The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

On the Issues

Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) speaks during a news conference held at Hector International Airport in Fargo, N.D., July 3, 2008. (Associated Press)

By Jonathan Weisman
FARGO, N.D. -- Sen. Barack Obama left open the possibility of slowing his promised, 16-month withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, saying he would consult with military commanders on an upcoming trip to the region to ensure a withdrawal would keep troops safe and Iraq stable.

"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota. "And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold."

Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has long said the nation "must be as careful getting out of Iraq as it was reckless going in," but during his hard-fought primary fight with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he stuck to a timeline that foresaw withdrawing one to two combat brigades from Iraq a month.

In recent weeks, Republicans and some Democratic-leaning military experts have said conditions have changed so dramatically that Obama would have to rethink that goal. His own advisers have sent mixed messages. Sen. Claire C. McCaskill (D-Mo.), a strong Obama supporter, has firmly maintained he has not shifted on Iraq at all. But foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, in recent days, appeared to take a more flexible approach.

Today's comments from Obama were the most extended on the issue, and they leaned hard toward flexibility, even as he said his position has not shifted.

He stressed that he still believes it would be "a strategic error for us to maintain a longterm occupation in Iraq" when conditions in Afghanistan have worsened, Al-Qaeda has been regrouping in Pakistan and U.S. resources have been strained as the nation spends $10 billion to $12 billion a month in Iraq "that we desperately need here at home."

But, he added, "I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that 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. When I go to Iraq and have time to talk to the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information."

Posted at 2:59 PM ET on Jul 3, 2008  | Category:  On the Issues
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Jeb Bush Joins McCain on Tour of Basilica in Mexico City | Next: A Recipe for Confusion: McCain, Rain and a Metal Mexico City Roof


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Vegas, a candidate boring you is no reason not to vote for him, that's why a lot of people didn't vote for Kerry, and look what happened. We're certainly not bored, just screwed.

Posted by: Fugglez | July 13, 2008 11:34 AM

I want Obama to win and will be voting for him in November. He's clearly the best man for the job. McCain can't even handle being president, just the daily grind, the travel, etc. He can't take that, not over 8 years. Obama can run circles around him! A vote for McCain is a vote for his VP. No thanks. That VP didn't generate all the excitement Obama has. I can't stand to be bored by dull, dry, boring, McCain. Evertime he's on tv, he instantly puts me to sleep. Works everytime!


Obama 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Vegas | July 7, 2008 12:53 PM

r0c9y7n2dhzs42hvw http://www.543989.com/440131.html > yh59ah5585s6 [URL=http://www.199889.com/711382.html] ks9woy2b [/URL] h8nsg9oi17vli

Posted by: c2xiav199q | July 6, 2008 7:36 PM

God, for the sake of our troops, I hope McCain is President in 08.

Posted by: Julie in Georgia | July 6, 2008 6:25 PM

191rl3arlncigq http://www.324684.com/824937.html > p9infvrm17hl [URL=http://www.677137.com/910817.html] z62ubeuh6alxn1 [/URL] fc6ksb6yuha0jkt7

Posted by: t8ij5w86dc | July 5, 2008 3:57 PM

082rk3q3pmde z0joh29vuts qzy0wx9tde3

Posted by: b50qmdtybg | July 5, 2008 12:01 PM

082rk3q3pmde http://www.498094.com/1055981.html > 4g6e4m4kcm4k [URL=http://www.995451.com/776738.html] g7szn35xmxe0 [/URL] qzy0wx9tde3

Posted by: b50qmdtybg | July 5, 2008 12:00 PM

If Jonathan Weisman can't get the story straight regarding Obama's plans for withdrawal from Iraq, and if the Washington Post can't compose a headline that accurately reflects the truth, they shouldn't be publishing a story on the subject. Weisman and the Post need to write a front page retraction of the story and correct their misinformation.

Posted by: Varecia | July 4, 2008 10:40 PM

Sorry to Continue Posting Facts...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080704/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusmilitary_080704143017

Is there a Draft going on for our soldiers? WE DON'T NEED ONE!

Posted by: Not A Pawn To ObamaCon! | July 4, 2008 3:31 PM

Obama is like a Fish outside of Water!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/27/barackobama.usa

The Only Original Change I've heard from him is his "CHANGE" on position after position!!!

WAKE UP!

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said "an American military presence still was needed."

See What Iraq's President said to America's Next President John McCain...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq

Obama needs to wake up, he has ZERO EXPERIENCE with Iraq. By the way, what country was the U.S. in war with in the Gulf War? Was that Iraq? The Gulf War ended in 1991 but continued in 2001.

HELLO?!?!? Is anyone out there thinking?

The Worldwide Media has Destroyed America's Image, Not America... The World's Media has said we we're heroes in the Gulf War (The 1st War with Iraq) and now that we finished the Job we're tyrants?

For America's Sake READ the Above Links.

Read how Obama got elected has a U.S. Senator... MORE FACTS, NOT LIES, NOT SMEARS, just MORE FACTS!

What did Obama do in that first run for political office?

A.) Registered more new voters than any Illinois State Senate candidate

B.) Vowed to never cast a "present" vote if elected

C.) Knocked all of his opponents off the ballot so he could run unopposed

D.) Ran with the slogan: "We did it for Harold, we can do it for Barack!"

(C) is the Answer!

Obama challenged the nominating petition signatures of the incumbent, Sen. Alice Palmer, and three other rivals.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6678847.story

Seriously America, KNOW YOUR CANIDATE!

By the Way! There are 52 Sundays in Every year! Do the Math... (52 Sundays x 20 years of Jeremiah Wright Sermons = 1,040 Jeremiah Wright Sermons)

WAKE UP!

McCain 08' "Because he's the ONLY SOLUTION FOR AMERICA LEFT!"

Posted by: Not a Pawn to Obamacon! | July 4, 2008 3:21 PM

Not a pawn

It is shameful that you accept that American Foreign Policy with regard Iraq should be directed by Talabani. We spend $1 trillion on a terrible mission ... certain Iraqis are getting rich by the box loads of American cash ... hundreds of thousands of their citizens are killed in the crossfire - 4000+ of our precious souls and over 30,000 of our service men and women maimed ... and, you still see a just cause for keeping our troops in Iraq while we suffer in the worse economic downturn in many decades? I don't want to stay in Iraq one more day - to prove anyone right - GW or McCain!! Many of us have been able to move on from fear mongering and 911 - to realize that in 5 years of misadventures - terrorist recruitment is up - Osama has not been found dead (but still alive) - and unless this cause was designed to use up surplus munitions and had nothing to do with oil or hitting back from the pre-desert storm attack by Iraq on israel. Then why we are there makes absolutely no sense. Bill Clinton made it his moral compass to move people from welfare to useful productive citizens ... I am not sure what track we are on. John McCain is a decent man but will his administration bring the change we so badly need? That is the question?

Posted by: Hubba Hubba | July 4, 2008 2:52 PM

Obama is like a Fish outside of Water!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/27/barackobama.usa

The Only Original Change I've heard from him is his "CHANGE" on position after position!!!

WAKE UP!

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said "an American military presence still was needed."

See What Iraq's President said to America's Next President John McCain...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq

Obama needs to wake up, he has ZERO EXPERIENCE with Iraq. By the way, what country was the U.S. in war with in the Gulf War? Was that Iraq? The Gulf War ended in 1991 but continued in 2001.

HELLO?!?!? Is anyone out there thinking?

Posted by: Not a Pawn To Obamacon! | July 4, 2008 2:39 PM

Karl Rove's Republicans are running out of new ideas FLIP FLOP ... they cast Kerry in that manner - could not do it with slippery Willie (BC) and are trying it again with O'Bama. Elite ??!! Who? O'Bama - because he went to an ivy league school on student loans - at least her learned the value of a dollar - The rich and well connected like GW had no time for school - It was party as hard as you can on dad's money. O'Bama is likely to be the more compassinate conservative ... in the Reagan mold. You or old O'Bama should be the choice ... he will help to preserve a strong and responsible middle class - to stop mortgaging our children futures and to make sure they have Social Security when they need it in the later years. We just can't stick labels like Liberal/Conservative on people and expect that to disqualify them.

Posted by: Hubba Hubba | July 4, 2008 2:36 PM

Hallelujah amen to Obama Republic!

No Americans vote for someone who does not have faith in God. Plus for someone who disowned his pastors and Church? Give me a break.

Posted by: save_america | July 4, 2008 1:44 PM

McCain shouldn't be calling ANYBODY a flip flopper considering his record. Obama has been consistent saying he wants to withdraw troops while McCain will keep them there 100 years.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 4, 2008 1:27 PM

Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline

How insignificant such an article. Bottom line is that Obama have all intentions of withdrawing troops from a war in which should have never actually manifested. McCain wants to continue with the war for an indefinite time, preferably 100 years or so. Even if tensions have eased down some what, we need to be mindful that since Obama has won the democratic nominee seat, that a lot of things have changed regarding the chaotic status of our present state from confusion into a more settled and less chaotic atmosphere. I applaud Obama for weighing the entire situation surrounding the war before jumping to any conclusions on closing the deal, because one would need to weigh all situations to conclude a valid solution, so not surprising nor would I say that he is flip flocking. He's being smart in my opinion. Would you want someone to make a final decision on you with just their own opinion, or would you wish them to include all surrounding circumstances and opinions surrounding your concern, also?


Posted by: Nisey01 | July 4, 2008 12:50 PM

Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline

Obama has from day one adhered to his same plan concerning the withdrawal of the troops. Even with tensions easing in Iraq, I credit that to Obama being elected as our democratic nominee, because people home and abroad have a lot of respect for Obama. Obama no doubt have changed the mindset and actions of millions in a positive manner before he have even stepped foot in the white house. How amazing? OBAMA 08!

Posted by: Nisey01 | July 4, 2008 12:35 PM

MARK AZOFF:
Mark...Mark! I am totally aware of what cahnge is all about. I gruduated from and all black H.S. even the school board was all black. We weren't allow to attend schools with whites. When they received new textbooks we got their old ones. This was the late sixties early seventies my firend. I know change! But these changes didn't happen overnight. They came after years of sacrifice on the part of Americans who saw the need to stand up against oppression and inequality.
Obama talks "change" but I seriously doubt that he can or will deliver. The only thing he chages is his mind and his position. It's a wonder he still has a wife. Most women can't stomach a man who can stick to his word or who is too weak int the kness to stand on his word NO MATTER WHAT! America needs REAL MEN, STOUT-HEARTED MEN!!! MEN! We as a country have been cuaght up in a trangendering syndrome. The rest of the world think that American men are wimps! They already know that Obama is one and who probably like to see him as the next President of the U.S. so they could traet him like a LADY! Michelle is more of man than he is. She is one tough cookie. Maybe she should have gotten into politics instead of the "flip-flopper". We need a Prez with "BALLS OF STEEL". Obama has "cotton balls".....he weak man.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | July 4, 2008 4:39 AM

I'm sorry, EbonyFlash, that you can't understand the difference between mudslinging and one who goes above that and works on a bipartisan basis. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between Bush's steady stance of threats and force to get what he wants and Obama's ability to listen to others and negotiate in order make an unbiased decision on what to do next. I'm sorry you don't understand that a person like Obama is looking to invest in alternative energy so we don't become more and more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. I'm very sorry you don't understand what change is all about. But many of us do, and we hope you catch on eventually.

Posted by: Mark Azoff | July 4, 2008 3:43 AM

I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE AND I AM COMPELLED TO SAY IT AGAIN, "BHO IS NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME".The man learned how to scam people from the crash course he got fro the Chicago game players and he used it to get to the front in the primaries. He convinced milllions of people that he was different " a new brand" not politics as usaual. You eggheads believed him and whta does he do? The same thing he did to all his shady friends: He changed his game. He feels tha the doesn't need you "believers in change" anymore. He is about what it takes to get what he and Michelle want. I am sorry for the wa he LIED to the people who pushed him along. THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVED HIS BS. But I will say to them don't feel so all alone, he has a history of throwing people under the bus and that means that all of you are NO EXCEPTION!

Posted by: Ebonyflash | July 4, 2008 3:31 AM

Bill said: "An Obama administration could be disastrous. With its positions under constant refinement, how is it going to negotiate effectively on international affairs?"

Maybe you haven't noticed that the Bush administration's inability to refine its position has us in the quagmire we are in now? Or are you one of those Republicans that think threats rather than negotiation is the best way of dealing with Iran, and somehow this strategy has no connection to the price of oil?

Posted by: Don | July 4, 2008 3:02 AM

An Obama administration could be disastrous. With its positions under constant refinement, how is it going to negotiate effectively on international affairs?

Posted by: Bill | July 4, 2008 2:22 AM

Yeah, but letting Enron and Halliburton run energy policy leads to global warming and penguin soup....

Happy 4th,

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 4, 2008 12:57 AM

"our Europeans allies still can't understand why we voted for him."

Well... for starters half the people are below average intellegence.. and he sends out checks and does tax rebates. Anyway.
nice talking to you. Gotta' go.

Posted by: TomTit | July 4, 2008 12:53 AM

I agree that he's been a pretty bad President. I've lived overseas and traveled a lot- our Europeans allies still can't understand why we voted for him.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-elite.htm

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 4, 2008 12:48 AM

To JR Boston

BTW, George W. Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to the country overall, in my opinion.

Posted by: TomTit | July 4, 2008 12:38 AM

to ease the tension... ;-)

there's manny being manny
and there's w. being w.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushmassage.htm

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 4, 2008 12:36 AM

"happy 4th!"

I prepared this just in case....

JR from Boston's in a rut
He speaks of boils on the butt.
And he's become quite rude,
And so we conclude..
JR from Boston is a nut. :)

However.... HAPPY FOURTH TO YOU AS WELL!


Posted by: TomTit | July 4, 2008 12:34 AM

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 4, 2008 12:26 AM

"Your point is?"

A little humor to break the pace..

Your point, please?

Posted by: TomTit | July 4, 2008 12:24 AM

And Rush Limbaugh had a big boil on his butt so he couldn't serve in 'nam.

And W. looks and acts like alfred e. neuman...

Your point is?

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 4, 2008 12:20 AM

Obama has big ears, snores, and breaks wind.

Posted by: TomTit | July 4, 2008 12:14 AM

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 4, 2008 12:08 AM

...
Posted by: | July 3, 2008 11:52 PM

Nice. I really like your post. If only Obama has a fraction of your common sense.

Posted by: Oracle | July 4, 2008 12:05 AM

re: Obama is a mean person

Believe what you want- it is a free country.

And beginning in January, 2009 Barack Obama will be the President.

Like it or not. Believe it or not.

Rasmussen Markets has it 65-35 Obama.

After the debates it'll go to 70-30.

When Powell endorses him that goes to 75-25.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 4, 2008 12:05 AM

Muslim Barack versus Christian Barry. Fight!!

Posted by: Oracle | July 4, 2008 12:01 AM

In order to be a Republican, you have to state you opinion from the beginning and never revise it no matter how much your advisers tell you otherwise. Indeed, that's why we got into the Iraq war mess, the high oil prices, and the economic recession that we live in today.

The idea that a Democrat doesn't follow the same thinking process, and may actually refine or even possibly revise his plan given more information is not understandable by Republicans. To them, anything that gives you more information should be ignored or else you are a "flip flop". In other words, in the Republican world, ignorance and hard-headed is praised, but in the rest of the world, intelligence is praised.

I myself am very proud to say I'm not a Republican and I strongly support Barack Obama.

Posted by: Roger Carmichael | July 4, 2008 12:01 AM

"Which is more important, Sen. Obama, that our troops are safe or Iraq is stable? If it is the former, you should withdraw them quickly, if it is the latter, that is what John McCain has said from day one. - Posted by: Ed "

Exactly!

"Obama went to Harvard Law School, and he's nobody's dummy. - JR Boston"

He also went to Trinity United for twenty years and lsitened to the pastor and made him his family friend/mentor/political advisor!

"You have to trust somebody sometime. Obama wants to be a good President. Wants to make everyone proud. - JR Boston"

McCain wants to be a good President too. Hillary Clinton wanted to be a good president too. As to making everyone proud, I don't know. He did make one person proud though! His wife Michelle.

Good intentions don't necessarily tranmslate into good actions. He lacks maturity of a politician who has gone through tough races, and has won and lost. All his prior races wre handed to him. He also used every technicality to disqualify his opponents. He is a mean person, with a winnig smile, and a booming voice. This is clearly a case of misleading advertising.

The packaging is great. The contents are despicable.

He says "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable."

I don't think he realizes how impossible that joint event is. He is making up positions and revising them constantly as he goes along. This reflects as much on himself as on his team.

The Democrats bought a lemon, and drinking the Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 11:52 PM

Yeah, and George W. did a little partying in his time, or so McCain said.

Pres. Clinton smoked pot but didn't inhale...

And if you use the bathroom at the McCain residence don't dare look in that medicine cabinet! I bet you'll find a lot more than Ambien!

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 11:42 PM

Texas is supposedly being won by Mccain 43-38

http://www.texaslyceum.org/media/staticContent/PubCon_Journals/2008/National%20Summary%20_day%202_%20final.pdf

but while the breakdown in 54-32-11 white/latin/black there's no numbers on how those groups are voting.

here's a guess:

white 60% mccain wins 70-30
latinos 27% obama wins 65-35
blacks 13% obama wins 95-5

That's McCain 52-48 which means McCain has to play defense in Texas, because Obama has 10,000 volunteers there. And if McCain has to play D in Texas then Obama can go on the O in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Obama starts with Kerry's 252 EVs. Add in Iowa (ethanol) thats 259. 11 EVs away from closing the deal, one of 10 ways.

It's over.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 11:39 PM


"McCain is going to get smoked."

Obama alreasy smoked (pot) and sniffed as well. Helped him over the rough spots or something like that, he said.

Posted by: Billw | July 3, 2008 11:34 PM


SandyClaws said:

" First he changes his position on campaign finance and now Iraq. I am really disappointed and I may have to reconsider voting for him. "

Don't forget he jumped ship with Wright when things got hot. He also decided those pals of his were not the folks he knew. There are two answers: The man has poor judgement at best, or condones most anything for personal gain at worst. The latter is clearly the case.

Posted by: Billw | July 3, 2008 11:31 PM

Obama, realistically, is winning Georgia. Georgia! This has McCain 44-43...

http://www.insideradvantagegeorgia.com/restricted/2008/June%202008/6-19-08/Poll_Position_Georgia61919643.php

Kerry won 88% of the black vote there and this poll currently has Obama with 83%.

Increase black turnout and put blacks for Obama in at 95%, and again Georgia is now in play....

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 11:26 PM

Heck, the most recent Ohio poll had Obama with a 2pt advantage BUT McCain was somehow magically winning 90% of the latin vote there. Ain't happening. That 86% black vote to Obama is going to be 95% and the turnout will be +25% for black and young voters there.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b379f604-b136-4483-b19f-7f38a1a85f81


McCain is going to get smoked.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 11:15 PM

People, enjoy the holiday, Obama is winning this election. The polls these days are a joke. Look at the latest PPP poll in North Cacalacky, it had McCain winning 45-41 BUT that was based on a white/black turnout of 75-21 (in 2004 it was 71-26) and with Obama winning 75% of the black vote (Kerry won 85% and Obama is winning 95%).

Most pollsters are republican and have conservative assumptions on turnout built into their models.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC701.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NC/P/00/epolls.0.html

Obama is just getting his operations in place. It is going to be a landslide.

Obama is winning Montana, and North Carolina... It's gonna be 55-44 or better, 400+ EVs.

Happy 4th,

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 11:06 PM

When gas hits $8 next year Obama will come around to see the wisdom of staying the course in Iraq and rape its oil fields.
Posted by: Oracle | July 3, 2008 10:34 PM
________________________________

Look stupid, LEARN TO WALK!
Oh ,in the SUBERBS?
Hey STUPID THE CITY IS WHERE IT IS AT!!!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 10:57 PM

This guy will say anything, do anything, throw any one under anything, all for personal gain.

The NObama groupie gutter rats and his prostitute media pals helped bury CLinton under pseudo race and sex cards. Serves them well that they now have this sleazy campaigner that will sell them out for his own #1

Posted by: intcamd1 | July 3, 2008 10:53 PM

Brilliant inspiring visionary or senile angry warmonger. You decide.


Good night all!

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 10:44 PM

The person who thinks that Lincoln Chaffee is a conservative and that Chuck Hagel, who has a more conservative record than McCain, is an Obama ally must be new to following politics.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 10:44 PM

Now that [SPCE] has thrown his two bits in, are there any other commers?
A Liberal, a Compassionate Consrvative? A Mets fan, a Gay Woman?
All God's children dance, unless John McCain bombed them!
And he was a "BOMBER PILOT" not a "FIGHTER PILOT". An a lousy pilot in any case!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 10:44 PM

"If Iraq is in a stable condition- why leave?"
===============
Why? Congress approved another $160 BILLION to stay in Iraq...this is added to the billions already spent. Meanwhile there are American Citizens that would like to see some of that money spent here at home.

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 3, 2008 10:39 PM


Dear "harried",
Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere???
Posted by: | July 3, 2008 10:27 PM
______________________________________GEEZ,Geez, finally got a bite! From {SPACE]!

Well [SPACE] tell you the Gawd's honest truth, I tried that twice, not from a ledge, but there are other ways!
See [SPACE} I am beyond death, and I'm not talking about my nearly seventy years on the planet! I have watched, as a scientist is wont to do, and I think you [SPACE] ain't worth the space!
It's people like you [SPACE} that make me alive.

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 10:37 PM

When gas hits $8 next year Obama will come around to see the wisdom of staying the course in Iraq and rape its oil fields.

Posted by: Oracle | July 3, 2008 10:34 PM

William is obviously demented. His posts sound desperate, confused and profoundly biased. Maybe someday he will see the light. We can only hope. William, the Obama supporters will pray for you. Please join us at Mile High stadium if you have an epiphany.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 10:31 PM

Loki,

Your mother, that person that said you slithered out between her legs with a tube tied to the bloody bag of your creation.
She's OK?

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 10:20 PM

If you really know who Loki is, you'll find that there is no need to be so personal. Besides, the stakes are too high this year to talk about anything else but Obama's short comings.

Posted by: Loki | July 3, 2008 10:28 PM

Dear "harried",

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere???


Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 10:27 PM

If by some miracle Iraq ...
Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 10:19 PM

____________________________

Abe, you and yours have bombed that place into an OIL-Field!
And I don't think guys in the neiborhood will forget!
What's surprising to me is how effective Blackwater has been in protecting Shrub!
A lot of folks want him dead!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 10:27 PM

Why isn't Obama debating McCain in a town hall setting? Is he a pussy?

Posted by: Brainiac | July 3, 2008 10:23 PM

Meanwhile, McCain appointed a new strategist today. LOL! McCain's problem is not his strategist. McCain's problem is McCain.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 10:22 PM

Loki,

Your mother, that person that said you slithered out between her legs with a tube tied to the bloody bag of your creation.
She's OK?

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 10:20 PM

If by some miracle Iraq turns out be more of a success than a failure, I will be the first to give ole George and his boy McCain some credit. However, I have serious doubts that will ever happen. The only reason Iraq is relatively stable now is because of our massive military presence and our massive cash dump which cannot be sustained any longer. America is going bankrupt baby-sitting a bunch of crazed feuding Iraqis. It is time to get out. Let the Iraqis deal with their own country.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 10:19 PM

Refining your position means that you have no clue about what your true position is and you're hoping to find it by trial and error.

Posted by: Plato | July 3, 2008 10:18 PM

HonestAbe is obviously demented by drinking too much of Obama's snake oil.

Would somebody who knows him get him to help before his head explodes?

Too many of you Obamanuts and Cult of Obama members are so far gone that no one may be able to help you. Just like the Pied Piper, Obama has lead them away never to heard from or seen again. (We can only hope so!)

For the health of the country would all you Obamanuts and Cult members please drink the Kool Aide when Obama tanks in November?

Posted by: William | July 3, 2008 10:17 PM

No matter how you spin it Obama said he is going to revise his strategy. Our troops are safe now. They have been relatively safe for the last 7 years. (Almost as many people died as a result of violence in L.A. alone.) So, Obama's guiding issue would be whether Iraq would left in a stable consition. If Iraq is in a stable condition- why leave?

Posted by: rpatoh | July 3, 2008 10:17 PM

Michael Brown the Democratic Strategist was on Hannity & Colmes tonight and said the most important thing is that he wins not what his real position is or in other words we don't real know what the truth is with Obama. So Obama's patriotic message this week, are they authentic? I doubt it if he's a friend of William Ayers the wannabe commie and domestic terrorist standing on a flag for Chicago Magazine!

Posted by: theaz | July 3, 2008 10:17 PM

Surprised or sobered?

Brilliant - yes

Consistent - no

Good speaker - yes

Good president - no

Posted by: Lesley | July 3, 2008 10:16 PM

I am sick of the media doing the republicans work.
Obama has always been clear and said the same thing he is saying now.
The fact that the media is now lying in trying to say Obama is saying something different shows that they are doing the work for McCain.
This is so obvious. You guys shouted you were going to do a hit on Obama on this for days and the fact that you are lying is proof.
Obama is saying the same thing he has always said.
Are we going to have to deal with the media helping the gop again?

Posted by: vwcat | July 3, 2008 10:15 PM

BREAKING:
DENVER (AP) -- Barack Obama's campaign is considering having him accept the Democratic presidential nomination at Invesco Field at Mile High instead of the Pepsi Center, the chosen site for the Democratic National Convention. This is the Broncos stadium and holds about 75,000. Wow. That would be quite a scene! If true, I am going!
Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 10:04 PM _____________________
______________________________

Abe , stay home and shoot a NEOCON!
Or buy a Flag and shuv it up your arse!
Which ever, but the easy way is gone!!!
LONG TIME!!!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 10:14 PM

It's Psycho-bama fever time!! America's livelihood will go down the toilet, thanks to Obama. The guy's going to place his position out for people to see and then refine it. That will be how his presidency runs. By trial and error, of course.

Posted by: Loki | July 3, 2008 10:11 PM

Obama had said that he does not distinguish between Alah and God. Obama is secretly righting history. The Christian army called the Crusaders invaded Arab lands. Now, as the ultimate revenge, Obama is on the verge of becoming Commander in Chief of the mightiest Christian army in the history of man. And the Commander in Chief is a former Muslim.

Posted by: Sage | July 3, 2008 10:07 PM

Here's one:
Assume for a minute,,,
Blah blah blah
Posted by: distin99 | July 3, 2008 9:56 PM

Right? Well let's "ASSUME" our arse for eternity, righ? Matter of time, No?
Look , the friggin neigboorhod is be takin over by a bunch of old skin head NAZIS, and that's the truth!
And the house Court Nigra ain't helping matters!
Right now, what we need is young black boys to rebell! Yes, Fight and kill right here for our rights! LONG TIME since massa cracker!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 10:07 PM

BREAKING:

DENVER (AP) -- Barack Obama's campaign is considering having him accept the Democratic presidential nomination at Invesco Field at Mile High instead of the Pepsi Center, the chosen site for the Democratic National Convention. This is the Broncos stadium and holds about 75,000. Wow. That would be quite a scene! If true, I am going!

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 10:04 PM

So, reality is setting in for Obama. He can't just say anything he wants about Iraq and now has to consider the real situation. All you end-the-war liberals get ready for the Obama retreat on Iraq after his visit there. He'll say it with big words, but he will completely repudiated his earlier position of withdrawal within 16 months.

Posted by: Rick | July 3, 2008 10:04 PM

Mr. Obama continues to impress me and I'm starting to really foresee him as a strong and highly capable leader. Everyone knows the war in Iraq has been a disaster and has diminished our capabilities of focusing on and neutralizing the real threats in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Mr. Obama had the courage and conviction to stand up against the war in Iraq from the beginning, and is the only major candidate who will bring this God forsaken war to and end and bring our brave and heroic men and women in combat home. Am I confident he will end the war? YES! Will he do so precipitously, haphazardly, or in a way that endangers our men and women on the battlefield? NO! What Mr. Obama made clear today is that this war in Iraq is coming to a close, but it's going to be done so in a pragmatic and responsible way that protects the life of our men and women in uniform. That's leadership!

Posted by: Matt | July 3, 2008 10:03 PM

Flip Flop Flip Flop.... LMAO!!!!

Wake up, America!! This guy is a bad, badd, baddd J O K E.

Posted by: CRETIAN | July 3, 2008 9:48 PM

++++++++++++++++++

Wake up, Posters!! CRETIAN is a stupid, stuupid, stuuupid I D I O T.

Posted by: McCain_08 | July 3, 2008 10:00 PM

Nice copy and paste HonestAbe.

Posted by: WHO | July 3, 2008 9:59 PM

Yeah, that looks like my grandma's podium.

Posted by: Hill | July 3, 2008 9:59 PM

HonestAbe is always on here doing a copy and paste from the Messiah's website.
Posted by: WHO
=========

Not true Mr WHO. I write my own material and proud of it. If you have seen it elsewhere, they have copied from me. On the other hand your posts are mindless drivel and would never be suspected of being copied from anywhere.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:58 PM

Here's my plan of ATTACK!
1--Time wasted on refutation is wasted, go for the obvious lunacy in the post!
2--Proof is not important, these are people that pander to GOD!
3-- When all else fails go for their Mother! They all hate their Mother!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 9:56 PM

Assume for a minute that new information Obama received from talking to the people on ground led to some changes in his withdrawl policy. Probably minor changes, but changes nevertheless. So what? Would he make a better President if he ignored new information and changing circumstances? We have just suffered through 7 1/2 years of hell with an idiot who listens to no one but sychophants and never changes course.
It's not like he's saying the war was right or that an American combat role should end as soon as possible. Obviously the surge has worked to some extent, although it is far from clear that anything resembling a real democracy is close. He would be a fool to insist on retaining the exact policy he adopted a year ago when some of the circumstances have changed. McCain has flipped on tax reductions for the rich, off shore drilling and many other issues. Where his new policies are better I applaud him, where they are worse I don't. Both candidates pander to some extent because they can't get elected otherwise. That explains McCain's two policy changes mentioned above and his gas tax holiday fantasy. It also includes Obama on NAFTA. These are two likeable, patriotic honorable men, with as much integrity as you can expect at this level. Since McCain is largely supporting Republican policies that have flushed America down the toilet for 7 1/2 years I think it is obvious that Obama is the much better choice, but I respect McCain. Aren't there any other posters that respect them both?

Posted by: distin99 | July 3, 2008 9:56 PM

HonestAbe is always on here doing a copy and paste from the Messiah's website.

Posted by: WHO
=========

Not true Mr WHO. I write my own material and proud of it. If you have seen it elsewhere, they have copied from me. On the other hand your posts are mindless drivel and would never be suspected of being copied from anywhere.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 9:56 PM

HonestAbe wrote,

"Obama always said he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal. Much ado..."

Haha HonestAbe, W said the same thing!

Posted by: Ron | July 3, 2008 9:43 PM

***********************

Not true. W said he would rely on the commanders in the field to "make the decision." Obama has made very clear that HE would make the decisions, and set the mission. If you're too dumb to understand there is a distinct difference between the two positions, don't bother posting a rebuttle.

Posted by: aBigSAM | July 3, 2008 9:54 PM


Dear "harried",

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere???

Posted by: PeaPod | July 3, 2008 9:54 PM

Here's my plan of ATTACK!
1--Time wasted on refutation is wasted, go for the obvious lunacy in the post!
2--Proof is not important, these are people that pander to GOD!
3-- When all else fails go for their Mother! They all hate their Mother!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 9:50 PM

Two things:

1. Assuming no major scandal or health issue Obama is the party nominee.

Any agreement for him to raise money on behalf of Hillary would be predicated on her agreeing to release her delegates and heartily encourage them to endorse Obama, and his VP selection, at the convention.

Obama went to Harvard Law School, and he's nobody's dummy.

2. And ss for all you pointy-headed liberals who are upset with the guy who's likely the first democrat with good character to enter the WH with a clue and a mandate since JFK and LBJ, get over it.

Obama is in a war with the Republicans. And he needs to *win* that so that McCain can't launch a war with Iran and screw up the economy further.

Do you think black people are pissed at him for never mentioning them? They know he's going to hook them up. Granted, it'll be with faith-based programs and personal responsibility stuff that won't cost us a lot of money, but he'll be there for them.

He'll be better than Bush, better than McCain. By a large margin.

You have to trust somebody sometime. Obama wants to be a good President. Wants to make everyone proud. I seriously doubt he'll bilk the system like the Reagan/Bush people have.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 9:49 PM

HonestAbe wrote,

"Obama always said he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal. Much ado..."

Haha HonestAbe, W said the same thing!
======

Bush-the-moron has had no intentions of withdrawal, much like his mini-me, Senator McBush.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:49 PM

Flip Flop Flip Flop.... LMAO!!!!

Wake up, America!! This guy is a bad, badd, baddd J O K E.

Posted by: CRETIAN | July 3, 2008 9:48 PM

I keep hearing the pundits say that Obama has "flip-flopped" or "modified his position" on his Iraq policy, but I am baffled as to why. By the comments on this board too, I get the feeling that different people heard different things.

To MY ears, he said all along that "we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." I also heard him say that his timetable estimates would be adjusted depending on what his generals on the ground recommend. What he EMPHASISED was that he would "change the mission" from what it is, to bringing our troops home.

His early estimates were 16 months for withdrawal. The only thing I hear differently now is he is saying he will update that estimate after going to Iraq.

Now how can it be that everyone heard exactly the same words, same phrases, same promises, and come away with so entirely different views as to what he meant? For months now I've been reassuring conservatives that his withdrawal plans will not be irresponsible and hasty. Now I find myself arguing with liberals who feel he has let them down by "modifying his position."

When will ALL sides realize what he has really been saying all along. That the "change" he promises with regards to Iraq is a "change in the mission." Instead of a pursuit of an undefined "victory" we will instead define our goal, and change the mission to permitting circumstances to bring our troops safely home, and redeploy our resources to Afghanistan. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Posted by: aBigSAM | July 3, 2008 9:48 PM

HonestAbe is always on here doing a copy and paste from the Messiah's website.

Posted by: WHO | July 3, 2008 9:46 PM

End the war in Iraq. That is what most Americans want. After 5 years and $500B, its enough. That's now longer than WW1 or WW2 or Vietnam. It is absurd to keep fighting this endless idiotic war with no end in sight, burning $12B per month!

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:46 PM

As a political junkie who keeps informed,it is clear that there is no flip-flop; I can only hope that the majority of voters are not so simple as some of the posters here. As a long-time voter who changed voter registration to independent ~ 10 years ago because I didn't agree with down-the -line party-ticket politicians, I continue to be impressed with Barack Obama; He has been consistent on his position on Iraq, as well as many other positions he has been accused of flip-flopping on; Unfortunately, some voters and politicos just want everything dummed down for them and cannot understand nuance. And either because they cannot follow logical and reasoned discussion or intend to mislead others, resort to "gotchas" and false assertions.

Posted by: IntelliWhitFemimiWoman | July 3, 2008 9:45 PM

HonestAbe wrote,

"Obama always said he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal. Much ado..."

Haha HonestAbe, W said the same thing!

Posted by: Ron | July 3, 2008 9:43 PM

"Did you leftist miss all those stories of the Blue Dogs keeping their distance from the National Party..."
=================
You mean Blue dogs like Jim Webb, possible Obama VP? Webb has whole-heartedly endorsed Obama. So has Sam Nunn so blue you can't tell if he is navy or black.

Obama has some friends on the other side too; Chuck Hagel (his wife has donated to the Obama Campaign), and Lincoln Chaffee (conservative) who also endorsed him, and Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of Ike, who endorsed Obama this spring.

So, as far as the blue dogs keeping their "distance" from Obama, Yeah I guess I missed those stories. Speaking of distance, I'm you sure that you didn't miss the recent story about Sen. Gordon Smith R from Oregon who is running a commercial using Obama as a booster for his campaign (and no where is his Party affliation to be seen.)

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 3, 2008 9:43 PM

"And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable."

Which is more important, Sen. Obama, that our troops are safe or Iraq is stable? If it is the former, you should withdraw them quickly, if it is the latter, that is what John McCain has said from day one.

Conditions have changed. Hmmm. What brought that about and did Sen. Obama support the change in policy?

Posted by: Ed | July 3, 2008 9:42 PM

This is for all the Obama supporters, especially those on the Huffington Post.

Flip flop on Iraq. 'Change we can believe in!'

Yeah rights.

Posted by: Ron | July 3, 2008 9:41 PM

Lets get a few things off my chest. I and my wife gave 300-400 dollars to the campaign,
Who the hell is this guy???
Posted by: mr | July 3, 2008 9:36 PM

_____________________________________
You have daughter? Give her to Barack you friggin ahole!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 9:40 PM

The reason that I supported HRC was that she had defined policies on each of the issues rather than vague speeches. When you have vague rhetoric you can back out of progressive positions on:
Iraq
Free-trade/NAFTA
FISA
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Meetings with foreign leaders
Windfall profits tax

The very positions you let liberal organizations think that you shared so that they would turn out voters in caucus states- where you can run up your delegate tally without having a lot of people turn out...

I'm voting for him in November (I had planned to volunteer for him, but we'll see now) but the "liberal" organizations who supported him over her- with the policies in place- owe us HRC supporters (the other 1/2 of the Dem electorate)- particularly those of us who are leftist/activist- an apology.
Leon

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 9:39 PM

Now, in Iraq, Obama promises to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. At home, the anti-war crowd has just seen defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: Ed | July 3, 2008 9:38 PM


Politicians may be different at the beginning, but
they end up the same at the end.

Posted by: HA HA HA HA | July 3, 2008 9:37 PM

The only people who think that Obama has changed his stance on this issue are people who never paid attention to his position in the first place, and are just buying into the spin. It's pretty much what he's been saying all along.

Posted by: js_edit | July 3, 2008 9:37 PM

Lets get a few things off my chest. I and my wife gave 300-400 dollars to the campaign, more than we could afford but was happy to give.

Now Mr. Obama is doing everything to piss me off. Change his position on ending the war, giving a crappy reason to not accept federal campaign money, giving money to faith based groups (separation of church and state remember), give telecoms amnesty, and other crap that I don't agree with and that he said he would do just the opposite.

So WHAT THE F***!!!!!

Who the hell is this guy???

I will not give another dime UNTIL he does some stuff that makes sense.


Posted by: mr | July 3, 2008 9:36 PM

First he changes his position on campaign finance and now Iraq. I am really disappointed and I may have to reconsider voting for him.

Posted by: SandyClaws | July 3, 2008 9:33 PM

Obama is NOT the Dem nominee until the convention in August. Until the convention he is only the "presumptive" nominee. Dems are NOT stuck with him yet. A "change we could believe" would be if the superdelegates corrected the mistake they made and change their votes to Hillary at the convention. Posted by: tiredofit

==========

Yes, we are also "tiredofhillary" !! It's over -- didn't you get the memo? Even Bill is on board now.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:31 PM

As soon as Obama gets over to Iraq and sees first hand the progress that has been made he will quickly run toward McCain's position on Iraq. Obama is laying the foundation for that right now based on what his advisors are telling him. Let's face it, McCain pushed for the surge while Obama led the charge for us to surrender and pull out. Obama is a great man in many areas but we need a season leader and Obama is not ready to be our President yet!

Posted by: Jack | July 3, 2008 9:31 PM

Obama is NOT the Dem nominee until the convention in August. Until the convention he is only the "presumptive" nominee. Dems are NOT stuck with him yet. A "change we could believe" would be if the superdelegates corrected the mistake they made and change their votes to Hillary at the convention.

Posted by: tiredofit | July 3, 2008 9:18 PM
__________________________

Ain't gonna happen! The one thing old men have is memories to jerk off bye!!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 9:27 PM

You put your left foot in; you take your left foot out. You put your right foot in, and you shake it all about. You do the hokey-pokey and you don't know how to stop. And that's the Obama flip-flop.

Posted by: HM | July 3, 2008 9:24 PM

"Many liberals in Huffington Post and Daily Kos are outraged by his position."
============
Which proves to me that the Left doesn't own Obama or set the agenda for him. Unlike McCain who has comprised his Independant stance by bending over to embrace all the ill advised Neo-Conservative nonsense that he once opposed.

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 3, 2008 9:24 PM

And here at this garden Racetrack, where American , and some Jews come to die we have a race: Barack Obama is leading John McCain by five percentage points in Montana -- yes Montana! The far backsteach

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:09 PM

________________________________________

Hey Moron!Put your money down or shut up!
I have it even money that you aholes don't bet Shrubs , or his Jew lackies don't bomb Iran! It's even, take the bet, who gives a screaming crap about the lost and demage to humanity. GO NEOCONS!!!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 9:23 PM

Has McCain ever figured out who are the Sunnis and who are the Shiites? I guess it does not really matter to him as long as the war keeps going on forever.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:20 PM

If it takes a few more months to end this idiotic war then so be it. I trust Obama's judgment on this. I do not trust the senile McWarmonger.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:19 PM

Obama is NOT the Dem nominee until the convention in August. Until the convention he is only the "presumptive" nominee. Dems are NOT stuck with him yet. A "change we could believe" would be if the superdelegates corrected the mistake they made and change their votes to Hillary at the convention.

Posted by: tiredofit | July 3, 2008 9:18 PM

Obama always said he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal. Much ado...

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:18 PM

He has not changed his position. This has been on the Obama web site for months:

"All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas."

This is the MSM media trying to create a story where there isn't one. I guess they are worried their ratings will fall as people lose interest in a lopsided matchup.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:15 PM

re: Montana

Yeah, and run the numbers in Texas and Florida with Obama winning 95% of blacks (with a 25% increase in their turnout) and 65% of latinos.

Matter of fact, take all of the state polls are tweak them for blacks and young voters: you've got a landslide.

55-44 popular vote. 427-111 electoral votes. And that's without the Powell endorsement. And without a decent debate showing.

http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 9:15 PM

"Obama will say and do anything to get elected. He's going to end the war ... maybe or sometime soon. I was against it before I was for it.

I was for Rev. Wright before I was against him. I hated the flag pin before I started wearing it. I am patriotic now ... you don't believe me? Well you better not criticize my patriotism. That is really racist to criticize me. This is what change is all about! - Posted by: alance"

"Ouch! Obama just went from the better of the two candidates to the lesser evil - and not by much. - Posted by: woody"

These two posts capture a great deal of Obama's vacillation, his immaturity, his brazen flip-flops. What does he have to lose? His suporters have nowhere else to go, and they won't even if they have one.

And the Democratic Party and the Stupor Delegates are to afraid to criticize him, lest they be called racists.

If they have half a political neuron firing in their brains, they would forsake this misbegotten excuse for a candidate. But they can't do that! There will be riots in the streets. That's what one of Obama's supporters said!

This is a deplorable situation. There is no excuse for Obama having foisted this on the party. Shame on him!

Posted by: Krishna | July 3, 2008 9:15 PM

I find it intresting that people believe Hon President of Republic Could have say in affair. Its Congress whom ordered War & excepting that each sold ier has ~16 months duty, thats closest Pretend can come to promising out. Its War Till end. Congress or those declared War upon.

Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

Posted by: thomasxstewart | July 3, 2008 9:14 PM

More BS spin from the neocon machine. Thanks WaPo, you show your colors again. What garbage you print.

Posted by: Zardoz | July 3, 2008 9:14 PM

I was for fast withdrawl before I was against it.

Posted by: Kerry Jr. | July 3, 2008 9:12 PM

Dimocrats,

Are YOU suffering from Post Nomination Remorse?

Just remember;

"Flip-Flop, Fiz-Fiz, That's what O'Bomba is...' ;~)

Harried-Bad news, I believe we have incompatible parts!

But Good News! Seems "Barry" will bend over! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | July 3, 2008 9:11 PM

"The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms."
Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 8:59 PM
____________________________________

Now take that to Union City ,New Jersy!

This is, after the fancy nukes, going to be a lot street in-fighting. Machine gun stuff!
Does Blackwater protect the Hoi-Po-Loi of downtown BOSTON?

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 9:10 PM

"Wake Up you braindead kool aid drinker out of
touch with reality young Obamafools. NOBAMA"
+++++++++++

She LOST, so deal.

Posted by: GObama | July 3, 2008 9:10 PM

Meanwhile Barack Obama is leading John McCain by five percentage points in Montana -- yes Montana!

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows Obama attracting 48% of the vote while McCain earns 43%. In April, the numbers were reversed with McCain leading 48% to 43%. It would be truly stunning if Obama could turn Montana into a competitive state this November. George W. Bush won Montana's 3 Electoral College Votes by twenty percentage points in 2004 and by twenty-five points four years earlier. Even Bob Dole managed to win Montana.

What's wrong with McCain? Why is he losing in Red State Montana??!!

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:09 PM

Today B. Hussein Obama told us his Iraq policy, aka, Hillary's plan. He pandered the far left during the primary. But now he is moving quickly to the right for the general election. Many liberals in Huffington Post and Daily Kos are outraged by his position.

Posted by: B. Hussein plagirized Hillary's plan | July 3, 2008 9:09 PM

Many here are so used to patently absurd comments, they can't recognize reasonable when they see it.

Jeez.

Posted by: Susan | July 3, 2008 9:08 PM

Joke of the Day: Who's tall, eloquent, handsome and likes the White House? Who praises faith-based charity works? Who's reconsidering not-so-fast troop pullout? WHO'S SOUNDING MORE LIKE GEORGE BUSH?

