MyDD :: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop

Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop

by BigBoyBlue, Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:15:16 AM EST

In his ongoing efforts to promote himself as the Ronald Reagan of the left, Barack O'Reagan seems confused as to where he stands with regards to the issue of preconditions.

In an interview with the Miami Herald the day before the YouTube-CNN debate, Barack O'Reagan said he'd meet with Chavez, but only "under certain conditions".

Taylor Marsh has the details

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25974

Perhaps Barack O'Reagan should make up his mind and get back with us.

While he's deciding, O'Reagan might want to brush up on the facts with regards to Ronald Reagan's diplomatic history.

During the debate, O'Reagan said:

"Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire."

O'Reagan seems woefully unaware that Ronald Reagan didn't meet with the USSR until his second term and after extensive groundwork with preconditions.

Whatever you say about Barack O'Reagan, he's not one to let facts and details interfere with his soaring rhetoric!

Tags: Barack Obama, diplomacy, Ronald Reagan, terrorism, security, Democrat, Troll Diary, Hit Diary (all tags)

Permalink :: 73 Comments :: Post a Comment

Extreme dishonest hit piece (3.00 / 1)

Why do you do this? What motivates your hate?

This one of the worst examples I have seen so far.

"Reagan of the left" = a person that can bring people from all across the political spectrum towards progressive values. Is it so hard for you to comprehend?

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:21:57 AM EST

Re: Extreme dishonest hit piece (none / 0)

When Clinton supporters point out the truth, it's hate; when Obama supporters smear, it's 'telling the truth'. LOL.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Truth doesn't = hit piece (none / 0)

by dpANDREWS on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First it was a lie, now it is a non story ... (none / 0)

Is your name really Tony Snow?

by dpANDREWS on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Extreme dishonest hit piece (none / 0)

Reagan was an ignorant old coot, personally and politically. I can't fathom why any Democrat would compare himself with that man. Don't believe the hype, people. Reagan doesn't get a pass because he died.

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 ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Under certain conditions..." (3.00 / 1)

As far as I can tell, Oppenheimer cuts off the rest of the sentence. Obama doesn't say he would meet with Chavez 'under certain conditions.'
Instead he says: "Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking. Sometimes it's more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends." In other words, he's making a general statement. In certain circumstances, in a certain environment, etc.
This seems like a wildly different point than Bush demanding that, for example, Iran give up its nuclear program before talks begin --- having 'preconditions' for talks.
I don't see the contradiction here.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:23:23 AM EST

Re: "Under certain conditions..." (3.00 / 1)

Right -- and end of conversation.

by horizonr on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:35:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Under certain conditions..." (3.00 / 1)

Good point! and also this proves that he's not irresponsible and naive as Hilary said. He knows there are certain protocols or steps needed before meeting to talk. I hope these Hilary supports keep pushing this out there because it proves his point.

by Jalenth on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Under certain conditions..." (none / 0)

His point being that he made a mistake as Hillary (two L's by the way) pointed out? I think the point's been made, frankly.

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 ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

credit where credit is due (none / 0)

Obama has done an impressive job of obscuring his retreat with an attack. And he didn't bow to pressure and apologize for his mistake. He has gone from:

I would be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of my administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

to:

My administration would have tough diplomatic talks with Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea and I would use every tool at the president's disposal to address problems before they become threats.

He and his campaign have added various caveats and elaborations that amount to:

I didn't say I would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, only that I might after tough diplomatic talks that resulted in some substantive reason to meet (not for tea) but that were not so tough as to create any preconditions to my meeting.

As long as Obama can keep people from following up on this evolution he has avoided much damage from his error in the debate. There may be unintended consequences from the covering fire he aimed at Clinton, but he needed to take her on to have any hope of getting traction.

by souvarine on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: credit where credit is due no error in debate (none / 0)

He has the support of rank and file democrats in this debate:

Rasmussen oill:

Support of Obama 55%
Support of Clinton 22%

I will take that any time verus the beltway pundancy which is now being split after a couple of days.

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barak O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

this diary adds nothing.

by bruh21 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:24:45 AM EST

Red Telephone (3.00 / 1)

As far as I know, the White House had a direct telephone line to the Kremlin since 1963 (following the Cuban missile crisis and up until the end of the Cold War). What Obama said at the debate is a common line from his stump speech, in which he usually refers to the direct line that the US had to the Russians.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:26:28 AM EST

Re: Red Telephone (none / 0)

And had that telephone line just magically appeared one day or did several preceding Administrations to Kennedy and LBJ engage in professional diplomacy long before then? Did Vice President Nixon not meet with Khrushchev in 1959 after negotiation at lower levels?

