Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem

[Psycho4Bud]

Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush's troop "surge" has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

In a speech Tuesday, he argued that since the surge began, the strain on the military has increased, the United States has spent another $200 billion in Iraq, Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Taliban and al-Qaida have rebuilt and Iraqis have not made political progress. "That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war," Obama said.

McCain said Obama is failing to acknowledge success. "Today, we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the surge, McCain said.

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 Web site 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. She provided the full text of the old site and the updated version, which includes a new section on the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and another on this year's negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq.

The changes stress that Obama's plan to end the war is responsible and designed to improve national security. They include:

_ An updated Obama quote at the top of the page. The previous quote stressed how Obama had the judgment to oppose the "rash war" from the start. This was a popular message among Democratic voters and was meant to draw distinctions with primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who initially supported the war. The new quote focuses on how ending the war will make Americans safer â?? a message aimed at general election voters who are more likely to trust McCain on issues of national security, according to polling.

_ 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 that has since been removed that flatly said, "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." Morigi said that his plan hasn't changed, but they wanted to expand the description. "There's not an intent to shift language," she said.

_ A new sentence that says Obama "would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

Only one of his plan's subheads remains unchanged, the first one â?? "Judgment You Can Trust." That's a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.
The Associated Press: Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem

LMAO! Now he's all about having a "surge" for Afghanistan; I guess that plan wasn't bad after all.

I think this dude has displayed the total lack of experience needed to be a President. He obviously knows little to nothing about military affairs and his views on drilling for oil and nuclear power are way to far left for most of the U.S......that's unless you can afford it. :wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 07-16-2008. Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions. Debate over the impact of President Bush's troop "surge" has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase. A Rating: 5

[killerweed420]

Obama has been waffling to much on this Iraq issue. But it still beats McCains 100 year war.lol

[birdgirl73]

You know what? If y'all aren't perceptive enough to be aware that war circumstances change practically daily, then this isn't a debatable or even discussable subject till you are. Afghanistan is an increasingly complicated problem that is blowing up in front of us with each increasing week. Iraq has throttled back somewhat for now but is probably just going through a lull. If there's one thing I want, it's a leader with enough awareness to realize that positions will have to change as circumstances do. That's what military strategy is all about. You've tolerated this ability under the right-leaning leadership of Bush and in the circumstantially affected positions of McCain, which haven't been static, either, yet you read sinister import into it when Obama reacts in similar fashion. That is the classic definition of short-sighted partisan cluelessness in you, not anything lacking in the candidate himself. To have a completely static, flat approach in the face of developing, changing war circumstances would be folly indeed.

[ohkelly]

Oh, my. Where to begin?

Here, then: The left, as a whole, since early 2006, has argued that Iraq is a lost cause, and they've been proven wrong.

The war in Iraq is over. We won. "We," being the USA and the Iraqi people. It's only a "lull" if we pull out.

You say you want a leader who can adjust to changed circumstances. I agree. Bush, after unforgiveable deference to Rumsfeld and some incompetent generals, finally figured that out.

How, exactly, has Obama adjusted? His Rx is exactly the same today as it was before we won -- run away. Things look bad; we've made terrible mistakes -- run away. The surge works just as its advocates said it would -- run away. We're winning -- run away.

Regardless of what you think of how and why we entered this war, do you really think Obama has demonstrated good judgement? He said that we'd lost, that the surge was folly. He's been proven wrong on that. We've won, essentially, so long as our commitment remains. And that victory, so long as we defend it, has come only because of the surge that Obama and other Dems so adamantly condemned and opposed.

Folly, indeed.

[Psycho4Bud]

You know what? If y'all aren't perceptive enough to be aware that war circumstances change practically daily, then this isn't a debatable or even discussable subject till you are.

LMAO! I'm perceptive enough to know when a person isn't fit to be a commander in the military. In your view, if things are going bad you run like hell and if their going well THEN give a pat on the back. DAMN glad he wasn't in charge during WW2!

If this ASSCLOWN is elected he'll take the credit for the withdrawl of U.S. troops even though it was the evil republicans that held the course until the Iraqi's could do it on their own. His campaign slogan should be "Run Forest Run"!

"Short-sighted partisan cluelessness"...look in a mirror for that crap. I'm not one for kissing any politicians ass....pucker up and have a good time with the "partisan" smoochies.

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

I've stayed off the boards up until recently due to events here on canna dot com that just left a bad taste in my mouth. Now that I've had time to lick my wounds and think the situation over I think I'm ready to actively participate again.

Here we go:

You know what? If y'all aren't perceptive enough to be aware that war circumstances change practically daily, then this isn't a debatable or even discussable subject till you are."

