More specifically: Obama was against setting a deadline for withdrawal before he was for it and against withdrawing immediatley before he was for it.

Here's Today's New York Times (read the whole article, it's a good summary of Obama's time in the Senate):

Quote :

"Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down..He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1205082031-3DGE8zwCeprL+OEot3vskQ

Here are Obama's remarks in 2006 the NYT article is referring to:

Quote :

"But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them. It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way. As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end. But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home. What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy. "

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

Here is Obama about 10 months later (also in NYT):

Quote :

"“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops,” Mr. Obama said. “Not in six months or one year — now.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?ref=politics

Now, this doesn't have to be a change in position. Obama's 2007 Iraq War De-Escalation Act has several caveats for withdrawal. For example, if the Iraqi government meets several benchmarks layed out by the Bush Administration, we will halt withdrawals (see Washington Post article bellow). So one could say that his legislation isn't about leavin Iraq per se, but about letting the Iraqis know we could leave. And that this might give them more incentive to start meeting our goals. I don't think it's a good idea, but it would be consistant with his earlier statements. It would also open up the possibility that we will be in Iraq for an undetermined amount of time, which would limit Obama's ability to attack McCain on Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

Personally, I agree with the 2006 Obama. I think 2007 Obama's plan is naive and over optimistic. Which one are we voting for?????

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ``]

3/9/2008 12:28:31 PM

Please excuse the typo in the title. It should be Withdrawal not Withdrawl.

3/9/2008 12:30:31 PM

3/9/2008 12:31:38 PM

So, what you're saying is that he thought one way, but when he realized that his constituents would like him to do something else, he changed his policy?

Gosh, There seems to be a name for that, but I can't remember...

Oh yeah, democracy

3/9/2008 12:35:38 PM

I'm not gonna go look it up or anything...

But did you ever argue about the flip-flop shit when Kerry was running?

3/9/2008 12:43:51 PM

GameCat,

The point isn't that Obama flip-flopped. I have no problem with candidates changing position if they have changed their minds.

But my point is that Obama might not be a flip-flopper. One could very easily read his remarks in 2006 and 2007 as saying that we will stay in Iraq for an undetermined period of time so long as we are meeting the benchmarks established by the Bush administration. That's essentially what his 2007 legislation says and that is mostly consistant with his position in 2006.

But it isn't clear if that's what he actually thinks we should do.

Doesn't that bother you?
Most of his supporters think we will be almost totally out of Iraq by 2009, but he has left plenty of wiggle room for us to stay much longer. His position on the biggest issue of this campaign is unclear! And you're more concerned about whether I approve of "flip-flopping"??????? FUCK!

Does no one give a fuck about the issues on this board?

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ``]

3/9/2008 12:53:46 PM

didnt mccain originally not support the bush tax cuts?


BEFORE HE SUPPORTED THEM??

3/9/2008 12:54:47 PM

owned

And no.

It doesn't bother me.

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM. Reason : wtf do you think i'm on the dude's mailing list or something?]

3/9/2008 12:55:38 PM

DNL, yes. But this isn't about flip-flopping.

The point is that Obama's position on the biggest issue of this campaign is unclear. His supporters think he favores immediate withdrawal. That simply may not be the case.

Wasn't that a big issue for you? Isn't that why you are voting for Obama over McCain?

How can this News not affect you? It should make you question your sole reason for supporting Obama. Instead you're worried about me??????

No one actually gives a fuck on this board. How can you people be so emotional about shit you don't care about?

3/9/2008 1:00:11 PM

Iraq is a huge issue for me. Frankly, even what the Clinton campaign is accusing him of beats the hell out of John McCain's plan to escalate the conflict.

But refusing to vote remains a perfectly acceptable alternative to me.

This news doesn't affect me because I haven't been hypnotized. Get your head out of your ass, Socks``. I don't have stars in my eyes over Barack Obama. He's young, but he's still a politician, and a Senator at that.

You're simply repeating qualified charges that he may not executive an immediate withdrawal if elected.

News for you: John McCain may immediately invade Iran if elected! Hillary Clinton may not be able to implement universal healthcare!

ZOMG!

3/9/2008 1:15:45 PM

yeah i kinda dont want to vote in this election honestly

3/9/2008 1:17:23 PM

Gamecat

That's great.

But your opinions of Obama are not what this thread is about. It's also not about my opinions on flip-flopping or my opinions on Obama more generally. It's about how Obama's position on the biggest issue of 2008 and the center piece of his campaign is 100% unclear! His supporters need to know that.

If your only contribution to this thread is "I don't care about Obama because I'm not voting", then we don't need to discuss anything.

[/end]

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ``]

3/9/2008 1:23:51 PM

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

Have fun everyone!

3/9/2008 1:41:58 PM

If his opinion is unclear then I see that as a good thing. It means that depending on what the status of Iraq is, if he takes office, he will base his decision on that at the correct time.



[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 8:17 PM. Reason : dgdfg]

3/9/2008 8:16:13 PM

Anyone else find it a little bit weird that Socks`` returned from a long absence so he could post solely and exclusively about how much he doesn't like Barack Obama?