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 ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Red Telephone (none / 0)

Negotiations occurr at the lower level to set up a meeting, but the main figures VP Nixon and the president gave the word that they wanted such a meeting.

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Red Telephone (none / 0)

Actually, Nixon had no involvement in the decision. But you're right: the preconditions for that decision had already been made and met via lower level diplomats. I'm glad we agree that that is the correct course of diplomacy.

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 ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 08:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Barak O'Reagan (1.00 / 1)

Barak O'Reagan

I can hardly stop laughing.

ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!

still laughing, tearing up. Oh its so hard to get up off the floor....

by DoIT on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:52:41 AM EST

Re: Barak O'Reagan and Hillary's supporters (none / 0)

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, a neo-conservative weekly, wrote that she delivered her answer to the now-famous "would-you-meet-with-despots" question "firmly and coolly."

- Rich Lowry of National Review, a conservative weekly, gushed like a schoolboy with a new crush: "She excels . . . Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she's ready to be president."

- David Brooks, the conservative columnist at The New York Times, wrote that Clinton "seems to offer the perfect combination of experience and change" and said she's changing perceptions in a way that may persuade voters to give her a second look.

- Charles Krauthammer, the conservative columnist of The Washington Post, summed up the Clinton-Obama smackdown: "The grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie."

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barak O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (3.00 / 1)

I'm glad you're not worried about Obama beating Hillary. So why would you have to write pathetic hit diaries? Oh wait, no wonder why. You're scared. Thanks for proving something here. I guess this diary wasn't entirely useless after all.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:54:48 AM EST

Re: Barak O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

So that follows that the many diaries written about Clinton are because Obama posters are afraid of her, scared? I don't see where you make sense here, Jeremiah. Any diary written about a candidate is because one is scared of that candidate? Seems illogical.

by georgep on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barak O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

He has to consistently call him "Barack O'Regan" because it makes him more comfortable with the guy apparently. He COULDN'T call him by his real name. Not to mention, now there is a diary about Hillary joking about her hair. Obviously you don't see a problem with it since your bias is spewing out your pores, but I think some of us have gone over an edge, so to speak, here.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (3.00 / 1)

Please spell "Barack" correctly it's not "Barak".

So here's what the guy who asked the question in the video has to say about back and forth between Obama and Hilary.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/lo ngisland/politics/blog/2007/07/stephen_s peaks.html#more

by Jalenth on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:04:01 PM EST

Re: Barak O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (2.00 / 2)

O'Reagan didn't just flip flop. He made his statement in support of "under certain conditions" the day before the debate. Then the night of the debate he flipped enthusiastically saying he would meet with dictators and terrorist supporters "without preconditions." Then Axelrod assured everyone after the debate that O'Reagan didn't really mean what he said about no preconditions. So O'Reagan flopped. Then the next day O'Reagan assured everyone that he would meet with dictators and terrorist supporters without conditions.

But what I can't figure out is if he did a double back flip or if he just flopped.

by DoIT on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:05:21 PM EST

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Barak O' Reagan? That's not even clever. If you're going to make fun of the candidates names you should at least do it above a junior high school level.

Of course, there will always be a few twits who will laugh at it...

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:38:53 PM EST

Panic in Camp Clinton? (3.00 / 1)

The Hillary folks are really getting scared of Obama. The public mostly backs Obama on the question of meetings. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/public_divided_as_to_whe ther_new_president_should_meet_with_head s_of_iran_syria_north_korea

And as for that Miami Herald piece, a complete debunking with Hillary's flip-flops is right here.

Click: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1898

by rosebowl on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:45:03 PM EST

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Has anyone noticed that Obama has been quietly insinuating for some time now that clinton is somehow responsible for the deaths of american soldiers in the war , he did that at the debate and has been doing it for a while " 4 years and 3600 deaths too late " , as everyone missed that . Doesn't he know that his voting to fund the war since he got to the senate means that he is also responsible for a lot of the deaths if we use that logic . I don't think anyone has pointed that out. It is totally offensive to me , to somehow insinuate a fellow dem is responsible for the deaths of US Soldiers in Iraq.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:46:43 PM EST

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

No it doesn't. There's a BIG difference between voting to start a stupid war, and voting to fund he troops who have been put in a very bad pre-existing condition with no good exit strategy. He has said many times that we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.

