unarmedman wrote: Even though I think the Iraq war is principally flawed, I'd be nonetheless happy to see stabilization. It would be better still if it were minus the U.S. presence.

TPM wrote:I spent most of today in bed with some kind of nasty cold. So I only caught up on any news this evening. And I must confess to being little short of astounded by the avalanche of press BS I'm reading on Barack Obama's position on Iraq.

The McCain camp seems to have a lot of reporters eating out of its hands since many journalists don't appear to grasp the basic distinction between strategy and tactics. I've even had normally sensible journalist colleagues forwarding me RNC press releases like they're passing on the revealed truth. McCain's campaign actually put out a statement claiming that Obama "has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground."

I've watched this campaign unfold pretty closely. And I've listened to Obama's position on Iraq. He's been very clear through this year and last on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Presidents set the strategy -- which in this context means the goal or the policy. And if the policy is a military one, a President will consult closely with his military advisors on the tactics used to execute the policy.

This is an elementary distinction the current occupant in the White House has continually tried to confuse by claiming that his policies are driven and constrained by the advice he's given by his commanders on the ground. There's nothing odd or contradictory about Obama saying that he'll change the policy to one of withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq with a specific timetable but that he will consult with his military advisors about how best to execute that policy.

For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain's policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it's hard to disagree with the judgment.

The simple truth is that this campaign offers a very clear cut choice on Iraq. One candidate believes that the US occupation of Iraq is the solution; the other thinks it's the problem. John McCain supports the permanent deployment of US troops in Iraq. That is why his hundred years remark isn't some gotcha line. It's a clear statement of his policy. Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It's a completely different view of America's role in the world and future in the Middle East. Reporters who can't grasp what Obama is saying seem simply to have been permanently befuddled by George W. Bush's game-playing over delegating policy to commanders.

JohnnyDoglands wrote:

The Code is Almighty wrote:Well, the death toll in Afghanistan has been higher than Iraq's for the past two months, so at least that's some good news.

Things must be getting better in Iraq.

Does this mean things are getting better in Iraq? Or is it just that things are getting much worse in Afghanistan? I did see a news item saying that Al-Quaeda are changing their tactics in Afghanistan, and the allies are taking more of a beating because of it.

Rick Reuben wrote:Some people sort of fell for it. Warmowski, not too badly:

warmowski, 4-21-08 wrote: Based on his campaign rhetoric, I don't think Obama can be presumed to be anti-imperialist or anti-militarist.

Rick Reuben wrote:

tmidgett wrote:

unarmedman wrote:*SHOCKER!*

Ha ha.

That is sarcasm

Was always bullshit and a ridiculous idea if it wasn't bullshit.

Some people sort of fell for it. Warmowski, not too badly:

warmowski, 4-21-08 wrote: Based on his campaign rhetoric, I don't think Obama can be presumed to be anti-imperialist or anti-militarist. Speeding up withdrawal from Iraq is about all one can expect there - and even then I give that a one out of three chance of happening.

Rick Reuben, not at all:

frelamp wrote:So if Obama is elected, as appears inevitable at this point, what sort of changes will he begin implementing towards:

The war in Iraq

rick reuben, 4-18-08 wrote:Will move to Iran.

Also, McGarvey got it right. In one of his 2am drunk posts:

christopher mcgarvey 6-20-08 wrote:This just proves how much Obama doesn't want to rock the boat,
This will be even more evident if he wins because he's gonna do nothing to get troops out of Iraq or get this country out debt.

I'm not going to search Minotaur's posts. I've read those enough.

What's much more important though is that thousands and thousands of voters outside of this forum for whom Iraq was/is the predominant issue took Obama's rhetoric of withdrawal and ran with it all the way to their polling place during the primaries. Naturally, and soon thereafter, BO was non-committal, at best, in reaffirming this pledge, no doubt fully aware of its effectiveness in winning anti-war voters AS WELL AS the corner it puts him in, hence the drawn-out repudiation and his continuing shift to the 'center'.

Like I said in the previous thread you cited, "A failed high-wire, act."

( At least Obama told us he was rethinking things before he got into office, unlike Pelosi. )

JohnnyDoglands wrote:If I only paid attention to the (quite considerable) US election coverage british TV, It would be easy to come to the conclusion that no one wants a president who doesn't like wars. Thats what the BBC seem to want me to think, all the coverage makes it look like no one in america cares about any other issues.

The Code is Almighty wrote:

JohnnyDoglands wrote:If I only paid attention to the (quite considerable) US election coverage british TV, It would be easy to come to the conclusion that no one wants a president who doesn't like wars. Thats what the BBC seem to want me to think, all the coverage makes it look like no one in america cares about any other issues.

All we care about are gas prices. We didn't even know there was a war, or two, still going on.