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.