Town Square

Post a New Topic

Obama backtracking on Iraq

Original post made by Gary, Downtown North, on Jul 3, 2008

As predicted by yours truly, Barack is now racing to reverse his promise to withdraw from Iraq, ASAP. Now, it seems, he is actually going to listen to the commanders on the ground in Iraq. No more timetables. No more over the horizon stuff.

Web Link

Except for the fact that he opposed the liberation of Iraq, he is now being schooled by GWB.

If Obama is elected, don't be surprised when he reinstitutes conscription. After all, there are real challenges out there in the world, and Barack will need to race to catch up to them.

Expect extemists to attack their former glamour boy.

Our local hatriots are not going to feel good about this, either.

However, I feel very good about it! It is a good July 4th present to the nation.

Comments (14)

Like this comment
Posted by Dick Cheney
a resident of another community
on Jul 3, 2008 at 3:00 pm

The real "hatriots" are those that blindly follow Bush/Cheney and feel that everything that has occurred since 9/11 is "okay" since "we are fighting terrorism" and "giving up our freedoms is okay in that case".

I actually favor a return to conscription--a no excuse draft of everyone and anyone after high school--no exemptions, no excuses. That will be the quickest way to ensure that we do not get involved in another Iraq "fiasco".

Interesting, however, that Gary has written off McCain already

Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 3, 2008 at 4:04 pm

"I actually favor a return to conscription--a no excuse draft of everyone and anyone after high school--no exemptions, no excuses"

Dick, I agree! In fact, I think it should be a requirement for franchise, public college attendance, public office . No serve, no admission, no vote, no city council/school board, etc. I favor it retrospectively (for all of us who have not yet served in the military, or an appropriate substitute).

I also agree with you that it would be more difficult to enter wars, although not, nearly, impossible. In fact, it would probably mean even more bloody wars, but that is a political choice, and we are a democracy.

Oh no, I have not written off McCain. He has flipped flopped to (now) support off-shore drilling, still supports nuclear, supported the surge in Iraq (a real winner); however, he is not not exciting to the naive...this could be his downfall, in the end. I wish Obama was on my side, because I like him, and he is talented. He is, however, about 10 years away, because is so naive, and he panders (and lies) to his base to an extreme extent. McCain is a known quantity, with pluses and minuses, and he served, honorably, in the military. I will vote for McCain, even though I am not burning with desire to do so.

On the "hatriot" issue, I have been very clear about this. If Obama wins, and he enters into a foreign war, you will not hear me criticizing him, as commander in chief. I will just trust that he has the best interests of this country at heart (I think he does). Unfortunately, the current hatriots would rather see Iraq go south, than to see Bush get credit for its liberation. That is odious, and hateful...that is why "hatriot" is the appropritate word.

Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 3, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Funny, as if the war on terror couldn't have been fought in a way other than botched. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 3, 2008 at 5:38 pm


The point of this thread is that Barack is now backtracking. I have long predicted that he would do so, becasue he is a rational person. The liberation of Iraq is the major event of human freedom in this new century, thus far. GWB led the charge, and he will get the historical credit. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] According to you and yours, Iraq was in a good position, becasue Saddam was a shield against al qaeda...just like Hitler was a shield against bolshevism.

I am comfortable in joining FDR in rejecting such moral nonsense.

Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 3, 2008 at 5:53 pm

The point that you continually gloss over is the *mishandling* of this war effort.

GWBush will be remembered as a bungler - as the worst American President on record, period. He will be remembered as someone who used crisis to ERODE democracy, and DAMAGE freedom. He will be remembered as someone who caused a great mess, left to others to clean up - just like the days before he became President, when he walked in a drunken, dope-laden haze (brain damage? hmmmm), failing in one business after another, avoiding military duties, driving drunk, and bailed out constantly by Daddy Bush.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 3, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Mike, you are big on bungling during war. May I suggest that you do at least a minimum of reserach on the Battle of the Bulge, during WWII? That one bungle by FDR was much bigger than the entire Iraq war, and most of the casualties happened in three days.

GWB is the liberator of Iraq and Afghanistan. He did it with relatively low cost of national blood and treasure.

Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 3, 2008 at 9:40 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

George Bush and his minions BUNGLED the Iraqi operation in so many ways that most observers have lost count. That's been admitted to by so many people who were *part* of the Iraqi strategizing that onlny a naive bystander would claim anything else other than the fact taht george Bush made the first move to eliminate Saddam. That first move was bungled, and every move after that was bungled, so they has to introduce this "surge".

