Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Great article by Chicago Trib's Steve Chapman !

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jerryster Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:12 PM
Original message
Great article by Chicago Trib's Steve Chapman !
Obama holds to course
Steve Chapman
July 17, 2008
It's hard to keep up with Barack Obama's positions on the Iraq war. When he entered the presidential race, he offered a plan that would take more than a year to withdraw from Iraq. In September, he said he would withdraw all our combat brigades over 15 months or so. This week, he vowed to pull those forces out within 16 months of taking office.

Wow. He's really been all over the lot, hasn't he? No one can possibly tell if President Obama will get us out in February of 2010, or if he'll put it off till April.

Small wonder that a John McCain spokesman said that on Iraq, Obama "has held almost every conceivable position." Or that a blogger for the conservative American Spectator said Obama "has entered John Kerry territory when it comes to changing positions on Iraq."

See for yourself. Obama was against the war before it began—and then, in a complete reversal, he was against it after it began. When he launched his campaign in early 2007, he favored a phased withdrawal. But now, with the Democratic nomination in hand, what does he favor? A phased withdrawal.

Recently he said once in office, he would consult the military and "refine" his policies, while stressing his intention to get our troops out within—you will never guess—16 months.

OK, maybe he's not so inconsistent. Waiting for Obama to alter his policy on Iraq has been like waiting for the Sphinx to smile.

It would be more believable for Republicans to blast him for being rigidly committed to withdrawal no matter what. There are two reasons they are not crazy about this option.

The first is that it would remind the electorate that Obama has always opposed a war that most Americans think was a mistake—and that he favors a near-term withdrawal, as most of them do and McCain does not.

The second is that his opponents want to paint him as a shameless flip-flopper. They would like to change the subject from whether the war was wise to whether Obama is a vertebrate. This tactic worked against the 2004 Democratic nominee, who famously said of a bill to fund the war, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

The problem they face is that Obama is no John Kerry. The Massachusetts senator voted for the resolution authorizing the war and later changed his mind about Iraq. This year's nominee was against the war from the beginning and in the subsequent six years has proven unwilling to reverse field.

Obama, however, has never called for an immediate exit, as some on the left would prefer. He has been consistent in refusing either to accelerate his schedule or to slow it down. I suspect when he talks in his sleep, he mumbles his mantra that "we have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."

His charge this week that the war in Iraq has diverted us from defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda also sounds a bit familiar. He was criticized during the primaries for saying that if the opportunity arose to hit Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, he would do it. A year ago, he gave a speech called, "The War We Need to Win," which called for "getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

He was right then, and he's right now. Our recent progress in Iraq has come at a high price: growing violence and turmoil in Afghanistan, with the American death toll last month rising to the highest level since 2001.

McCain insists success in Iraq breeds success in Afghanistan. But Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gives a different picture: "I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq." The war in Iraq has drained resources needed to go after the people responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the consequences are only getting worse.

That's one of the arguments Obama has been making for several years now. For all their charges of flip-flopping, Republicans aren't afraid he will cave on Iraq and Afghanistan. They're afraid he won't.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good to see this in the Chicago Tribune. Do you have a link? K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NattPang Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Found it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Thanks! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerryster Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Thanks for posting the link
I tried to copy it, couldn't for some reason. Anyway, Chapman kicked Repub ass, didn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NattPang Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I'd say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nice article I hope lots read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. can i get a paramedic here?
my heart has stopped.
omg. if we have chapman, shit, we can't lose. (knocks wood)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. Steve Chapman is a conservative ...
... but he's basically a Libertarian and not a Republican hack like Tribune columnist Dennis Byrne. I've always found Chapman to be honest and logical.

In February 2003 he wrote a commentary (published in the Trib) titled http://www.bwcitypaper.com/Articles-i-2003-02-13-31619.111115_Bushs_Thoroughly_Bogus_Case_for_War.html">Thoroughly bogus case for war. It's still a very good read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. Negative tactics don't work: They didn't work against Kerry who won the 04 election.
It was primarily the voting machines, much aided by other methods of cheating, that defeated Kerry, whether he had the common sense to see it and the courage to confront it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
10. thanks - good read nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
11. Bottom line.
"They would like to change the subject from whether the war was wise to whether Obama is a vertebrate."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC