Obama opens door to refining his Iraq policy

"Crap".....My sentiments. I had my reservations early on, and got a lot of heat from liberal class appeasers who never seem to learn from history, nor ideology. The whole history of our two class ideologies, liberalism and conservativsim, and hence the two class party system, represents the historical betrayal, and class appeasement, and corruption of the social claims, of the Enlightenment, and the false claims, into the class values. The partially developed "new middle classes" under commericial and industrial capitalism, as well as fractured and divided, set the stage for enslaved, forced labor, unpaid classes below them, which reproduces the class mechanism, class ideologies, and class hierarchies. It never was a social agenda, but a class agenda that serves the oligarchy, and imperial plutocracy, that historically have always served the rich over its middle and lower classes.

This present class rot is but an extension of that class history, of the many class liberals with their capitulations, beginning with the slave compromise, by putting the property rights and the principle, class rights, and class laws, double standards, imperial standards above their false social unity claims, where African slavery, and profits represented the betrayal of the Enlightenment, into the Post Enlightenment of servile class elites.
Napoloeon represents that fundamental break between social, revoutionary Liberals, and the class liberals in their place, plus the failure of all Western democratic revolutions to institutionalize the social principle of wealth, as claimed falsely, by Capitalism, into the class unity of class nationalism, and colonial, imperial global class domination, that always reflects, historically, the dominance of class forces, old and new, as cumulative critical mass that still hold true since all of our class history and its beginnings under Patriarchy, through this generic, corrupting class mechanism, still in play several milleniums later.

Thus the History of class ideologies goes all the way back to Plato and his "noble lies", class mythologies, which the political and ideological classes propagandize primarily through educational institutions, class instiutitions, the three branches of government, all corrupted by the same class dominance, class forces, and thus the fundamental imbalance between the power of the people and its ideological class thugs. How many historical examples do you need to break from your class delusions????? How many times were we deluded about Korea, about Vietnam, about Latin dictatorships, oligarchs, the Shah, Saddam, even mercenary heros like Osam Bin Laden, who Reagan called a "freedom fighter", and whose henchman, Rumsfeld shook hand with our CIA sponsored dictator, Saddam. The whole of the democratic party is partnership with this corrupt class, corporate, imperial history, and have voted for these imperial wars right up to their threats against Iran. And you want to place your faith in these class institutions, class criminals, class appeasers??? How many of these betrayers between the corporate power and the public demand for social justice must we endure??? We had Gore pick Lieberman, we had John Kerry turn into an imperial apologist, and now we could not stomach the corporate democrats of either Hillary or Obama, the selected corporate, ideological class thugs.

Our failure to understand these connections, and see everything as new, or as a new betrayal, because we do not understand the historical role of these class elites, or where these class ideologies came from. Understanding social connections, social ideologies, real social centers, moral centers, and not the class centers, corrupted to the right, that then allows them to call real democracy and socialism as the "extreme left" is why we keep falling into these "CRAP" situations.

I said it early on. I really did not see any fundamental differences between Hillary, McCain and Obama, as all of them are clones of the corporate and imperial plutocracy, that falsely promises to get out of wars, when in fact they are planning to get us into more such wars. Obama's false populism, "change" reminds me of the history of all class politicians, from Hitler's abuse of the word "socialism" as populist rhetoric, while he was being funded by the corporations and the servile class nationalist middle professional thugs. Now that Obama has scurried, after his nomination, to become a warmonger, cheerleader for Zionism, AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, and for the corporate, imperial class Empire of America, betrayed the peopel on FISA, illegal spying, and voted for fascist legislation like the Patriot act, pray tell what historical evidence do you need, to convince you that the corporate parties and their imperial hacks are not real alternatives to ordinary working and middle classes??? The yahoos, know nothings, will always be there to dismiss ideology, terminology, history, and always will be part of the class servility to imperial class power. Class elites come in all kinds of color, and the false debates, false questions,by the corporate media, and their role in lying us into wars, should all make everyone realize that the arguments between Hillary and gender, and Obama and race were only diversions for the most fundamental failure, that of class and imperial war.

I want some real arguments here, real facts, real history, and not the usual dismissive middle class know nothings, that finds ideology and history a chore, or a bother. Tell me, why would you vote for McCain or Obama, when the fundamental choices, solutions to global weather problems, class poverty, are not part of their agenda in the first place. Nader, the Greens and socialists, third parties need to put an end to these duplicitous parties, criminal complicit Congress that cannot even impeach its war criminals, direct and complicit politicians, and we the people need to take back the social power from its deformed socialism for the rich, the definition of all of class history, and start a real movement for democracy, and social justice, that eliminates this class rot. I am not voing for Obama under any conditions.....Nader go after him.