[Cue "Hail to the Chief!"]

Man, I'm gonna have a great July 4th because Osama Obama just keeps vindicating what I always suspected about him -- and it's coming true.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 9:08 PM

Meanwhile, in a further sign that Republican hopes are fading badly, the head of the Senate GOP's campaign committee has set a new goal for the party this Fall: Not to lose too many Senate seats. NRSC chair John Ensign has moved the goal posts, according to the Savannah Morning News, saying that the GOP will have succeeded if they don't lose more than eight seats.

=======

The hapless Repubs are prepared to accept eight loses!! Wow. That's really pathetic.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 9:05 PM

Obama says something sensible and both Democrats and Republicans jump all over him. His previous policy of inviting defeat for our great nation was a disgrace. When he honors the sacrifices of our fighting men and women, he should be honored for showing good sense, not inanely attacked for a "flip-flop". As McCain has said, better to lose an election, in this case to an Obama administration that would strengthen America's strategic position in the middle east and bring defeat to our enemies, than to lose a war!!

Posted by: wtmgeo | July 3, 2008 9:04 PM

Quick poll:

McCain said in 2003 that our Christian, American army would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqis.

Question: Is McCain

A: Stupid
B: A Liar
C: Both

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 9:03 PM

Rat-the,
Are we Inet engaged? Like do I have a connect to the Rat?
Waiting for your intelligent response, RAT!

SNEAKY LITLE BEASTY!!!

Posted by: haried | July 3, 2008 9:02 PM

Barack, go to your heart!
So what if you are not the people's choice in this cesspool called "AMERICA"?
Stand up, like Malcom, like Ali, be a Man that lived for his freedom!


Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 8:55 PM
----------
You should know by now that Obama has no heart.

Posted by: RB | July 3, 2008 9:01 PM

"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground." - Obama

Now that is a CHANGE from the Bush/Cheney/Rummy knows best mindset.

We need Obama AND Powell to restore our image and alliances.

"I tried to avoid this war. I took him [Bush] through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers."

"The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms. It's not going to be pretty to watch, but I don't know any way to avoid it. It is happening now. ... It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States." - Colin Powell on Iraq

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 8:59 PM

The country is coming apart at the seams -- we are fighting two wars, on the verge of a third, we have skyrocketing oil/gas prices with no end in sight, job losses everywhere, major corporations on the verge of collapse, housing values plumetting, dollar plumetting, etc, etc, etc and McCain is hobnobbing around south of border, pandering to the Columbians and Mexicans. What's the McDope up to?

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:58 PM

i guess there are a few less fist bumps going on tonight in the obama camp...

Posted by: obama | July 3, 2008 8:55 PM

Barack, go to your heart!
So what if you are not the people's choice in this cesspool called "AMERICA"?
Stand up, like Malcom, like Ali, be a Man that lived for his freedom!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 8:55 PM

SoFt, sQuIsHy, mOlDaBlE, WeAk, FlExIbLe, yIeLdInG, SPINELESS!

What "Changes" will the Jellyfish fron Illinois pull Tomorrow?

God have mercy on this Country if he is in the White House!

Posted by: RAT-The | July 3, 2008 8:54 PM

"Consultants to the National Republican Congressional Committee are suggesting they avoid the GOP brand in upcoming elections. Traditional Republican messages essentially are not working in this political environment. The consultants found that Republicans are failing to successfully establish themselves and their local brand in contrast to the negative perception of the national GOP."

The GOP brand that abandoned its principles, expanded government and started spending like drunken liberals...now they're paying for it. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's good for a Party to get whipped once in a while. Did you leftist miss all those stories of the Blue Dogs keeping their distance from the National Party...the same Blue Dogs that are keeping you leftists in the majority.

Posted by: politicohispanico | July 3, 2008 8:53 PM

Bush had 5 years to create this disaster. It may take Obama a few months to fix it.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:52 PM

Barack, go to your heart!
So what if you are not the peoples choice in this cesspool called "AMERICA".

Stand up, like Malcom, like Ali, be a Man that lived for his freedom!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 8:50 PM

Who says we're supporting McCain. We're simply pointint out the obvious, that Obama is the more fatally flawed candidate - down to the chromosomes.

Posted by: Grimm | July 3, 2008 8:49 PM

Obama's indecisions about what he wants to do to our troops in Iraq is largely due to an internal battle between Muslim Barack and Christian Barry. People, please protect our troops from the double personalities of Psycho-bama.

Posted by: Grimm | July 3, 2008 8:47 PM

Here's a more significant and more relevant story that should be very troubling to the McLoser supporters:

Consultants to the National Republican Congressional Committee are suggesting they avoid the GOP brand in upcoming elections. Traditional Republican messages essentially are not working in this political environment. The consultants found that Republicans are failing to successfully establish themselves and their local brand in contrast to the negative perception of the national GOP.

Translation: The GOP brand is poopoo.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:45 PM

Imagine if Obama is elected. The Muslims will target him because he is overtly breaking Sharia law. Ooooo, somethin' tells me the sparks are gonna fly.

Posted by: RC | July 3, 2008 8:45 PM

Barack, go to your heart!
So what if you are not the peoples choice in this cess pool called "AMERICA".

Stand up, like Malcom, like Ali, be a Man that lived for his freedom!

Posted by: hariied | July 3, 2008 8:43 PM

Two press conferences in a short space of time -- the second one to clarify what he said in the first one. Why is this guy the next best thing to Sunami or a messiah who will deliver us from evil? If his base is not outraged by now, they must be a bunch of zombies. Bring back Hillary! At least, we know what she is about, her sniper comments notwithstanding.

Posted by: Sonny, NYC | July 3, 2008 8:42 PM

Now that you all have calmed down over this non-issue I have another question:

If McCain committed adultery by having an affair with Cindy while he was still married to his first wife why wasn't he court-martialed?

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:41 PM

Honest Abe-LOL! :-D

Funny you should say that.

I was trying to figure out if the Dimocrats are running Goofy, or Daffy?! ;~)

"Suffrin Sucatash!"

Posted by: RAT-The | July 3, 2008 8:41 PM

At the second press conference, Obama said that today's flip-flop was because of a glitch in his tele-prompter.

Posted by: Cindy | July 3, 2008 8:41 PM

Of course he has to look at facts on the ground and adjust accordingly. Still he was right on this fiasco from the start. The relevant question is still this:

Who is more likely to pull troops out of Iraq? Obama or McCain. That answer is clearly Obama.

Posted by: RealChoices |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Are you quite sure? Seems like the bar keeps moving with Obama. What will it be next week. 200 years.
What is his actual stance on the War. Is he "fer" or "agin" it? He says he was "agin" before and then when elected he voted to support it. Damn, if you are "agin" something, fight "agin" it.
To hell with words, show some action.

Posted by: Chief | July 3, 2008 8:41 PM

Meanwhile here is some more dirt on McCain.. from a fellow Republican!

In January, MS Senator Thad Cochran explained his decision to endorse former governor Mitt Romney, R-Mass., thusly: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran told The Boston Globe's Michael Kranish. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

===========

Maybe Thad will now endorse Obama!

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:40 PM

Obama is a part-time Muslim and part-time Christian. He'll switch between allegiance to Alah and God at a moment's notice. Our troops will be slaughtered because of him.

Posted by: Barry | July 3, 2008 8:39 PM

If you all have stopped frothing at the mouth over this non-issue, I have a question: Why hasn't McCain completely released his medical records? He only released a partial subset to a selected group of reporters and then only let them view it for 3 hours. What is he hiding? Many think there are some troubling facts buried in those documents that may effectively disqualify him for POTUS if they became known to the public. We should demand that he unconditionally release his entire medical record. The American people should know what they are getting if they elect John McCain -- warts and all.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:38 PM

Had a discussion, well maybe not a discussion exactly, it was about what Richard believed vs what I dis-belivied!
First hit---Your a friggin Atheist!
Me: Hey, IT's HERE and I can't explain IT! --And Neither can RATZINGER!
Second hit: The Blacks,, they cause problems, especially in 1950 Harlem!
Me: Tell you the truth Blue Eyes, I kinda got a soft spot for BLACKS, my grandfather Octave, was the meanest black man on Cain River!
Third, shrugging of shoulders: Well you don't look BLACK!!
Me: So it's all about looks, eh
BLUE EYES"?

That was like an hour ago, in front of the laundry on Skillman ave, tween 51 and 50 the sts.
BELIEVE ME, RACISM IS HERE,,,,,AND IT"S MOST VIRULEMENT FORM IS BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE!
Karl Rove knows this and will use it!

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 8:36 PM

treetopflyer @ 8:20 well done man. I wish that I had written it myself, LOL. Of course those to whom it is directed will never read it with the "open mind" you mention, but then again, these people have already decided to let Rush, O'Reilly, and Hannity do their thinking for them anyway.

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 3, 2008 8:36 PM

Regardless of what Obama says or does the GOP brand is still toxic. The GOP brand now represents corruption, scandal, lack of ethics, deceit, failure, waste, fraud, abuse and Bush. At this point Donald Duck (D) could BEAT the Republican candidate.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:35 PM

basically a re-statement of already stated directional objectives.


OBAMA -- LEAHY '08

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 3, 2008 8:35 PM

Meanwhlle...

The McCain campaign has added Arizona to its list of 24 "battleground states" with their 242 electoral votes. In a "strategy briefing" video posted Saturday on the McCain campaign website, Rick Davis, the campaign manager, did not include Arizona as one of the 17 "historically Republican states" -- though Arizona has voted Republican in every presidential election but one since 1952.

=======

Wow. McLoser's home state of Arizona is now a battleground state?!

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:33 PM

I'm looking for that first time when Bonehead( his word) says what he means or means what he says. He is like a yoyo.
How can folks still support him.

I guess the old political motto is in effect. "You can't fool all the people all the time, but every four years is enough".

Posted by: Chief | July 3, 2008 8:32 PM

Of course he has to look at facts on the ground and adjust accordingly. Still he was right on this fiasco from the start. The relevant question is still this:

Who is more likely to pull troops out of Iraq? Obama or McCain. That answer is clearly Obama.

Posted by: RealChoices | July 3, 2008 8:32 PM

I made a prediction in 1999,of my list of predictions, all have come true.If George Bush were elected President, we will;
1| have a terrorist attack happen from beyond our shores of a scale we have never seen in the states before,making OK bombing look like a bad fireworks display.
2| we will be at war with someone (probably Iraq to finish his Daddies Mess) over ambihuous information of threats to the United States
3 | The " Moral Majority" will be stumped into the dark ages by the same people (Bush, Cheney, Rove) who begged and promised for their votes, and turned on them all too quick.
4 | Gas prices will hit high's never before seen on American soil, while the Oil company's and wall street take it to the bank
and one i really thought i was stretching on back then,
5 | homelessness will double from that of the current rates...
Thats the worst of it, but not overshadowing the bashing dealt to our Constitution by Bush, Cheney and Co.Or the continued beating our financials have to endure every day.
One thing is true, this could be dealt with quite quickly, even in as little as a few weeks, our government could trickle crude from our reserves, or keyed down active wells , and stop the financial bloodletting Bush, McCain and his Cronies are doing, but we sit here and squabble about what Barak might or might not do in 7 months from here..
1 things for sure, McCain wont change a thing, wont try to tide the ever growing Profit oil is making off a sickly exagggerated oil situation,wont try to stop our troops Dying for no cause, and he certainly will not support our troops when they get home.Sounds an awfull lot like whats happening today?? well, it is, so if you like it , keep pinning McCain up, but if you really are tired of the same game , new name, Then move over for Obama,at the very least.
I would never ask anyone to vote for someone their not 100 percent behind, but why are you so sure 50percent McCain is the man for the job?? He's 75, over due to retire, and has the ideals of zealots

Posted by: mullett | July 3, 2008 8:30 PM

The change we can believe in is the changing of his mind whenever it's politically convenient. What a change agent!

It's all part of his long, long, long journey to the center now that he has the leftists wrapped around his finger.

Posted by: politicohispanico | July 3, 2008 8:28 PM

I gotta fix this:
""To me, it proves that Obama's will be a prudent Presidency based on contemporanious FACTS as opposed to the carelessness"

Exactly what FACTS have changed since the primaries?"
===================
Are you saying that the situation in Iraq hasn't changed, or won't change, or indeed doesn't change weekly?

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 3, 2008 8:26 PM

It must have been a slow news day. I hear nothing from Obama to yield the headline to this article. It is amazing to me that so many people can jump on word choice as a clear departure from a former statement. Keep you focus on McCain and his declarations that his previous statements were not made by him. When faced with his previous statements, McCain almost seems shocked, maybe not he made them, but that they are actually on videotape or audio. McCain obviously has not caught up with the new technology, and we want him as President? Now, let's talk about the real qualifications for President.

Posted by: Earl C | July 3, 2008 8:25 PM

*** INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL REPUBLICAN COVERT CYBERAGENTS ***
*** SPECIAL DIRECTIVES FROM KARL ROVE ***
*** THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF ONLINE FORUM WARS ***

1. Mercilessly criticize your opponent and his followers on any and all positions. What they are is not important. Whether they make sense or not is not important. The only thing that is important is to discredit your opponent and his followers. If reality interferes with this goal, disregard reality.

2. Exaggerate your opponents flaws. Or just invent them. Minimize your candidate's. Or just ignore them.

3. Yell loud about nothing (flag pin, nose scratch, birth certificate). Stay silent about anything that matters (war, economy, paygo, imperial presidency, corruption). If all else fails, post with endless white space to knock your opponents off the first page of comments.

4. If your opponent sticks to his positions, call him stupid and intransigent. If your candidate sticks to his positions, call him principled.

5. If your opponent modifies his views in response to the facts, call him a flip-flopper. If your candidate modifies his views in response to the facts, call him a realist.

6. If your opponent offers a nuanced view, such as saying he's for a certain thing but his final decision will be made based on the facts on the ground, ignore it. Pretend he never said it. That way when he does make his decision based on the facts on the ground you can accuse him of flip-flopping.

7. Never admit you could be wrong.

8. Never admit your opponent could be right.

9. Never shut your mouth long enough to open your mind.

10. Never, ever ask if there isn't something better you could be doing with your time.


IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO'S RIGHT!
IT'S ABOUT WHO WINS!

*** END TRANSMISSION ***
*** END TRANSMISSION ***
*** TRANSMISSION ACCOMPLISHED ***

Posted by: treetopflyer | July 3, 2008 8:20 PM

Me suit up? You're kiddingg, right?

Posted by: Paulie Wolfowitz | July 3, 2008 8:20 PM

"Obama has no idea how to formulate thoughts and express those thoughts coherently. There is nothing brilliant
about this guy he is over his head. "
======================
And the alternative to Obama is John, I don't know much about economics, McCain? Are you saying that McCain is brillant and expresses himself brillantly (although frankly McCain's speeches are so deadly boring I find my mind drifting when he is speaking, for all I know he could be saying something of significance, but I wouldn't bet on it)...Hey I have an idea, maybe Obama can give Johnny Freeride teleprompter reading lessons, LOL.

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 3, 2008 8:19 PM

harried: My Momma is fine. How's yours these days? Did you ever find out which one was your father?

Posted by: JimmyO | July 3, 2008 8:16 PM

I guess you just can not beat Karl Rove!
He's a bottom feeder that knows his food!
And here I present a slug --
____________________________
Flip-flop, flip-flop. You call that change?
Posted by: JimmyO | July 3, 2008 8:06 PM
_______________________
Hey JimmyO, how's yo mamma?

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 8:12 PM

Looks like Barack will say anything and do anything to get elected. Once he is elected, he will simply be PRESENT and let the 'status quo ante' prevail. Do the liberal voters feel cheated? If not, they are as clueless as the administration that they are trying to unseat. Bring Hillary back, and send Obama to where he belongs: South side of Chicago where he can 'organize' more community events and where he can go to Trinity Church all over again.

Posted by: Sonny, NYC | July 3, 2008 8:12 PM

Well I still trust the guy. Iraq is a difficult situation. I will give him some leaway on this. BTW, McCain is still a semi-senile doddering old fool.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 8:10 PM

Wow. whoever wrote this article, and the headline for it, should be fired and sent back to high school. It's an attempt to create a flip flop where there is none. Read the quotes. Obama is not "softening" anything. This article is garbage. Trash. Where is the big change? Where's the quote that so radically different from what he said today?

Nowhere.

This article is trash. Shameful trash. All it does is stir up the idiot wingnuts, who should be trying to find the recruiter's office so they can go fight in Iraq.

Posted by: LH | July 3, 2008 8:08 PM

There is no flip to flop here, no story to add to , just more distraction from repugnants who know they have no chance of counting this election, unless you all want to vote for a real Leader, Mr. Obama!!!
Another good reason, and one im sure he's not willing to discuss with anyone right now, is that we, AMERICA, have a vested interest in IRAQ now, to the tune of Trillions by the time its done..Wanna see a neat trick, watch as BHO fixes our oil Ails, one quick sweep through Iraq and Afghan, take control of the OIL thats Spilling on the ground there. Would you like your ANTI Obama selves then??

Posted by: Mullett | July 3, 2008 8:07 PM

I guess you just can not beat Karl Rove!
He's a bottom feeder that knows his food!

Posted by: hariied | July 3, 2008 8:07 PM

Flip-flop, flip-flop. You call that change?

Posted by: JimmyO | July 3, 2008 8:06 PM

Look, this is a Politician that has taken "EXPERT" advice, and now I really start to worry!
Of course maybe he's just lost the "FEEL" momentarily. But here's my take.
After the Hillary slime job I was willing to vote for this man, now,,,it's a matter of does he want me or the God nut people.
He better come clean or He does not get my vote.

Posted by: harried | July 3, 2008 8:01 PM

And no matter what you bigots, haters, right wingers, well you folks are basically of the same ilk say OBAMA will be our next President of these United States. its all set in motion .

So sad for you folks but true. And that's that.

Posted by: llewis40 | July 3, 2008 7:59 PM

NumbN*ts should have changed his position by now. Any person that is stubborn enough to stay the course when things are wrong is a FOOL.

This is how you solve problems, sit down with all parties, with all the facts.

Not, my way or highway crap, wit' us or 'gainst us.

Barack has made it clear right from the start, he will resolve issues by looking at all the facts.

Posted by: Onefreeman | July 3, 2008 7:56 PM

Self-Defeating Rightward Flips . . .

Are but one of many aspects and issues regarding Senator Obama's "strategy" this past month. Too much to repeat here. But if you're interested see http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com and look for:

* "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008
* "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.
* "The Bundling Business," June 26, 2008.
* "Will the Real Obama Stand Up -- For Us?" June 27, 2008.
* "Pragmatic Idealism," June 28, 2008.
* "Obama's Geometry: Triangulation," June 30, 2008.
* "Obama's Move to Right Shows Self-Defeating Weakness," July 1, 2008.
* "Obama's Telephone Switch," July 3, 2008.

Posted by: Nick | July 3, 2008 7:55 PM

As much as I want our men and women to be the holy hell outta IRAQ I trust OBAMA more then I do McCain to get them the holy hell outta there. I like the fact that he's going on this fact mission. From all Ive seen so far this season OBAMA is deffintly more cool then McCain. McCain is just to trigger happy with a shoot first ask damn questions latter. And to hot tempered.

Posted by: llewis40 | July 3, 2008 7:54 PM

Don't be fooled by the people who say they want out and he's flip flopping; they're simply trying to get you to support John McCain, and we all know what his Iraq policy is.

Posted by: Daniel Folsom | July 3, 2008 7:53 PM

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop

Posted by: We want out now! | July 3, 2008 7:50 PM

""To me, it proves that Obama's will be a prudent Presidency based on contemporanious FACTS as opposed to the carelessness"

Exactly what FACTS have changed since the primaries?"
===================
Are saying that the situation in Iraq hasn't changed or won't change, of indeed does change weekly?

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 3, 2008 7:49 PM

Yikes what is with this guy's command of English........


"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe,"

( you ask us to run to the archives and examine everything you have said??? You are the one running for office
You are supposed to speak your intentions )


. "And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable.

( his guiding approach continues to be.... What tense are we in????)

And I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold."

( The guy will continue to gather information isn't that nice you tell us when you have enough now you hear)


His own advisers have sent mixed messages. Sen. Claire C. McCaskill (D-Mo.), a strong Obama supporter, has firmly maintained he has not shifted on Iraq at all.


Claire McCaskill ( that would be the state auditor of Missouri until 18 months ago. That really inspires confidence Claire McCaskill
Way to go. Didn't she have sone problems of her own? )


He stressed that he still believes it would be "a strategic error for us to maintain a long term occupation in Iraq"


(Obama still believes that something else would be a 'strategic' error ---versus a plain error ?)


But, he added, "I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. ...


( There he goes again, he wants us to what run to the archives ....)


When I go to Iraq and have time to talk to the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information."

This tense is wrong wrong wrong. Did this guy learn English at Harvard?)


Obama has no idea how to formulate thoughts and express those thoughts coherently. There is nothing brilliant
about this guy he is over his head.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 7:46 PM

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop

Posted by: He said we would be out in 16 months, period! | July 3, 2008 7:46 PM

Those who claim he is flip-flopping never understood his position to begin with. READ HIS BOOKS.

Posted by: Mark | July 3, 2008 7:43 PM

I find it funny that the people who are complaining about how we'll stay in Iraq forever are the people who probably want everyone to vote for John '100 Years' McCain (is the 100 years middle name in reference to how long he's willing to stay in Iraq, or is it in reference to his age? only I know).

First of all, and I'm not calling this a flip flop - but let's do away with the idea that flip flops are wrong.
1)Example of a good flip flop: a leader, despite initially taking a position, now finds that the circumstances have changed and the best thing for the country would be to change that position.
2)Example of a bad flip flop: Barack Obama, with the only justification being he wants access to more money than McCain, decides to not do public funding, which he said he would have done.
3)Example of a bad flip flop: John McCain, who sponsored an 'amnesty' immigration bill, decides he needs to appeal to the Republican base, and switches his position with the only motivation being political gain.

This, however, doesn't fall under any of the categories. Obama has (rightly) always said 16 months if the troops could be safe. By announcing this he is not saying "I now support the War in Iraq," but rather saying , "I'm now saying what I've been saying my entire campaign." And everyone here who wants to end the war wants to do so because it is a waste of United States resources and a waste of our soldiers' lives. Wouldn't it be a shame, if by pulling out, we ending up wasting more lives?

Posted by: Daniel Folsom | July 3, 2008 7:42 PM

"I AM A LOAN LENDER IF YOU ARE IN NEED OF LOAN CONTACT MY EMAIL:helen_financialhelp1@hotmail.com"
++++++++++++++++++

haha, the most sensible post of the lot.

