His judgment as he took his seat in the US Senate: http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/index.php
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:
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
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?
Barrack Obama said: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.â¨â¨"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."â¨â¨ 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. â¨â¨"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?