Wow, that was articulate and...heavy. I'll need some time to unpack all that. But to skim down to your question, why I would vote for Obama when he is just another cog in this historical class and imperial war you speak of...first off I don't know if Nader essentially falls outside of that domain as well. Pretty much all of them are complicit, including Nader, even though I find Nader to be the most genuine and representative. Still I probably won't vote for him (and not because of the last elections.) And my decision is still out on whether Obama is genuine. (He had me until the wiretapping switch.)

This may sound dark and ominous, but since you seem to understand historically how things work I offer this bit of paranoia. Our government has a tendency to promote democracy if and only if those democratically elected are the ones they want in power. Hence the 2000 election, economic sanctions of Palestine after democratic election of Hamas, any power struggle in South America over the last fifty years, etc. What makes you think that Nader would ever make it as President? Even if, miraculously, he received all the votes, there is no way it would come to be. While I may not be able to articulate why that is I think your above post indicates why. We are stuck with a two party system, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils. Extreme revolution would be necessary in order to change that, and even then, revolutionaries turn into the powers they ousted.

OR maybe I'm having a bad day. Here's hoping I'm grouchy.

No, you're right Kear. As long as the parties in power write the laws, they'll never allow a fully national third party to run for President without cutting red tape every three seconds.

Democrat Barack Obama opened the door Thursday to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months based on what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip there.

OK, I just read this article and need some assistance here.

How is this a flip-flop or "change of heart" on Obama's behalf?

I need some previous quotes. I thought he has always wanted to set a timetable to remove most of our troops and leave some. He has been trying to start withdrawing troops since [I think] April of 2007 now and every time he creates a plan and tries to get Rep support, it gets shot down. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right that has posted here, I'm just lost on what has changed and need to be clued in.

The Illinois senator is a longtime critic of the war, elected to the Senate after the conflict began. In a recent speech, Obama called for a "gradual and substantial" reduction of US forces.

Source: People's Daily (China), "Contenders views on the war" Nov 23, 2006

Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we've seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror. At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight. And that is what I will do on day one, as president of the United States, if we have not done it in the intervening months.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

If we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.

Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007

It is important to tell the American people the truth. Military commanders indicate that they can safely get combat troops out at the pace of one to two brigades a month. That is the quickest pace that we can do it safely. I have said I will begin immediately and we will do it as rapidly as we can.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007

My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

arcanebliss,...You always present a cogent argument. The fact is that the presidential election is not a debate. These elections are irrational. Obama is involved in a nuanced political gymnastic. It does register with many as a dramatic realignment. He is being weighed on the fickle fulcrum of fate. (sorry I couldn't help myself)

I would argue that leadership is demonstrated with an open mind capable of evolving decisions objectively using the latest relevant information with the intent of reaching the best conclusion humanly possible at the time. I believe Barrack may possess these qualities.

Conversely, the inability to lead typically manifests itself through the embodiment of a closed thought process, a predetermined self-indulge and over compensating for past insecurities. Remind you of some one currently trying to lead us?

As far as Senator McCain goes based on his political record, a major scandal, his inability to lead an effective campaign, his questionable campaign associations and ineffective mass communication skills. I am going to pass on McCain this time as I believe he is well suited for mayor of a town hall, but, not the presidency.

Thank you for answering me.

I actually support McCain more on Iraq policy. I know for a fact that the man is listening to the top military leaders that are securing our current successes in Iraq, especially Petraeus. He has created an effective date on where we will be able to hand over responsibility to the Iraqi security force and only keep a small "oversight" force in Iraq. Obama on the other hand doesn't seem to be speaking to anyone of any importance in Iraq and it scares the hell out of me. How does he expect to have a knowledgeable view of what needs to be done with the issue?

At any rate, I support that both candidates wish to remove most of our troops and end our combat involvement in Iraq. This is what I want with our involvement in that region. I believe that Obama has a better idea of the pressure we need to place on their government, but not one that is well-researched. They are dragging their arses and it seems reluctant to take charge of the country. I approve of this article at great lengths because it shows that he is making an effort to speak to those who are having a direct influence on our efforts on Iraq. I am looking forward to the day that Obama begins regularly meeting with Petraeus and acquiring much knowledge of the situation. I am plenty upset with the Dem base's handling of Petraeus's promotion and words on what is going on with the Iraq war. They were acting like children and showing him great disrespect. One of the many good reasons why I am an Independent.