That's called foresight, and judgement. He, unlike other candidates, doesn't fly off half cocked because the current polls support him. And he has a remarkable tendency to get it right, not in the short run, but in the long run.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

But if you vote to fund the war you are keeping the war going right so if he is insinuating that after 4 years and over 3600 deaths Clinton bears responsibility for theses deaths which I find bizarre then he should also bear some responsibility for keeping the war going by funding it. I simply do not think it is appropriate for anyone to make that insinuation especially for someone who consisitently voted to fund the war throughout his years in the senate . The only one who can plausibly make that claim is Kucinich because he voted against the war and every funding but he himself is decent enough not to make the insinuation.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:59:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I haven't noticed him insinuating any such thing...

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Hasn't he been saying that it is 4 yrs and 3600 deaths too late for Hillary to be asking questions about an exit strategy from the pentagon and she should have asked these questions before she took the vote , or am i missing something.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I don't see that as blaming her for the deaths, but he is rightly pointing out that she should have been taking the position she is taking now, but four years ago. He's pointing out the consequences of a bad decision that she, and many other Democrats made, to put their careers ahead of their conscience and go along with a President who was enormously popular at the time, and who was calling anyone who opposed him a traitor or "soft on terrorism."

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

It just seems to me that when he makes that claim the projection that he is trying to make in the minds of voters is that he is somehow laying the blame of the death of those soldiers on her vote , you know much like the way bush/cheney were making the claim that al queada /iraq war were linked without actually making it . It might come across to most people as such.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I think maybe you're 'reaching for it' to make that interpretation. I can't speak for Obama, but it seems to me that even if all congressional Democrats had voted their courage instead of their cowardice we still would have gotten into this mess. Republicans controlled both houses at the time.

But the difference is everything that's happened since. If the AUMF had passed on a party-lines vote the political position of Democrats right now would be MUCH stronger. It's entirely possible that under such circumstances they might have been able to pressure the administration into not vetoing the previous spending bill with the benchmarks and deadlines.

But as it is, the AUMF passed with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

122 democrats in the House voted against the AUF
23 Democrat senators voted against the AUF

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:28:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

So are you saying that it's ok to fund a war that kills American soldiers and innocent people AND doesn't have an exit strategy as long as you didn't vote for the war to begin with?

To me it seems like he is a complete hypocrite trying to polish his crown with, "Well I was against this war from the start."

Perhaps in the interests of full disclosure he should add: "But since I came to the Senate I felt that funding this war that kills American troops and has no exit strategy was a good idea until I decided to run for President."

by DoIT on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

It's a matter of maturity. The best thing to do is to avoid making a mistake in the first place, but once a mistake is made you can't just close your eyes and pretend it didn't happen. When Barack Obama came into the Senate the war was a pre-existing fact. So then the question becomes--what's the best way to go from here. Precipitiously cutting the funding would have been irresponsible (and naive).

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

You know he shouldn't be taking the moral high ground on Iraq , it is only Kucinich that can hold up.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:20:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Kucinich, much as I love him, just wants to close his eyes and pretend it never happened.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

True, but he could have taken a leading role in trying to end the war. Instead, he actually strongly opposed setting a "date certain," voting against passage of the Kerry amandment, and getting on the Senate floor to speak out against it.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/23635 2,CST-NWS-sweet31.article

Earlier, he refused to vote for an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) that would have, as Obama said, bring the troops home on a "date certain."

On June 21, Obama took to the Senate floor to say, "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field and our diplomats in the region insufficient flexibility."

Obama started moving toward setting a timetable in the weeks leading up to his announcement of his 2008 Democratic presidential exploratory campaign.

Change seems tied to primary

On Nov. 20, the Illinois Democrat said a "precise" timetable for U.S. troops to leave Iraq should be mapped out by the president, military commanders and, when possible, with Iraqi government leaders.
However, at that speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama said he was not suggesting an "overly rigid" timetable.

The gradual switch in approach seems to be tied to the reality of the Democratic presidential primary.

by georgep on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Yeah some people make him out to be a saint on the war but he is not , Kucinich is.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Seems to be an attempt to wipe away Obama's own comments and history on Iraq.

by georgep on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

The gradual switch in approach seems to be tied to the reality of the Democratic presidential primary.

I suspect there's some truth to that. That same fact, though, is far more true of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Their "switches" in approach have been far more dramatic.

