Contact: Press Office, 703-650-5550 ; www.JohnMcCain.com
ARLINGTON, Va., July 15 /Standard Newswire/ — Today, the New York Daily News reported that Barack Obama has begun to “refine” his Iraq position by removing from his website the statements that he would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq” and the Surge is “The Problem” in Iraq:
Barack Obama “Refining” His Position On Withdrawal…
New Obama Website: “The Removal Of Our Troops Will Be Responsible And Phased” And Would Be Done In 16 Months. “The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 more than 7 years after the war began.” (Obama For America Website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, Accessed 7/15/08)
Old Obama Website: “Obama Will Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq.” “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” (Obama For America Website, Accessed 7/3/08)
· Click Here To View This Part Of The Old Website.
Barack Obama “Refining” His Position On The Surge…
This Weekend, The Obama Campaign Removed All Criticism Of The Troop Surge From His Website. “Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence. ‘The surge is not working,’ Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks — not U.S. military muscle — for quelling violence in Anbar Province.” (James Gordon Meek, “Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq,” New York Daily News, 7/14/08)
· The New Website Cites An “Improved Security Situation.” “Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an ‘improved security situation’ paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s’ ‘hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.'” (James Gordon Meek, “Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq,” New York Daily News, 7/14/08)
New Obama Website: Problem Is “Inadequate Security And Political Progress In Iraq.” “Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable.” (Obama Fo r America Website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, Accessed 7/15/08)
Old Obama Website: The Surge Is Part Of “The Problem.” “The Problem — The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq’s civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq’s political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.” (Obama For America Website, Accessed 7/3/08)
· Click Here To View This Part Of The Old Website
Under Obama your taxes will
Sooner or later, voters are going to recognize the exquisite sensitivity of the Obama campaign to ridicule as weakness. By choosing to cry foul over the New Yorker cover depicting the Obamas as the opposition supposedly sees him, the campaign reveals the precariousness of the substance-free image-building effort to date.
Having won the Democratic nomination by pandering to the left wing base of the party, Obama had a choice.
He could play the role of George McGovern and keep faith with his liberal principles, being cheered on by the 25% of the public who identify with his far left personae while getting slaughtered in the general election by the more centrist McCain.
Or, he could throw his lefty bretheren off the bus and do an about face on every major issue that the liberals fell in love with him for.
Guess which route the Democrat has chosen?
FrontPage.com’s Jacob Laskin has an excellent piece out today where he highlights with great clarity how Obama has abandoned his far left base, leaving them sputtering with indignation, while he has moved to the center on every issue of import in American politics. From Iraq to abortion, Obama has sidled up to the middle of the road thus obscuring or blurring the differences between himself and John McCain.
All Democrats have done this to some degree since the McGovern debacle. But no one has done it coming from as far left as Obama surely is nor has any Democrat so shamelessly and totally abandoned clear cut leftist positions taken in the primary in favor of adopting polar opposite positions close to the middle of the political spectrum.
Luskin points out that Obama’s supporters are none to pleased at the shift. He points out that “Not only have establishment media like the New York Times bemoaned the “new and not improved” Obama, but his younger admirers have turned against him.” This is especially true among the netroots who have backed his candidacy and given money on the internet in spectacular amounts. Luskin writes “So badly has the faith in Obama been shaken that commenter on Talking Points Memo wondered dejectedly if “perhaps we should get off our high horses and stop believing in Obama as a messiah.”
Luskin thinks that some of Obama’s actual positions – Iran for instance – haven’t changed that much. It is the rhetoric and emphasis that have undergone massive alterations. In this sense, the candidate has now made the race one of a personality contest between “old and tired” Mcain who will continue Bush’s policies and “the agent of change” who will supposedly shake up the status quo.
Whether that’s true or not, it is damned effective politics.
The story behind Obama’s editorial (My Plan For Iraq“) just keeps on getting better and better. The candidate’s premise for his op-ed is that Iraq’s Prime Minister has asked for a solid timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from his country. That, Obama claims, mimics his own stance. However, Ed Morrissey (forever Captain Ed to us) over at Hot Air pointed out that the BBC, of all organizations, has come out and informed the public about a little faux pas about Iraq and withdrawal that the drive-by media committed regarding this alleged statement by Iraq’s leader.
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, “the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal”.
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word “withdrawal”.What he actually said was: “The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence.”
But when Mr Obama visits Baghdad, as he is expected to later this month, he is unlikely to find that the Iraqi government is quite as set on demanding deadlines for US withdrawal as he would like to think.
Obama needs to look at a map and a history book. Iraq long has been and today remains one of the two naturally dominant powers in the Persian Gulf region, home to the second-largest proven oil reserves on the planet and a front-line bulwark against revolutionary Iran. That’s where this story began: with Saddam’s Hussein’s ambitions for hegemony and his long and bloody war with Iran. It was a pity, as Henry Kissinger famously quipped, that both sides in that conflict couldn’t lose. But neither the United States nor the rest of the world could be oblivious to the outcome; the strategic stakes were too great.
Obama should also listen to Osama, who recognized “Baghdad as the capital of the caliphate” that he aspires to recreate. “The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation,” he declared in 2004. “It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.” Bin Laden had a clear grasp of the inherent balance of power in the Islamic world; he would have preferred to rule in Baghdad than Kabul.
By James Lewis
Barack the messiah has fallen from grace. Here he was, a “racial healer,” a hip Hypester straight from Change & Hope, hypnotizing millions of worshippers, a modern William Jennings Bryant dazzling the mobs with the image of an America crucified on a Cross of Gold. Well, recently Obama is just another shifty-eyed, moondancin’ pol from the Chicago Machine, playing the race card like Jesse Jackson, even according to The New Yorker. He makes outright deals with corruptocrat Tony Rezko to get his home cheap, and with the Teamsters to buy their election troops in exchange for Federal oversight leniency. He’s been lolling in bed with the wild-eyed zealots of ACORN for ten years or more.