Anyways, I find this as good news as Obama is remedying the very issues I have with him over his Iraq policies. Again, I am lost as to how this is a flip-flop but ah well - MSM and anti-Obama folks love to jump on any spin that remotely looks like the man is changing his previous course.

Also, I saw McCain's statement of "100 years in Iraq" in a couple of posts in this thread. Nice to see folks being mindless and not paying attention to the context of what he was saying. It was a stupid remark - don't get me wrong - but it's perfectly clear what he meant.

Or, maybe he should have had that "first-hand" knowledge before he made promises he now has no intention of fulfilling?

Yeah, it's kind of like OJT. Not necessarily ready to go on day 1. This guy is NOT what he seems. In a couple of months the question will be what position has he NOT flipped on. Promises, promises, promises....

And so many hated the "do anything to win" Hillary. Now their candidate is turning himself inside out to win. The Rovians are back and they're in back of McCain. This thing has turned into a dead heat.

Yes started his campaign with the image that he was something new, stood his ground and wouldn't play the political politician. He is just that, a politician says one thing while doing another. I actually supported Obama during the onset but as time goes on he is less and less credible and less and less the new face and big change. He is a smooth talker just like Bill Clinton..... "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" He lied to us all and has failed at a remorseful apology to America.

Uncompromising politicians are not elected president. Adapting to facts/events as they arise make good leaders.

He hasn't said he'd 100% change his position, he said he'd listen to others and take their advice. He's an intelligent man and, unlike some in politics, capable of weighing varying advice and arriving at an intelligent, rational decision.

We elected an uncompromising politician in 2000, and we hated the results so much we gave his spot back to him in 2004...

Obama came up through tough Chicago street politics. He's a smart and savvy politician. McCain is now learning--as did Hillary Clinton too late--that Obama is not going to roll over and play dead. That's why McCain now has hired Bush's former campaign team to try to put some life into the GOP nominee's campaign.

Just for your education. I am an Illinois resident. Being a member of "Chicago street politics" is not anything to brag about. It's about as dirty and crooked as anything gets. I'm sure he would prefer that you forget about his Chicago political scene.

c anderson,...I have been disturbed by the lack of interest in the shoddy political techniques Barack employed to gain his senate seat. I will not label his supporters but they unreasoned lack of research will come back and bite them in the ass. As to who I would like at my barbecue: Michelle, Hillary and the kids, with Biden and Ron Paul.
And I guess Kucinich and his wife.

People are constantly commenting on Obama's landslide victory for the Senate seat. I guess they don't know he was virtually unopposed. There really wasn't another choice. And, one of his biggest campaign promises was that he would serve his entire term. Oh, well....

And he wasn't opposed because he played a point of law and was able to disqualify petitions relevant to qualification for being on the ballot.

I will still say that he should have gathered the proper information before making any statements at all!!!!! So, he was just guessing before? Doesn't sound like leadership material, does it?

No, I wouldn't say guessing. I would say he has a clear argument for 16 months being the correct amount of time and that when he speaks with people he expects they will back up his theory and he can begin the process of removing soldiers from Iraq. But that if he is wrong, or if the status changes, and those with the most knowledge decide it's not the best idea, than he will revise his policies. To me, that's admirable. To be able to say that you've cautiously looked into something with as much knowledge possible, admit that there are others who know even more, and look to those to help make a decision. That's what a cabinet is supposed to be for, that's what a Chief of Commander is supposed to do - listen to the intelligence given to him and act accordingly. Right now, intelligence supports Obama's intent for a 16 month end to the war. I think his statements are meant to counter-balance the added nuances/distractions the Bush campaigners (now McCain's) are using for spin. It's a good strategy for the McCain people, because they know American's, and troops, are ready for this war to end and that McCain lost big points for saying he'd stay for a hundred years. Which, in all fairness, I believe was taken out of context as well. I think McCain was saying we should stay as long as necessary to have made the war worth it, and Obama was saying that the war cannot be salvaged and it is necessary to leave in an adequate and timely manner. It's the rest of their minions and the media who have muddied the waters of their statements. And also to be fair, I'm just hoping this is what Obama meant. I've know way of knowing for sure because I have not seen full video footage of the talk he gave quoted above.

No he wasn't guessing. He was pandering. He's playing the crowd as he would play to the jury. He is a cut throat politician. I know it's hard to take. Jesus himself wouldn't put himself where Barack has.

I want someone who would have said "I will listen to the generals on the ground and make my decision" at the outset. That is not what Obama said. He said that he would withdraw the troops when he hadn't even consulted the generals on the ground. It's sad that people can't see what a phony he is!!!

That's funny, I seem to remember him saying as much all along. His message has been "I will listen to input from my generals. Ultimately it'll be my decision, but I will take their views into account."

Wilfred: You aced it! The robotic president has managed to bungle his way into fighting two wars simultaneously because he wouldn't change his position. The upshot of his stubbornness is that more troops are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq, and according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's statement of yesterday, we don't have the capability to send more troops to Afghanistan because of the situation in Iraq. Hey C. Andersoon, can you say Snafu. Your brain is just as addled as your hero G.W. Bush.

Confessor"

Where did you see me stick up for Bush? It has NEVER happened.

Actually, I am an independent leaning towards Obama. His promise to withdraw from Iraq was one of the main reasons I support him.

Your insults are really useless. Did you have a bad time at daycare today? Did the bigger kids pick on you?

The military drawdown in the Clinton years has contributed to there not being enough soldiers to support to simultaneous wars. It was the biggest drawdown since the end of WWII.

Your insults are really useless. Did you have a bad time at daycare today? Did the bigger kids pick on you?

Irony is fun!

Yeah, some of us just take our giggles where we find them. Life is better that way!!

It's funny to watch the BO diehards as apologists. The underside of his bus is pretty crowded.

Agreed. But I'd add that I don't think the cabinet gave him dumb advice. The cabinet gave him advice that allowed them to benefit. There's a website, I forget the address but I'll try to find it, where you can click on every cabinet member, or congressperson, etc. and it will show you each company it owns stock in. It's horrifying and illuminating all at once. Bush's cabinet made the choices it made out of self-promotion and to make more money. That's the bottom line. There's a whole lot of arguing that can be done about the specifics, but the fact remains that they knowingly pursued the ventures in order to benefit themselves and their companies regardless of the American people's needs and wants. And do you know why they were capable of doing so? Because they promoted the kind of bickering and decisiveness between average Americans that this website thrives off of. While we are hear arguing with each other, they are out there changing our lives. Let's hope that this can change, and let's do so because what can we possibly lose by it? We're already accustomed to being let down.

Yep anybody can be a chef as long as there is a recipe. Take the recipe away and your true talents shine through.

ummmm.......Hotdogs anyone?

This dude has got some big problems. If he's supposed to be appealing to the center, he'll
be sadly dis appointed. This rapid shift in his plan for America makes him seem out of his
depth. His Q&As are filled with deer in the head light moments.

Do you even read posts before you respond and insult?

I LIKED Obama's withdrawal promise.

Where, oh where, did you see me even mention Bush? And, if you did, please show me my support for him.

If anyone disagrees with anything said about or by Obama, they must be Bush supporters? Nothing could be further from the truth.

You are nasty, insulting, and misinformed. I think I won't bother.....

c anderson,...You have the support of at least one.

Support of two!

C. Anderson

Do you even read posts. My initial response focused on the fact that you stated that Obama was a phony because he wouldn't consult the generals before withdrawing the troops. This shows that you can dish it out but you can't take. Stop crying already. I also attempted twice to bring to your attention the fact that Bush never consulted with or listened to the generals, a classic case being disbanding the Iraq Army and not using them as a police force, instead he listed to neocon Paul Wolfowitz who unilaterally decommissioned the entire Iraqi army and then decided to issue the now infamous DeBaathification order that removed all the civil servants who ran the country and guess what chaos ruled right after that. Now that's specific instances of your former hero Bush's incompetence a/k/a not having a clue. You can criticize Obama day and night but don't do so in a vacuum and act like G.W. Bush is some wise sage, and of course you can quit hiding as an independent leaning towards Obama and go back to the G.O.P. You're relectance to respond to Bush's bungling us into two wars simultaneously tells me all I need to know when it comes to this topic.

Oh great two crazy men. Do we elect Nero or maybe Caligula?

Both of these candidates (Obama & McCain) aren't good for this country; I'm seriously thinking about voting for Nader in November! Obama is definitely a no, in my book.

Democrat ABCs-talking points?

As in, the ABCs of talking points, or the network ABC is Democratic and puts forth Democratic talking points? The second is laughable. ABC is neither conservative nor liberal. They're tabloid.

Also, I'ma go ahead and click the ! for consistently using "Obamaphiles". If you want to discredit yourself, insulting a huge group of people is a good way to do it.