divided, paralyzed government that can be blamed on the Republican in the White House is at least a known quantity.

I don't have any idea what to expect from Obama.


... That's not entirely true. It seems like he's going to give the stamp of Democratic approval to many of Bush's excesses - government support of churches, warrantless searches, the whole "unitary executive" claptrap. With a pliant Congress going along with him rather than opposing him.

That plus the Obamabots' willingness to eat up his Orwellian trashing of the language are kind of scary.


you need to invest in a teddy bear, one that's fluffy

[orange]

no it means he opposes giving immunity to people who helped nsa break the law


yep
he's a bad man for sure

LMAO You haven't been keeping up. Obama now SUPPORTS a law that DOES give immunity to the telecoms.

[orange]

you need to invest in a teddy bear, one that's fluffy

John McCain - he's kind of fluffy with the white hair and all.

[HolmeZz]

LMAO You haven't been keeping up. Obama now SUPPORTS a law that DOES give immunity to the telecoms.

I believe the Washington Post and even Politico have come out with detailed articles about the new FISA bill, a bill which actually hasn't been read by most of the people up in arms about it. Barack has said it wasn't the perfect bill or one he would've put forth, but that he felt the exclusivity provisions included in the bill were worth the compromise.

[Buster Hymen]

The funniest part of this whole line of drivel, is that you guys on both sides of the spectrum are in denial about the pandering that both candidates are commiting in an attempt to get elected. Obama, moving towards the center from his original leftwing nutjob stances. McCain, sliding further right to that sides nutjob fringe, both doing and saying whatever might sway the vote in their favor. The two party system is broken down, and non functional. Whoever wins in Nov., it certainly won't be the American people.

[J Diddy]

John McCain - he's kind of fluffy with the white hair and all.


hes the crypt keeper

[CRONUS]

Will buyers remorse set in with the obamabots ?
The question for me is will people like recxjake swing me to vote for him, right now I am doing a write-in but the more recxjake posts about how Obama is a disaster the more I know I am making a mistake. You can't go wrong picking against recxjake.;)

[CRONUS]

Barry is back peddling or {soon will be} on Iraq faster than a KC Chiefs corner back during the DV era.

You should be penalized for even mentioning defense issues during the DV era.:doh!:

[DaneMcCloud]

The question for me is will people like recxjake swing me to vote for him, right now I am doing a write-in but the more recxjake posts about how Obama is a disaster the more I know I am making a mistake. You can't go wrong picking against recxjake.;)

QFT.

The guys is an automaton of the Right. He doesn't own one original thought in his head.

I couldn't imagine living like that.

Maybe Orwell was right after all.

[Silock]

You can't go wrong picking against recxjake.;)

You know what they say about sunshine and dogs' asses.

[patteeu]

Consistency doesn't mean that his point of view never changes.

Like earlier, if I had changed my mind under reasonable circumstances, I'm still being consistent.

So has Obama.

Obama has been consistently positioned for maximum political benefit on this issue. That's the full extent of Obama's consistency in this matter.

[patteeu]

I believe the Washington Post and even Politico have come out with detailed articles about the new FISA bill, a bill which actually hasn't been read by most of the people up in arms about it. Barack has said it wasn't the perfect bill or one he would've put forth, but that he felt the exclusivity provisions included in the bill were worth the compromise.

Read it again. Pay special attention to the word "unequivocally":

Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies...

[HonestChieffan]

Read it again. Pay special attention to the word "unequivocally":

He will say that was unarfully crafted and is being misinterpreted. His slogan should be "Change you can't keep up with"

[BucEyedPea]

Who HASN'T reassessed their political standpoint regarding Iraq?

I'm sorry but he WAS running on an anti-Iraq platform, which frankly was a large part of his appeal, except to the more committed leftists that like him on domestic and energy policy. I had seen contradictory statements regarding Iraq before which left a ? mark for me. So if he waffles on this, my vote which would only be a last minute strategic vote to keep out Mac, is out for him now. Even if he is better on civil liberties.