Other than that I say an Obama Presidency is still better than a doddering old McCain continuation of the failed Bush Presidency. The GOP is ideologically bankrupt and you Conservatives just won't see it. Hey, instead of contacting Helen, maybe you Conservatives that are hurting for dough can get a loan from the $400 million dollar man Rush, it doesn't look like he has been hurt by the economic downfall of the rest of us....what a bunch of suckers, buy into Rush's bigotry and enrich the fat huckster while you go to the poor house. Now who is the fool?

Posted by: GObama | July 3, 2008 7:42 PM

Ouch! Obama just went from the better of the two candidates to the lesser evil - and not by much.

Posted by: woody | July 3, 2008 7:41 PM

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop

Posted by: We cannot trust what he says! | July 3, 2008 7:36 PM

Obama will say and do anything to get elected. He's going to end the war ... maybe or sometime soon. I was against it before I was for it.

I was for Rev. Wright before I was against him. I hated the flag pin before I started wearing it. I am patriotic now ... you don't believe me? Well you better not criticize my patriotism. That is really racist to criticize me. This is what change is all about!

Posted by: alance | July 3, 2008 7:35 PM

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop

Posted by: I am sick of him! | July 3, 2008 7:31 PM

Good day to you,
What ever your loan needs are, long term or short term loans, personal or mortgage, we are ready to talk with you about how we can meet your needs, and how you can get this loan on line transfer and account access on line Let us help you arrange financing and also get a very legitimate loan at 3% yearly and 0.5% monthly.we are the only registered and recognized financial housing that gives out loan to every serious person at low interest rates {4% yearly and 0.5% monthly} and grant you very legitimate loan that will fit your needs, or fill out an application online to:helen_financialhelp1@hotmail.com
BORROWERS INFORMATION
Your names ................................
Your country................................
Your address ..............................
Your occupation ..........................
Your marital status ......................
Current Status at place of work.........
Phone number..............................
Monthly Income...............................
Loan Duration........................
Loan amount.........................
How did you hear about us?..............
Thanks
Warm regards
MD/CEO

Posted by: helen_financialhelp | July 3, 2008 7:28 PM

Here we go again! He is changing his tune again and it is not yet even August! I hope that you Obama fanatics on the Fantasyland Express can remember back to the months of the primaries when those of us who already saw Obama for what he is - another political hack (who is great with a teleprompter) who will say/do anything for election.

He was not the best candidate then and he is not the best one now. Might be a good time to take off those rose-colored glasses throught which you view Obama and demand of the super delegates that this situation get reversed. Change we can believe in??? Don't make me laugh - the situation is far too serious for that!

Posted by: nana1ellen | July 3, 2008 7:26 PM

I find it interesting that Barry Hussein would anounce this at the end of the week and before a long weekend. This is typical political spin from the Pied Piper.

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | July 3, 2008 7:26 PM

I AM A LOAN LENDER IF YOU ARE IN NEED OF LOAN CONTACT MY EMAIL:helen_financialhelp1@hotmail.com

Posted by: helen_financialhelp | July 3, 2008 7:25 PM

"Barack Obama is not softening his position. "

Bull crapola, Barry said he'd get the troops out in 16 months (during the primary)

now he's running to the right of Clinton.

you obama-bots are foooooolish and stupid

Posted by: Mig | July 3, 2008 7:25 PM

Jimmie write:
ALERT: MISLEADING HEADLINE
Barack Obama is not softening his position. He has been consistent on Iraq since entered this race.


THIS IS A LIE. Read Obama's website.

Idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 7:24 PM

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop

Posted by: Flipper | July 3, 2008 7:23 PM

"To me, it proves that Obama's will be a prudent Presidency based on contemporanious FACTS as opposed to the carelessness"

Exactly what FACTS have changed since the primaries?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 7:22 PM

ALERT: MISLEADING HEADLINE

Barack Obama is not softening his position. He has been consistent on Iraq since entered this race.

Posted by: Jimmie | July 3, 2008 7:21 PM

First he changes his position on campaign finance and now Iraq. I am really disappointed and I may have to reconsider voting for him.

Posted by: SandyClaws | July 3, 2008 7:20 PM

he is not any different than anyone else. I thought he was. he is really becoming a big disappointment. the problem is his words inspired many young people. they would be so pissed off in the end and would never care what is going on. it would be so sad indeed.

Posted by: hal | July 3, 2008 7:16 PM

This is the same position he has always had. He even criticized Hillary Clinton for not saying she would take conditions on the ground into account in her withdraw plan.

The only people who are shocked are the idiotic media that try to caricature Dems into something they aren't.

Posted by: Julian | July 3, 2008 7:16 PM

Barry Hussein changes his poistion again. That's change I can believe in!

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | July 3, 2008 7:05 PM

Packer in this week's New Yorker:

Obama, whatever the idealistic yearnings of his admirers, has turned out to be a cold-eyed, shrewd politician.

The same pragmatism that prompted him last month to forgo public financing of his campaign will surely lead him, if he becomes President, to recalibrate his stance on Iraq.

He doubtless realizes that his original plan, if implemented now, could revive the badly wounded Al Qaeda in Iraq, reënergize the Sunni insurgency, embolden Moqtada al-Sadr to recoup his militia's recent losses to the Iraqi Army, and return the central government to a state of collapse.

The question is whether Obama will publicly change course before November. So far, he has offered nothing more concrete than this: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."

Obama's advisers have been more forthcoming. Samantha Power, before she resigned from the campaign for making an indiscreet remark about Hillary Clinton, told the BBC, "He will, of course, not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a Presidential candidate or a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan--an operational plan--that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground."

Posted by: Consistently Obama | July 3, 2008 7:05 PM


More swift-boating from Weisman, Hiatt and the WaPo.
Obama is not softening, he's being diplomatic.
Yes, we were beginning to forget what that looked like, weren't we!

Bring 'em on! Show 'em our nukular manhood! Greed is good! Progressives offer comfort to the enemy! Mission accomplished! Axis of evil! We will prevail! Coalition of the Something-or-other! Yeeeehaw!

War is out of date. And I'm far from the first to say so.

Posted by: wardropper | July 3, 2008 7:04 PM

So what it comes down to is Obama's Iraq policy is the same as McCain. That's change? That's new?

Posted by: Jack Straw | July 3, 2008 7:03 PM

"When will the rest of the country understand what Clinton supporters already knew, Obama is a phony and don't say we didn't tell you so! If elected, we will remain in Iraq except instead of those of us ACTUALLY opposed to the war being called unpatriotic, we will be called racist for disagreeing with b.o."

Too bad Hillary wasn't ACTUALLY opposed to the War when she gave Bush the power to attack.

Posted by: GObama | July 3, 2008 7:03 PM

Right thing to do. Wish he WERE in this position at the primary.

Politicians have a bad name because of the system we instituted. It's natural selection.

Posted by: sg | July 3, 2008 7:01 PM

Obama CHANGED again making fools of the Obamabots.

Posted by: Jack Straw | July 3, 2008 6:57 PM

"Another policy shift for Obama. Everything he promised in the primaries is now suspect. If he can't be trusted within 1 month of winning the primaries, can we trust him for 4 years as president? Remember what happened when we had a liar for president (Nixon) in the 70s?"
==================
I would hardly call Obama's decision to rethink his time table for withdrawal a "policy shift" or "flip-flop" since he made his original guesstimate before the effects of the surge were made clear. To me, it proves that Obama's will be a prudent Presidency based on contemporanious FACTS as opposed to the carelessness, with his assidous refusal to carefully vet the intel, that epitomized Bush's headlong plunge into attacking Iraq.

But let me bring up a couple of facts and figures that will have more of a bearing on this election than the revelation that Obama may take more time to get our troops out of Iraq than he originally thought.

Figure one: 483,000: the number of jobs lost in the last year...lost despite the lowest taxes in 20 years. Conservatives, John McCain among them keep telling us that lower taxes free up money for businesses to invest in expansion and job creation, but it that hasn't happened in the last few years of the Bush administration. With McCain promising to keep the cuts permanent, and to, in fact, reduce Corporate taxes further, it doesn't seem like McCain is bringing anything new to the ecomomic table.

Fact: McCain has hired Karl Rove attack dog Steve Schmidt to manage his campaign (the same guy who was part of the smear squad that put a hit out on McCain himself in 2000.) If this doesn't cry out "Business as usual" I don't know what does.

I personally think that Americans are tired of sipping the Conservative Kool-Aid with no payoff in return. Obama is our best hope for change, no matter if he has back-tracked somewhat.

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 3, 2008 6:57 PM

When will the rest of the country understand what Clinton supporters already knew, Obama is a phony and don't say we didn't tell you so! If elected, we will remain in Iraq except instead of those of us ACTUALLY opposed to the war being called unpatriotic, we will be called racist for disagreeing with b.o.

Posted by: TonyS. | July 3, 2008 6:54 PM

The Democratic convention is not for a few more months yet...Plenty of time for Obama to define exactly what he means by requiring Iraq to be "stable" before we can leave. If he moves away too far from what voters decided that they were buying during the primaries...don't be surprised if delegates themselves speak up and say that they want to nominate the "stronger" candidate of Hillary to face McCain.

Posted by: Kathy | July 3, 2008 6:53 PM

"Backsliding Bama" shows his true colors.Meanwhile Bill Cosby,Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are lurking in the shadows,salavating over cabinet posts.

Posted by: JDM | July 3, 2008 6:53 PM

After eight years of Bush's rigid, dogmatic, closed-minded, agenda-driven administration, it's a breath of fresh air to see a politician who is willing to look at all the facts and adapt his positions accordingly. Let the neocons keep parroting the flip-flop term to their heart's content. They just can't deal with someone who is flexible, open-minded, and intelligent enough to look at all sides of an issue.

Posted by: Barbara | July 3, 2008 6:16 PM
.

The FACTS did not change since the primary and when Obama was trying to become the nominee he used his stance against the Iraq war to get votes from Hillary she might have gotten because people trusted her more with the economy. He never even had to VOTE on whether or not to go to war, but he made people believe he voted against it. He used Hillary's plan against her during the primary, now he is making her plan his plan. NO, nothing has changed since the primary except Obama's need to go after a different voting block. All those poor young kids that voted for him are going to be sorely disappointed in their choice.

Posted by: tiredofit | July 3, 2008 6:52 PM

You really think this purple lipped phony is sincere about bringing troops home. This guy is a fraud, and if you idiots want to follow him like the mindless followed Jim Jones, go right ahead. He'll tax and spend the country into oblivion. If you think this nitwit from Texas can spend, wait'll you get a load out of Obama-fraud.

Posted by: muskrat | July 3, 2008 6:51 PM

What he said was," the nation "must be as careful getting out of Iraq as it was reckless going in." This is NOT new news!

What this means is, depending on the situation in IRAQ during this 16 month timeframe will determine the course that needs to be taken.

When will mainstream stop taking this mans words OUT OF CONTEXT.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:50 PM

If you look at First Read, you'll see he's always refused these types of pledges on withdrawal.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/03/1182955.aspx

Posted by: Greg | July 3, 2008 6:49 PM

In context, Barack Obama has said many times we should be careful about withdrawing from Iraq. But he was unequivocal about the pace of withdrawal: one or two brigades a month. Anything other than that is a change in his message.

I don't mind change when a valid reason makes it necessary. But what has changed since he stated his policy? Nothing in Iraq has changed that much, so it must be the politics.


"So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now. To execute this, we should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should process at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Clinton, IA, 9/12/07)

Posted by: infuse | July 3, 2008 6:49 PM

"Change", is Barry Speak for "Flip-Flopping"

Heck, at this rate he will be White and Jewish by November with Tattoos, Piercings, a Sex-Change, and a Same-(Reversed) Sex, Partner from a Gay Wedding! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | July 3, 2008 6:47 PM

We can finally declare the Iraq war WON!

How do I know? Obama finally signed on for it! He wouldn't take a firm position on anything unless it was an obvious one.

Posted by: pgr88 | July 3, 2008 6:45 PM

Will Barack Get Out Of Iraq? Guess Again.
By Billy Glad - February 26, 2008, 11:08AM
Will Barack Obama get out of Iraq in 2009? The answer turns out to be maybe.

In an interview with CBS that has been ignored by the MSN and the Progressive blogosphere, Obama told Steve Kroft that his timetable for withdrawing from Iraq will have to depend on events on the ground, and that the level of sectarian violence will determine whether he can end the occupation.

"At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about...the end of 2009," Kroft remarked.

"Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We're not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning," Obama said.

"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there's serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.

"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.

Posted by: ConsistentlyObama | July 3, 2008 6:44 PM

People that make excuses for Obama's flip flops on stances he took on important issues during the primary that caused some to vote for him rather than Hillary need to remember what standard Dems held Republicans when they were caught with hookers or participating in other immoral acts. Dems said that they were harder on Republicans that participated in these acts because they pegged themselves as the party with high, moral family values. Well now Dems have Obama, who pegged himself as the agent of change, the agent of a different kind of politics and now his true colors are showing. His clean-up today could explain why he is afraid to debate McCain. Without a speech, he is helpless. Pretty bad when the Woman Dem candidate was not afraid to debate McCain, but the man the party is sending forward to fight for the win is a coward.

Posted by: tiredofit | July 3, 2008 6:42 PM

Sock puppet ? ! ? ! ? !
This is Obamas' 4th of July message?

Obama has taken "patriotism" off the discussion table and he out of the other side of his mouth opposes {maybe} a war that freed 25 million people.

Why won't he discuss Frank Marshall Davis and the profound impact that Davis had on Obama's life ?
Why won't he discuss his affiliation with DSA , Democratic Socialists of America?
Why are ACORN, Wood and Joyce Foundations all off the discussion table?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5313
Why is Obama allowed to set the standards and terms of debate or discussion?
Why is anything he doesn't want to talk about considered "hate speech" ?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
Why is it that all we know about him are slogans and soundbites?
What are we allowed to discuss?
Is anyone who asks about his voting record, the legislation he sponsored
{Global Poverty Act} ,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02433:
associations or past activities a 'racist'?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:36 PM

Anyone that has paid any attention to what Barack Obama has been saying, would know he prides himself in working with others to solve problems.

In order to accomplish that, he has to always be open to changing his position.

There are many that thinks once you have an opinion or a stance on an issue, you stick to it and never change. That is not very wise.

I be darn if I am going to keep going in a particular direction once I realize it is the wrong way to go.

Posted by: Onefreeman | July 3, 2008 6:34 PM

Obama has always stated that he will adhere to a 16 month withdrawl timeline - unless that would put our military at risk.

He has consistently said that any prudent leader MUST take conditions on the ground at the time -- January 2009 - into careful consideration and addtionally, that he would listen carefully to his commanders as they moved to put his directive about a 16 month withdrawl into place.

We would expect nothing less from our Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | July 3, 2008 6:33 PM

I have to agree with those saying that is an ugly podium.

Posted by: Shaun | July 3, 2008 6:33 PM

Now that he is the "presumptive" nominee he changes his words on getting out of Iraq. He used Iraq against Hillary, now he is saying the same thing she said all along. How many people gave him their vote in the primary because he said he would get us out of Iraq in 16 months? Remember back, in the beginning he said immediately, then it was 16 months, now it is what Bush has been saying...When our commanders on the ground say it is right. Obama is a turd and the any Dems that voted for him other than blacks are suckers. Watch Obama closely trying to clean up what he said this morning. Without an actual speech, he messes up almost as bad as Bush. Hems and Haws. Superdelegates need to save America from Obama and vote for Hillary at the convention.

Posted by: tiredofit | July 3, 2008 6:32 PM

OMG! Shocking new photo of Mrs. Obama!

http://www.hongpong.com/files/_jemima.jpg

Posted by: PeaPod | July 3, 2008 6:32 PM

Look, Obama is going to win the election and nothing that any of us writes is going to change that.

So put that in your flip-flops, drink it up and have a Happy 4th of July, people!

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 6:32 PM

A quick way to get those young, highly charged new Democrats to stay home is to start muddying the water. And this is muddying the water.

Posted by: infuse | July 3, 2008 6:31 PM

Obama is right when he says "change we can believe in" - he can change his mind whenever he wants to just to get votes!! But, not mine!

Posted by: Angela | July 3, 2008 6:29 PM

Opportunist or lying sack of crap.

You decide.

Posted by: | July 3, 2008 5:41 PM
----------------------------------------

I'll take "lying sack of crap" for $500 Alex.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:29 PM

Someone mention McCain's 100 year war? It'll take that dumbass obama 100 years to figure out what to do, and where the hell Iraq is. 57 states later, obama learns there were really 59, lmao! What an idiot but very appropriate for the libs.

Posted by: Notobama | July 3, 2008 6:24 PM

Obama must not use judgement based on suggestions or changing conditions. He must stay locked in place to be defined by the Post and McCain. He must be always free from error and infallable, as our Pope and our current soon-to-be canonized sacred 43 has been. Anyone who disagrees is a communist, a librul, or worse a member of the Democrat.

AT&T and Chevron rule. Pay up and shut up!

Posted by: snarker | July 3, 2008 6:23 PM

Not a good idea Mr. Obama, and this comes from an avid supporter.

Posted by: A.Lincoln | July 3, 2008 6:22 PM

"it's a breath of fresh air to see a politician who is willing to look at all the facts and adapt his positions accordingly."

It is not a breath of fresh air to see a politician lie or tell you things just to get your vote.

In fact, it is the same old crap. That is what you are smelling.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:22 PM

He has not changed his position. This has been on the Obama web site for months:

"All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas."

This is the MSM media trying to create a story where there isn't one. I guess they are worried their ratings will fall as people lose interest in a lopsided matchup.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 6:22 PM

My money is on BO changing his name back to Barry by October......flip, flop...flip...

Posted by: MrRex | July 3, 2008 6:20 PM

Once Obama refines his Iraq policy, he will end up with soldiers being shot at and killed in Iraq for at least several more years, followed by a residual force for maybe the next 100. And, in the meantime, he will support an increase in forces in Afghanistan, which he always said should have been the primary focus. So, we'll end up with forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 100 years if Obama has anything to say about it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:20 PM

We tried to tell you about him.

Suckers.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:18 PM

We tried to tell you about him.

Suckers.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:18 PM

We tried to tell you about him.

Suckers.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:18 PM

We tried to tell you about him.

Suckers.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:17 PM

After eight years of Bush's rigid, dogmatic, closed-minded, agenda-driven administration, it's a breath of fresh air to see a politician who is willing to look at all the facts and adapt his positions accordingly. Let the neocons keep parroting the flip-flop term to their heart's content. They just can't deal with someone who is flexible, open-minded, and intelligent enough to look at all sides of an issue.

Posted by: Barbara | July 3, 2008 6:16 PM

To all of you fools fixated on McCain's alleged statement about 100 years of war.

Obama just moved closer to the 100 year mark. Ha.

One more thing: McCain's position is that he is going to get us out of the war, and I trust his experience on this over this goof from Illinois that has lived his whole life sitting in a classroom or begging for money from all of you Obama-fools.

Posted by: get real | July 3, 2008 6:16 PM

Obama has changed every single one of his platform policy positions since the primaries. The guy is a fake and has made a whole bunch of people suckers.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:15 PM

Is he trying to get everybody to pretend that's Air Force One behind him?

What a friggin' sock puppet!!

Heyyy!! THAT'S where my black sock went..!!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:15 PM

What Obama should do is to be blunt with the American people and to tell them that the neocons invaded Iraq on the basis of wrong intelligence and lies that suggested that our security is threatened by Iraqis WMDs which were just figment of the Warmongers's imagination (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld and co.) and for the benefit of the likes of Blackwater and Halliburton!

Furthermore, Obama must state to the American Taxpayer that Iraq is costing us $30 billion per month. Imagine what can be done with such a waste.

Posted by: 1Nouri | July 3, 2008 6:13 PM

Obama has taken "patriotism" off the dscussion table and he out of the other side of his mouth opposes {maybe} a war that freed 25 million people.

Why won't he discuss Frank Marshall Davis and the profound impact that Davis had on Obama's life ?
Why won't he discuss his affiliation with DSA , Democratic Socialists of America?
Why are ACORN, Wood and Joyce Foundations all off the discussion table?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5313
Why is Obama allowed to set the standards and terms of debate or discussion?
Why is anything he doesn't want to talk about considered "hate speech" ?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
Why is it that all we know about him are slogans and soundbites?
What are we allowed to discuss?
Is anyone who asks about his voting record, the legislation he sponsored
{Global Poverty Act} ,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02433:
associations or past activities a 'racist'.

Posted by: Bob Fanning | July 3, 2008 6:12 PM


Maybe this 180-degree turn will finally pull some of his cult followers out of their hypnotic trance.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:12 PM

Can anyone tell me what Obama's position is regarding the war, or regarding anything other than him wanting me to give him money? Everytime I figure it out, he changes it.

Or should I just go with this for Obama's positions?: "subject to change."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:10 PM

I have to agree that is a really bad looking podium. Where is the professionalism?

Posted by: renu1 | July 3, 2008 6:10 PM

No matter how long it takes Obama to withdraw the troops, it will be shorter than the 100 years McFury promises.

http://www.capitolpoliticking.com

Posted by: grapevinedaily | July 3, 2008 6:10 PM

This is the MSM media trying to create a story where there isn't one. I guess they are worried their ratings will fall as people lose interest in a lopsided matchup.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 6:08 PM

Although I hesitate to acknowledge Senator Obama's reasoning on Iraq and Afghnistan, I do agree with his cautionary words that ,our nation "must be as careful getting out of Iraq as it was reckless going in". At least Obama isn't playing the Bush Regime Card like his opponenet Senator McCain, who's been busy brushing up on his international diplomacy skills.
Mr. Obama may not be the ideal presidential candidate, but between the
two of them, I would be willing to take the risk with Obama as Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: Jet-Man | July 3, 2008 6:08 PM


Whatever happened to this clown's crap line about being against "dumb" wars?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:08 PM

Jr. Boston
the clip you posted is hilarius. I heard this guy on the Sean Hannity radio show during the primary. At the time I was angered just because the guy was horribly attacking Obamas mother. I saw it as a new low for the already sleazy Hannity but now that I've seen this clown through your link I can do nothing but laugh. I thought he was one of the mega ministers, didn't know he was preaching out of his garage, or that his congregation consisted of his family members..good entertainment. If anybody wants to see an authentic house negro/clown click here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU


Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:07 PM

Message to the loudmouth, vitriolic Obama-haters: You are not great Americans. I don't care if you phoned Sean Hannity and he told you you were a great American. You are not. You are pimply, grafitti-scrawling delinquents and you smell of feces. And we Americans have had enough of you and your destructiveness. So shut up and go wipe your a$$es. You stink.

Posted by: GaryL1 | July 3, 2008 6:07 PM

Samantha Powers was Obama's political foreign advisor until she went to Europe and told the BBC that Obama planned to "revisit the Iraq war" position after his election.