This was kind of a harsh statement I thought. You are right war circumstances do change practically every day. What does not change is your ability to have the foresight needed to successfully put a plan into action and even moreso the ability to see your plan to fruition. Obama's lack of foresight on the surge has left him backpeddling and insisting that he was still right; while at the same time now trying to adopt this for his own.

While the adoption of a practice that's proven to work is really something that should be praised.. his political experience and ability to properly assess a situation/plan have given us a picture of a Presidential Candidate who is obviously lacking the most essential of leadership skills. That is debatable and that is discussable. :thumbsup:

Afghanistan is an increasingly complicated problem that is blowing up in front of us with each increasing week. Iraq has throttled back somewhat for now but is probably just going through a lull. If there's one thing I want, it's a leader with enough awareness to realize that positions will have to change as circumstances do. That's what military strategy is all about.

you're right again, Afghanistan is a complicated problem and to be honest we should have finished there before we went into Iraq. However what has happened, what should of happened and what will happen are all different things so it's pointless to even discuss that. What is important now is that we're in Iraq... and what's important now is that we don't lose focus again like we did in Afghanistan. If there's one thing I want it's a leader who realizes that circumstances will change but has enough common sense that we can't leave a job half finished and furthermore that we shouldn't split our attention.

So I ask you, even though we are in agreement that Afghanistan is an issue.. Why do you seemingly want to create the same situation in Iraq by leaving it an incomplete job? In this situation I don't understand your need to reference Afghanistan aside to point out the obvious that we failed to clean up our mess there. Which again is irrelevant at this point. If we go back into afghanistan now then Iraq will just fall prey to a similar fate.

Look at Russia/Afghanistan and the aftermath that we see today. :wtf:

You've tolerated this ability under the right-leaning leadership of Bush and in the circumstantially affected positions of McCain, which haven't been static, either, yet you read sinister import into it when Obama reacts in similar fashion. That is the classic definition of short-sighted partisan cluelessness in you, not anything lacking in the candidate himself.

Pot calling the kettle black anyone? Where are your anti-obama posts? . Being that we're human doesn't it seem natural to you that we're going to have our opinions and judgements of others? Maybe you haven't read enough posts by P4B, although I doubt that to be true, but if you've read enough posts from P4B you would know that he's not really a fan of McCain either but prefers him over Obama. This part of your post just seems to be a deliberate attack that really has no bearing on the subject of this thread.

To have a completely static, flat approach in the face of developing, changing war circumstances would be folly indeed.

Indeed it would be a folly, but an even greater folly which we've already commited once would be to leave a job unfinished and leaving a nation who is unprepared to fend for themselves after we've gone in there and wreaked havoc. I would prefer that my country not make the same mistake Twice.

But that's just me. :stoned:

[Psycho4Bud]

Last Friday, David Axelrod said that Barack Obama "never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference." Yesterday, as the McCain campaign pointed out in an email, Obama's communications director Robert Gibbs said that "there's no doubt that the security situation has improved, much as everybody admitted it would if we put more troops on the ground."

Frederick W. Kagan recalls that, in fact, Obama predicted the surge would increase the level of sectarian violence in Iraq:


In the media, Obama repeatedly predicted that the surge would fail. The day the president announced the new policy, Obama told Larry King he "did not see anything" in the president's surge that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence." The same day, he said on MSNBC,


I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal.... I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he's wrong.


Four days later, Obama told Face the Nation, "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality--we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."
The Weekly Standard

I'd imagine it's bad to report the news but here it is.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Bong30]

He scubbed his web site cause, he is wrong on yet another issue




and another one, and another one


if a consevitive flip flops, like O lame A it would be on every news cast coast to coast


we have a lefty Media that has a hardon for obama


HE, and all you LIBS are wrong on Iraq.


Better it goes in Iraq= worse for Libs

Cant have that...no




He even said that Afganistan needs a surge now.... what a flip flopper

[LegalizeTheGreen]

Wow, it kinda sickens me seeing everyone on here ready to hump McCains leg, but puking the second Obama makes a change. Everyone knew if you pump a shit ton of american soldiers somewhere, the violence will cut down there, but they don't stop, they go where the "cops" arn't, maybe Afganistan? The problem with the surge is that it is a temporary solution that does nothing to help the issue as a whole. Instead of training iraq soldiers to take care of their own country, we continue babysitting, sacrificing more and more soldiers.

Also, easy with the nay nay you righties, no need to show your true colors so early on in the election, except for P4B, everyone knows where that crazy sob stands, rofl.

[Psycho4Bud]

Everyone knew if you pump a shit ton of american soldiers somewhere, the violence will cut down there, but they don't stop, they go where the "cops" arn't, maybe Afganistan?

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."........Obama

Everybody except for Obama that is.

Have a good one!:s4: