What happens if McCain

[boston bean]

makes this an issue:

WASHINGTON - In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.


"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."


edit to add link: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/

[DarienComp]

1. Deleted

thanks for the link

[JeffR]

4. Here's more from the piece

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.

Obama spoke out passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved.

During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/

[DarienComp]

7. Something tells me that if McCain wants to make this an issue, Obama will be fine.

[boston bean]

so all of the sudden it's not as cut and dry huh. why does obama mislead? nt

[JeffR]

23. That's your response to the posted quote?

Okay then.

[Mooney]

2. Obama could say he changed his mind.

It happens, you know.

[boston bean]

3. he's always been against the war though. nt

[Mooney]

5. So?

Why would that undermine the argument that he changed his mind?

[boston bean]

6. he said in the last debate that he has always been against the war. nt

[DarienComp]

8. You mean because he's against the war, he necessarily has to advocate immediate and total withdrawal

regardless of how many American and Iraqi lives could be endangered by such a rash move?

[boston bean]

10. so he isn't going to get the troops out pronto? nt

[DarienComp]

13. He has said as much.

"I want us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." He says this repeatedly.

[Mooney]

15. He never said "I'm pulling the plug on day one."

As Hillary Clinton supporters are fond of pointing out, Obama has consistently voted to continue funding the war. Anyone who believes that he supports an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq is making that up themselves.

[boston bean]

Really, I suggest you inform your du O supporter friends then. nt

[DarienComp]

42. Uh we don't need to.

They know.

[Mooney]

43. Show me where any Obama supporter here has said he supports

an immediate, unconditional withdrawal from Iraq.

Post ONE link. You sound very sure of it, so I'm sure you'll have no problem finding one.

I'll wait.

[DarienComp]

50. Get comfortable, I don't think she's gonna get around to providing us evidence until, um, never.

[Labors of Hercules]

51. tick tock...

my arm is getting tired.

[Mooney]

11. He wouldn't be the first Democrat to oppose the war

but espouse a belief that we needed to stay until the country was stable. That was a very prevalent view in 2004. Four years later, it's clear that the situation has gotten worse and we have to consider withdrawing.

[boston bean]

14. so the prevalent view and mood of the country in 2002 meant nothing. the war is all Hillary's fault

only obama gets a pass?

[Mooney]

16. What the fuck are you talking about?

[boston bean]

20. you can't comprehend? nt

[Mooney]

24. No, your post is two poorly-formed, presumptuous, rhetorical run-on questions.

Right now your post just kind of reads like you hurriedly banged it out while looking away and talking to somebody.

Form a coherent sentence. You can do it.

[boston bean]

28. I can always tell when something hits a nerve and his voice saying

it would be destablizing for national security will be used.

[Mooney]

29. What hit a nerve?

And whose voice are you referring to?

[boston bean]

31. did you read the OP, go back and read it. nt

[Mooney]

37. I did read it. And I answered it.

Then you turned into an incoherent raving lunatic. I asked for clarification. You started waving your arms around and going "JLDHZGv;LADhs"Blh'FSLBDKNG:TE"

[JeffR]

32. You realize you won't get clarification, right?

:)

[boston bean]

34. to bad you posted after I replied. foolish. nt

[DarienComp]

40. No, see, "reply" and "clarification" are two different words with two different meanings.

[JeffR]

41. Perhaps you don't understand.

You could have posted 26 responses to that question, and none of them would have made any more sense than what you've already posted. Nice try, though.

[Mooney]

39. I'm not expecting one.

She confuses "responding" with "clarifying."

[DarienComp]

22. What, indeed.

I keep mistakenly assuming that MassDemm is debating in good faith. She's not. She's picking a fight, as usual.

[Mooney]

26. She's not even doing that well.

Picking a fight involves making a coherent statement of some kind.

[DarienComp]

45. Well, who knows, maybe English isn't her first language.

:shrug:

[Mooney]

47. She could post some nice pictures.

[endarkenment]

9. Hi MassDemm you left out a bit.

"But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned."

Obama opposed the war in 2002 because "they had not made the case for war". Like many others, once we went to war anyway, Obama thought that we had to at least make a go of establishing a stabile Iraqi state. By 2005 he started to realize that this was impossible and that it was our occupation itself that was and would continue to be the major destabilizing factor.

"In November of 2005, after it had become clear that US troops faced a raging insurgency, Obama argued in a speech before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that the US military should scale down its presence, but that US troops were "still part of the solution" in Iraq

...

As Obama mulled a presidential run, he began to reach out to a series of military leaders, including those who did not agree with him on Iraq.

When Richard Danzig, a former Navy secretary, organized two meetings for Obama with retired military officers, Danzig asked whether he should invite officers who opposed Obama's views. The answer was yes, Danzig recalled.

"One of the attractive things about Obama is the desire to get a range of views and process them himself rather than get a homogenized product or exclude people who aren't in sympathy with him," Danzig said.

In a separate meeting, Obama asked General Anthony Zinni, a critic of the war effort, what should be done in Iraq. Zinni told him: "I don't think you can abandon Iraq. The region is too important."

Despite those views, Obama's foreign policy advisory team began working on a detailed plan for bringing US troops home and managing the potential humanitarian crisis that could follow."

The answer is that Obama's position on what to do about the Iraqi mess that he opposed getting into in the first place has evolved over time.

[boston bean]

He has given multiple excuses, he didn't want to diss kerry, etc.

this is gonna bite him in the ass.

[endarkenment]

19. No it isn't.

It is really simple. The article explains exactly how and why his thinking about what to do with the mess Bush made has evolved. By the way, your candidate has had a very similar evolution in thinking. The difference is that she made a calculated and dishonest decision to support going into Iraq in the first place.

