Wash. Times posted AP article falsely claiming Obama now "calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months"
SUMMARY: The Washington Times website posted a version of an Associated Press article falsely asserting that Sen. Barack Obama "has gone from hard-line opposition to the war to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months." In fact, as other versions of the AP article noted, Obama has long advocated withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in a process that "could last 16 months."
The Washington Times website posted a version of a July 8 Associated Press article that falsely asserted of Sen. Barack Obama: "On Iraq, he has gone from hard-line opposition to the war to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months." In fact, contrary to the article's suggestion that Obama has changed his position, Obama has long advocated withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in a process that "could last 16 months."
In a September 12, 2007, speech in Clinton, Iowa, Obama called for a withdrawal of "one or two brigades each month" bringing all troops "out of Iraq by the end of next year." From the September 12 speech:
Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now.
We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.
The version published by the Times was released on the AP's State & Local Wire.
By contrast, USA Today and The Kansas City Star published versions of the AP article that noted that Obama "has long called for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months":
On Iraq, he has gone from a boisterous end-the-war call that endeared him to the left flank to more nuanced rhetoric. He has long called for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months. Last week, he said his upcoming Iraq trip might lead him to refine, but not basically alter, his determination to pull U.S. troops out of combat in Iraq and that the safety of U.S. troops and the stability of Iraq might force him to adjust his timetable. It's a potentially flexible formulation that has troubled liberals even though he's said throughout his candidacy that the nation needs to be careful leaving Iraq.
Allow me to give my take on what, at least in part, is generating some of this Obama/flip-flop stuff. I blame the lazy, incompetent and sometimes biased media...at least in part.
What usually happens is that Obama will give a speech or an interview or participate in a debate. He says, for example, he's going to bring the troops homes and end the war. What gets reported the next day is mostly that...any amplification he may have added is either left out or barely mentioned. Then the right wing media and talking heads weigh in and suddenly they have transformed Obama's statement into an unrecognizable twist of words such that he's accused of surrendering. That gets reported ad nauseum until it becomes a an echo chamber of reporters too lazy to go back and check on what Obama actually said.
Now, months later Obama reiterates his position, maybe with a little twist, maybe not...and although it may be entirely consistent, or almost alike, with his original remarks that's not what the media compare it to. They compare it to what THEY had been reporting...and what the right wingers said he said. Then, the Barack Obama is a flip-flopper echo chamber starts.
Barack Obama is a skillful politician and as such he certainly is going to allow himself wiggle room on any position. That's to be expected. But there's something weird about the way he is covered by the media. Yea, he's gotten some friendly breaks but generally he's covered in a sloppy fashion...a lazy and incompetent way by reporters. Instead of dissecting one of Obama's statements for 15 minutes by a panel of talking heads, just show the damn tape of what he actually said, because odds are that the panel of experts is going to get it wrong.
"Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now. "
He was dead wrong. The military solution was the surge, which McCain had advocated. Where is the unending civil war now?
Hopefully troops will be coming home soon with honor and praise and dishonored because the left feels embarassed that we won the war.
What a crock of crap you deliver. Have you Repubs learned anything? By the way "No announced withdraw date"....except that is what the Iraqis want. Too bad you feel that the Libs wanted to lose the war if you really believe that. Have it your way!!!
Getting out now is something that the Iraqis realize must be done before this gang of bandits rape their country. Hell, the oil companies need our troops to stick around to protect their "interests", not the Iraqis.
Now if I can have it my way...Who is going to pay for the stupid moves made by this Administration? Maybe if they would've listened to the military commanders at the beginning of the occupation a few less American troops would have died. How about someone accepting responsiblity for the deaths?
But there's something weird about the way he is covered by the media.
Not really. They did the exact same thing to Gore in 2000, possibly to an even greater extent. (Although the former VP, with all due respect, wasn't/isn't half the orator that Sen Obama is.)