Also that the tactics he's using are now pretty much identical to tactics that I'm sure he's gleefully mocked in the past?

3/9/2008 10:40:22 PM

Reading this thread again, I can really sympathize with Socks``. I mean, come on. This isn't a great set of choices we've got.

It's like, 2008 was a tremendous opportunity for radical changes to what's amounted to 8 years of unmitigated disaster. (Smoker4, TGD, et. al. - Told ya so!) But the opportunity has been filled by three choices, none great:

1) Televangelist - Inspirational, radically progressive but costly ideas sold through vague language.

2) Ice Queen - Knowledgeable, ultimately running on merit-by-association strategy and art of war campaign machine.

3) Grandpa - Courageous, bravely insistent that we make sure "terrorists" stay off our collective lawn and willing to embrace very old methods of effecting that.

There's a personality element behind Socks``'s frustration, I think. People are flocking to the Televangelist without asking about the economic impacts of his promises. As an economist, this must frustrate the piss out of poor Socks``.

After all, we can trust Grandpa to spend money wisely, right?

About that exceedingly real trillion dollar war on "terror"...

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 11:03 PM. Reason : ...]

3/9/2008 11:00:45 PM

$12 Billion per month, in Iraq alone. can't say im seeing much ROI.

economy is heading for recession and the oil companies are dry fucking us all in the asshole while turning record profits.

yeah, electing grandpa to defend the status quo sure does sound like a good plan to me.

3/9/2008 11:18:51 PM

WIKIPRESIDENT '08

3/9/2008 11:41:24 PM

my dream scenario is a dem winning and oil dropping like 20 dollars immediately

3/9/2008 11:52:32 PM

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

3/10/2008 12:20:36 AM

Quote :

"my dream scenario is a dem winning and oil dropping like 20 dollars immediately "

dnl, someone has really screwed you up. Did gas prices drop in 06 when dems say if elected they would? No.

Do you think by raising the taxes on gas companies it will cause the price to drop? No

How exactly do you think by electing a dem prices will drop 20?

3/10/2008 8:16:13 AM

did gas prices drop --or hell, even stabilize -- when we were welcomed as liberators with flowery parades in the streets of Iraq?

where's Rummy these days, I wonder.

3/10/2008 2:11:53 PM

GrumpyGOP, Do you think I didn't realize the title of my thread echoed the Republican attacks on Kerry in '04? The difference is that I am not whinning about "flip-flopping". I'm making a substantive claim that Obama's position on the biggest issue of '08 is far from clear. The title was created to be a little sensational to get people to click on the thread (plus I thought it was kinda funny at the time). Unfortunatley, few people have taken the time to read the post or the quotes. In retrospect, I should have used less loaded language. I'm suprised you've been as quite in these discussions as you have been.

Gamecat has it mostly right. I spent the last 7 years bitching about Bush (in retrospect it's all it really amounted to). I went to a few protest ralleys (back when I thought they did any good), wrote some op-eds for my local paper, volunteered at my hometown's Dem HQ in the summer of '04, voted for Representative Heath Shuler in 2006 (my districts contribution to the Dem Congressional Take Over). I wasn't changing the world, but I cared about what was going on and I tried to do my part.

Now we get to the big pay-off and the best thing the Democrats have to offer is Obama? A man who's policy positions are mostly mediocre or ill concieved and who's career has been characterized more by ambition than accomplishment? It's a little sad. And it's a little frustrating so few people realize it.

[Edited on March 11, 2008 at 2:48 AM. Reason : ``]

3/11/2008 2:46:50 AM

^ I understand your feelings about Obama, but do you honestly think Hillary is a better candidate?

She reeks of political rhetoric, and doesn't strike me as having any type of moral or ethical compass, or desire to actually do good. She is just your run-of-the-mill power hungry politician.

3/11/2008 2:54:52 AM

^ Funny, that's actually how I characterize Obama.

His entire career has been about nothing other than political rhetoric and ambition. IOW: He's spent more time talking and vying for higher office than actually getting things done.

When he was a state legislator, he acted like his job was about being elected as US Senator (he also ran for congress after only two 2-year state-senate terms and lost). Here's a reported conversation he had with former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones:

Quote :

"“He said to me, ‘You’re now the Senate president,’ ” Mr. Jones recalled. “ ‘You have a lot of power.’ I said, ‘I do?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Tell me what kind of power I have.’ He said, ‘You have the power to make a U.S. senator.’ I said, ‘I do?’ He said, ‘You do.’ I said, ‘If I’ve got that kind of power, do you know of anyone that I can make?’ He said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ ”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1205223025-fTdx06BUotu/8iid70n6og

Now that he's a US Senator, his job has become about getting elected President. As the NYT said, he has kept his head down and followed the polls.

Quote :

"Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down..He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1205082031-3DGE8zwCeprL+OEot3vskQ

Why should I trust this man to be a good President?

Now, that doesn't mean Hillary is better than Obama. I think she suffers from similar flaws, though I think her policy positions are a little better than his.

Really, I think the best candidate is John McCain. But even he is damaged goods compared to where he was in 2000.

[Edited on March 11, 2008 at 3:37 AM. Reason : ``]

3/11/2008 3:20:35 AM