Political advisor (Goolsbe), met with Canadian officials and assured them that Obama's campaign rhetoric about the FTA, was exactly that, political spin.

Does anyone know the real Barack Obama?

Posted by: Cantabrigian | July 3, 2008 6:06 PM

"Your money will help us to elect someone who's in touch with the American people."

Let me tell you something honey.

The only touching that a politician does is to grab your ass to get to your wallet. You seem to enjoy that. Go ahead and donate everything you got to someone that will lie to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:04 PM

Everyone hated Bush for his stubborn, uninformed inflexibility he magically got from his "higher father," - yet when someone comes along that is unafraid to take a fresh look at a dynamic situation with changing data ... here come the stale Republican howls of "flip-flop."

I don't know who is more stupid: the propagandists who parrot the "flip-flop" mantra, the press who publishes it, or the electorate who chimes in.

Go ahead - vote for John McCain (or even worse, throw your vote in the toilet for the narcissist Nader).
You get NO health insurance, 4-8 more years of war in Iraq (minimum, @ $200 Million / day), and $250-per-barrel oil when McCain / Israel "bomb-bombs" Iran.

Have fun! ... PS: can we please put the worn out phrases "flip-flop" and "throw under the bus" in the overused cliche hall of fame?

Posted by: Get real | July 3, 2008 6:03 PM


Figures. Just another vapid politician promising the moon and then offering up a lot less.

I'm glad I wasn't tricked into voting for this joker.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:03 PM

How can I get a dorky podium like that?

Posted by: Karl | July 3, 2008 6:02 PM

"Look, I'm not going to defend the war in Iraq, however, for those of you who think the framers would be 'rolling in their graves' over the thought about going to war for morality....you need a history lesson.

The framers went to war over an idea. Oh, and, yes. That war was illegal as well. Had they lost, they would have all hanged for treason. They also fought with the French, English, Spanish and native Americans - for land, not in self defense. Happy 4th of July."

Not sure if you saw the excellent John Adams mini-series on HBO but one of the key takeaways was how we had to play the French against the Brits, who both wanted to control this continent. We were fighting them both, in different ways, for our independence and for this continent.

And now that we have this continent, we probably don't need to go to war with other countries who haven't attacked us here.

That's my belief. Good people can disagree about these things. Lebanon and Hezbollah may represent a blood debt of sorts.

There are two schools of thought on foreign policy in the middle east: the unilateralists (Rumsfeld) and the network/alliance (Powell).

I tend to be more conservative when it comes to foreign policy than the hawks. I like the fact that we work well with the Brits. And the Israelis. Alliances can be a good thing. And we don't have to fight every war. We beat the Soviets in a cold war. It took longer, but it did work. I'd like Powell to return to State and build up our alliances again.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 6:01 PM

I like the photo, showing Obama standing there with the label "change" in front of him on the podium.

How appropriate.

How does it feel to be a sucker? Told one thing to get your support in the primary, and now finding out that all the stuff that you were told early on was either a misjudgment, a mistatement, or an outright lie.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 6:00 PM

Obama said:

"We should be careful in withdrawing as we were careless in attacking."


This is consistent and was in contrast to HRC's promise of immediate withdrawal.


Anti AMERICAN hate spewing suckers just stop. Do community service instead of farting and posting crap.


God bless America.

Posted by: Retired Colonel, American Patriot | July 3, 2008 5:58 PM

Its so sad. Obama has no grasp of the issues and he will say anything to get votes. He isn't black or white, he's green. I will call him Kermit. What will Kermit's positions be if he becomes President? I recommend you consider his long time associations (before he had to distance himself to win votes) for answers. He's no John Kennedy.

Posted by: John | July 3, 2008 5:57 PM

I agree that Obama's timetable will be more in-keeping with the Americans' preferences because he won't be pandering to oil companies like McCain. McCain will solely help the ultra-rich people who run oil companies - and thus keep us in Iraq for decades longer than we need. I refuse to put up with McCain. That's why I'm going to go donate more money to Senator Obama's campaign right now. You can donate too by going to Senator Obama's website at the following: http://www.BarackObama.com - just click on the red donate button to make your contribution. Your money will help us to elect someone who's in touch with the American people. Unlike McCain, Senator Obama knows that we can't relie on oil forever. It's time for change.

Posted by: Allen | July 3, 2008 5:57 PM

The only reason Iraq is relatively stable now is because of our massive military presence and our massive cash dump which cannot be sustained any longer. America is going bankrupt baby-sitting a bunch of crazed feuding Iraqis. It is time to get out. Let the Iraqis deal with their own country. However, if it takes a bit longer than 16 months, then so be it. I trust Obama. I do not trust the senile McWarmonger.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 5:57 PM

Obama just held a SECOND press conference stating the 16-month withdrawal is NOT flexible, and that he would consult with the military to find out how many troops would need to remain behind to train the Iraqi military. UPDATE YOUR HEADLINE.. it reads like a McCain memo and it's utterly false. PISS POOR journalism WaPo.

Posted by: Dan in Denver | July 3, 2008 5:56 PM

Whites have never voted amongs racial lines because they have never given any other race an opportunity to participate....but that aint racist no other group of people are smart enough to manage a country of dummies......what is interesing these polls taken are from less than 1% of the sample so their is not a whole lot of accuracy to the findings.....but in closing if the social system wasn't so racist it would not be taking polls on what race voted for what race.....instead just counting votes........you cant tell me that blacks are getting mad because Obama has an overwhelming black support it is whites.....why would whites be so mad they make up over 55% of the population and blacks make upa lil over 10 %.....do white feel like they are loosing control?....well they have no less control it is that minorities are on the same playing field.......God Bless America

Posted by: Crock of Poop | July 3, 2008 5:55 PM

Now Obama starts the inevitable backslide on his oft-stated pledge to withdraw
troops from Iraq upon winning the White House.
Surprised?! Only if you're a self-deluding Obama supporter. Obama is just
another conventional politician, just like pragmatic Clinton supporters
consistently argued. What distinguishes him from the rest is his utter lack of
experience. And THAT made him the least qualified candidate in the primaries. He is the Democratic Party's "W".
Naive, hysterical Obama supporters... Just keep telling yourselves: change we
can believe in ... yes we can ... change we can believe in ... yes we can ...
change we can believe in ... ad infinitum.
But notice--if you are able--that your mindless droning soon becomes indistinguishable from the more
usual "drrrrrrr" sounds you make, and therefore has no effect. It's so pathetic that today I'm starting a charity to raise money for the purchase of bibs for
Obama supporters, so that they no longer have to drool on themselves... poor
innocent things!
Donate today to "Bibs for Obama Supporters"! Your kindness will be
appreciated by everyone but the owners of laundromats and dry-cleaning stores.

Posted by: MJM | July 3, 2008 5:55 PM

He's going to end up being the right wing's b!tch if he keeps up this nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:55 PM

Does it seems strange to others as well that all during the campaign we all knew he would change his mind. Senator Obama could not keep his neophite position. You can't move that many troops that soon...period! Yes the war was senseless squandering of our blood and treasary but why adopt a plan that gets more people killed. He won't be able to blame the worst president in our lifetime for the withdrawl plan. It will be his and only his! Many of my friends think I'm too kind to Obama. That the naked truth was that he demonstrated an "arrogance of ignorance" to defame Clinton for her position on troop withdrawl. In the end she was right and he was incredibly manipulative. I recall her saying McCain and I will show up with our experience and Obama can show up and give a speech. The unfortunate reality is that Barrack Obama is as empty and vapid as GW Bush in foreign/military policy and like GW he's too arrogant to realize his limitations.

Posted by: RVERBIST | July 3, 2008 5:54 PM

If Obama doesn't want to be a one term president, he better get us out of Iraq quickly!

Posted by: Kevin Schmidt | July 3, 2008 5:53 PM

To JR:

The point is not whether your boy is winning now, the point is that he's throwing the very reasons you support him under the bus. So who exactly are you supporting? With the type of scrutiny you Obama supporters are giving Barack, he's turning into another GW Bush. Doesn't "HOPE" and "CHANGE" sound a lot like "CUT AND RUN" and "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" - meaningless, bumper sticker politics

Posted by: David | July 3, 2008 5:52 PM


Obama royally deserves lambasting for misleading his fanatic voter base on this issue until after the primaries were over.

But he also deserves credit for choosing right policy.

Unfortunately, as with his statement on the death penalty for child rapists, we're left wondering what President Obama would really do.

The folks at moveon.org must be apoplectic. That's nice.

Posted by: WylieD | July 3, 2008 5:51 PM

"We should be careful in withdrawing as we were careless in attacking."


This is consistent and was in contrast to HRC's promise of immediate withdrawal.


Anti-American hate spewing suckers stop flip-flopping.


Thank you.


God bless America.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:51 PM

Whatever Obama's position it's gotta be better than 100 year McCain's.

Posted by: Wise Man | July 3, 2008 5:50 PM


Obama does a backflip with twist on Iraq just a few days after his boy Wesley Clark spits on a Vietnam POW on national television.

These Obama creeps have no business being anywhere near the White House.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:50 PM

For those who refuse to hear, Obama NEVER said he would immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq. For more than a year that he has been saying, over and over again, he would IMMEDIATELY begin to withdraw troops, methodically and not recklessly, keeping in mind the safety of the troops and the stability of Iraq. As Casey Stengel used to say, you could look it up. Unlike Bush, he will set the mission and not let a general dictate our overall national interest with an obession on Iraq.

McCain, on the other hand, has said he would keep troops in Iraq for decades, whether there was violence and instability of not. No problem with the choices here.

Posted by: Dave | July 3, 2008 5:48 PM

The headline is false, as is the story. What Obama has said all along is that he would consult with military and other leaders for the BEST SAFETY OF THE TROOPS. The best safety of the troops has NOT been a priority of the Bush administration, AS YOU KNOW.

And now, of course, with strongman Bush trying to force secret arrangements on an increasingly hostile Iraqi government, the situation is even more complicated. By the time Obama takes office, we may already have attacked Iran.

What president except a megalomaniac like Bush would start three wars and leave them to his successor to finish? And then smear his successor for trying to clean up the mess SAFELY.

Bad show, Bush. Bad show, Obama-haters.

Posted by: GaryL1 | July 3, 2008 5:47 PM

This is the MSM trying to create a story out of nothing. They must be worried Obama is creaming McCain and their ratings will go down because most people will lose interest.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 5:46 PM

The reason why Obama is having such a difficult time introducing himself to the American Public is because he keeps changing. The guy is a chameleon.

Posted by: David | July 3, 2008 5:46 PM

And I'll say it again SLOWLY...

McCain isn't winning this election.

Young voters and blacks are going to turnout in record numbers.

The current polls are so far off the mark it isn't even funny.

The polls have Obama winning 85% of the black vote, at typical turnout.

The Newsweek poll that had Obama up 15% had blacks going for Obama 129/130. That seems about right to me.

Obama is up in Montana today by 5pts. Montana!

41% of the people are registered as dems, 31% as reps. Obama has a HUGE ground operation that he is installing. He has 10,000 volunteers in Texas. 10,000.

3600 people gave up their jobs to join his fellows program. They were selected out of 10,000 applicants.

Turnout is going to be HUGE and the change is going to be VAST. Expect big downticket wins. BIG. Mandate for CHANGE.

And if Richardson is on the ticket. The Latin vote is going to explode, and change from 65-35 to 75-25. There goes Texas and Florida, not to mention Colorado and New Mexico.

There are so many different ways Obama can win. So many cards he has to play.

All wars are won before they are fought. And this one is over.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Told you he was just another pol.

Posted by: jimmy | July 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Hey tdl62...

Although you (and Charlie Gibson) try to pretend that Obama said he wouldn't listen to commanders, he said NO SUCH THING. What he said, and what anyone with rudimentary reading skills would understand, is that he, as commander in chief, would set the mission (i.e. - withdrawal). He never says anything about whether tactical advice would or wouldn't affect the pace of withdrawal. He just says that the he would set the policy. ugh. Read people, read.

Posted by: Slothrop | July 3, 2008 5:45 PM

We should be careful in withdrawing as we were careless in attacking.


This is consistent and was in contrast to HRC's promise of immediate withdrawal.


Anti AMERICAN hate spewing suckers just stop.


Thank you.


God bless America.

Posted by: American Patriot | July 3, 2008 5:45 PM

"Today's comments from Obama were the most extended on the issue, and they leaned hard toward flexibility . . ."

What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Mr. Weisman, that is some crappy writing!

Posted by: uni | July 3, 2008 5:42 PM


.
Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop.....
I will take federal funds for campaigning....I will NOT take federal funds for campaigning.
I will get the troops home immediately... I will NOT get the troops home immediately.
I support total gun control.....I do NOT support total gun control.

At last, I finally know what he really means by "change". And, as if these weren't bad enough:

1. a Kerry-like shallow, arrogant, platitude-spouting, gas-bag - who is so mentally deficient from extensive drug use he even has to plagiarize his hollow platitudes
2. twenty-year disciple of rev. "God D@#! America" wright
3. pal to weathermen terrorists
4. very, very experienced drug user (worth repeating)
5. partner-in crime to convicted felon Tony Rezko
6. hijacked the Dem nomination with FEWER votes than Hillary received
7. "For the FIRST TIME in my life I am proud of my country."
8. Special below-market rate and terms for his National Trust Bank loan on his Chicago mansion.
9. baned two Muslim women in headscarves from appearing behind him in photographs and on TV
10. dismissively called a television reporter "sweetie".

/

Posted by: ALEX H | July 3, 2008 5:42 PM


Opportunist or lying sack of crap.

You decide.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:41 PM


Opportunist or lying sack of crap.

You decide.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:41 PM


Opportunist or lying sack of crap.

You decide.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:41 PM

I trust you, Obama, moreso than I do McCain with our troops. I trust you to indeed GATHER INFORMATION, and make decisions based on that information. Bottom line, bring our people home. Do it sooner than McCain proposes. Whatever the situation may be, can commanders not begin to formulate possible plans? Obama, just stick to the general idea of bringing our people home. That needs to happen, and should you make commander-in-chief, plans need to be laid out to push it. We have some very sharp people on our defense team, with expertise on planning under harsh circumstances. It is past time to start getting it together. Look at the situation for what it is, and plan accordingly.

By all means, though, be informed. Should you become commander-in-chief, I feel that that is your job To Be Informed, and to look out after all your citizens, including our service members. Get them out as soon as possible, as safe as possible.

It has been nearly two terms. I've read in the paper where people there had taken Breaks, while our troops are working day in and day out. That does not settle with me. We can only do what we can do. Our troops went and gave an outstanding performance. I am extremely amazed at the types of things our troops can accomplish. There aren't enough words for me to do justice complimenting them. They've worked hard, and put their lives on hold for a significant amount of time. Our troops have accomplished more than enough, as far as I'm concerned. We can only do what we can do. It is up to those on the other end to take advantage of our mistake going there in the first place, and put forth more effort. I want Iraq stable, stable enough that we may begin to exit their stage. During and after the process, I'd like Iraq to take charge of its own stability.

Posted by: Obama2008 | July 3, 2008 5:40 PM

Quoting:
"...The framers of our constitution are probably rolling in the graves about this.
You go to war for self-defense. Period.
Not for morality.
The war with Iraq was illegal and wrong..."


Look, I'm not going to defend the war in Iraq, however, for those of you who think the framers would be 'rolling in their graves' over the thought about going to war for morality....you need a history lesson.

The framers went to war over an idea. Oh, and, yes. That war was illegal as well. Had they lost, they would have all hanged for treason. They also fought with the French, English, Spanish and native Americans - for land, not in self defense. Happy 4th of July.

Posted by: mckayvo | July 3, 2008 5:40 PM

Obama "softens?" Sounds like he's butching up, to me! One look at him and you know he's a good listener. By the way, what's McCain doing in Latin America? He should be home driving the illegal aliens back there.

Posted by: Col. (Ret.) Smedley Bunker, USMC | July 3, 2008 5:40 PM

I'll say it again SLOWLY for the reading impaired (also for those too lazy to actually look for Obama's statements and positions on the matter). THIS ARTICLE MAKES STUFF UP. Nowhere in the article, OR in the facts about Obama's position is there any indication that he has changed his mind at all. This is typical of the way the Post (and other bigger media) ALWAYS try to portray Democrats as "flip floppers" and Republicans as "principled." Sadly, Obama doesn't fit the mold. His position in 2007 on Iraq is the same as now - set a timeline to get out, always consult with commanders, set benchmarks and change the timeline if facts warrant. My comment below gives links to his ACTUAL policy proposal. Sheesh.

This is part of the THEME that the Post and others want to push about Obama. The theme is much more important than the facts here. And those of you whining about how Obama isn't progressive enough for you - please, be my guest and vote for McCain. I'm sure those advocating peace, constitutional government, a rational supreme court, environmental protection, the rule of law, and a strong, full-employment economy will forgive you for voting for George McBush III. No really, I'm sure they will.

Posted by: Slothrop | July 3, 2008 5:39 PM

"Barack Obama made it crystal clear at last night's presidential debate that he will not listen to commanders on the ground in Iraq about the mission, although Obama conceded he would listen to "tactical advice" given only from missions he sets."

MR. GIBSON: So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.

SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus.

Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.

Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief.

http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/4/17/hillary-obama-dont-care-what-commanders-say-they-are-committ.html

Today, Obama said, "I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that 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. When I go to Iraq and have time to talk to the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information."

Posted by: tdl62 | July 3, 2008 5:38 PM

To herbito;
most white Americans make decision along race lines- that is why this one statement is getting so much attention - the only choice is Senator Obama a black man or a old white man tha looks and thinks like Bush- so democratic white people are mad
IF WE WANT CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE BETTER SENATOR OBAMA IS THE ONLY CHOICE, BUT I FEAR THE RACISM IN THIS COUNTRY WILL STOP THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT WILL BRING CHANGE HOPEFULLY I WILL BE PROVEN WRONG THIS IS ONE TIME I PRAY DAILY I AM WRONG AND WHITE AMERICANS CAN THINK WITH A OPEN MIND

Posted by: Gay | July 3, 2008 5:36 PM

I suppose was can still ask Hillary to take over for this back-stabbing, spineless, passive-aggresive, back-pedaling, flip-flopping joker.

After all, she did beat him in the popular vote.


Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:34 PM

response to: (| July 3, 2008 5:14 PM)
Are you smokin' the good stuff? Your argument wouldn't be so ridiculous there if McSame had surrounded himself with some free-thinkers and mods. Instead, he's rounded up every crooked Bush Jr. crony that was available. For instance, Schmidt is Karl Rove's protegee. The next few months will be nothing but a barrage of personal attacks on Obama. Think Willie Horton and Swiftboaters for Lies combo

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | July 3, 2008 5:33 PM

I could vote for this Obama - he is making sense. Bet the left will go nuts. Sold out again!

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | July 3, 2008 5:33 PM

re: latin america

mccain wants bush network money and support, and the bush network has considerable business interests in latin america.

i imagine that john and jeb have had a lot to talk about.

see (or google): zapata, chiquita, bush, banana republic

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 5:32 PM

Troops safe and Iraq stable are two completely different criteria for withdrawal. Troops safe is much easier. In fact, one could argue that they would be safer with a more precipitous withdrawal.

Iraq stable may take one hundred years but be certain to penalize the candidate who tells you the truth in the first place.

Posted by: Ed | July 3, 2008 5:31 PM

Not much new here. We have a man who is open to making decisions based on the best information available. What a refreshing change this is for our country. Instead of deciding what he wants to do and then morphing the information to support his preconceived notion he actually wants to gather information and make a decision based on the facts. WOW what a concept!!

Posted by: CDgainesville | July 3, 2008 5:31 PM

Not much new here. We have a man who is open to making decisions based on the best information available. What a refreshing change this is for our country. Instead of deciding what he wants to do and then morphing the information to support his preconceived notion he actually wants to gather information and make a decision based on the facts. WOW what a concept!!

Posted by: CDgainesville | July 3, 2008 5:31 PM

Not much new here. We have a man who is open to making decisions based on the best information available. What a refreshing change this is for our country. Instead of deciding what he wants to do and then morphing the information to support his preconceived notion he actually wants to gather information and make a decision based on the facts. WOW what a concept!!

Posted by: CDgainesville | July 3, 2008 5:31 PM

This clown Obama is full of sh!t.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:28 PM

Don't worry, Obie. Cindy Sheehan is so yesterday. Besides, Jimmy Carter won't get you even one single vote.

Posted by: Relba T. | July 3, 2008 5:28 PM

I can only hope John Edwards is Obomma,s VP ,because he will surely win .
Mcains rest home views are so out of touch it boggles the mind ?
He is now running for President in latin America ??. I'm I the only one stunned by this activety ?.It would appear that the Illegles can vote ? .

Posted by: Marion | July 3, 2008 5:28 PM

time for a little humor.

disclosure: i'm an obama supporter, but this is too funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 5:26 PM

Obama said: "I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability." and if that takes 100 hundred years so be it, ignore the fact that I have campaigned on withdrawal, sometimes pledging to do it in 16 months. Forget that I voted against the surge, which is the only thing that has brought stability to Iraq.

Vote for me. I represent change. Change you may not recognize when implemented.

Posted by: Ed | July 3, 2008 5:26 PM

Some of you folks need to follow Obama's actual speeches on Iraq he gives the press, and not these 2nd hand stories from news blogs. Obama hasn't changed his position on Iraq, he has been saying the same thing he's said throughout the entire primary this year. 16-month withdrawal, meet with his joint chief of staff when elected.

Posted by: 1stObserver | July 3, 2008 5:25 PM

blacks supported clinton, gore and kerry 90%. bill may qualify, but the others are as white as me.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 5:25 PM


Hmmm..

This doesn't sound like that immediate withdrawal he was yammering about six months ago, moonbats.

Going back on his campaign promises before he's even officially nominated..

New Politics my @ss.


Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:24 PM

He has not changed his position. This has been on the Obama web site for months:

"All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas."

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 5:24 PM

Is there anything to the fact that this comes very quickly after negotiations have opened up for Iraqi oil fields?

O"Big Oil"bama?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:23 PM

He's finally figured out who'se actually going to be running this place.

Posted by: jatox | July 3, 2008 5:22 PM

What's that supposed to be to Obama's right in the picture ? Air Force One?


hahahahahahaha


what a photo op marketing miracle this joke puppet is

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:21 PM

To Gay: If the white vote for McCain reached 90% I would then say we whites were voting along race lines!