It wasn't as bad this way with Kerry, but they didn't really have to distort his positions with the Swift-Boat Scumbags for Right-Wing Lies doing all the dirty work.
Since Obama keeps blurring his position in Iraq, supports George Bush on the FISA Bill after saying he would fillibuster it, and then Harry Reid and Durbin now support offshore drilling, Apparently, we now live on Bizarro Earth.
A comment so nice, you posted it twice.
I may vote for McCain, but it will be a Nobama vote.
If you vote Nobama, you lose the right to pretend he's taking up Bushian positions. If you really believed it, you'd consider voting for him.
It is not necessary, nor is it advised (or even possible maybe), for Mr. Obama to speak publicly in great and certain detail, about what it is he will do as our next Commander in Chief, regarding the occupation of IRAQ that he will inherit and be responsible for, on his first day in Office.
Among the reasons for this is the time frame involved: the next administration of our Federal Government is still five months away... in the Middle East, it takes only five months time or less to completely destabilize and even overthrow a government (you knew that already: IRAQ is an example of that). There is nothing Mr. Obama would want to say publicly today, that could be made unwise or even untrue, by any event that might occur tomorrow, or that might occur anytime between now and January '09.
Another reason to refrain from speaking too much or in great detail, about what it is he will do as Commander in Chief regarding IRAQ, is the fact that it involves the lives of well over 100,000 U.S. Troops in that place. While there is every reason for us to want Mr. Obama to know completely his own mind in this matter (and as best he can, the minds of his Military and Diplomatic Advisors), there are few if any reasons why he should speak publicly his own private meditations, or speak publicly the private counsels of his Advisors.
Everything Mr. Obama says in Public, is heard not only by the American People, but by the entire world (which includes everyone in IRAQ, "insurgency" or not, and everyone in Iran and saudi arabia etc.)
Besides which, Military (and even Diplomatic) strategy is always a matter of discretion, and even secrecy: that truth is so old it's ancient, and it's so widely known, it's published (in a book about Warfare written by some Chinese guy, who if you know already good for you and if you don't know then I'm not spilling the beans of the Art or spelling the name of the Artist).
I think in this matter we should measure carefully the man, his heart and his mind, and not hold too fine or too high a standard to words spoken in Public, on what is in truth a matter of serious National Security.
I have Faith and Trust in the heart and mind of Mr. Obama, and in his capacity to perform the functions of Commander and Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, and of his wise reliance I'm sure, on the counsels of his Military and Diplomatic Advisors in this matter of IRAQ... especially should those counsels come from men as qualified as General Wesley Clark, on the Command of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps in the ground mission that is IRAQ.
As far as John McCain goes, I not only have zero Faith and zero Trust in that man's heart and mind, but I have great doubts that the man even has a heart and a mind... or has them to any degree, such as we would trust the Command of the U.S. Army in IRAQ with.
McCain has a proven record, Obama has none.
McCain knows what war is and would end it responsibly.
What's the difference between John McCain and George W. Bush, regarding IRAQ?
We've already heard too much noise in praise of Bush, from boot-lickers: now the same Bush boot-lickers are trying to sell John McCain, and for the same reasons...
Save it: it was nauseating the first time, it's even worse this time around.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...
McCain knows what war is and would end it responsibly.
Sounds like a great bumper sticker...but one does not necessarily follow the other. McCain's taste for war may make him more prone to act irresponsibly. The disconcerting part for me is that I don't trust John McCain. He is a different man than he was a few years ago. Just like the election of George W. Bush we really don't know what McCain would do if elected president. Bush said things to get himself elected and then scoffed at the same things afterwards. McCain's dramatic changes over the past few years make me distrustful of him...
McCain knows what war is and would end it responsibly
By that statement I must presume that you believe that we should trust a person with war experience to lead us during a time of war. Where was that logic when the you had the choice between someone who knew what war is and someone who petered around in the air national guard in 2004?
I think an explanation is in order
Don't encourage it, Skep. Hopefully that post was a days work and it's gone to sleep.