Obama Campaign Welcomes Report of Maliki Support for Timetable, Maliki Government Demurs »
Posted By ybdogsct 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsMcCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack Obama's position on 2 fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and more diplomacy with Iran. The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq "surrender." Now, the Bush Administration is embracing troop withdrawals - a pos
Read Full Story at blog.washingtonpost.com »
2007 Views Share Story 41 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 170 of 171 Comments (view all)
-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There are 2 problems with John McCain's political attacks. First, Barack Obama was right to oppose the Iraq War from the start while John McCain sided with George Bush. Second, John McCain changed his position to embrace the same Obama approaches that he once attacked on (1) Afghanistan, (2) Iraq, and (3) Iran.
1) Barack Obama said in 2002 that we had to finish the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq. John McCain was George Bush's biggest supporter for a war in Iraq.
In 2007, Obama called for at least 2 additional U.S. combat brigades and $1 billion assistance. McCain argued earlier this year that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." Admiral Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "I don't have troops to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq." This past week, Senator McCain changed his position for political reasons, embracing Obama's call for more troops.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Noooooooo! Don't you know that somewhere there is an article written by somebody that says that al-Malaki was not more in agreement with Obama's concept?? Or was it that he was not endorsing Obama..Oh well, it's the same thing isn't it?? Case closed!!(to the idiot audience and that means 1/2 of Kansas, Idaho and Oklahoma where their senators are rocket scientists)..
Sen. Inyourway from Okl. still denies climate problems..
You might as well add the brilliant voters from Idaho who elect a senator who wants to make footsie in public mens rooms an olympic sport.
Libby Dole wants to name an AIDS research bill after Jesse Helms, who opposed EVERY AIDS research bill from Day 1..
Hey, how about naming the Jewish Community Center after Hitler??
Hey LibsRfunny, why don't you try out our new boycott on your comments and come over here and try to poison this discussion of FACT??
Reply -
0%
Goppy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See? Now THIS is a story that any American can read and take pleasure in - knowing that it's main purpose is NOT to SPIN or to DECEIVE or to DIVERT.
I don't know if you know this ybdoggy, but OmegaGnosis is really STRESSIN - trying to back-peddle on the reasonable report that Iraq's al Maliki is aligning himself with the Barack Obama plan for phased withdrawl.
I mean ... this is so common sensical. EVERY American knows that al Maliki wants us to leave.
In fact, every American knows that Goerge W. Bush has even ... FINALLY ... agreed (in principle, he says) to a phased withdrawl.
And yet ... Omega ... in what I can only describe as a STRENUOUS effort ... is trying to SPIN the whole story as being a case of a 'simple misunderstanding'.
Well ... there HAS been a misunderstanding ... and I can tell you it goes back to our Goerge W. Bush thinking he can KILL his way to PEACE in Iraq.
Quite simply, this never works.
Reply -
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess I'm not getting it. When Obama has these ideas, such as talking to Iran or withdrawing troops as Iraq has asked and Americans want, he's accused of being a coward and/or ignorant.
But when McCain and Bush steal Obama's ideas and claim them as their own a few months later, they're somehow heroic leaders talking about 'horizons' and such?
Odd.
Reply -
Neutral
injest1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Team Obama, once again, jumps on a retracted statement hopping you won't find out it's been retracted, thus showing how naive he is about "world politics"
Hint the article hit Propeller 6 hours ago, the RETRACTION hit 9 hour ago, just a little to slow for prime time
Reply -
Neutral
Daylight1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ybdogsct
"There are 2 problems with John McCain's political attacks. First, Barack Obama was right to oppose the Iraq War from the start while John McCain sided with George Bush. Second, John McCain changed his position to embrace the same Obama approaches that he once attacked on (1) Afghanistan, (2) Iraq, and (3) Iran.
In fact McCain's position was that he wanted to bask in the Iraqi sun for another 100 years and Obama wanted a time table for withdrawal and he spelled it out and Iraqi prime minister accepted it, so the McCain is clueless, he just have to follow Obama, he doesn't any policy on his own but everybody knows what the Neocon policies are, Just invade, occupy and destroy others in the name of freedom and get destroyed themselves.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
2) For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq "surrender" - even though we'd be leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Now, the Bush Administration is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government - a position that Senator Obama called for last September.
3) McCain at the beginning of the week: against high-level talks with Iran. McCain at the end of the week: praised Bush Administration's high-level talks with Iran. Senator McCain, a long-time critic of diplomatic engagement with Iran, now changed his position to Obama's and said that he had "no problem...whatsoever" with this high-level diplomatic engagement with Iran. For the second time in one week, events on the ground forced John McCain to change his position to embrace an Obama position.
In the last two days we've seen twice now the Bush administration reverse itself and take positions that are much closer to Obama's."
Reply -
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Bush administration is as fouled up as it could be. The term SNAFU comes to mind. Situation normal all fu*ked up.
That is something McCain should understand being an veteran.
Yet he continues to fawn over and replicate Bozo Bushes mistakes in judgement and decisions.
We don't need four more years of the same or worse from these clowns.
Obama has shown a willingness to assess a situation from more than a greedy Bush viewpoint.
That alone puts him far in front of McCain and his stumbling and bumbling attempts to secure the presidency.
Reply -
-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ybdog, you have outdone yourself. This exposes McCain for the senile old fool he is. More accurately for the senile old immoral and corrupt fool he is.
And his enablers must be infected with the Bush insanity that so permeates the Republican Party. Try as they might, and they do strive mightily, the Democrats just can't keep up with the republicans in the foolish department. They're just going to try harder.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The most laughable thing is that Bush and McCain have been hammering Obama on foreign policy because they believe this one of the few areas in which they perceive they hold the upper-hand.
But Bush and McCain have flip-flopped on Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq and now embrace the views that Obama has been touting all along.
First, Bush initiates negotiations with Iran, a position Obama had endorsed almost a year ago for which McCain once called Obama "naive." Now, McCain flip-flops and says he has "no problem...whatsoever" with talking to Iran.
Secondly, McCain said "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." But now that violence has spiked in Afghanistan, Bush and McCain have flip-flopped and now endorse more troops to Afghanistan.
Thirdly, McCain once dismissed any talk of timelines as a form of "surrender." But now he and Bush have flip-flopped on that too.
LOL. It turns out Obama's foreign policy was right all along.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
cloud151 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The thing this fails to recognize is that the position change is necessary due to the improving conditions in Iraq, improving conditions that due to the troop surge. The call for troop withdrawals and the call from the Iraqi's for a time table would not be possible without the surge. In actuality this is both good and bad for Obama. Its good because it embraces his plan for a timetable, its bad because it shows he was wrong about the surge.
Reply-
Neutral
engineer1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We had no reason to invade Iraq in the first place. The surge did not help or hurt. There are still problems there which may never be resolved. Obama has the right idea. Get out as soon as possible. Otherwise as as McCain stated when asked by a reporter how long we'd be in Iraq, He said,"Maybe a hundred (years)!"
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to the GAO, the Troop Escalation did NOT accomplish it's intended purpose - diplomatic progress that is necessary for lasting peace.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration."
Likewise, the GAO criticized Bush's strategy in Afghanistan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"After six years and $16.5 billion in spending, the Defense and State departments still lack a "sustainable strategy" for developing Afghanistan's army and police force, government auditors said yesterday."
Reply -
100%
cowboygrandpa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
c15:
The thing you seem to fail to realize is that the war was illegal from the beginning. Contrived by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice,... to get at the oil they coveted in Iraq.
Take a look around, has Russia become more of a menace again?
Yes, hmmmmmm I wonder if it has anything to do with us trying to control the middle east?
I know if they were trying we'd certainly be up in arms looking to make allies over there.
No, we should not have been there in the first place. Now we need to get out and pull back to surrounding areas where we can defend our interests without bashing a sovereign nations rights to govern itelf as it see fit.
Isn't that what we want for ourselves?
Reply -
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Last 8 years: Exon up 250%. Haliburton up 160%. Boeing up 130%. Lockheed Martin up 130%. Blackwater up 1000%.
Behold, the corporate masters of war, the war profiteers.
And the CEO's of these right wing corporations get a tax break along with the hundreds of billions a year in tax dollars, socialism for the rich, socialism for the military industrial war profiteers.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republicans are the ones who put us into this war in the first place. With everything that they have lied to us about over the last seven years it's a wonder that anyone would trust them at all.
Obama is intelligent and has vision. He see things from more than one side of the argument. I think that he is just what we need to get this county back on track.
McCain is just more of the same.
Reply -
Neutral
cushi1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This administration has been demonically deceptive! For a time, they fooled "most of the people most of the time" (thank God, I wasn't one of them!)