George Bush is the most incompetent President in the history of this country, and I can't WAIT to see the history books as his sorry behind leaves office.

Like this comment
Posted by Reality Check
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 3, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Saddam was on the payroll when he was at war against Iran. Bush I cut him off and he went for Kuwait. If Bush I kept him on the payroll none of the subsequent actions would have happened, most especially $5/gal gas.

Botched foreign policy from the right, Yeah absolutely!

But the left is culpable too. The left's concept of "human rights" is skewed by the western experience. A brutal repressive dictator is needed to keep order in a backward environment such as Iraq. Bush II isn't up to that task, nor is Obama or McCain

Like this comment
Posted by B.O. flaps in the wind
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 4, 2008 at 7:10 am

Back to the original post..I had to crack up when Obama said that he wanted us out "within 16 months" of taking office, but was open to revision after he goes to Iraq.

What happened to within 6 months? I am glad to see that, as much as I despise him, he CAN at least pretend to be for victory.

Of course, if he is speaking, he is either lying or ignorant.

He has yet to use the words "win" or "victory" in referring to is always "end" if there is no way to "win". He WANTS this to end badly for the USA to vindicate the position he has had all along. But, what do you expect from a guy who puts his picture on the Presidential Seal, refuses a flag pin because of "what it represents", refuses to sing the national anthem because it is "too warlike", states that educated people don't go into the military ( though the education level of our military is higher than our nation's), and claims that only the ignorant and scared cling to their guns, racism and religion in defense?

This guy is a real and true danger to the future of this country. And, because he sounds pretty like Carter did, I fear that we will just have to accept that this generation will have learn the hard way, like mine did, about what happens with a far left socialist pacifist in office with a far left democrat congress. Pity our youth will have to pay the price. We older ones are set.

Like this comment
Posted by keep the military volunteer
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 4, 2008 at 7:15 am

BTW, yes, Obama will want the draft back. The only ones who want the draft back, over the objection of the entire military, are the ones who want to build dislike of the military, and what better way to do it than to conscript? Research which 2 congresssmen keep bringing up the idea of a draft...the farthest left in the bunch.

Leave the military to those who are smart enough and dedicated enough to actually do a good job. Keep it volunteer. We don't want forced conscription in our military.

Like this comment
Posted by Happy July 4th
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 4, 2008 at 7:15 am

BTW, Happy July 4th! Try to remember what we are actually celebrating today!

Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 4, 2008 at 9:38 am

"We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."--Obama

"We will be there for 100 years."--McCain


Which is the more thoughtful and sensible statement?

There is no victory, no clean ending to this matter.

What does a timetable mean, whether it is McCain's 100 years or Obama's 16 months to withdraw US combat forces? Neither is particularly helpful in its specificity, but both indicate what the general approach will be depending on who is elected.

I predict that the "flip flop" rhetoric will become tiresome around both candidates before the summer is out. They each have done so, should one choose to view it that way. Ironically, one of the biggest and most legitimate criticisms of Shrub is his stubborness, his inability or disinclination to modify his approach when he gets new facts presented to him.

So we go from a stubborn mule to a flip flopper? The truth lies somewhere in between.

Obama has not flip flopped from his original statement, cited above. It is nuanced, and sensible, and it is clear that he intends to get the US dis-engaged from the Iraq matter as quickly as possible, and as responsibly as possible. Compared with the bluster from Shrub and the open ended 100 years from McCain, Obama has provided a specific understanding of how he will view and approach this matter. Agree or disagree with it, but don't call it flip flopping.

Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 4, 2008 at 11:49 am

"We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in" (Obama).

There is no "careful" way to preserve stability in Iraq, if the intent is to get out, no matter what. If Obama'a intention is to withdraw, then the military can accomplish this task within months. Therefore, I fail to what Obama is talking about...makes no sense. A timeline, without a vision of victory (thus conditions of the ground), is a disaster in the making...Barack needs to come clean, becasue he is not fooling rational people, especially those in the military.

Like this comment
Posted by nuanced, shmuanced
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 4, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Oh yes, the ever famous and popular with the left "nuanced" position.

Translation: Uncommitted and meaningless

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Nobu Palo Alto eyes next-door expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,207 views

Are We Really Up To This?
By Aldis Petriceks | 3 comments | 1,745 views

Joe Simitian talk: Listening to Trump's America: Bridging the Divide
By Douglas Moran | 32 comments | 1,093 views

Couples: Cultivate Love, Gottman Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 505 views

It's contagious
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 181 views