Posted by: herbito | July 3, 2008 5:21 PM

OBAMA IS A BOLD FACED, SMILEY FACED LIAR

HE SAID ANY LIES HE HAD TO TO GET THE "PRESUMPTIVE" NOMINATION


HE IS A LIAR

SMALL TOWN BITTER WHITE FOLKS CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH HIM


HE WILL NOT BE ELECTED


HE IS UNQUALIFIED

HE IS UNELECTIBLE


THE BOYS CLUB GOT THEIR PUPPET

BASHED THEIR BEST CANDIDATE

THEY CAN GO TO THE DEVIL IN NOVEMBER


WITH THEIR LOSER WHITE BOYS CLUB PUPPET


Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:20 PM

I like my leaders to be flexible and realistic. He was smart enough to be against the war from the get-go. He'll be smart enough to get us out responsibly.

We've suffered through W's obstinance and ignorance for too long to just extend it 4 more years with a senile old fool like WcCain.

Posted by: dan | July 3, 2008 5:20 PM

Hey Folks:

Obama is not a flip-flopper: He is a liar who does not have any positions. He just waits-and-sees what people say. So what he has been promising is not his policy positions at all: False promises, understand?

"Principles"? Give me a break.

Posted by: peace4world | July 3, 2008 5:20 PM

Obama said: "I've always said that 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," he said. "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."

=========

Sounds reasonable. What are all these lunatics frothing at the mouth about?

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 5:20 PM

Though, like a growing number of others, I will not vote for Obama, I have defended him against Neocon attacks, because, I hoped, Obama would not be bad as Neocon McCain. I will vote for Barr, to protest Democrat House & Senate members' selling out their progressive base. And a Bob Barr vote will draw from McCain, not hurt Obama, but would tell Obama he is not good enough if just a lesser evil.

But now Obama has made me puke --- as he has a growing throng of others, even his netroots.

After backing off his promise of talking unconditionally with Iran, after sucking up to AIPAC, after saying he opposes the death penalty then arguing we ought execute child-rapers who don't kill, and after shifting or guilefully "nuancing" his positions regarding too many other issues -- now Obama turns on everything he said about FISA and telecom immunity, and NOW to pander to the Christian Right, he would create a faith-based federal program that would violate the first amendment, and NOW to pander to Blue Dogs and Hawks and Big Oil, he would maintain our Iraq occupation indefinitely.

Obama dissembled when he said the FISA Bill protects privacy well by providing Inspector General review.

The Bill lets government wiretap without individual warrants, just a mass one. But Obama (previously a U. Chicago Law School Constitutional Law teacher) knows (or surely ought to know) the 4th amendment requires a separate warrant for each individual surveillance (though a warrant can authorize an individual ongoing surveillance).

The Bill permits warrantless surveillance for 15 days (after which the government can "validate" its 4th amendment violation by getting a warrant ex post).

And if one reads the Bill very carefully, one sees its ambiguities let government tap a US citizen's communication made from the US to a US citizen located in the US -- though Obama and the Bill's other supporters insist, publically, that the Bill applies only to communications directed to non-citizens located abroad.

McObama (or is he Barack O'Bush-Cheney?) has bartered our liberty to attain Executive power. But now he has bartered also the lives and limbs and welfare of how many hundreds or thousands more of our troops, how many thousands more Iraqis, and how many more billions of dollars of our treasury (our tax-money, our national debt, our dollar's world worth, our future, and the world's).

In national leaders, evil is not a matter of degree -- as if a wrong is tolerable if measurably less than another. Murdering 1,000 is evil as murdering 50,000.

Obama IS a "change" candidate. He changes like Hillary & McCain. Oh, he doesn't lie --- like Hillary or McCain. He plays Bill's game: "It depends on what 'is' is." "Fellatio is not SEX."

"I said I'd get us out of Iraq within 16 months. But always also I said the time-line depended on the safety of our troops.

"Now let me translate so my statement's necessary implications become apparent to all you folks who don't yet savvy elite nuance-speak: 'Safety of our troops' equals (a) keeping them in harms way until even Patraeus is embarrassed AND (b) making sure Iraq is secure, which equals making sure US Big Oil (which includes BP and Shell, because US money owns and controls them) can control Iraq's oil fields, to boost petrodollars by MINIMIZING petro-product production (AND its corporate costs) and, so, maximizing fuel price, which means Patraeus will not ever be embarrassed.

"See, you got a economics lesson, too. More bang for your buck.

But wait. There's more! If you buy me now (for the election), I'll throw in -- free -- another lesson in interpreting double...er um...elite nuance-speak.

"I said I want telecom accountability, to protect 4th amendment rights --- and I'd do all I could to block immunity.

"But the 4th amendment doesn't apply to telecoms. I meant I wanted accountability AND ALSO to protect 4th amendment rights (against Presidential intrusion). Notice the comma between 'accountability' and 'to protect' of my last paragraph.

"I did NOT say I'd trash national security --- when I said I want telecom accountability. And wanting is not the same as getting for unbearable cost --- cost like 'national security' loss.

"Yes. National security includes security of privacy. Soon I'll explain how destroying privacy makes privacy secure --- when I find the right prose.

"I saw --- last week --- that national security trumps telecom accountability despite telecoms invaded privacies of millions, millions of times. Telecoms will not secure privacy, by invading privacy (as we need), if they're accountable for invasions. So I saw that national security trumps privacy ... er, trumps accountability. I DID 'all' I could to block immunity. In this case, 'all' = nothing."

Obama wants to one-up Bush --- by installing an Obama version of federal support of faith-based initiatives.

Obama tried, with his usual "nuanced" explanation (read dissembling), to deny that his program would violate the first amendment:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

The 1st amendment prohibits government-support of faith-based initiatives. A few examples: (A) putting a crèche & crucifix in a court prosecuting a Jew for selling condoms on Sunday; (B) benedictions given in public school classes or graduation ceremonies; (C) government's funding a religious school's busing students (rather than parents' transporting their children to school).

Oh, and notice that every treasury dollar a religious institution gets means the institution saves a private donation dollar, so the institution gets an extra private dollar, and does not pay tax but only TAKES tax money, OUR tax money, and helps balloon the national debt. (See how many economics, finance, and business lessons Obama give us for free.)

Obama's pandering-to-Christians program (he ain't pandering to Muslims or Jews) WOULD violate the first amendment.

Government cannot ASSURE churches use government funds ONLY to finance purely secular acts that do not involve religious discrimination. But even if Obama COULD assure funds don't finance any religious institution's act related to the institution's religion, still his program would violate the first amendment.

The first amendment prohibits government's endorsing religion. Endorse religion is EXACTLY what Obama's program does --- endorses church "charity" (says it's needed, maybe better than state charity), and church "charity" is, always, an advertisement of religion.

Obama's program would be (Obama said) a "critical" part and "moral center" of his administration. So, his administration would BE an establishment of religion.

Obama said: "I ... see faith as...both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work...."

Obama is Bill Clinton wearing blackface. (Bill was the first Black president: He plays tenor sax.) Obama is Hillary after a sex-change operation. (Women lie. Men speak dissembling prose.) Obama is Bush's boyish face and Cheney's psychopath brain.

Some say Obama will keep his progressive promises when President --- undo retroactive telecom immunity (though that may be unconstitutional), remove his nose from the recess of AIPAC's derriere. But if he may betray his last assurances as he betrayed earlier, contrary ones, he may behave even worse as President. Instead of shunning AIPAC, he may invade Iran. Instead of reversing telecom immunity, he may spy on us worse than Bush. Instead of ending our Iraq occupation in any time like 16 months, he may arrange to keep us there until Iraq's oil runs out or all oil fields are depleted everywhere else.

Vote for a 3d party candidate --- ANY 3d party candidate (Barr, Nader, the candidate of the Green Party, Socialist Party, Nudist Party, Kropotkinian Anarchist Party, Intergalactic Coalition of Atheist Pyramid-Wearers...), or write in Kucinich or Gore or Barbara Boxer or Henry Waxman or Russ Feingold or Lynn Woolsey or Chris Dodd. Show you won't settle for a faux choice of evils --- both brands the same though they wear different faces.

Posted by: Loup-bouc | July 3, 2008 5:19 PM

OBAMA

"CHANGE" AND EXCUSES SO OFTEN

YOU'D BE CRAZY TO "BELIEVE" IN ANYTHING HE SAYS


WHAT'S LEFT ???


HE'S NOT REALLY WHITE ?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:19 PM

David M,

The real issue is how Obama is marginializing a significant percentage of the population's belief's (i.e. the Democrats) by first pandering to them for the nomination and now abandoning them with increasing shifts to the center.

This is not presidential. There are people who legitemately believed in him, people whose loved ones are over seas for example, that believed in his soaring rhetoric who now find themselves betrayed. For those who cared, you can also add FISA, NAFTA, and the DC Gun Ban to this list as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:19 PM

John Kerry-2004 I actually voted FOR the war before I voted against the war!

Barack Hussein Obama-2008-I actually voted AGAINST the war before I voted for the war!

I now firmly believe BHO is the Change Man.
He has changed everyday since he won the Dumbcratic Nomination.

For gun control-Now Against.
Against NAFTA-Now For NAFTA.
Against the Death Penalty-Now For the Death Penalty.
For ranting, raving lunatic Pastors, who for 20 years called White People scum and Godamned America-Now against ranting, raving lunatic Pastors, who called White People scum and Godamned America.
For Sweet, Typical White People Grandmothers-Now against, Sweet, Typical White Grandmothers
For the confiscation of Handguns-Now against the confiscation of Handguns

What does the future Hold?

July 2008-Against drilling off the West Coast, East Coast and Alaska-August 2008 for drilling off the West Coast, East Coast and Alaska.

Barack Hussein "Yes, I am a change candidate" Obama-

What can happen next? America watches and waits!

Posted by: Spider Monkey | July 3, 2008 5:18 PM

In his refined timeline, Obama promises full withdrawal two weeks shy of 100 years.

Yeah, that makes him better than McCain. He has my full support.

Posted by: Ed | July 3, 2008 5:18 PM

Let's get some perspective here:

McCain argued in a March 2003 op-ed in The Washington Post. "The true test of our power, and much of the moral basis for its use, lies not simply in ending dictatorship but in helping the Iraqi people construct a democratic future," said McCain. "This is what sets us aside from empire builders: the use of power for moral purpose."

That is total bs. The framers of our constitution are probably rolling in the graves about this.

You go to war for self-defense. Period.

Not for morality.

The war with Iraq was illegal and wrong.

And McCain wants to double-down in the ME with Iran?

People: it wasn't Iranians who bombed us. Those extremists are still on the loose. We haven't brought them to justice, and we haven't brought justice to them.

Violent Islamic extremism is issue #1. Iran is #2. And negotiating a solution there is preferable to war. Really. And it'd help wit the other big thing: Israeli-Palestinian peace.

You don't find peace by bombing other people's children.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:17 PM

So, we have another Kerry... Flip - Flop ...Change? Indeed ... change position as often as per need and try to convince America that stability is possible under his administration. As a Democrat I am very unsure about this candidate as an agent of change in Washington.

Posted by: artemisia | July 3, 2008 5:15 PM

Hey Obama cheerleaders your home boy is flipping again...depends on which way the wind blows with ole Bambi... He talks and talks but the words are nothing new... He will pander to everyone if he thinks it will help him. Now the cheerleaders will have to write another speech so Obambi can explain why he is flipping again...this is priceless and it never ends ...Another speech to explain another drama- its GETTING OLD !!!! - and I mean who really cares... He is a fraud.....News Media find that real birth certificate and prove that he wasnt born here so we can be rid of him once and for all...who wants this empty suit in the White House. Another defective product from the ultra liberal Howie Dean assembly line. Stamp it and mark it defective and send IT on ITS way!!! No, no , no Obambi !!!

Posted by: JIMBO | July 3, 2008 5:15 PM

Obama moving to the center is expected. Thats what politicians do.

Abandoning the silliest positions of the Left is totally understandable. I mean pull out of NAFTA ? Ya many Canadians would LOVE to re-negotiate and get a tariff on energy and commodity exports. Now tariff free.

Obama's spiritual mentor was very correct when he said Obama will do what a politician will do.

The big question for me is where are Obama's principals ? On what ground will he make his stand ?

If push comes will he take a strong principled UNPOPULAR decision ? to stop Iran ? to save Israel ? to respond to a terror attack ? With McCain we have no such doubts.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:14 PM

He's doing the right thing. I don't really see it as a matter of flip-flopping. In fact, it's probably best not to set a timeline, as the situation will not remain stagnant, and failing to meet a timeline could result in being lambasted from the left and right. It is enough to say that he would pull out of Iraq, keeping the troops' safety in mind. It's funny--George W. Bush doesn't talk about either of those issues very often. And McSame's 100-year promise is simply ludicrous. Dems should run with that sound byte from now until November. If Bush Jr. had consulted military big brass instead of PNAC, about attacking Iraq, perhaps he wouldn't be getting the measly 1/3 approval rating strictly from fundies, rednecks, and billionaires. People need to wake up. Anyone who voted for Bush Jr. twice, deserves any and all financial hardships they experience. It's the economy, stupid. Bush Jr.'s war on Iraq was based on lies, jingoism, religious fanatacism, and bad advice from chickenhawk PNAC. If you think paying two loans is expensive, try paying for two wars. Of course there are other factors - i.e. economies running in cycles, Mortgagegate, the weak dollar, etc. But it was bound to happen. As long as greedy politicians and CEOs keep building democracy in other countries instead of America, the situation won't get any better. Is saving a few bucks really worth a store full of inferior, unsafe, China-made products at Walmart?

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | July 3, 2008 5:14 PM

Obummer is on the right track, 99 years sounds a hell of a lot better than 100.

Posted by: ZarDotZ | July 3, 2008 5:13 PM

At $12B a month Iraq is bottomless pit, draining our resources. We must get out but if Obama says it may take a bit longer than 16 months then so be it. I trust him. Bush/McCain have no intention of ever leaving.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 5:13 PM

In the light of the new national poll showing Michelle Obama being a negative factor to his presidencial campaign (see http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/02/poll-shows-americans-cool-to-michelle-obama/)
Senator Obama and his advisors are seriously considering changing his wife to a white, younger, conservative women who can improve his appeal to the white working class women and young man as well. Several plans have been discussed, including accusing Michelle of getting involved in a sex scandal with former president Bill Clinton, or involved domestic abuse against Senator Obama during their marriage, says a anonymous source from Obama campaign. Michelle Obama refuse to comment on the report but said anyone who cannot control their husband cannot be the first lady.

Posted by: WBHO | July 3, 2008 5:12 PM

Sixteen weeks becomes sixty weeks becomes 600 weeks. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

The general election always comes down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. In Obama's case, though, it is a leap of faith into the unknown. Does he have any core positions?

Posted by: Ed | July 3, 2008 5:12 PM

Yep, he's definitely not pandering to the left anymore...faith based initiatives and staying in Iraq for a long period of time.

Posted by: Wolfcastle | July 3, 2008 5:10 PM

Don't believe the hype. Obama will still end this war.

Posted by: okay? | July 3, 2008 5:09 PM

All the folks who are making a big deal and treating this as a flip-flop issue didn't pay attention during the primaries. Virtually every time Obama talked about withdrawal from Iraq he was careful to add the footnote about consoluting with the military on the ground and being cautious in exiting so as not to hurt US or Iraqi interests. That's not flip-flopping, that smart and flexible. And anyone who thought we would have 100% withdrawal in 16 months--or that Obama was promising that--wasn't listening and was just hearing what they wanted to hear. His statements today are totally consistent with his statement during the primary--and more to the point, they make sense. As the situation in Iraq changes, and it will, we need to constantly reassess the strategy and adjust dates and timetables as needed. That basis project management, not flip-flopping. Doggedly sticking to a schedule when circustances have changed and adjustments are needed based on the latest information is smart managment. A lot of you folks are just looking for a chance to ding Obama, but on this issue there's nothing to talk about. Find a real issue.

Posted by: David M | July 3, 2008 5:08 PM

Rezko's friend former Minister of Elec Alsammarae is back in the middle east...that's gotta mean good pickings... time for a policy switch (again)

Posted by: Bill Baar | July 3, 2008 5:08 PM

If it takes a few more months to end this idiotic war then so be it. I trust Obama's judgment on this. I do not trust the senile McWarmonger.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 5:07 PM

Since the majority of informed Americans have known for at least two years the Bush ordered invasion of Iraq was based on deception and lies, Barack, if elected, needs to at least adhere to his previous statements about a timely withdrawal from Iraq. This country is wasting tens of billions annually there and domestic needs can not be adequately addressed until the United States military forces leave Iraq and the wealthy pay higher taxes.

Of course, if McCain wins and his successors maintain his policy, occupation forces will be there another ninety-five years. He will likely order an attack on Iran, unless Cheney persuades Bush to do so before he leaves office. Are the American people ready for $200+ barrel of oil as the going away "present" by Bush and Cheney, before the Christmas shopping season begins?

The right wingers who want the United States to stay in Iraq can always sign up fto join the Iraqi army. The comments of the right wingers here, fortunately only about 20% of the population, reinforce the reasons why even those of us disappointed with Barack realize he is infinitely better than the conservative McCain and his cohorts.

Posted by: Independent | July 3, 2008 5:06 PM

O-scama's promise was to get the troops out on a firm deadline.

That's wahy the Left loved him as opposed to Hillary who pussy-footed around.

With O-scama you knew where you stood - troops out by day certain!!

But now, ahhhh, wait a sec...

He meant...urrr...the troops would be out...ahhh...well "safely"..

Yeah, THAT'S THE TICKET!!

So, a "safe" withdrawl now with no firm deadline. And that's different from Hillary how?

Or McCain?

Or Bush?

What a crock. And the Lefties who he scammed have to yet again rationalize O-scama's latest.

Rev. Wright

Campaign finance

Church based gov't programs

No deadline for withdrawl

The guy is shameless because he knows the Left will cover for his lies no matter what.


Posted by: JC | July 3, 2008 5:06 PM

Obama calls for, Obama demands, Obama believes, Obama wants everyone to, etc. It's f*cking tiring to hear about what this guy constant wants. He talks a lot because he wants attention. Such a cry baby.

Posted by: Loki | July 3, 2008 5:06 PM

I am really concerned that the Military does not respect or even like this guy.. We all know that most lean towards the Center or right. Obama would be just plain bad for our perception of strength around the world, nothing worse than a President that is disliked by the AMerican Military, I mean look what happened with Dubya

Posted by: LarsDomini | July 3, 2008 5:05 PM

Look, Obama's strategy, for years, has been to avoid taking clear positions on tough issues so that he could preserve his political options. Hence all those "present" and skipped votes. That strategy enabled him to look cool and contemplative, and to give stirring speeches that, because they weren't connected to any particular governing philosophy, sounded good to broader audiences than might otherwise have been the case. Most importantly, it made it possible for voters to project anything they wanted onto him -- hence that whole "Saint Obama" phenomenon that so many of us on the other side of the aisle found so perplexing (and off-putting).

But all candidates eventually have to take concrete positions, even though they all try desperately to be all things to all voters. During the primaries Obama had to inch closer towards real positions in order to differentiate himself as a candidate, but even there the battle was really over personality and identity, because no one really thought there was that much space between Senators Obama and Clinton on most issues. He just had to peel off the activist, moveon.org and dailykos fringe (small numbers but big on energy and motivation) -- which wasn't tough once the race narrowed to Obama-Clinton, because that element of the Democratic party doesn't like Senator Clinton.

Now comes the general election, and Obama realizes that he can't win with just his base, that a Democratic candidate hasn't won more than 50.1% of the popular vote in a long time, and that his earlier strategy of keeping things vague wasn't going to cut it outside his base (which will vote "D" regardless of what he says or does), especially not once Senator McCain starts "defining" him as a run-of-the-mill liberal candidate.

So he has to start taking real-world positions, and he has to edge towards the middle. As someone who doesn't support Obama, I don't have a problem with that if it means that he is genuinely taking up positions that are closer to what I prefer (for example, do his remarks in support of the decision in the recent gun case mean he is more likely to appoint justices like those in the majority on that case?). And if that's what's going on, Obama's supporters have every reason to be upset. Talk about a bait-and-switch.

But forgive me for assuming that this is all just rhetoric, and that once elected a President Obama will run right back to his instincts, whatever they might be.

This is attention-getting because it highlights that we really don't know what Obama's core views are, even at this late date. It's not so much that he might be "flip-flopping" -- and so all this "Yes he is/No he isn't" stuff is pointless. The question is: what does he really believe? And the answer to that question also answers the next one: "Who -- the people who will vote for him no matter what or the people who might well vote for McCain -- should pay any attention to this policy?" As I said, I assume this is all merely "positioning." So Obama supporters: don't sweat it. He's still your guy. Fence-sitters: don't sweat it, either. You shouldn't base your decision in November on this, because it doesn't really mean anything.

Now that that's settled, have a great Independence Day, everyone!

Posted by: dcpost1 | July 3, 2008 5:05 PM

He's part of the do-nothing Congress. It figures. Can we afford to stay there Barrack? Same question for you John? It must be part of their identical plan for the new world order.

Can we get Ron Paul to stay in the race?

Posted by: Thos Jefferson | July 3, 2008 5:04 PM

This guy really start to worry me now.

Posted by: hal | July 3, 2008 5:04 PM

Now, will you join us Republicans in telling the Anti-war folks to shut the hell up about troop withdrawal? Posted by: Redd

======

Make no mistake, Obama is still taking us out of Iraq -- we have no choice -- we cannot afford to stay there indefinitely. He is simply saying we have to be prudent and take conditions on the ground into consideration which may affect the time-line for withdrawal. That's it.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 5:03 PM

Now, let's count. Obama changed his mind on Publican financing of his campaign. Obama changed his mind on corporate tax. Obama changed his mind on death panalty. Obama changed his mind on talking with Cuba and Iran. Obama changed his mind on holding telecom companies liable on unlawful wiretapping (FISA law).

Obama changed his mind on withdraw from Iraq in 16 months.

Obama will change his mind on universal healthcare. Obama will change his mind on NAFTA. Obama will change his mind on torture (The same FISA law). Obama will change his mind on divident tax hike. Obama will change his mind on gay rights, woman's rights, immigration reform, ..... He is wooing religious right, Wall Street, .....

Now, we are looking at red-faced Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman, and Washington Post, New York Time, Frank Rich,....

It's not done yet.. Pardon Tony Rasko? Drill, drill, drill? Social security privatization?.......

Ha, ha, ha.. my follishly naive little young friends, now you learn your lesson. Or, perhaps you have not, you want to stick with Obama for more "changes."

Posted by: GY | July 3, 2008 5:02 PM

The bottom line is if independents keep hearing stuff like this Obama will lose his appeal. After all his entire campaign is based on change... messages like this shouldn't be what they are sending out. I see people point that this isn't that different than what hes said before and its wise to make sure you don't leave as recklessly as you entered Iraq, but he needs to be careful because I did not like reading this headline or story and it makes me want to throw all democrats and republicans in the trash and start over. I'm 32 and I am ready to thrown the babyboomer and their parties out with the bathwater

Posted by: switcheroo | July 3, 2008 5:02 PM

Bwahahahahaha. All you fools who believed he was going to withdraw directly from Iraq are the fools.

