It is beyond me how anyone, after a detailed review, could think Barack Obama qualified to become president of the United States (I used to before my own detailed review). His campaign has been a perpetual Beatles concert, with not only the girls swooning.Will anyone notice that his stance on Iraq has evolved to be just like the other Establishment candidates? With Barack Obama, we've known for a long time that What You See Is NOT What You Get.
It's still not too late to admit that Ron Paul is/was the best candidate for President of the United States in 2008. Several of you chose Barack Obama as your candidate primarily because of his far different stance from John McCain regarding the Iraq war and occupation.
Only one presidential candidate has been consistent on his opposition to the Iraq War--Ron Paul.
Barack Obama, the closer he gets to the nomination, the more he aligns the orbit of his earth with the Establishment's sun.
Hillary Clinton supports it. For a long time, Barack Obama fooled you into thinking that he didn't. What will you do now that he has marked yet another checkmark in the Obama book of fibs?Iraq's al Alam newspaper is reporting that Obama's 16-month troop-removal timetable is still in effect, but that it's essentially anybody's guess when the 16-month period will ever begin.
"We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force," Obama told the magazine while approaching Paris during a high-profile foreign tour, which included stops in Iraq and Afghanistan.Aha! So it's only a partial removal and begins at quarter after we-don't-know-when!
"We're going to have to continue to train their army and police to make them more effective," the Illinois senator added, calling such support consistent with his proposal for a 16-month timetable for withdrawing US combat troops.
Asked if he had a clearer idea after talks with diplomatic and military officials how big a force would need to be left behind for those tasks, Obama replied: "I do think that's entirely conditions-based."
"It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now," he said.
After hearing the realignment of Obama, the John McCain campaign stated the reality correctly.
"Barack Obama is ultimately articulating a position of sustained troop levels in Iraq based on the conditions on the ground and the security of the country. That is the very same position that John McCain has long held," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.The presidential race is still a dogfight in other (mostly less meaningful) areas, but now, on yet another very fundamental issue, both candidates agree--and both candidates are wrong. McCain is none too sad that Obama has gravitated to his own imperialistic way of thinking.
"We welcome this latest shift in Senator Obama's position, but it is obvious that it was only a lack of experience and judgment that kept him from arriving at this position sooner," the campaign said in a statement.
Very few Americans supported or now support the Iraq war and occupation.
Once again, when we could have had a choice, we end up with no choice.
To the question "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?", asked by CBS News on July 7-14, 2008 (for archived polling results, try here), 59% said we should have stayed out.Only one presidential candidate has been consistent on his opposition to the Iraq War--Ron Paul. Because Congress never declared war on Iraq, an honest president has no other Constitutional alternative but to bring the troops home.
Barack Obama, the closer he gets to the nomination, the more he aligns the orbit of his earth with the Establishment's sun.
Once again, when we could have had a choice, we end up with no choice.
Are you....seriously....surprised?
IMHO Senator Obama's position hasn't changed at all. What he says now is what he's said all during the campaign.
ReplyDeleteMost Americans want out of Iraq. Obama's plan ends the occupation, but not American involvement. The Green Zone forces are still dependent on U.S. combat support and logistical units.
OTOH Bush and McCain are doing some Olympic-level verbal gymnastics to justify their newfound desire for an Iraq withdrawal timetable.
Hope you don't mind the link to One Utah, but this is a special occasion!
Barack has said from the beginning that this isn't about Democrats or Republicans but that this is about AMERICANS.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the current administration or John McCain's Campaign, Barack has acknowledged from the beginning that nothing is set in stone, Policy must evolve and policy must change to meet the needs of the situation.
That being said, Barack has been saying the same thing since the war started. He has continued to say that we will withdraw from Iraq, and had you bothered to do any actual research into the topic you would have came to this conclusion as well.
So please spare us your fake disillusionment, you never had any intentions of voting for Barack for president yet feel that somehow it would lend a sense or genuine concern to your blog post.
LOLly,
ReplyDeleteWhat fake disillusionment? I found out long ago that Obama was a chameleon. It's been quite some time since my euphoria for Obama wore off. I see you are part of the Beatles concert that I was talking about.
The whole difference is that he has claimed that he wanted to get America out of Iraq, but now he's hedging on that. We have NO BUSINESS running Iraq's affairs.
(This is also a question for Richard:) Knowing that Obama (now? always has?) wants/wanted to maintain American influence over Iraq, do you plan to vote for him?
Obama is as Establishment as they come. He's no less of an Imperialist than McCain.
Ron Paul is a much better choice. Bob Barr is a much better choice. Ralph Nader is a much better choice.
There's no doubt that people now think it was bad idea to go into Iraq. That's the advantage of hindsight. Back in '02 and '03 Americans wanted to kick Saddam's butt. They underestimated the cost in the Iraq incursion. Now they rue it as they would a bad investment.
ReplyDeleteBut that does not mean that most Americans agree that pulling out of Iraq post haste is a good idea. Most feel that we can at least make lemonade out of the lemons we have. Not that many strongly agree with Paul's position. Note that I'm not commenting about the rightness or wrongness of the position; only about how people see it.
On the Obama personality cult thing, Michael Knox Beran offers this provocative article that explores the phenomenon. It's a long article with some egghead-long words in it, but it offers a fascinating perspective.
I too seem to remember Obama long using phrases like, "conditions on the ground" and "commanders in the field" - just like McCain and Bush have used for 5 years.
ReplyDeleteReach,
ReplyDeleteIt may be true that not many people agree with Ron Paul, but it's only because they haven't listened to what he's saying. As president, if the Congress declared war on Iraq, he would be obligated to send the military to war, but since they haven't he is obligated to bring the troops home.
I liked the idea in the article you linked to that Obama's chiding of Republicans as absolutists masks his intention of becoming one himself--of the opposite variety, in forcing all to be community-minded. An obstacle for him and his charisma is that "adherence to the West's traditional morality would prevent such a [Machiavellian] leader from being properly ruthless in the pursuit of his ideal".
Also, this quote hails to my concept of the "perpetual Beatles concert":
"he revives one of the more pernicious political swindles: the belief that a charismatic leader can ordain a civic happy hour and give a people a sense of community that will make them feel less bad."
He's the political equivalent of new age Christian shyster Joel Osteen.
Cameron,
I agree. I watched some news clips on YouTube, to see Obama has been consistent. He says he has, but this clip is pretty good indication that he hasn't.
The important point to make is that this is a Constitutional--not a political--question. None of the establishment candidates sees the import of that. Paul, Barr, and Chuck Baldwin do.
And now Obama is saying that we need to indefinitely leave American personnel behind to train police and military, and to be the "counter-terrorism strike force." Sounds pretty McCainish to me.
"The important point to make is that this is a Constitutional--not a political--question."
ReplyDeleteAmen.
Frank, I have no plans to vote for Obama but I do expect him to be the next president. Is Ron Paul going to be on the ballot? What party?
ReplyDeleteSince this is Utah, the outcome is predetermined and we are free to vote for minor candidates.
"Only one presidential candidate has been consistent on his opposition to the Iraq War--Ron Paul."
ReplyDeleteUntrue. Nader has been just as consistent in his opposition, as has Cynthia McKinney (Green Party). And that presumes you are only talking about current presidential candidates: Kucinich and Gravel were both at least as opposed to the conquest of Iraq as Paul.
And you are correct, this is a Constitutional issue as much as a political and moral one. And I would posit that Nader's stand is just as much based on the Constitutional issue as Paul's.
ReplyDeleteDerek,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, and I stand corrected. I wish that I lived in SLC sometimes, so that I could attend events more easily, such as the recent speech of Ralph Nader. I find it remarkable that Ralph Nader is even more marginalized from the national political conversation than is Ron Paul.
I think a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for improvement in our current national situation.
I remember commenting back and forth with Richard Warnick and Cliff Lyon (here or on OneUtah.org) about how they had voted for Nader in 2004. I have a great deal of respect for that.