Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineSo, Obama continued moving to the right to attract the general public by stating that after he meets with military commanders he will "continue to refine" his position on Iraq:
"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, a state no Democratic presidential candidate has carried since 1964. "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."
But then he must have realized he went too far because apparently he adopted McCain's policy :-) so he called a second news conference to make it clear that he didn't want anyone thinking he changed his position on Iraq (even after meeting with the generals and discovering what the conditions are like on the ground he will not listen to them but bring the troops home anyway whether it endangers Iraqis and the remaining troops or not):
In a second, hastily convened news conference, Obama insisted that his policies have not changed, and that he has "not equivocated" or is not "searching for maneuvering room" on Iraq. Consultations with commanders in the coming weeks will be focused more on the size of U.S. forces needed to train and equip Iraqi military and police units, as well as maintaining a "counterterrorism strike force" to prevent al-Qaeda from making a comeback, he said.I think he was attempting to give himself more wiggle room in case it was blatantly obvious since the surge has been working, he may not want to lose this war when victory is at hand. So why fall back on the old position? Why give yourself absolutely no wiggle room?"Let me be as clear as I can be: I intend to end this war," he said. "My first day in office, I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission. That is to end this war, responsibly, deliberately but decisively."
But more importantly, if he really wasn't changing his position, why did he say that he will "continue to refine" his policy? What does that mean? Was he thinking he could slip the word "refine" in there to give himself some wiggle room when he met with commanders but then didn't want the Republicans saying he had changed his position? I think that makes the most sense.
It's going to be a little hard for him to even move a little to the right on this because if he does, the press and the Republicans will be all over it. But I bet after he meets with the commanders, he will start wiggling again. He was unequivocal in his support of Wright until he needed to kick him to the curb and I bet if he has to, he'll do the same to his Iraq policy knowing his base will still vote for him no matter what. I think he'll still say he's bringing the troops home but he'll start framing it in less absolute terms.
We've already seen that he's willing to evolve, why wouldn't he do it on this issue as well?
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Comments
RG, it's becoming obvious to me that nuanced thinking is simply beyond the scope of many people, many of whom are the same people who propelled Bush into the White House for a first and second term. Either that, or they are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting Obama's views. (I'm sure no one on this blog would do that, of course.)
As for yelling `flip-flop' again and again, if I were a McCain supporter I'd steer clear of that particular characterization. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in time of war? "Unconscionable!"--until he started running for Prez. Torture absolutely a bad policy? Yes, until it became politically inconvenient and he knuckled under to Bush. Pro-environment and in support of vigorous anti-global warming measures? Sure! But the very same time he issued an ad trumpeting himself as an environmentalist, he came out in favor of offshore drilling. Stay in Iraq for 100 years? Not what I meant. Not an expert on the economy, need to be educated? Never said it. Support the troops? Of course, except when it comes to the G.I. Bill.
Now there's a flip-flopper par excellence.
Posted by: yelladawgNC | July 4, 2008 2:06 PM
Obama has not changed his mind, He wants us out of the "Holy War for Oil" and wants to use our troops to fight terrorism in Afghanistan.
he want the mission to end our occupation of Iraq ended. And he wants Iraq to know that they have to get off their behinds and make it work.
He will listen to the Generals but they must (if he is elected)take their orders from him, just as they have taken their orders from Bush.
This is not side stepping or rejecting their recommendations, but they will take their orders from the Commander in Chief.
Obama is no different than Richard Nixon who got us out of Vietnam. I suppose you're to young to remember that the "Hawks" wanted us to stay there until it was "won" also. The difference now is that we were never asked to "Free Iraq" but went in on some trumped up intelligence.
We are locking ourselves into the same fiasco that the Soviets got themselves into in Afghanistan and if we are not careful, the end results will be the same. It is time to get out with some decorum and let Iraq solve their own problems.
Posted by: Paul | July 4, 2008 5:43 PM
earlier when obama vowed to end the occupation in iraq and bring the troops home, he said that he would take advice from commanders in iraq on which areas to pull out from first and how fast in order to maintain the safety for our soldiers, but as commander in chief he would be changing the mission from one of combat operations to one of ending combat and exiting iraq. that position has remained consistent.
when the associated press misinterpreted what he recently said, conservatives accused obama of flip-flopping. when he corrects the press, conservatives accuse him of flip-flopping on a flip-flop.
stupendous logic. is it no wonder that if it's any more nuanced than a bumper-sticker slogan, conservatives just don't get it?
Posted by: anonymous reincarnate | July 4, 2008 9:57 PM
Why not, he did it on abortion. Sort of, if you can understand what he said, which is incredibly tortured and Clintonesque:
"My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases."
Which I guess isn't too surprising: they're both lawyers.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | July 6, 2008 11:41 AM
abortion issue too nuanced for ya? here's a bumper sticker slogan that makes the point clearly:
oppose abortion?
don't have one.
that's succinct enough for you all, right?
Posted by: anonymous reincarnate | July 7, 2008 3:23 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?