At the highest level that's what Democrats do, especially when they can't otherwise impede the war's funding or get a public timetable for withdrawal.

You mean leftists are willing to get all kinds of people slaughtered not for some concrete result that will be better at the end but for the sanctity of their ideas?

The hell you say! Go tell it in the Ukraine.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure that our female European travelers can be proud they're Americans.

Down at the btoom of the Radar story they note that this is a reversal of Obama's own statement from Feb 11 to CBS News; their link is dead, but this is OK for now:

"At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009," Kroft remarked.

"Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We're not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning," Obama said.

"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.

"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.

So if you thought Obama would approach the situation with an open mind in Jan 2009, well, you had reason to think so. Until today. or maybe next week, when he changes again.

A strategy like Obama's is perfect for reclaiming America's positon in the world ..
.. unfortuantely it is the position of dunce. This should make us all kinds of friends.

Clinton said we'd only be in Bosnia for 9 months. I'm just saying...

Obama's plan would not only lead to more casualties, it would lead to the American people being reminded why they can't trust Democrats with the reins of power.

You know that the leftymedia would trumpet Obama's ordered pullout, leaving him the one that would get blamed when--not if--things turned sour.

Obama and his supporters are tacking their flag to the mast on this rubbish. Bully for them! It is now easier to spot the idiocy and naivete of these "purists". Events have already superceded the illogic of this dogmatic position. A majority of people in this country believe we are and can win in Iraq because we are winning in Iraq.

Further, what will happen by November?

On one hand, you have a man who loves America, has made real sacrifices for her, and has shown real guts in standing up for what he believes is right. On the other hand, you have a vacuus gasbag whose rhetoric is already wearing thin, has never sacrificed anything but his ego and who feels he must apologize for America.

Democrats are not picking McGovern, they're picking Jim Jones. I'll pass on that Kool-aid.

They're eager to pull the troops out SPECIFICALLY so there will be a mass-slaughter.

Then they can say "it's all Bush's fault since he started the war".

Really.

I don't have the stomach to troll through left-leaning blogs often, but when I do, that's the sentiment I see.

Democrats aresick, evil people.

Sick evil? I don't think so. For the most part no. They are just mislead, have no idea what it is like to think for themselves, and can not see past their fat frigging noses.

Didn't Obama also say that he would send them back in if needed? In...out...in...out....

Sean, Matt, you're both right.

The leaders on the left are sick, evil people. However, most of the followers are simply misled.

"Didn't Obama also say that he would send them back in if needed? In...out...in...out...."

Yeah, he said that were Al-Qaeda to move into Iraq, he would send troops back in to get them.

Well buddy. They are already there.

It doesn't make me any more sympathetic to Obama, but I don't think he really means it. That is, I doubt that his campaign promise as stated and as intended to be understood by his base (a simplism for simpletons), would last very long if it became clear to him, upon taking office, that an accelerate withdrawal would destroy his presidency, and destroy his party for a generation. In that event the 60 MINUTES statement and others would become operative, and the main political issue for him would be what he could get for his base and from the Republicans in exchange for a sane policy.

Part of the problem here is the illusion that war is a yes/no decision, made once and then reviewed on the day or victory or defeat. The deeper problem with Obama and the Democrats isn't whether they would strive to surrender or to stall or to win in Iraq, but that they'd screw up whichever policy they chose. Even if David Petraeus and 30 intelligent advisers ganged up on Pres. Obama and made him see the strategic light for an hour, a day, or a week, sooner or later he'd revert to this new Democratic way of war, which seems to have been borrowed from contemporary Europe.

Why would a Senator from Chicago IL be willing to support intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan and even the use of military force to create and defend a Palestinian state but refuse to stabilize Iraqi? If he were anti-war he would oppose all of them. Why just Iraq?

Follow the money.

In a previous post, we discussed Obama fund raiser Tony Rezko and Iraqi middle man Nadhmi Auchi, whose bank BNP laundered oil-for-food money.

The speculation is Saddam pays off politicians by diverting funds from BNP to Auchi's off shore accounts. Auchi lends the money to bagmen (Rezko) who uses it to pay off politicians. Auchi forgives the loan.

Maybe that's why so many politicians suddenly come to be antiwar. Campaign contributions are the lifeblood of politics. Some may come with "requests".

There is a tendency of the post-Fifties Democrats and others to regard the following as a valid position, never having of sarcasm:

Anthony Westell, on December 4, 1942: "Japanese threat? What Japanese threat? They haven't attacked America in almost a year!"

It is not possible to know what Obama would really do about Iraq as president. However, he has intellectual support for immediate withdrawl from his servants at the New York Times who have also approved genocide, should it occur, during retreat. He knows the leftist press will cover for him in the ensuing human disaster by blaming Bush. He further knows that his support is largely from people upon whom he has promised to spend large amounts of money "saved" from war spending. The temptation to get out no matter the long term cost will be intense.

Mytralman, the lefty press also tried to provide cover for John Kerry's misdeeds in Vietnam. Ask President Kerry how well they did.

The leftymedia's ability to shape public opinion is waning, thanks in large part to blogs like this one. It's highly likely that they wouldn't be able to keep Obama from being blamed for the bloodbath if he pulls troops out of Iraq.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/most_americans_want_us_troops_out_of_iraq/

"Many adults in the United States believe their government should implement an exit strategy in Iraq, according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 53 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there.