But I also think his switch in approach has alot to do with the inexorably deteriorating situation on the ground. For a while there it looked like maybe something could be salvaged from this disaster. Now.... not so much.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Everyone has switched the same way clinton switched including Obama . It's just because it's clinton thats why everyone is paying so much attention . Both clinton/Obama voting against that supplemental was political . If they weren't running in the primary they won't have voted that way.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I'd say Obama's only "switch" was voting against the supplemental. Hillary Clinton voted for the war, then said she wouldn't have taken the country into it, and now opposes it. Edwards flip-flops have been the most dramatic of all. He voted for the war, vocally supported it, said he would have done the same had he been President, then pulled a complete 180 and called for cutting the funding to the troops.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

he said he didn't want a timetable now he wants it.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:27:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

OK. Circumstances change. That's still not as big of a 'flip' as Edwards or Clinton.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Clinton was against a time table in June of 2006 and the last democrat to embrass one when the polls went south on Iraq.

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I think it is odd that he voted against Kerry's attempt to end the war and then completely reversed his position once he decided to run for President. What's up with that?

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I don't think you can call one no vote on a supplemental spending bill "completely reversing his position." Circumstances change, and yes, that includes the fact he is running for President, but it also includes the deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq.

There are no easy answers for this mess. But opposing the war doesn't mean cutting the funds. The time to oppose the war was before it started. Once we were there it was important to deal with the reality of an existing situation. Seeking to salvage something less than a catastrophic outcome doesn't mean he was "voting for the war," it just means he was trying to deal with the reality of a pre-existing condition.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:15:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

And so why did Obama wait two years until he did try to end the war? He had every opportunity as a Senator to speak out against it or offer bills to end the war. He even had a chance to vote for withdraw and against funding. When he decided to run for President his position suddenly changed.

If it is ok for an Obama supporter to say that because "circumstances changed" it is legitimate for a candidate to change position then Hillary should be held to the same standard. Don't you agree?

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

But he speaks like a dove now when he was not really one when he was in Congress until recently. What has been pointed out was that except for the initial war vote (in which Obama could not vote because he was not a member of Congress, and he could have very well voted FOR the AUMF, as he has stated he well might have) there has not been a single difference in the voting record when it comes to Iraq between Clinton and Obama.

Which brings us to one of your earlier statements:

"When Barack Obama came into the Senate the war was a pre-existing fact. So then the question becomes--what's the best way to go from here. Precipitiously cutting the funding would have been irresponsible (and naive)."

We are not talking about cutting off funding, but for setting a withdrawal date that Bush would have to abide by. He spoke strongly against that, and many Democrats were for the amendment. All some are saying here is that Obama certainly is not the anti-war candidate he makes himself out to be. Where were his floor speeches to call on Bush to end the war? Where is his work towards ending the war? It seems a more recent development, coinciding with him running for president.

---------------------------------------- -------------

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25894

Finally, Obama's response to blogger requests about how large exactly his "residual force" would be, should he become president:

"The next response (and last one as of this post) is from Barack Obama. As he's stated many times, he was against the war from the beginning. He's also fighting for a phased redeployment of all "combat brigades" by March 2008. Again, as with John Edwards, note the use of the word "combat" troops (or brigades). It's semantics that leaves open a lot of wiggle room. But get a load of this:

Barack Obama wants the size of the American force left in Iraq to be as small as possible, and does not support having permanent bases in Iraq. However, it is impossible to say at this time how big a residual force would have to be. As president, Obama will do what President Bush has not done on a consistent basis, listen to the advice of his military commanders and make a decision on troop levels based on the realities on the ground in Iraq. - Barack Obama (emphasis added)

Excuse me?

"As small as possible"? Backing that up with a question of not knowing just "how big" to make the residual force isn't exactly comforting.

Does Mr. Obama and his campaign gurus really think this is going to pass for a serious answer? I know he's running a specifics-free personality campaign, but come on.

Now close your eyes...

Then repeat Obama's statement as if it came out of Candidate Clinton's mouth.

If Clinton tried to throw an Iraqi air ball like that at the blogosphere she wouldn't have any color left on her jpeg.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25894

by georgep on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I don't oppose all wars--I only oppose dumb wars.

He's not presenting himself as a total dove. What he is saying, quite correctly, is that he's the only one of the major candidates who had both the good sense and the courage to oppose this mistake before we made it.