Now, as evidence mounts against it at every turn and its lies and manipulations are exposed, "most of the people" opened their eyes to see this administration for the corroded piece of fecal matter it is! Then there's the 28 percenters ...the "some of the people all of the time" sheeple. They remain hopelessly deluded, blinded by the guilt of their own complicity and stubbornly determined to view a pile of shi*t as a mound of gold. They continue to drown in denial river, sinking deeper and deeper!
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The 20% ers consist of the .00000015% ers that own almost all there is to own, including 85% of the american stock market. The rest of the 19.9999995% ers are brown nosing middles or evangelical rednecks. The brownnosing middles are the most annoying by far. They are the stockholders of exon and boeing, praying for war, praying for israel to bomb Iran, so their stock will increase. Praying for the installation of missles by Boeing to restart the cold war, in order for their boeing stock to rocket up.
The evangelicals just are inbred snake handling racists who wont vote dem, cause dems are the party that black folks mostly support. Can't choose your parents (your mother and her father).
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some are sounding pretty jubilant about all this, but what it means is that if either Obama or McCain get in, which is virtual certainty, we will be engaging in an escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan, a conflict which may well expand into Pakistan.
Sorry, but I am not feeling like this is a good thing. People get killed just as dead in Afghanistan, and depleted uranium in Afghanistan makes people just as sick.
I think it means Obama is shifting to the right as McCain shifts to the left, both maneuvering to try and undermine one another's positions. And they are meeting in the Middle. As an unintended consequence, attentive citizens get a glimpse of the next four years and realize they are fscked regardless of who gets in.
Reply -
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive50 Replies
-
soniyashrmaComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush was right for going into Iraq. We have liberated that country from the hands of horrible people and have given the good people a boost to freedom from terror. I see nothing bad from that.
Obama was wrong about the war.
There are things worth fighting for. Freedom is never free.
If we never fought for freedom we would all be speaking German or with a British accent right now.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Baby jesus on a jet ski, where do you get this drivel?
Liberated the country from....a secular mad man and handed it to the Shiites, who vow to wipe the zionists from the earth, which you christian zionist crusaders oppose since you need a DNA pure holy land to facilitate the rapture.
We support Sadam when he fights Iran with arms and money, then give Iraq to Iran in a zionist neocon nation building to be paid for by giving exon and chevron no bid contacts to steal Iraq oil, to sell to china and india.
Freedom isn't free, indeed not. We finance 3 trillion dollars to give exon no bid contracts in Iraq, send 4500 americans to death, murder 500,000 Iraqis, spend hundreds of billions on the medical care the troops will claim for disabilities from the war, both physical and mental.
Please don't confuse WWII with the neocon zionist fantasy sold by the AIPAC to the oil/military industrial war profiteers in the Cheney/Rove administration.
Vote republican, vote automan
Reply
-
-
Neutral
lloydm651 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
capecoraIM, Obama is not looking for victory in Iraq right now. Obama,and the entire democratic party, Chuck Hagle are working harder than ever to lose both wars on Bush's watch.
Even as I write this their hopeing for some sort of an attack on america.If we don't lose the wars,and were not attacked,then they have spent the last six years cursing and hell raising for nothing.Thats OK they've managed locate another loser to run for president.
Reply -
-
Neutral
sanyi_oradea1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How can America tolerate two such idiots to run for office ???
The only difference is, the Soviets called them bandits, and the Americans call them terrorists.
Please, someone refer both idiots to read the Russian history of the last 25 years. They were "liberating" just like whoever runs America now.... Are the American policy makers hijacked by the KGB, or well placed KGB/CIA double agents of influence ?
Or perhaps there is no more CIA to think for them, it's just revenge time for the old KGB, for the so many heroes of the Soviet Union, murdered buy the bandits in Afghanistan ?
Szemuveget a bironak !!!!!!
Reply -
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I keep saying it but Obama is not gonna end the war. The commanders are goig to advise him on the likely scenario if we cut and run. He won't want that on his watch and he will muck around til 2012 and say he needs four more years to get it done. He's gonna change his mind on drilling before November. One thing he will deliver on is higher taxes on family income of $50K. Now libby's do the math. He eliminates Bush's tax cut that give a $2500 break to those folks. But Obama promises to give $1000 to 1250 back to those same people. The correct answer is your taxes go up $1250-1500 a year. But he insists it is not an increase. We can talk about Capital gains, inheritance tax, and a litany of other taxes he will jack up but if you have already decided to vote for him you have made your mind up on a his charisma and not substance. Obama's new slogan : "CHANGE...about every fifteen minutes!"
Also, Hitler had charisma as well, It isn't always a good thing!
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.