I think the RNC has it just about right:
Today, Obama Claimed That He Would Be Open To Listening To Commanders On The Ground And What They Advised Regarding Withdrawal From Iraq:
Obama Told CNN's Candy Crowley That He Was Open To "Facts And To Reason" With Regard To His Plan For Withdrawal From Iraq. Crowley: "You have said you want to go back to Iraq." Obama: "Yeah." Crowley: "See what the situation is on the ground. Is there nothing that they could show you or that General Petraeus could tell you that would move you from wanting to immediately begin removing U.S. troops?" Obama: "Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or no way in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen si gnificant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)
But Previously, Obama Committed To Removing Troops From Iraq Regardless Of What Military Commanders Advised:
Obama Committed To Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Regardless Of The Advice He Received From Commanders On The Ground. ABC's Charles Gibson: "And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, 'When he is' -- this is talking about you - 'When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.' So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?" Obama: "Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting ab out the president's approach lately has been to say, 'Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus.' Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission." (Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)
More here.
8 comments:
I like leaders who are willing to alter their plan, when presented with facts they did not use when forming their previous plan.
But it doesn't matter what Obama does, you will present it as negative.
Where is the "Meet _ _ _ _ _ _" post?
You seem to be missing, Eileen, that in one instance he pledged that he'd ignore the ground commanders in pursuit of the mission as he defines it and in the next instance, he pledges to adjust his plan based on the advice of ground commanders. These are not small modifications of intentions, there are totally different ways of approaching the same problem. One of these pledges is, therefore, false but how are we to know which one he actually means? This is a legitimate question to ask.
I would say, go with his latest, and keep in mind that he is capable of altering based on new data.
He has realized that ignoring the ground commanders would be a really bad idea, and that their data should definitely be considered, when making a decision.
So he is learning. This is good.
That approach sorta appeals to me too except for the fact that I've spent a great deal of time observing how changes in stance are dealt with. To hear the general media tell it, the moment a non-Republican politician changes their position on an issue, anything they've said on the subject beforehand vanishes into thin air. In the 90's, Al Gore could be preaching all over the place about how social security is in trouble, is in debt, needs a solution... and a few years later, when Republicans echo him and he reverses himself, it's treated as if he never said that social security is in trouble (and this actually happened).
Did Obama think better of his stance? Perhaps... but we don't have solid information on the subject. Good politicians are canny, always moving fast enough so the riccochet doesn't hit them and it's hard for us to know which comments Obama actually believes and would convert into his official policy. When a politician takes a position historically at odds with their apparent beliefs during an election, I am reluctant to trust their enlightenment-and for good reason.
One would hope that all human beings are capable of learning from their mistakes. Sometimes, sadly, that's a false hope.
If we should have learned anything from the last seven and one half years, we should have learned this: a President who never changes his mind about anything can inflict grievous harm on this nation.
Of any president in the last century, Mr. Bush is by far least suited for the job by intelligence, character, and especially by temperment. The rigid, utterly inflexible personality, one who is never wrong, cannot admit a mistake, cannot handle criticism, and cannot ever change course. A typical personality, actually, for alcoholics and drug addicts, recovered or unrecovered. Also a rather typical personality for those who suffer from learning disabilities and thus have difficulty reading, learning, acquiring and processing new information.
A president who wraps himself up in his own extreme insular world of aides chosen for loyalty who will never disagree with him is doomed to failure. A president who fails to consider all possible options before choosing a course of action is doomed to make mistakes. If he or she cannot admit a mistake and change course, the whole country ends up stuck in a mistake. Iraq. Invade first, talk later.
You can scream bloody murder about every contradictory or inconsistent statement coming out of Senator Obama's mouth. The alternative, the man who is never ever wrong, is already in place. Learn from your mistakes.
The only people that have learned that lesson, Jose, are those that believe in a reality in which the president never changes his mind on anything. This reality is directly at odds with the real world but you're free to believe in it if you want to.
In the last century, presidents like Wilson, Hoover, Johnson, and Carter better fit your "least suited for the job" criteria based upon the fact that all of them were helpless in the face of any serious tests.
- Wilson was helpless in the approach and aftermath of the Great War, trying to jam an utterly uselss treaty down the throats of Americans then driving himself until he suffered a stroke to avoid getting his pet treaty approved by Congress... by being fanatically inflexible.
- Hoover was a fantastically intelligent man who managed to leverage government power against the Great Depression (to the country's ultimate sorrow) while appearing befuddled and uncaring.
- Johnson was an old-line Senate pro who bungled the Vietnam War, single-mindedly pursuing a failed strategy while feeding American soldiers into a sausage machine while attacking North Vietnam as if he was terrified that the B-52s might damage something.
- Carter went from failure to failure as if he was making a serious attempt to be incompetant. He traded away the Panama Canal for the general fun of it. He issued a blanket pardon for everyone who cowered in Canada instead of obeying the draft laws. He cluelessly presided over runaway inflation and came up with the ingenious notion that the people who drilled for oil were the reason that OPEC was cutting us off. He turned SALT 2 from a well-drafted treaty supported by most of America's experienced diplomats into a travesty that former supporters jeered at. He presided over the Camp David Accords entirely by accident although he deserves credit for getting it to happen by scaring Israel and Egypt to death with his idiot policies. He gave up a critical American strategic asset by turning his back on the Shah of Iran. He allowed a moderate South American ally in Nicaraugua to be replaced with a brutal Marxist faction loyal to the USSR. His weakness allowed the Iran Hostage Crisis to keep going. And, to top it all off, he made the USSR feel so safe that they blatently invaded Afganistan without fear of reprisal. Jimmy Carter is the gold standard for unworthy of the presidency even if he has a good humanitarian reputation after leaving office.
In case you didn't notice, Jose, every president does this. Carter's merry men agreed with him and his beliefs. Clinton's did. Bush's did. The second Bush's did. Mostly, Reagan's did. And so it goes... you seem to be criticizing a general presidential practice instead of something unique to Bush. And your characterization of the man demonstrates an ignorance of how he arrived at the invasion decision... sorry, Jose, you fail.
We will learn from our mistakes. When 2012 rolls around, we'll elect a staunch conservative who will represent the stellar opposite of the McCain/Obama/Clinton types and advocate workable ideas instead of the normal socialist tripe that's coming out of the current crop.
When the Republicans in 2008 are reduced to running against Carter you know they've got nothing.
Next to GW Carter looks like Lincoln.
And next to Carter, GW looks like George Washington.
Post a Comment