Once the mistake was made then the whole thing was just a huge mess with no easy or obvious solutions.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

So if he thought it was a dumb war why didn't he vote against it continuously like Kucinich did , if you think the war is being waged wrongly and you continue to fund its continuation what difference does it make , that means you are not standing up for your beliefs.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I've already covered that question several times.

Grownups understand that after making a mistake you have to take responsibility for it. You can't just close your eyes and make it as if it didn't happen. What Kucinich did was the same as trying to pretend it never happened.

Like if your involved in a drunk driving accident, you can't just say whoops! I really shouldn't have been drinking and driving, so now I'm going to act as if I never made that mistake and just drive away.

This war never should have happened--but it did. Voting against the funding bills wasn't a solution, it was an avoidance.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

"Grownups understand that after making a mistake you have to take responsibility for it."

Well then Hillary must be a grownup because she has taken responsibility and is trying to hold the Pentagon accountable and end the war. Cool!

And what is Obama doing besides criticizing Hillary for what she didn't do a long time ago?

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Hillary is more grownup than some other candidates. Yet still, I don't see how it's realistically possible to take responsibility for a mistake she still won't admit to having made. How does that work? Isn't the first step towards taking responsibility that you have to admit you made a mistake?

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I think the first step in taking responsibility for a mistake is to fix the mistake. Words come and go and anyone can say them. Fixing mistakes requires action. To me actions speak much louder and do much more than words on this issue.

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

If someone says

" If I know what I know now I wont vote the same way"

That seems to me to be an admission of a mistake , but some want her to sooth their ego's and use the phrases they want her to use . Majority of people are looking at the future and who is best to move us out safely and they choose Hillary thats why she is leading widely among anti war liberals. So those that are still stuck in that world of apologies and admitting mistakes more power to them , and I personally don't think she has to admit a mistake or apologize .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:09:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

But what does she know now that she didn't know then? I realize she claims not even to have bothered to read the intelligence report, but that's her fault.

And that doesn't seem to me to be an admission of a mistake. That's more like an excuse.

And the reason this is relevant in a Presidential campaign is we're looking for someone who has good enough judgement to NOT make such a stupid mistake. "Apologizing" or "taking responsibility" is nice, but not making the mistake in the first place is way way better.

by Mystylplx on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:15:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

hOW IS SHE HOLDING THE PENTAGON ACCOUNTABLE. dO YOU NOT THINK THEY DON'T ALREADYHAVE CONTINGEMCY PLANS TO LEAVE IRAQ?

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

He would have probably voted against the AUF like the senior senator from IL Dick Durbin and the other 23 Democratic senators.

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Its funny. Reagan sold weapons to the Iranians after they held our citizens as hostages. And Obama wants to talk with the Ahmadinejad with no preconditions.
I see why Obama likes and is just like Reagan. Like two peas in a pod.

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:38:35 PM EST

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Therefore you think it is not in the interest of the US to talk to Iran AND sYRIA TO TRY TO END THIS WAR?

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

I don't think it is in the interest of the United States for the President to have a face to face with leaders that support terrorists. No I don't. I believe we need to have a dialogue with them, just not leader to leader until some preconditions are met, like halting their support of terrorists.

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:49:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Inexperience Growing (none / 0)

I thought she was going to be 60 this month.

Her experience Nixon 1960
Obama youth Kennedy 1960

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:24:03 PM EST

Re: Hillary's naivete in voting for the AUF (none / 0)

Matthews: How would you describe [Sen. Clinton's] position in voting to authorize the war in Iraq believing we weren't going to war, that Bush really didn't intend to go to war. Was that naive?

Wolfson: Look, she's taken responsibility for the vote. She's been asked about this...

Mathews: Wouldn't you call that naive to believe...

Wolfson: No...

Matthews: ...that we're not going to war when everybody thought we were going to war? I thought we were going to war.

Wolfson: I guess 80 percent of the country was naive then.

Matthews: They didn't think Bush would take us to war?

Wolfson: I think people were, believed George Bush was going to do what he said he was going to do, which was to try diplomacy. And he didn't.

Matthews: Anybody who didn't think we were going to war, in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, wasn't paying attention.

Did 80% of Americans believe that President Bush would "try diplomacy" in an effort to avoid a war with Iraq?

Not exactly.