But of course, he is better than McCain......as long as that is politically expedient.

Posted by: Ed | July 3, 2008 5:01 PM

He has said that he would rely on the generals for a tactical assessment about the speed of withdrawal. That makes sense. I also think that it is a trick that he learned from Rove/Bush - deflect the responsibility for the Iraq War to the generals. It's a cowardly way to conduct a war taken from "How to stay in a state of war, indefinitely," by GW Bush. I think McCain has at least been honest - there will be an on-going American military presence in the middle east for a long time. He didn't say that we will be at war for 100 years.

Posted by: David | July 3, 2008 5:01 PM

"Weisman,

The statement is consistent with what his policy has ALWAYS been.

But then again, you take all McCain spin as gospel...after all McCain's as white as ever to you, while Obama is inconsistent in even that regard as far as you are concerned."


Well, he is mullato...and can/has gone both ways - he seems to get a little jive in his talk when addressing black supporters and a little more reserve at other times - I'm just saying, its true.

The real issue is that his policy message has been weak and hasn't taken a firm stance on Iraq yet. It's either been "...were careless getting in..." or "16 months" from his first day in office.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 5:00 PM

I have absolutely no problem with Senator Obama's announcement. I'm glad to see that Senator Obama and his supporters now agree that the troops should stay until Iraq is a stable country. Now, will you join us Republicans in telling the Anti-war folks to shut the hell up about troop withdrawal?

Posted by: Redd | July 3, 2008 4:59 PM

And wait a second - now Obama will say anything to be elected? He still says he intends on withdrawing the troops - that's not much of a flip flop - unlike a certain Republican candidate we know. Does everyone remember the "amnesty" immigration bill? John McCain was a top supporter of that, before he decided it wasn't a good bill. Remember how McCain was against torture? Then he came out against the Guantanamo ruling. Please.

Posted by: Daniel F (same guy as below 1) | July 3, 2008 4:58 PM

This is so great.

"O-scama" does it again!

After suckering all the Lefties for the nomination he veers right to sucker the centrists.

This guy is shameless.

Posted by: JC | July 3, 2008 4:58 PM

re: flip-flop

Old, mediocre generals always fight the last battle. (Unless they receive orders from Rumsfeld, in which case they fight some theoretical nonsensical one).

Painting Obama as a flip-flop typical politician only helps Obama gain footing amongst the conservatives who worry that he's new and extreme. It worked against Kerry, because Kerry was an established political figure.

The flip-flop thing isn't going to the help the grand old party this year.

Honestly, I don't there's anything short of an October surprise or an Obama scandal that can help the GOP this year.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 4:57 PM

This was a gutsy thing for Obama to say. He knew it would ignite firestorm. No matter how much and how fast we want to get out, we have to face the reality. It won't be easy and we don't want to put our soldiers at even more risk. Make no mistake, we will get out -- we have no choice -- we can't afford to stay there indefinitely as McCain wants to.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 4:56 PM

So Obama will "consult with military commanders." Why not consult the Iraqis too? After all, it's their country.

As soon as he is elected -- if not sooner -- we should hold a referendum in Iraq on the question, "Should Coalition forces leave within six months?" If the Iraqis vote yes, we pull out. If they vote no, we stay.

We claim to want democracy in Iraq. What could be more democratic than that?

Posted by: donnolo | July 3, 2008 4:56 PM

Ths Post and the other mainstream media have decided to try to peel away Obama's base by attempting to characterized his stands as "changes" from his original postions. 95% of all such reports are lies. Obama has said all along that he will withdraw the troops safely. Go back and listen to the primary debates.

I suspect a lot of these people who are condemning Obama for "changing" his postion here are part of the Republican attack machine, or those who were never well informed about Obama's positions in the first place.

What do you expect, that he would just pull everyone out and let a lot of them get killed in the process? Wake up folks.

Posted by: beck | July 3, 2008 4:56 PM

I want a leader that never changes his mind. I want a leader who never goes through the facts and talks to other leaders. I want a leader who only sees things his ways. Look how it worked out for GEORGE BUSH. A war that is costing $400 million dollars a day. Take that liberals!

Posted by: Rando IN LA | July 3, 2008 4:56 PM

He has softened it - but everyone who's saying this is contradictory to Democrat views is simply wrong; none of the other candidates (barring minor candidates like Mike Gravel or someone) put a timetable on the war either.

Posted by: Daniel | July 3, 2008 4:54 PM

Weisman,

The statement is consistent with what his policy has ALWAYS been.

But then again, you take all McCain spin as gospel...after all McCain's as white as ever to you, while Obama is inconsistent in even that regard as far as you are concerned.

Posted by: attaturk | July 3, 2008 4:53 PM

I simply cannot believe a word this man says, he is pandering to the populace, to the military, he will do anything to get elected, the Pied Piper... He is nothing more than a typical politician hungry for power. Worst of all, this guy has no record, no history, what has he done to get to this position, i guess we can blame it all on George W. Bush, for if he had been prudent and a good leader, we would not have such a dearth of quality candidates. We have to be able to get more qualified people to run for office...

Posted by: ARK Man | July 3, 2008 4:51 PM

OK so he changed his mind. He has a right to. It's OK with me if the troops come home later vs. sooner. Much later. I don't really care. I just want my reparations.

Posted by: Mark | July 3, 2008 4:51 PM

I wonder what the Democratic Leaders in Congress are thinking now. Aren't they concerned that Obama, now the Boss of the Democratic Party, has taken positions that are so contrary to Democratic ideals.

Posted by: Daniel | July 3, 2008 4:51 PM

He's said all along. Why are you trying to make people think he is dishonest and a flip-flopper. You are lying.

Posted by: beck | July 3, 2008 4:50 PM

Mr. O's dance to the center is becoming ugly.

Posted by: Oh no you didn't | July 3, 2008 4:50 PM

And the bottom line is that we live in a complex world where we are not the only actor on the stage.

The hawkish unilateralism stuff has to end. Stability requires alliances.

The current policy that we don't negotiate with Iran is bs. We have the Brits negotiate with them on our behalf. But we can't admit it because we are just oh so tough.

War with Iran may be necessary someday. But that day isn't now. And I'd prefer to have direct talks before any war.

In the meantime, if they get close to the bomb the Israelis will handle it.

But we don't need to be linked to that. There's no margin in it. It would put to much stress on the Saudis and the Egyptians.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 4:49 PM

White americans will try to find or say anything against Barack Obama to keep from saying why reason they do not want to vote for him and that is his skin color. I said that is closed minded thinking and stupid. Obama all the way in 2008
Leave his wife alone, that show the mind set of people that can only judge people by their skin color, may the way my skin color is white and it makes me ashame for my race.

Posted by: Gay | July 3, 2008 4:48 PM

None of you can get around the fact that on April 16, 2008, Obama gave a "rock-hard" pledge to get the troops out of Iraq in 16 months, regardless of what the generals told him.

Yes, he said he'd listen to the generals about the best way to accomplish a withdrawl within 16 months. But 16 months was "rock hard."

Posted by: AK | July 3, 2008 4:47 PM

George Packer, a fine journalist, suggests in the latest issue of "The New Yorker" that it might be possible to salvage something better than ignominious defeat in Iraq since the "surge" and other developments there hold out at least the hope of greater stability for the Iraqi government and military.

Packer urges Obama to retract (or at least soften)his promise to pull all combat brigades of out of Iraq in 16 months. Packer clearly supports Obama. But there are Obama apologists who claim Obama offered no such firm deadline. See many of the posts above. They are re-writing history.

If Obama now thinks he should retreat on his promise for a quick retreat from Iraq, good and good. But let's be clear-eyes about his earlier rush to pander politically. Less worrisome in a candidate than in a President. But isn't President the job for which he's running?

Posted by: Mark Tillman | July 3, 2008 4:46 PM

At $10B a month, Iraq is slowly bankrupting this country. We must get out, but we must do it prudently. "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in" -- Senator Barack Obama.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 4:46 PM

So now it's official. Those against the military involvement in Iraq have been thrown under the bus. Let's stop making excuses for Obama; let's call a spade a spade. The man will do anything to become POTUS. He is the Wizard of Oz, all smoke and mirrors. How can you be all things to all people? Obama knows. He just reflects your feelings back to you. It's a trick, you see. Anyone who's ever had to interview a job candidate knows the type. Slim resume, big talk; get him on the job and the kid can't do squat.

Posted by: David | July 3, 2008 4:45 PM

I am/was an Obama supporter and frankly I'm mad as hell about this. I would have expected this from Hillary, but not the Bomb.... I figured this is what she would have done and had decided that it was either Obama if he got the nomination or McCain if he got it because I think McCain is just playing to the base now to get eleceted, but will make the right choice once he's got 4 years to smooth things out with the base.

I have no idea what to do if this is true and will consider voting for McCain, or more likely a 3rd party such as Bob Barr or Ron Paul if he is somehow in the runnning

Posted by: switcheroo | July 3, 2008 4:45 PM

I have no problem with this. Its smart and prudent. In fact, Obama had always he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal. We are still getting out of Iraq -- you can be sure of that. We can't afford to stay they any longer. Iraq is killing us.


The only thing smart and prudent about Obama is his shrewed campaign of lies. Glad I'm not a liberal.

Vindicating the Bush tax cuts next Barrack?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 4:45 PM

"2008":

You're wrong. 16-months was a "rock hard" pledge. Troops out in 16 months, no matter what the generals say.

Now here's the part that you quoted, which you think "f**ks up" my argument:

"Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

2008, you don't understand the meaning of "tactics. Tactics is the exact nuts and bolts of how the withdrawl takes place. Of course Obama isn't going to tell the generals exactly how to accomplish the withdrawl. He'll listen to what they say about the best way to get out in 16 months. But NOTHING that you quoted changes the fact that he's sticking to a stict 16-month deadline.

Posted by: AK | July 3, 2008 4:44 PM

Folks shouldn't be voting for Obama just because he is black. It's f**king wrong.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 4:43 PM

re: Iran

Let the Israelis bomb the facilities. Why do we have to be linked to it at all?

McCain's loud posturing makes no sense. We don't need to be involved, or any way linked, in a war with Iran.

Let the Israelis handle it.

That's what friends are for.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 4:43 PM

Obama has frequently said:

"We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in".

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 4:42 PM

"As has been well documented by numerous people the Bush ordered invasion of Iraq was based on deception and lies."

Oh really, Independent? If that's true, then why did this very newspaper ... an anti-war liberal icon if there ever was one ... come to the conclusion recently that George Bush did NOT lie re: the reasons for going to war with Iraq? Why did the conclude that he was simply acting on the basis of the intelligence he had been given, not only by the CIA, but by the KGB, the Mossad, MI-6 and every other intelligence service in the world, all of whom were convinced that Saddam was concealing WMD programs?

Try thinking for yourself every now & then rather than simply parroting the moonbat left's talking points.

Posted by: Dan R. | July 3, 2008 4:41 PM

This guy is like Spinal Tap on tour. By November he'll be playing in front of 35 people at some kids's Bar Mitzvah.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 4:41 PM

Let us now repeat the mistake of 1968 when Richard Nixon dishonestly said he "had a plan" for Viet Nam and that obscene war dragged on for six more years.
--------------------

What you fail to state is that Kennedy took us into that war and Johnson turned it into a full scale war. Nixon would not have had Vietnam as an issue if your liberal icon Kennedy did not take us there. He is responsible for over 1.4 million deaths.

Posted by: Realitycheck | July 3, 2008 4:41 PM

I like the fact that he makes this announcement while standing in front of a sign that says, "CHANGE".

As in, he just changed his mind? Hey, he's not even an official candidate yet -- let alone the president.

In politics I guess DemPublicans never, well, you know, really CHANGE.

Posted by: srb2 | July 3, 2008 4:40 PM

jojo...who's the senile fool on the left?

Posted by: Jack | July 3, 2008 4:39 PM

I have no problem with this. Its smart and prudent. In fact, Obama had always he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal. We are still getting out of Iraq -- you can be sure of that. We can't afford to stay they any longer. Iraq is killing us.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 4:39 PM

The old saying: "there is a sucker born every minute". It seems that most of them went to work in the media.

The WaPo, NBC, Newsweek, etc. staffers organism over Obama's snake oil. Now it is appearing that Obama was the one getting off on them.

Obama's kiddy corps is having trouble believing in Saint Obama. The true believers in the Cult of Obama, like dis-honest-abe, just bend over and ask for more.

You Obamanuts called Hillary a liar, but she told the truth, and Saint Obama has been lying all along. Hopefully, the majority of Americans are not as gullible as you.

Posted by: William | July 3, 2008 4:38 PM

Yeah, JR. It just makes so much more sense to bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best while Iran develops nuclear weaponry. Take some time to research the fundamentalist interpretation of shia islam and its call for worldwide conflagration to hasten the return of the Mahdi. If you do that, then maybe you'll realize that while war is never desirable, sometimes it is necessary. As messy as attacking Iran might be, allowing the messianic nutjobs who run that country access to nuclear weapons would be far, far worse. John McCain understands this. Barack Obama does not.

And as for "shortsighted visions" I'd argue that it's people like you who are shortsighted. Despite all of its current troubles, 10 years from now Iraq will be an economic powerhouse and a force for stability and positive reform throughout the entire Middle East.

Posted by: Dan R. | July 3, 2008 4:38 PM

Obama's growing number of reversal of positions is his shining glimpses of accomplishments along the campaign trail.

He will say that he can not be everything for everybody giving a sense of toughness. No matter how you argue that Obama is better than McCain, the fact on the ground is he is no better or no better person to change.

Look how he distanced himself from Rev. Right and pulled out of Church after an eloquent speech on race. Campaign finance reform? No problem, he just redefined what public financing is. Gun control? No, that's not right and again reversed his position.

Faith-based initiatives? No problem, he is for it now and many of his mouth-pieces are touting that Obama is all-inclusive when it comes to faith-based initiatives.

Obama found unity and is back with the Clintons for to woo their loyal supporters.

Rev. Wright was right. Obama is a politician and yet another politician and a disappointing one.

The real change for America will NOT come from either of these candidates but a third-party candidate who can really elevate the people for a higher cause. That Obama will never say for fear of not getting elected and even if elected, he will not implement for he will be changing from hither and thither.

Obama euphoria is over as he is on the campaign trail. Obama thinks that we the people are gullible. I hope America wakes up to this man called Obama.

Posted by: mouli | July 3, 2008 4:38 PM

Ultimately, Obama has to make a decision. In Iraq or Out. The more he tries to trangulate like Bill Clinton, the more he alienates his base and the more he earns the scorn of the right wing in this country.

Either he's an agent for change or he's an agent of the Clinton-Bush status quo. He's going to straddle the divide and divide his own supporters. That roads leads to losing in November.

Molly Ivins: You've got to dance with them what brung ya.

Unfortunately for those of us who support him, he now wants to go home with someone else's date.

Thanks much. HLB

Posted by: HLB Engineering | July 3, 2008 4:37 PM

As has been well documented by numerous people the Bush ordered invasion of Iraq was based on deception and lies. Over four thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis died so Bush, Cheney and their cronies could try to make the Middle East safer for American oil companies, as well imposing permanent military bases there to maintain dominance over the region.

Barack seems to have flip flopped again and could lose the votes of many of his progressive supporters, who are becoming disillusioned with his departures from some of the key reasons why we voted for him. All he has to do is choose Hillary as his vice-presidential nominee and there probably goes his chances of winning the election.

Barack will hopefully henceforth stay true to his progressive principles and win the election. Four or eight more years of trampling upon the Constitution, being involved in two or three wars in the Middle East, neglecting the needs of the poor, needy and those without health care, while the rich get more wealthy, right wingers dominating the United States Supreme Court, is the alternative if McCain wins.

Posted by: Independent | July 3, 2008 4:37 PM

It's hard to believe what Obama said today. It's ridiculous! The man has very little character and integrity, and he doesn't appear to be consistent at all. He made a big fuss about 'just words' and beat it to death against Hillary. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to value his own words. How can Obama bring change, when he constantly shifts his positions. Obama wants to be everything. That's just weird. I just don't get this guy.

Posted by: Tom | July 3, 2008 4:36 PM

What's the bottom line? This race is dead even. It's anybody's game.

Posted by: Dan R. | July 3, 2008 4:31 PM

check some state polls

Posted by: phi | July 3, 2008 4:36 PM

George W. Bush and John McCain want permanent U.S. bases in Iraq from which to launch attacks on Iran. Barack Obama understands the reality that our military is strained to the breaking point and that a permanent occupation in Iraq will never bring peace to the region - only increase radicalism. Obama has said from the beginning "We will be as careful getting out of Iraq as the Bush administration was careless getting in." Period.

Posted by: Joyce | July 3, 2008 4:36 PM

re: the tightness of the race

Yeah, the polls also have black and young voter turnout at 2004 and 2000 levels. And black people at 85%, where Gore and Kerry got more than that. Obama will get 95%.

In 1980, people were a little hesitant about Reagan and he didn't get the big bounce until after the debates. It'll be the same this year. People want change, but they don't know if they can trust Obama.

Obama beat the Clintons. He'll beat McCain easily.

People want change. 41% reg'd as dems, 31% as reps....

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 4:35 PM

I think this post deserves to be reposted:

"So - let me get this straight. His timeline "was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," but that has changed because... why exactly? What is the point of this article?

If you look at the original legislation he proposed in 2007 (which even an internet dope like me can find at: http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/) you see that it explicitly says that the redeployment would, "be planned and implemented by military commanders." It also says that timing could be altered if specific conditions are met.

So take a look at the original and tell us specifically how his current position differs, if it does. And if it doesn't, then stop trying to manufacture news.

Posted by: Slothrop | July 3, 2008 3:24 PM"

Posted by: phi | July 3, 2008 4:34 PM

Oh Oh?

This guy is beginning to look more and more like Billy C. everyday. The good thing to be said about pols who don't believe in anything, however, (save for their own political viability),is that they can be rolled.

Gays in the military, universal health care, preservation of Bush's tax cuts, and welfare reform are all things we can look forward to....again.

Greatly entertained,
Packard

Posted by: Packard | July 3, 2008 4:33 PM

Calm down, people.

You now know your choices. And you're really going to go with the guy who will have a stroke any day now if he didn't have one already? By the way, there are two of these senile fools and they stand to the left and right of Obama.

Posted by: jojo | July 3, 2008 4:33 PM

Obama is attenuating too much. And I support the guy.

I think a stronger response would have been something like the following:

"I said it will be 16 months, and I plan to stick to it. I believe that would be a reasonable length of time for X, Y, and Z reasons.

Now, if your question is would I consider modifying that timeline if commanders on the ground came to me with signficant and real concerns about the safety of doing so, then obviously I would consider it and, if warranted, would adjust accordingly. Not considering the facts of the day would be absurd. This will not be another Bush Administration.

But we need to get out of Iraq. Being there hurts a lot more than it helps, in terms of blood and treasure. And as President, I will get us out of Iraq."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 4:32 PM

The key is that Obama won't be predisposed for war with Iran or Syria, as McCain would be - and as Bush was with Saddam.

I imagine that the dynamics in Iraq itself and the M.E. will change considerably over the next six months.

The larger issue is that McCain, like Bush and Rumsfeld (who was the worst) are a bunch of arrogant, unilateralist warmongers.

We'll be greeted as liberators? A Christian, American army? We're fighting for democracy? In an area that would vote to kick us out forever.

I hope Gen. Powell STANDS up against this shortsighted vision that has made us a pariah. He has a more complex, nuanced understanding of the stability that comes from ALLIANCES, as does Obama.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 3, 2008 4:31 PM

"Americans are in love with Obama. No matter what he says he has huge leads in the polls." --- Jeff

"Huge leads" Jeff? I wouldn't exactly call 4-5 points a "huge lead". And 4-5 points is where all of the reputable polling organizations (i.e.: not Newsweek or the LA Times) put Obama's lead at the present time. Hardly an insurmountable advantage, especially since most Americans haven't even started to seriously focus on the election yet and don't know as much about Barack Obama's background as they will three months from now.

Also, consider this: There are a significant number of white Democrats out there who might be telling their friends and the pollsters that they intend to vote for Obama, but who, when the curtain to the voting booth closes, vote for McCain instead. I'm guessing these people represent 2-3% of the electorate.

What's the bottom line? This race is dead even. It's anybody's game.

Posted by: Dan R. | July 3, 2008 4:31 PM

And in related news, he has unveiled a new twist on his campaign slogan: "Believe It Or Not, I've Changed Positions Again".

Next week: Obama talks tax cuts and oil drilling. You heard it here first.

Posted by: Rightie | July 3, 2008 4:31 PM

This guy is so full of sh1t

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 4:29 PM

It's funny the warmongering Republicans never really understood Obama's position on this. He never said immediate withdrawal. That was the warmonger's spin. The approach will be to change the mission from attempting to force democracy on Iraq to ending the war, withdrawing and giving Iraq back to the Iraqis. We cannot afford to continue this endless war. If it takes a bit longer than 16 months then so be it.

BTW, is McCain still willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years or has that changed?

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 4:29 PM

Just another of the hundreds of lies or shall I say "flip flops" to be courteous by the empty suited one. His drones will bristle when this truth is revealed yet again but they are in so deep that the truth from Obama is a luxury when it accidentally shows up. Obama is another sleazy politician although more petty than most and more Marxist than all.

Posted by: Cecil Quick | July 3, 2008 4:27 PM

AK, because dicks like you are always friends with half truths, I thought I would complete his answer. I know why you "forgot" to add this in. Kinda f**ks up your fake argument:

"Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.

Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief.

And what I have to look at is not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, we are overstretched in a way -- we do not have a strategic reserve at this point. If there was another crisis that was taking place, we would not have a brigade that we could send to deal with that crisis that isn't already scheduled to be deployed in Iraq. That is not sustainable. That's not smart national security policy, and it's going to change when I'm president. "

Posted by: 2008 | July 3, 2008 4:27 PM

It's about time he realized that his "I will have the troops back home in 16 months" rhetoric was a failure waiting to happen.

Posted by: socrates3 | July 3, 2008 4:25 PM

LMAO!!! Seriously, can anyone believe a thing this clown says anymore? Not that I'm in favor of pulling our troops out according to some arbitrary timetable. In fact, I think it's a laughably stupid idea, especially now that things are going our way over there. But for years now, Obama has been doing everything in his power to get the US to cut and run. All during the primaries, all he could talk about was "I will end this war!" and his leftist moonbat supporters just ate it up.

But now that he's won the nomination, all of a sudden he wants us to believe that he's a "centrist" and ignore the single most liberal voting record in the entire US Senate.

This guy's middle name isn't "Hussein". It's "Bulls**t."

Posted by: Dan R. | July 3, 2008 4:25 PM

Memo from Barack Obama to his supporters:

This is to let you know that positions taken on issues in the primary campaign are no longer operative. I will adjust them as required by time, place, audience, target demographic and opinion poll. If this, perhaps, is not the change you were hoping for, all I can say is tough noogies, this ain't bean ball. Oh, and thanks, suckers, for all the money and votes and stuff and for getting me this far, but I'll take it from here and see you all in November. After all, I am still the post-modern, post-racial, post-political, post-partisan man, right? And really, come on, who else you gonna vote for? Nader?? Bwahahahahahaha

Sincerely, Barack Obama, the changeling you can still believe in if you're willing to shunt aside your principles and all you hold dear, yes you can

Posted by: SukieTawdry | July 3, 2008 4:25 PM

What next for Obama? A pow wow with James Dobson? Cheney as VP choice? A this rate he'll be giving the next speech at the Heritage Foundation.

Posted by: elmerg | July 3, 2008 4:25 PM

He is now taking Hillary's plan and making it his own. She always said that it was a long way to the Coast and that our troops would be at risk getting there but she would immediately have her Military commanders and Security draw up a plan for withdrawal. However Obama got your vote by saying he would withdraw one or two BD's a month and have them all out in 16mo's. There never was any position of asking the Generals first. That is so 'Geo Bush'... Wasn't it Bush that said he would listen to his commanders on the ground and they would decide when it was best to withdraw our troops??? Now 6years later we hear those words coming from Obama. Is that what Obama is NOW saying as well. "I will listen to our Military Commanders in the Field???" Our military will do as the President tells it. Even to the point of screwing up a post war Iraqi....Ask um....

Posted by: gcbfred | July 3, 2008 4:24 PM

And this is why Hillary Clinton is the better candidate - she's tougher. She knows when to hold and when to fold. Obama just folds. He's soft. He's weak. He's double-minded and fork-tongued.

Thank you Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, and Oprah - for giving us John McCain in November.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.

Posted by: kentuckywoman | July 3, 2008 4:24 PM

Obama did not "soften". He has just stopped telling his old lies he used to sucker liberals into getting him the nomination.

Now he is telling new lies to try and get Hillary supporters. Is his middle name Nixon? Or Bush?

How does it feel Obamanuts to know you've been had? You fell for his snake oil and bent over for Obama. Are you going to keep on bending over?

The smart thing to do is to elect veto proof Democratic majorites in Congress and McCain president. They will act as true checks on each other. At least McCain has been honest about Iraq all along. Obama has lied al along!

Posted by: William | July 3, 2008 4:24 PM

Whoops, I guess he did mention stability in Iraq along with troop safety.

So, uh, has Bush not been saying this all along?

Posted by: PAO | July 3, 2008 4:21 PM

BHO Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline.
No He CHANGES his POSITION on IRAQ Withdrawing.
Again he exposed himself as a cleaver politician and a BIG LIAR
Remember a few months ago he said IMMEDIATELY and then IN 16 MONTHS to get VOTES from Inexperienced , uninformed ,young Democrats.
Now He CHANGES his POSITION to ask opinions from Commanders . It's almost similar to what MCCAIN did . This time he intends to fool people to get VOTES from REPUBLICANS.
Wait and see he would success or not in November

Posted by: zien106 | July 3, 2008 4:21 PM

politics as usual

Posted by: lndlouis@yahoo.com | July 3, 2008 4:20 PM

I actually believed the guy during the primaries when he said he'd pull troops out of Iraq in the first year of his presidency. But today I read this:

"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," Obama told reporters on the airport tarmac here. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy."

Obama has been screwing the American people all along. Every day I'm reading about another change in a stated position. It's frustrating and irritating that I can take the man at his word. It is a shame that Obama is the Democrat nominee. Trust is the BIGGEST issue I have against Obama.

Posted by: Hugh | July 3, 2008 4:19 PM

I have no problem with this. Its prudent and intelligent. In fact, Obama had always said he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal. We are still getting out of Iraq -- you can be sure of that. We can't afford to stay they any longer. Iraq is slowly killing us.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 4:18 PM

Do you GOP trolls ever read anything before you start posting? just like the mortgage story - another excuse for GOP trolls to come by and scream "flip flop". Everytime I listen to McMumbles and Bush speak, it reaffirms my faith in my decision to support the intelligent choice for president. Obama '08.

Posted by: 2008 | July 3, 2008 4:18 PM

"Obama always said he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal, as he should, of course."


More inane dribble from HonestAbe.

Posted by: Linus Eric Wallgren | July 3, 2008 4:17 PM

"My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe... And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold... I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that 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. When I go to Iraq and have time to talk to the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information."

Great, so Obama has essentially adopted Bush's policy.

Posted by: up north | July 3, 2008 4:16 PM

Obama's just lying, and I have the transcript to prove it. Here's a portion of the 4/16/08 Clinton/Obama debate:

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.

SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus.

Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

- - - -

Got that? 16 months. "Rock-hard" pledge, no matter what the generals say.

Today: maybe more than 16 months if the generals say so.

He's not a flip-flopper. He's just a liar.

Posted by: AK | July 3, 2008 4:16 PM

I don't see that Obama is saying anything that different from what he has said in the past. He wants to start getting our troops out of Iraq.

Posted by: Patrick | July 3, 2008 4:15 PM

Obama always said he would consult with the military commanders on the pace of the withdrawal, as he should, of course.

Posted by: HonestAbe | July 3, 2008 4:14 PM

"Well, Mike, you make the common mistake of believing that "Left" and "Democrat" are synonyms for each other.

On Senator Obama's war position, I'd hardly call him a liar and barely call him a flip flopper - if you look at what he has said, there has always been a caveat of doing what is safest for the troops -what the heck, though - no one wants to listen, they just want to project their beliefs onto whatever is said -"

With no mention of our continued strategic interests in the region or the stability of Iraq. Again Obama shows lack of experience and only a blatant pandering to the Left.

"Keeing the troops safe" is only a facade that provides the cover for Obama to keep our forces there to secure our interests without having to admit that "Bush's war" might have some validity.

Posted by: PAO | July 3, 2008 4:13 PM

If republicans were as childish as democrats they could now run ads saying Obama won't leave iraq until it is stable which is a flip flop from a previous flip flop.

Obama used the troops to score political points against Clinton. Obama used iraq to score against Clinton.

Obama has no military experience.

Posted by: David | July 3, 2008 4:12 PM

What can we expect next from the candidate of change, a lukewarm endorsement of the Bush tax cuts?

Posted by: Jorge | July 3, 2008 4:12 PM

"my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable." - who said this Barry Nobama, John McCain or George Bush - it would be really hard to tell.

If you still believe this fraud, pass some of the kool-aide over here - it must taste really good!

Posted by: fjh3q | July 3, 2008 4:12 PM

Posted by: Steve | July 3, 2008 4:05 PM
It doesn't matter what positon Obama takes on Iraq. The media and repugs will slam him regardless.

===========================================

You have to be kidding??? The media has fawned over Obama throughout the primaries and now. I am a liberal and a Dem but I think the media is slanted unfairly in Barry Hussein's favor. Obama has the money and media behind him. This election is his. Really Steve, what f---ing planet are from?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 4:12 PM

This is not news. Samantha Power said that this was the way Obama was going to do it several months ago. It was right about the time she called Clinton "a monster." She allegedly got fired for that comment but her comments on Hard Talk were much more damaging but apparently most people were too enthralled with Obama to be paying much attention. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7281805.stm
Here is the link to the BBC article and to the entire show. Watch her! I wish we had American journalists who were that tough, but when the journalists were tough on ABC, people complained that they were too tough!
And I'm not just going to vote for Obama because he is presumptive nominee. There is a convention in August, do something! Get another nominee.

Posted by: Lynn E | July 3, 2008 4:11 PM

Flip flop, flip flop! I guess the Dems are going to have to think twice when they accuse McCain of the same, because it won't be sane to say the same of the guy who knew from the beginning it was mistake. Oh wait a second; he wasn't even in the US Senate when the initial vote went before Senate to go to war in the first place.

Posted by: theaz | July 3, 2008 4:11 PM

To John D the new wording is when Iraq is stable.

Posted by: David | July 3, 2008 4:11 PM

zien106 said:
Could I vote for an opportunist, a liar?

you're so stupid. you voted for one twice when you voted for Bush.

Posted by: steve | July 3, 2008 4:10 PM

Looks like that vote for Bob Barr is getting more appealing

Posted by: switcheroo | July 3, 2008 4:09 PM

shocker another flip-flop... maybe now the media will call him out for the liar he is!

Posted by: mountain man | July 3, 2008 4:07 PM

Linus,

You must live in a very strange little world if you view Michelle Obama that way - is everyone who is of color that goes to college an "affirmitive action" wannabe to you? Grace is more subjective than poise, so I'll give you that, but let's see - the lady has successfully spoken to large rallies, appeared on national TV, etc., and has never appeared flustered and projects a rather positive viewpoint.

I'd suspect you're an idiot.

Posted by: John D in Houston | July 3, 2008 4:07 PM

It doesn't matter what positon Obama takes on Iraq. The media and repugs will slam him regardless.
They (mass media, and Republicans) are responsible for the mess this nation is in, but they will not accept any responsiblity for it. Nope, just blame everything on Dems and Liberals.
Would someone tell me what "CONDITIONS" have changed so dramatically? The writer of this article makes this statement, but doens't specify any one thing.
Must be the 53 permanent military bases that we are mandating, (black mailing) from the Iraq government.

Posted by: Steve | July 3, 2008 4:05 PM

And Barack gives a giant middle finger to his core supporters...

Posted by: The Pins | July 3, 2008 4:04 PM

Well, Mike, you make the common mistake of believing that "Left" and "Democrat" are synonyms for each other.

On Senator Obama's war position, I'd hardly call him a liar and barely call him a flip flopper - if you look at what he has said, there has always been a caveat of doing what is safest for the troops -what the heck, though - no one wants to listen, they just want to project their beliefs onto whatever is said -

Posted by: John D in Houston | July 3, 2008 4:04 PM

FISA - bad judgement
NAFTA - bad judgement
DC Gun Ban - bad judgement
Iraq - bad judgement

Changing your position only means that your original judgment call was wrong. It is an admirable quality to change your mind in the political arena, but not after you've sold the American public on your so-called good judgement on the issues.

Obama is either extremely stupid (outside of anything legal related), or extremely conniving - not the qualities I look for in a POTUS.

Posted by: PAO | July 3, 2008 4:03 PM

Obama changes for political expediency.

Obama bashed Hillary over the head about her iraq war vote.

But in 2004 Obama said to a chicago station he didn't want to bring any troops home from iraq and it would be wrong to set a timeline.

Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the war but bashed Hillary about it.


Obama has no conviction. He changes positions from the primary to the general election for political expediency.

But the media is loving Obama. He has been on more magazine covers than any politician ever. The media adores him.

Posted by: Jeff | July 3, 2008 3:57 PM

HA HA HA - here it comes. Obama has become a Republican on many key issues over these weeks, strictly for the general election. You will now see his position on Iraq morph into No Withdrawal, No Timeline.

Posted by: pgr88 | July 3, 2008 3:56 PM

Obama in 2004 when he was running for the senate said no timeline to withdraw troops. Obama said don't bring any troops home. That was the popular position then.

McCain on the other hand has said the surge was to get the iraqis in place so we can turn over the areas to the iraqis and bring our troops home.

Obama had one position for the primary to get votes.

Obama was bashing Hillary on Iraq to get votes while an Obama aide said we would need to keep 80,000 troops in Iraq.

All Obama cares about is political expediency.

I can't stand how so many voters are being fooled by Obama. This election is painful to watch.

Obama says at one event he will end the war.

Then to veterans he says he will keep troops in iraq to go after al queda and keep them at the embassy and keep them training iraqis.


Americans are in love with Obama. No matter what he says he has huge leads in the polls.


Wake me when this election is over. This election is a nightmare.

Posted by: Jeff | July 3, 2008 3:54 PM

I trust Senator Obama's judgement and thoughfulness. It would be foolish for anyone, to not think and rethink the process of withdrawing american troops. If the situation changes and he didn't, it would be like john McBush all over again. Never changing even if facts change.

I support him even more now.

Posted by: Jerry | July 3, 2008 3:54 PM

This "change" would suggest that someone got to Mr Obama and suggested that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq regardless of whether the Iraqis were ready would be a disaster. Hmmm, isn't that what McCain has been saying all this time?
Somehow to you puppet head Dems if this comes from Obama it is strong decision making, but it comes from McCain it is bad.

Posted by: Dan | July 3, 2008 3:52 PM

History Repeated!

LBJ's war became Nixon's war

GWB's war will become Barry Hussein's war

When you think about it, Hillary should consider herself lucky that she is not going to be saddled with Bush's legacy. Whoever wins in November will really have a rough 4 years.

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | July 3, 2008 3:51 PM

This is typical for Barry Hussein. Now that Hillary is out of the way, he can shift his position to give him wiggle room once he is in office. When are people going to realize that this guy is no different from any other politician. Jeez, you Obama devotees have found a true Pied Piper. LOL!

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | July 3, 2008 3:47 PM

There he goes again,Liar in Chief Wannabe
Barack Hussein Obama doing his now famous,
"Flip! Flop! Wiffle! Waffle! All over the
place as usual on bringing the troops home
from Iraq. So did Obama's Mommy Madame Speaker Nutcase Nancy Pelosi slap his little wrist,for this one? And speaking of
the lying Democrats and Nancy Pelosi,of the
"I Took Impeachment Off The Table" Infamy
so did this same Nancy Pelosi the rest of
the Demoscum claim vote for us and we will
bring the troops home from Iraq as well?
Why Trust Any Democrat After Nancy Pelosi
Lies and Barack Hussein Obama's Flip! Flop!
Waffle! Endlessly? NOBAMA!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | July 3, 2008 3:47 PM

Obama said it's the commander-in-chief's decision to make policies, and the military's responsibility is to carry them out. He has completely changed his positions now. I wonder if anyone who voted for him wants his/her money back?

Posted by: Adam | July 3, 2008 3:46 PM

Linus,

If you think Michelle's hairdo is an "afro" you know less than nothing about fashion or hairstyles.

If the majority of Americans have that big a problem with Michelle's hair, then they are free to vote for Cindy "Platinum #5" McCain's husband in November.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 3, 2008 3:44 PM

I go along with this post:

"We Democrats have no choice but to support Senator Obama as he wins the Presidency, but he will be making a grave mistake if he fails to ensure the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq within a short time period after his election. The American people want this war ended. Let us no[t] repeat the mistake of 1968 when Richard Nixon dishonestly said he "had a plan" for Viet Nam and that obscene war dragged on for six more years."

Posted by: David S. Robins | July 3, 2008
3:23 PM

Better a surefooted pragmatist sensitive to the interests of his people than a(nother) dogmatic ideologue.

Posted by: FirstMouse | July 3, 2008 3:43 PM

His hasn't flipped on this issue. His position is that we need a new direction in our policy. That policy needs to stress troop departure in order to get the Iraqis to step up to the table. It that means 16 months, 8 months, or 24 months, we're still implementing a policy to get us out of IRAQ as soon as our military leaders say we can PERIOD!!

Posted by: No Change in Policy | July 3, 2008 3:41 PM

Obama said in a debate with Clinton that he would ask the commanders but he would set the mission. Unless he switches to a mission to keep the troops in Iraq he has not changed.
The Republican smear team wants to portray Obama as indecisive. So they will see change when none exists.

Posted by: G8tr | July 3, 2008 3:41 PM


Obama says he'll consult with military commanders to make sure we withdraw in a manner that is SAFE FOR OUR TROOPS. Not if it is politically convenient for the US-backed Iraqi government or any other conditions.

GWB even said we would would not stay if we weren't wanted. Whether the Iraqi people want us there depends on which faction you ask.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 3, 2008 3:39 PM

To those of you who blame Obama for modifying his position, please understand that a modification is necessary to ensure that America is able to maintain the gains in stability for which so many of our armed forces have died. Iraq was a mistake, but our strategic position in the middle east is not something to discard out of anger with Bush. A strong American military posture in the Persian Gulf, and a stable and closely allied Iraq, is the cornerstone on which a broader peace can be built.


Posted by: wtmgeo | July 3, 2008 3:38 PM

A shift for Obama from "we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" to "we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in". Change like that we can believe in.

One thing that will never change is McCain's ignorance on the economy and his intransigence on Iraq. It is about time we focused on the real enemy that lies in Afghanistan and in Pakistan at the Afghan border.

Posted by: G8tr | July 3, 2008 3:36 PM

Same trap, once again. Obama defeated Hillary because of her hawkish stance on Iraq from Day One, trying to prove her credibility on matters of national security. Now he makes the same mistake that John Kerry made four years ago, trying to show that he can be tough on these issues. But, if the public believes that we need a chief executive who will opt for the military solution, who will let his policies be directed by the commanders on the ground, rather than make policy and rely on the generals to implement it, why switch? If we're going to have four more years of a G.W. Bush foreign policy, why not make the transition as seamless as possible, and give the job to McCain?

Posted by: Deja Voo | July 3, 2008 3:35 PM

BHO again CHANGED his Plan of withdrawing Military Forces in Iraq.
First-when staring Campaigning for President : Immediately
Second - in 16 months : in the Middle of battle with HRC
Third - When sure he is the Nominee: would ask Commenders of American Forces in Iraq.
Could I vote for an opportunist, a liar

Posted by: zien106 | July 3, 2008 3:34 PM

I think we should hold a referendum on whether a First Lady should be allowed to wear an afro in the White House.

Posted by: Linus Eric Wallgren | July 3, 2008 3:33 PM

His 16 month pledge was never true and always couched with enough clauses as to make in meaningless. The MoveOn people couldn't have been dumb enough to believe him.

If he is elected, we'll still have troops there at the end of his first term.

Posted by: Joe G | July 3, 2008 3:31 PM

This is NOT new! He has always maintained that it was contingent upon what the Generals On the Ground said would be a safe, quick way to do it....So what is the point of this article, REALLY!

Posted by: Angryman | July 3, 2008 3:31 PM

This isn't a "flip-flop" piece, nor is it a "hit job" on Obama.

Obama made some new comments on the Iraqi withdrawal, and the WP reported it accurately and without editorializing.

This is a good, reasonable, and expected shift toward the "reality on the ground" that is needed in the GE. These comments lay the groundwork for his upcoming visit to Iraq. Obama HQ could have written this piece.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 3, 2008 3:30 PM

So Obama will "consult with military commanders." Why not consult the Iraqis too? After all, it's their country.

As soon as he is elected -- if not sooner -- we should hold a referendum in Iraq on the question, "Should Coalition forces leave within six months?" If the Iraqis vote yes, we pull out. If they vote no, we stay.

We claim to want democracy in Iraq. What could be more democratic than that?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2008 3:29 PM

This feels like bait and switch. Though I never fell for the bait, lots of Americans voted for Obama because he vowed to end the war. Then it was 18 months. Now it is -- check with the generals. And this is the weapon he used to beat Hillary.
I am angry at him for his bait and switch tactics but I still think he is 100 times better than John McCain who has waffled even more.
Now that Hillary isn't in the race Obama can do anything he wants. It makes me really mad.

Posted by: Betty Louann | July 3, 2008 3:28 PM

All of the lip-flopping nonsense aside, is it policies that bother liberals or just party affiliation?

Obama updated views on faith-based programs, guns, the death penalty and even Iraq are the same positions villified by the left. Do liberals now embrace these polcies because a Democrat supports them?

Posted by: Mike | July 3, 2008 3:27 PM

I'm for for, no I'm against public financing.
I'm against, no I'm for the death penalty.
I'm for, no I'm against ten town hall debates.
I'm against, no I'm for NAFTA.
I'm for, no I'm against immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq.
And, by the way, just because I was for the Reverend Wright for twenty years, and even took my children to hear him preach his racially divisive and anti-American sermons, it doesn't mean I can't be against him now.
Change? An end to Washington-style politics?
As the Clintons kept saying, the guy has potential but he just isn't ready for prime time.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | July 3, 2008 3:26 PM

I think WashPost is joining forces with Fox News.

Posted by: Ryan | July 3, 2008 3:25 PM

Another policy shift for Obama. Everything he promised in the primaries is now suspect. If he can't be trusted within 1 month of winning the primaries, can we trust him for 4 years as president? Remember what happened when we had a liar for president (Nixon) in the 70s?

Posted by: Jack | July 3, 2008 3:25 PM

So - let me get this straight. His timeline "was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," but that has changed because... why exactly? What is the point of this article?

If you look at the original legislation he proposed in 2007 (which even an internet dope like me can find at: http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/) you see that it explicitly says that the redeployment would, "be planned and implemented by military commanders." It also says that timing could be altered if specific conditions are met.

So take a look at the original and tell us specifically how his current position differs, if it does. And if it doesn't, then stop trying to manufacture news.

Posted by: Slothrop | July 3, 2008 3:24 PM

I'm for for, no I'm against public financing.
I'm against, no I'm for the death penalty.
I'm for, no I'm against ten town hall debates.
I'm against, no I'm for NAFTA.
I'm for, no I'm against immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq.
And, by the way, just because I was for the Reverend Wright for twenty years, and even took my children to hear him preach his racially divisive and anti-American sermons, it doesn't mean I can't be against him now.
Change? An end to Washington-style politics?
As the Clintons kept saying, the guy has potential but he just isn't ready for prime time.

Posted by: B | July 3, 2008 3:24 PM

We Democrats have no choice but to support Senator Obama as he wins the Presidency, but he will be making a grave mistake if he fails to ensure the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq within a short time period after his election. The American people want this war ended. Let us now repeat the mistake of 1968 when Richard Nixon dishonestly said he "had a plan" for Viet Nam and that obscene war dragged on for six more years.

Posted by: David S. Robins | July 3, 2008 3:23 PM

I told you last year that it is a joke Obama was telling about Iraq withdraw! Many just don't have the sense of humor and took Obama's "promise" as a garantee.

Posted by: God Father | July 3, 2008 3:22 PM

Buying into the flip-flopping narrative.

Obama from the beginning has said he would consult the military commanders on the ground. This is another WashPost hit piece on Obama.

How about a story on why the Post wants McCain to win so bad.


Posted by: Peter F | July 3, 2008 3:19 PM

Barack Obama isn't really a presidential sounding name. A better name, conferring the power and position of the presidency might be Barry O'bama. . .of course this is consistent with what he has called himself to date and doesn't represent a shift of any kind. He'll have to examine the facts of the race and what's in the best interest of the country.

Posted by: j4hour | July 3, 2008 3:17 PM

And there is a weekly 2008 Election Vice President poll at http://www.votenic.com , so see who America thinks should back the candidates. YOU WON'T BELIEVE THESE RESULTS!

Posted by: Grant | July 3, 2008 3:14 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company