[BucEyedPea]

Obama has been consistently positioned for maximum political benefit on this issue. That's the full extent of Obama's consistency in this matter.

Why would you consider this being positioned for "maximum political benefit on this issue" if you really feel the anti-war/anti-Iraq vote is "soft as a marshmellow?" This doesn't make any logical sense.

[patteeu]

He will say that was unarfully crafted and is being misinterpreted. His slogan should be "Change you can't keep up with"

LMAO @ "Change you can't keep up with"

[patteeu]

Why would you consider this being positioned for "maximum political benefit on this issue" if you really feel the anti-war/anti-Iraq vote is "soft as a marshmellow?" This doesn't make any logical sense.

When I say that the anti-war vote is soft, I'm saying that pandering to it is not the winner you think it is. In fact, I'd say that taking a hard core anti-war stance is a loser with the positive results of Bush's surge now seeping into the consciousness of voters. In other words, Obama's waffle reflects the softness of the anti-war constituency.

[Chief Henry]

LMAO @ "Change you can't keep up with"

Its one thing that Barry is changing his mind on many of his ideas as he learns more about the issue's. But one thing is constant - John McCain was a resident of the Hanoi Hilton while Obama's fund raising friend William Ayers of the "Weatherman" underground group was blowing up gov't buildings, police stations and attempting to blow up buildings that housed American Soliers.

I beleave this will become more of an issue as we get closer to the general election.

[Direckshun]

Obama has been consistently positioned for maximum political benefit on this issue. That's the full extent of Obama's consistency in this matter.
See this is where I totally disagree, because polls largely suggest that if Obama refined his point of view to a more occupation-friendly stance, rather than an evacuation-friendly stance, he would actually be moving away from the wishes of the majority of Americans.

[BucEyedPea]

When I say that the anti-war vote is soft, I'm saying that pandering to it is not the winner you think it is. In fact, I'd say that taking a hard core anti-war stance is a loser with the positive results of Bush's surge now seeping into the consciousness of voters. In other words, Obama's waffle reflects the softness of the anti-war constituency.

I think you're wrong about that. And the surge is only about violence being down. It says nothing for long term stability. Plus some of it's succes is propaganda and half-truths. So it's just out of the picture, many are misinformed and no one wants a war with Iran.

[BucEyedPea]

LMAO @ "Change you can't keep up with"

Mac should change his to the "Doubletalk Express" for an even match.

[patteeu]

See this is where I totally disagree, because polls largely suggest that if Obama refined his point of view to a more occupation-friendly stance, rather than an evacuation-friendly stance, he would actually be moving away from the wishes of the majority of Americans.

I think you badly misread the polls. And while it's a circular argument, I think Obama's anticipated evolution is evidence of that. Add that to the ever diminishing call from prominent democrats to end the war and bring our troops home immediately and their repeated acquiescence on funding.

I'm sure that if you used loaded words like "occupation" or even "permanent" you would find opposition from a majority of Americans, but the "bring the troops home" sentiment is soft and should not be misconstrued as a "bring the troops home asap regardless of the consequences" sentiment.

By using words like "responsible end", Obama is leaving his Iraq policy completely wide open to interpretation so that everyone can read whatever they want to into it and so that he can do whatever he wants to in the future and claim that he's doing what he promised. It's actually only an illusion of having a position. During the primary season, he worked very hard to give the impression that he favored immediate withdrawal (begin immediately and be completed within 16 months) and that he agreed with the looney left that Bush had already lost Iraq. Now with the general election looming and different political calculations in play, what used to be a small print disclaimer is swallowing his entire primary pose. I know you recognize that this is true.

[alanm]

The funniest part of this whole line of drivel, is that you guys on both sides of the spectrum are in denial about the pandering that both candidates are commiting in an attempt to get elected. Obama, moving towards the center from his original leftwing nutjob stances. McCain, sliding further right to that sides nutjob fringe, both doing and saying whatever might sway the vote in their favor. The two party system is broken down, and non functional. Whoever wins in Nov., it certainly won't be the American people.
I may have to move to Australia.;)