I checked the Iraq archives at the Polling Report. Most of the questions asked in late 2002 focused on whether and under what conditions Americans would support going to war. However, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 1,017 adults conducted November 22-24, 2002 (a month after the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq), showed that a majority of Americans believed President Bush had "already decided" to invade Iraq:

Which comes closer to your view about President Bush? [Rotate:] Bush has already decided to invade Iraq and has agreed to UN inspections mainly to gain international support for that action. OR, Bush has not yet decided whether to invade Iraq and has agreed to UN inspections mainly to determine if an invasion of Iraq were necessary.

58% - Bush has already decided to invade
38% - Bush has not yet decided whether to invade
4% - No opinion

A bit of context on the timing: The U.S. Senate passed the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on October 11, 2002 (with Senator Clinton voting in favor). President Bush signed it into law on October 16. Three weeks later, on November 8, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to "comply with its disarmament obligations" or face "serious consequences." Iraq agreed to the resolution on November 13, and under its terms, U.N. weapons inspectors were set to return to Iraq on November 27 after a four year absence to conduct onsite inspections in search of weapons of mass destruction.

Gallup fielded its survey on November 22-24, just days before the return of the U.N. inspectors, a time when one might expect optimism regarding the use of diplomacy to resolve the conflict. Yet even then, 58% of Americans believed the President had "already decided to invade Iraq."

*With apologizes to Frank Newport, who has made

by BDM on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:47:26 PM EST

Re: Hillary's naivete in voting for the AUF (none / 0)

Isn't it kinda lame to bring up this vote over and over and over again? It is what happened. No one is denying it and no one is lying about it. What we have now is a war that needs to end. Who are the leaders that are trying to end this war and who are the leaders talking about mistakes other leaders made 5 years ago? Rather than move forward and do the sensible, mature, responsible, leadership thing Obama wants us to forget about all that because it should have been done years ago.

How would Obama like it if he was trying to do something about the drug problem in our country and rather than embrace his revolutionary idea people instead jumped on a bandwagon saying he has no right to propose this because he was a drug abuser? Or that he should have thought about what he is proposing now before he started taking drugs and therefore he has no credibility?

Any reasonable person would agree that it would be unfair to do this. But that is exactly what Obama is doing to Hillary. He is trying to assassinate her character because he cannot compete with her ideas and bold leadership. It's what Jim Inhofe does to Al Gore so that people will not listen to his message about global warming. It is the oldest and most effective political strategy in the book. It isn't a new kind of politics regardless of how charismatic the person is doing it.

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 05:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's naivete in voting for the AUF (none / 0)

It's telling that no one addressed this. You can't handle the truth!

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 08:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

Disagree with your comment that no one is lying about it. Clinton has tried to muddy the waters about her continuing support for the war until a few months before last years election. She refuses and has gone out of her way to not admit it was a mistake. How is that a character assassination, confronting her on her positions? She refuses to admit the AUMF was a mistake, and she's trying to slide on that. At least Edwards has acknowledged he mad a mistake.

Obama has led on the issue of withdrawing for Iraq, introducing a bill for withdrawal of all combat troops by March of 2008, which the senate passed but the president vetoed. Clinton wants to "rescend" the AUMF she voted for. Well, what good is that if she believed the AUMF was not an authorization for war? That's just shows more shameless political gamesmanship which has done nothing to bring this war to a close.

Barack has been advocating and urging people at rallies to contact their repub senators to get them to override the Presidents veto and begin withdrawal. All Clinton says is "when I"m president, I'll end the war." How is that bold leadership? Please.

by DrSB on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:36:05 PM EST

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (none / 0)

"Obama has led on the issue of withdrawing for Iraq, introducing a bill for withdrawal of all combat troops by March of 2008, which the senate passed but the president vetoed."

You mean he led once he announced he was running for President right?

Obama voted against the Kerry withdraw plan and voted repeatedly to fund the war. He is a little late claiming to be a leader against the war, and a little opportunistic at that.

Two licks are better than one

by Tommy Twolicks on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 08:35:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack O'Reagan's Precondition Flip-Flop (2.00 / 1)

Oh please, what a bunch of crock. Once again you blind hillary supporters cannot defend anything about you're candidate, so you have to continually attack. I asked you to name one thing Clinton has lead on, and you can't do it. Pathetic. Keep on spinning though.

by DrSB on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 01:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Barry Obama is green - not ready for the big job (none / 0)

This just shows it.

He is still soft and inexperienced. Another 8 years of going toe to toe with Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott in the Senate may toughen him up a bit.

by dpANDREWS on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:31:32 PM EST

Mitch McConnell (none / 0)

Mitch McConnell won't be in the Senate that long.

by horizonr on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 07:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.