On Iraq, Obama Is Leading Like Bush Did

For Iraq being such a hot-button political issue, one that won Obama the election and lost Bush the trust of the American people, nothing much seems to be changing in terms of our nation’s policy on the war.

In June 2006, President Obama spoke on the Senate floor about how irresponsible it would be to withdraw quickly from Iraq. That November, as soon as the 2006 election cycle was over and he found himself facing Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries, he announced the need for an immediate withdrawal. Three months before the Iowa caucuses, in September 2007, he declared that he would “have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months” of his inauguration, and that “we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.”
To this point, Obama’s shifting positions on what to do in Iraq have been based on political considerations and not necessarily the reality of the situation there. So it is anyone’s guess what has pushed him toward the new position announced today: He plans to stay in Iraq until at least the beginning of 2012 with 50,000 troops. For those paying attention, that is exactly how long President Bush planned on staying in Iraq.

As I’ve said before, I’m fine with Obama’s plan for Iraq. The question for Obama is, will his far-left base be fine with it?

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array jimmypop

    And the person who was elected was so, in part, on ending this war. If he doesn’t end it, I cannot imagine that boding well for him in 2012.

    huh? who is this dumb ass? they were voted into power to end the war in 2006! what did he think was going to happen now? these are the same fools that forget we are still in germany, italy and japan.

  • http://www.homeopathy-consultation.com/ drdurdana

    I think Obama is a capable leader. I am with him on this no matter what his decision is.

  • AR-15

    ar, you aren’t going to get anything rational out of rr.  I think his track is stuck or he’s high on something since he keeps posting the same ridiculous ‘the war is illegal’ over and over..and over.

    I hear ya. I just had to respond. I want to know what the Jedi master’s plan for peace is and who will lead it.

  • jimmypop

    and barry is a baby killer. please dont EVER forget that. sadly it only took him only days into office to achieve this status.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/revitol-stretch-mark-cream Luke Sneddon

    he can't just pull the troops out from Iraq as soon as he is in office. That means the war was meaningless. I am not saying that it is justified in the first place. We have got involved and should finish to male it worth whiled

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    I noticed that MSUM, peacenik, Phil Mouch isn't happy.<img src='http://i34.tinypic.com/2l96tes.jpg'&gt;

    Consequences
    Posted on February 27th, 2009 by jbnimble in Politics

    Elections have consequences. I've heard that recently. Elections have consequences. The person who wins the election gets to move forward with his or her agenda. That's the thrust of this observation. The consequences are that the people voted in favor of one agenda over a competing one.

    So it was with some annoyance that I listened to Obama's proposal for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Combat troops will be on the ground for three months longer than he promised in the campaign, and many of the troops left there until the next year, toward the end of the withdrawal time frame. And non-combat troops left in Iraq into 2011.

    For me, the damning praise came from John McCain, who said he was pleased about Obama's plan. McCain. Obama's opponent in the election last year. The person who said Obama's proposal for Iraq was wrong. Is there any need to go on? If McCain likes this plan, then is it really still what Obama promised during the campaign?

    I have known, from the beginning, that Obama wasn't perfect. I wouldn't agree with everything he's done. But we didn't elect John McCain. The people spoke in the last election. And they clearly want this illegal and immoral war over. And it makes me very nervous to see Obama's promises on ending this war slipping yet again.

    Elections have consequences. And the person who was elected was so, in part, on ending this war. If he doesn't end it, I cannot imagine that boding well for him in 2012.

    <a href="http://overacandle.com/” target=”_blank”>http://overacandle.com/

  • jimmypop

    And the person who was elected was so, in part, on ending this war. If he doesn't end it, I cannot imagine that boding well for him in 2012.

    huh? who is this dumb ass? they were voted into power to end the war in 2006! what did he think was going to happen now? these are the same fools that forget we are still in germany, italy and japan.

  • http://norseberserker.blogspot.com/ Rugby Reader

    Just as wrong as Bush. Just as illegal. The war crime continues…

  • docdave

    I think Obama is a capable leader. I am with him on this no matter what his decision is.

    So you're willing to go down with the ship? Some would say that's bravery, others would say that foolhardy. I say that Obamas not worth your devotion.

  • AR-15

    Just as wrong as Bush.  Just as illegal.  The war crime continues…

    So what should America do all knowing one? Wait till we are surrounded by communists and dictators before we fight back? Because that is exactly what will happen if America minds it's own business. I'm sure evil countries with expansion ideas wouldn't attack our allies if we didn't defend them…right RR?
    I know your against war but you gotta keep it real man.

  • Bat One

    Just as wrong as Bush. Just as illegal. The war crime continues…

    RR,

    Apparently Obama, the lefty, is no more interested in your position than was his predecessor, Mr. Bush. Imagine that!

  • docdave

    ar, you aren't going to get anything rational out of rr. I think his track is stuck or he's high on something since he keeps posting the same ridiculous 'the war is illegal' over and over..and over.

  • checkers

    the war goes on yet the protesters in our small central Ohio town who used to be on the street corner daily at lunch are gone. Were they really against the war or just against Bush? Pretty obvious to me. Hypocrites. If the war is bad they should still be there daily, like they were before..

  • http://norseberserker.blogspot.com/ Rugby Reader

    Those weren't communists that attacked US on 9/11. Iraq didn't attack US either.

  • robert108

    Iraq didn't attack US either.

    The Germans didn't attack us either, in WWII. So what? Saddam was a supporter of Islamic terrorism, besides terrorizing his own people for over 20 years. We established a beachhead of modern civilization in the heart of medieval Islam, along with freeing the Iraqi people for self-determination.
    You're just another lying, antiwar puke coward.

  • robert108

    I think Obama is a capable leader.

    Obama has failed every test of leadership so far.

  • http://norseberserker.blogspot.com/ Rugby Reader

    Right on cue, thanks r108. See what I mean?

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    RR, if you were any denser, you'd be in danger of gravitational collapse. Nearly everyone here knows that Iraq wasn't invaded because of WMDs or 9/11 or because of Bush Sr. and you're pretty much the only one at this point still throwing those straw men out there.

    Nice to see Obama bowing to reality at least once. His drawdown in no different than Bush's because both were based on a constantly retuned ongoing developing plan that went hand in had with the Iraqi capabilities.

  • http://norseberserker.blogspot.com/ Rugby Reader

    Nearly everyone here knows that Iraq wasn't invaded because of WMDs or 9/11

    Right, because that is exactly what Bush and Cheney told US in 2003. And that dickhead at the DoD, Rumnuts, whatever.

  • robert108

    RR: You lie again; we deposed a murdering dictator; we did not "invade" a country. Only Saddam's forces and AQ terrorists(not Iraqis) fought against us, not the Iraqi people.
    You lie again about WMD; captured documents prove that Saddam did indeed have WMD of several types, but while we dithered in Afghanistan for eighteen months(a tactical blunder, due to Dem politics), Saddam was able to hide most of them in the desert or ship them to Syria. Even the Duelfer Report reveals that he intended to ratchet up his WMD program as soon as his oil for food bribery scam got the sanctions lifted.
    Even so, WMD was only one of a laundry list of reasons for deposing Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people to self-determination, so you continue to parrot the same antiwar puke lies.

  • Hannitized

    Nearly everyone here knows that Iraq wasn't invaded because of WMDs or 9/11.

    God help us…..the right is already attempting to change history.

    Imagine that?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development