In addition, 61 per cent of respondents believe the war with Iraq was not worth fighting, and 55 per cent think the U.S. is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq. "

So, what he is saying is "I will do what the majority of the population want". How desperately undemocratic. Real leaders defy the will of the people.

Given that your poll is from the people that published Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Rafar, you'll forgive me if I assume that it's fictional.

Real leaders lead by doing what they believe is the right thing, not follow polls. If the people don't like it, that's what the next election is for.

Otherwise, we might as well not have a President and just run the executive branch via referendum. That "democratic" enough for you?

...and yes, I do mean "referendum" and not some poll that people like you can parrot in the best "all the cool kids do it" tone.

"Given that your poll is from the people that published Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Rafar, you'll forgive me if I assume that it's fictional."

It seems to be pretty routine polling from all sources though.

"Real leaders lead by doing what they believe is the right thing, not follow polls. If the people don't like it, that's what the next election is for."

Isn't that the point here? Obama is offering to do what the people seem to want and therefore, if he wins it will be legitimate to do it. By shouting "Look, he is going to run away" you are simply saying "Look, he is going to do what he said he would do, which is one source of his popularity".

What's the point? It seems that people genrally disagree with you on staying in Iraq for the long term.

61 per cent of respondents believe the war with Iraq was not worth fighting

I bet 61% of the public couldn't point out the territory occupied by Iraq on a sat photo of the middle east that lacked any labels, etc.

If they could, they wouldn't say such stupid stuff.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/10/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

I think George McGovern ran on this platform in 1972 and lost every state but the People's Republic of Massachusetts. (Even Alf Landon carried his home state against the FDR landslide in 1936.)

Purple Avenger is an elitist. He feels that only those who are superior Americans should be able to vote. People who can not find Iraq on a sat map only say "stupid things" and their views should not count.
Sorry guy, we all get to vote that is just the way it goes here.

Oh and Arch more people will believe in your elaborate conspiracy theories if you put the name SOROS in someplace.

Rafar wrote:
Isn't that the point here?

No, the point appears to have flown far over your head.

What's the point? It seems that people genrally disagree with you on staying in Iraq for the long term.

So I'm not one of the "cool kids" then?

John Ryan: You are welcome to point out where Purple Avenger said anything in his comment about voting.

Ugh... preview is my friend.

John Ryan: You are welcome to point out where Purple Avenger said anything about voting in his comment.

. o O (Order of words. Very important.) *sigh*

"So I'm not one of the "cool kids" then?"

I have no idea what you mean by "cool kids". Is "Cool kids" a synonym for "Majority of the population"?

"I bet 61% of the public couldn't point out the territory occupied by Iraq on a sat photo of the middle east that lacked any labels, etc."

Well, yes, that is one of the fundamental flaws of a democracy. On the other hand, it has been reported that your Commander-In-Chief didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites when he invaded Iraq, so perhaps this gross ignorance stretches even unto the elites.

Well fortunately, we're a Republic and we don't decide things based on newspaper polls, which oddly, enough, don't poll even 1 percent of the population so your attempt to claim that 61% is likely inaccurate. Funny how you omit this part:

Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,136 American adults, conducted from Dec. 6 to Dec. 9, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

No further breakdown. Hmm, wonder why? Are you ignorant of how to create a proper link or were you hoping no one would read the whole article if you just pasted the raw URL? Or, were you too eager and stopped at paragraph 3 in your zeal to find yet another oh-so-holy poll™ to fling at thine enemies?

Let's take a glance and read the part on "polling data" folks: you'll notice something else.

Nice to see how, according to this poll, the percentage of Americans who want us to withdraw forces is going down as of last July.

Gosh, if it goes below fifty percent I guess you'll decide we have to stay? After all, it's The Will of the People™ to you. Nah, just kidding. I know these polls are nothing more than rhetorical clubs you use to try to get people to stampede to your side. If it goes against you, you'll likely pretend it doesn't exist.

Ya know, Rafar, I haven't seen any polls on it (I distrust polls, personally), but I bet if you polled people about lowering their taxes, you'd get a huge majority that said yes. Would Obama follow The Holy And Revealed Will Of The People then?

How about if a poll showed that The People wanted a southern border wall to stop the illegal immigrants? That's The Will Of The People, to judge from the outcry against McCain's amnesty bill... would Obama follow that?

Or are you only suggesting that Obama follow the polls that you, personally, agree with? What about The Sainted Voice Of The People then?

"Or, were you too eager and stopped at paragraph 3 in your zeal to find yet another oh-so-holy poll™ to fling at thine enemies?"

Yes, it was just a random first google hit.

"Gosh, if it goes below fifty percent I guess you'll decide we have to stay?"

This is quite a simple point I think so try to follow;

1) Right and wrong are not decided my majority opinion.

2) The actions taken by a country claiming to act in accordance with the will of its people must accord to majority opinion otherwise the country loses the legitimacy gained by a democratic process.

So no, democracy does not mean that you always get the rights answer, but if it goes against the people for long, it cannot stay together as a political unit.

Rafar, you didn't answer my questions.

Too tough for you to keep to your stand as a champion as the Voice Of The People when The People disagree with your views?