Obama has good judgement on Iraq eh. Turns out McCain's judgement was spot on..

[Bruxley]

His judgment as he took his seat in the US Senate: http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/index.php

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's … read more dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence." Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, Obama's plan focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barrack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's … read more dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

 Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, Obama's plan focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States. 

"The American people have been asked to be patient too many times, too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent," Obama said. "It's time for a policy that can bring a responsible end to this war and bring our troops home."

After 147 DAYS of experience in federal government he decided to run for President repeating his PROMISE of an IMMEDIATE withdraw from Iraq. He also repeated that his lack of experience was offset by his good judgment. HE was 'against this war from the beginning'. A convenient statement given he didn't have to cast an actual vote one way or the other.

Fast forward to day before yesterday:

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Barrack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign website (www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq), part of an effort to update his written war plan to reflect changing conditions, his campaign spokeswoman said.

After Bush announced his "surge" plan on Jan. 10, 2007, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting. By the early part of this year, though, Obama was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama's campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of "The Problem" section on the part of his website devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq. The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions.

Also new: A description of Obama's plan as "a responsible, phased withdrawal" that will be directed by military commanders and done in consultation with the Iraqis. Previously, the site had a sentence, since removed, that flatly said, "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."

Morigi said his plan hasn't changed, but they wanted to expand the description.

His judgment was way way off. In fact if his, Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's, et al's judgment weren't successfully, and repeatedly, vetoed by President Bush Iraq wouldn't be the success it is today. AlQ wouldn't have been evicted, their efforts to instigate an Iraq civil war would have gone unopposed and the left would have the new Vietnam they called for.

Now Obama claims he hasn't changed position, only defined it better. And he's NOT moving right on this or with his personal responsibility vs. more government programs tour.

Security and political reconciliation are doing very well. Why? because Bush developed a new plan? No. Because the Democrats provided the leadership? No. It was because Arizona Senator John McCain's long harping finally had to be listened to by the Bush Administration in the face of undeniable lack of progress in Iraq. He wanted more troops, had no confidence in Rumsfeld, and new generals. HIS judgment turned out to be RIGHT.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/news/mccain.php

McCain's lonely position on Iraq: Principle or politics?
By John M. Broder / The New York TimesPublished: November 14, 2006

WASHINGTON: Senator John McCain is accustomed to staking out a lonely piece of ground, but on Iraq he is virtually an army of one. Nearly alone among major political figures in calling for an increase in American forces in Iraq, McCain is either taking a principled stand or a huge political gamble. Or both.

A majority of Americans now say they think invading Iraq was a mistake and would like to see the withdrawal of at least some of the nearly 150,000 troops there, polls say. Only one in seven Americans agrees with McCain that the United States should send more soldiers and marines. Even President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who assert that victory is the only acceptable outcome of the war, have not dared publicly to advocate additional deployments.

"He's making the bet - and it's not a crazy bet - that the country doesn't want to lose," he said. "The public realizes we can't afford to win and probably can't win, but it doesn't want to lose. And the Republicans probably won't nominate anyone who's prepared to accept that now."

Other analysts said McCain was risking his reputation as a realist and someone who knows when to fold a losing hand by sticking obstinately to his current position.

McCain can still play his gadfly role in the minority, and some welcome his voice.

"God bless him. He's about the only serious person in this whole debate," said Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research organization in Washington. "Even a supporter of the war like myself would have to acknowledge that we're in a mess, so the question is what to do about it. And McCain is saying we ought to do what we should have done in the first place, which was send enough troops to do the job.

"That seems counterintuitive because the whole momentum of emotions in the country at this point is to get out of there."

Good judgment is often counterintuitive. And the ability to see past populist and emotional momentum and keep your head while influencing others to your vision of the solution is excellent leadership.

Obama had 147 days of experience before he decided he was qualified to be President. As of 2 days ago he clung to a growingly obvious lack of judgment on Iraq pretending he knows the situation when he hasn't been there in over 900 days.

The President needs to be a leader. Leaders have integrity, good judgment, and the ability to influence people to his vision. Obama has the ability to influence people but without the first 2 but between his 20 years of liberation theology (black liberation theology?) as his (former) spiritual adviser calls it, his sympathetic attitudes toward terrorists from the 911 hijackers to Bill Ayers, and his propensity for vast government programs (wait it's personal responsibility this week?) such as socialized medicine what vision will he be working to influence people to accept?

I can accept that McCain isn't a bulldog partisan. Fine. He uses his own judgment over party pressure.

Does McCain or Obama have better judgment?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Don't you know that you cannot hold a politician accountable for what they said a week ago...much less a year. Especially the "change" candidate...which apparently stands for "I can change my mind whenever I like" and then even "change" the record so that it looks like I was right all along.

He is not as good as Bush at it yet but he will learn.

 

[Bruxley]

Don't you know that you cannot hold a politician accountable for what they said a week ago...much less a year. Especially the "change" candidate...which apparently stands for "I can change my mind whenever I like" and then even "change" the record so that it looks like I was right all along.

He is not as good as Bush at it yet but he will learn.

So now Obama = Bush. Interesting.....

Who doesn't = Bush today PBP? LOL

Your presenting symptoms of this disorder common to liberals.

 

[Playboypenguin]

So now Obama = Bush. Interesting.....

Who doesn't = Bush today PBP? LOL

Politician = evil
evil = Bush

Therefore all politicians are no better than Bush.

Not hard to understand that equation.

But in this equation I am saying Obama is NO Bush. He is learning but only Bush can say something on video one day and then bold-faced lie about ever saying it the next without batting an eye.

 

[Bruxley]

Politician = evil
evil = Bush

Therefore all politicians are no better than Bush.

Not hard to understand that equation.

But in this equation I am saying Obama is NO Bush. He is learning but only Bush can say something on video one day and then bold-faced lie about ever saying it the next without batting an eye.

Your last two posts and last new thread coupled with the repeated 'bloodthirsty neocon administration' are making it look like a textbook case of that disorder.

 

[Playboypenguin]

your last two posts and last new thread coupled with th repeated 'bloodthirsty neocon administration' are making it look like a textbook case of that disorder.

Naw, I just hold him accountable for things he has actually done. I find it reprehensible for the POTUS to lie to the people and I had to sit and watch him do it blatantly. Then had to watch him lie about lying.

At least if McCain wins, and does the same thing we can blame senility.

 

[Bruxley]

Naw, I just hold him accountable for things he has actually done. I find it reprehensible for the POTUS to lie to the people and I had to sit and watch him do it blatantly. Then had to watch him lie about lying.

Are we talking about Clinton?

Anyway, good luck with that.........

When a leader is willing to put their credibility and political capital on the line due to the courage of their convictions when nobody else is behind them like McCain did, they deserve respect for being right and when the result is a matter of such importance to the destiny of America I see Presidential prowess. He deserves much credit for successfully influencing his fellow members of Congress, especially being a minority voice it the minority party, for this accomplishment.

At the same time if Obama's judgment is what is offsetting his only 147 days of experience with the federal government then what is left when it turns out he is not only inexperienced but also lacks judgment? Oh yeah, the talk, well the shine is wearing off that too. Americans quickly bore of their entertainers.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Are we talking about Clinton?

Nope, about Bush and warrantless wiretapping.

When a leader is willing to put their credibility and political capital on the line due to the courage of their convictions like McCain did, they deserve as much respect for being right and when the result is a matter of such importance the destiny of America I see Presidential prowess. He deserves much credit for this accomplishment.

Absolutely. McCain lost a lot of my respect when he started bowing down after the way he was treated in the 2000 primaries but he is still a competent leader.

 

[Alleykat]

Naw, I just hold him accountable for things he has actually done. I find it reprehensible for the POTUS to lie to the people and I had to sit and watch him do it blatantly. Then had to watch him lie about lying.

How about edifying us, the unwashed masses? To what lies, specifically do you refer, regarding Bush?

 

[Unregistered]

To what lies, specifically do you refer, regarding Bush?

 

[Fremmer]

The President hasn't lied about anything. Which is why the democrats voted to authorize the war in Iraq. And why the democrats (including Obama) have continued to fund the war in Iraq. Kind of an interesting notion, really; the President purportedly lied about Iraq, so the democrats continue to give the President money to prosecute the war in Iraq.

Obama's position on the war shifts this way and that way. First, he said he would cut and run in 60 days. Then he decided that it would take 16 months to cut and run. Then he decided that he wouldn't cut and run until Iraq was stabilized. Now he's back to cutting and running in 16 months. Did I mention that Obama has voted to continue to fund the war?!? Why is that? Why would Obama believe that the war is wrong, but nevertheless continue to vote to fund the war?

Even worse is Obama's flip-flop on the troop surge. For over a year, Obama has been lamenting about how the surge was a failure. Now he seems to have (once again) flip-flopped on that position, too. Which is why he's removed his criticisim of the surge from his little website.

This is the kind of "change we can believe in." Obama is just another John Kerry, who actually voted for the war before he voted against it.

 

[Unregistered]

The President hasn't lied about anything. Which is why the democrats voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

I think he has lied and knowingly misrepresented the truth. The Democrats don't stand up to him because they have no spine, and are an even sorrier lot than the Republicans.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

After 147 DAYS of experience in federal government he decided to run for President

147 days...what an ego.

Every leader needs to have an ego of course and be convinced that they are the indispensable person for the times.

But, 147 days as a US Senator and a few years as a State Legislator doesn't equip anyone to be President. It goes beyond a merely large ego for Obama to believe he is qualified. It is symptomatic of messianic complex.