[boston bean]

21. so he can evolve, but Hillary can't, I get it now. It's a friggin sham. nt

[endarkenment]

25. Gee that isn't what I said at all.

I said the difference between Clinton and Obama on Iraq is that he opposed going in and she didn't. As far as I can tell, that is the only major difference.

[boston bean]

30. how long you been on DU. Obama has always been against the war even though

he and hillary voted exactly the same since he got in the Senate. he did not have to vote on the IWR and a million exuses for him have been made. And a million excuses to skewer Hillary have been spewed.

[endarkenment]

33. You are just making shit up and embarrassing yourself

please stop.

[boston bean]

35. Oh so now I'm the embarassment. This is what has been told to me probably 500 times. nt

[endarkenment]

44. If you hear the same thing about yourself 500 times, stop behaving that way

it is probably true. You are embarrassing yourself.

[boston bean]

58. so O sounds alot like McCain. No big deal. nt

[DarienComp]

59. And I'm sure you have a quote of Barack Obama advocating a 100 year presence in Iraq, right?

I mean, you must! It'd be totally dishonest to say that, if you didn't... oh wait.

[boston bean]

61. I only can know what O says, and it sounds an awful lot like McCain. Sorry. nt

[DarienComp]

63. Fine, you know what he says, so it should be very easy to prove that he wants a 100 years war.

[boston bean]

64. I'm not defending John McCain, I want the troops out. Just so happens to appear O sounds likeMcCain

[DarienComp]

66. oh my god.

Are we speaking two different languages or something?

I'm asking you to provide evidence that Obama sounds like McCain. It's not enough to simply repeat your assertion, you need to back it up with evidence. McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for as long as 100 years. Now, please, tell me where I can find an example of Obama advocating a similar position.

[boston bean]

68. I'm not your gopher, but I can give you a hint. type in a google search:

mccain destabilize iraq

and see what you get.

[DarienComp]

69. Yep, that's what I thought.

You can't. EOM

[boston bean]

70. It's quite obvioius you can't. and you obviously don't pay attention if you don't see the similar

statement without even having to look them up.

But feel free to do it, to enlighten yourself.

[DarienComp]

71. congrats, you goaded me into responding.

And, no, I won't be doing your homework for you. It's your job to prove your points, not mine.

[boston bean]

73. I may be wrong, but I don't think you needed to be goaded into anything. nt

[DarienComp]

Umm...

do you realize what you just typed?

[Auntie Bush]

60. So Obama's position is allowed to evolve. But Chinton's has to be cast in stone

and if she changes a thing she's a liar or flip-flopper or just a f****** white woman that will do or say anything to win while dividing the party so she can run in 2012 if she doesn't join the McCain ticket before she drops out and is held responsible for a Democratic loss and a republican win at the top of the ticket and throughout congress. Whewwww! Anything else?
That sure is a powerful woman!

[DarienComp]

62. Bitterness.

It's really unbecoming.

[Auntie Bush]

72. Is that the most intelligent thing you have to day?

Wow! Your're a real deep thinker!

[BuyingThyme]

12. Hopefully he's learned that U.S. troops are completely incapable

of providing stability to Iraq.

[boston bean]

18. Hopefully, thats about par for the obama hope train. nt

[Bensthename]

17. Define success. Mission Accomplished??

[GoldieAZ49]

27. He didn't know

he will have the record corrected

it was a surrogate that wrote that

in any event, it wasn't what he meant and someone somewhere is a racist and we should focus on that instead


pick your favorite Obama response

[DarienComp]

36. Yeah, tell me again how Obama is responsible for black-on-black crime.

[Mass]

38. Why is he wrong? The failure of the Iraqi state IS a disaster. Does that mean you continue to do the

same thing and hope for a different result? Does that mean that the initial decision to go to war was fine?

It seems that cause and effect relations escape you.

[Mooney]

46. Don't argue with the OP.

Our place is not to differ with the OP. Our place is to be awestruck by the rapier logic and cry.

[DarienComp]

48. rapier logic?

more like dull scissors logic.

[Mooney]

49. LOL

[DarienComp]

52. I hope you're not running with those.

:D

[rodeodance]

53. you lost the argument upstream. Op outsmarted you with logic

[DarienComp]

54. Now, THAT is rapier logic.

:evilgrin:

[rodeodance]

55. "rapier logic" dah

[apocalypsehow]

56. Childishness. "Look Ma, look! I won an argument on the internets!!!!!11!"

:eyes:

But par for the course coming from an HRC booster.

[DarienComp]

57. Well, let's not paint a broad brush...

but it's certainly par for the course when it comes to that particular HRC supporter...

[Mooney]

74. Oh please.

The OP posted a rhetorical question to begin with and was clearly unable to anticipate a scenario where she was answered, and then was subsequently asked follow-up questions.

Here, listen to this classic comedy album by Redd Foxx:

[LulaMay]

65. What do you mean "IF"....more like WHEN. Oh, but O won't be attacked! Rethugs won't do that!

He's the voice of Hope, and they'd look so bad....and racist!


This from people who've apparently forgotten that Rethugs crucified MCCAIN with race baiting and saying he fathered a black baby.

And they aren't going to rake Obama over the coals because they'd be afraid of looking like racists?


DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB


One thing is certain...if Obama is nominated, his supporters who like to sling sexism around, while claiming to be against bigotry, will be treated to their own medicine when the media all but forgets THAT and embraces Rethugs racist themed 'God Damn America' attacks.

[rug]

67. Amazing judgment.

[nichomachus]

75. And the stench of desperation once again wafts through the Hillary camp n/t

[samsingh]

76. mccain has been all over the map on Iraq