Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Obama's War Stance: Nothing Has Changed But Media Spin
thecarpetbaggerreport.com — For over a year, Barack Obama ’s position on Iraq has been entirely consistent — a flexible withdrawal timeline, over 16 months, with one to two brigades a month. He would consult with commanders on the ground about how best to execute this policy, and would consider conditions on the ground, but Obama is committed to a withdrawal policy.
MakiMaki- 234 diggs
- digg it
- Stevanoski, on 07/04/2008, -14/+8Actually there have been great changes. Would post but the koolaid drinkers would not even take the word of huffington post (where the changes are listed in detail) so why bother.
- frazier428, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2using racial stereotyping is simply uncalled for.
- Hetman, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1@frazier are you being sarcastic? Koolaid drinkers is not a racial stereotype. It is a comparison to the people of Jones town, who drank kool aid laced with arsenic to commit suicide because there leader Jim Jones asked them to. So basically a kool aid dinker is anyone who follows a leader with out actually asking them why.
- Ridgeliner7, on 07/04/2008, -11/+9It seems the New York Times says so as well.......
New and Not Improved:
"Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.
Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.
Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.
The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.
In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.
Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.
The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.
He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.
On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.
Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”
What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?
We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in. "
---New York Times Editorial, July 4, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.h ... - trueenuff, on 07/04/2008, -4/+13I don't want to make any general or sweeping comments about the media, but damn, they seem to totally lack critical thinking skills, and so many people just lap it up.
- PaulLev, on 07/04/2008, -3/+19Obama hasn't changed his position on Iraq in the slightest - the media are just desperate for stories (it's that, more than the media lack good judgement)
- frazier428, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I propose that if ever a us news channel adopted a much more global and international tone than the others, that it would be more successful than everyone who just runs the same stories with a different anchor, reporter, and "journalist."
- KLBP, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1You mean like the BBC, PBS News Hour maybe or PBS's international news program on the weekends maybe?
- frazier428, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I propose that if ever a us news channel adopted a much more global and international tone than the others, that it would be more successful than everyone who just runs the same stories with a different anchor, reporter, and "journalist."
- knumbknuts, on 07/05/2008, -10/+5I call shenanigans.
Obama put his toe in the water of changing his policy, a shark snapped at it, he pulled it out of the water by the afternoon and said that his toe was on dry land the whole time.
JAF politician. - tcbishop12, on 07/05/2008, -1/+11As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.”
Sen. Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors. In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
And on July 2, 2008, in Fargo, North Dakota, he reaffirmed that pledge. And when questioned by the media on a GOP talking point (manufactured issue) he reaffirmed that pledge again.
If you - as some of the posters have here done - want to argue otherwise, by all means, don't let these actual facts deter you from your precious opinion. But know that that is all it is - your opinion.
And when your opinion is not grounded in fact - or willfully ignorant -- well, that may just say a whole lot more about you than about what you say. - eh123, on 07/05/2008, -8/+1So Obama favors surrender. Who didn't know that already?
- capj71, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4I would not call it media spin. There is no evidence the Obama EVER talked about stability in Iraq as a condition for troop withdrawal. Face it, he was opening the door towards a possible shift in policy. No one said he isn't committed to ending the war. What he is trying to do is give himself some more wiggle room on that 16 month timeline. I have been looking for quotes where Obama talked about stability in Iraq before we withdraw and there aren't any before this. The campaign is realizing that if they win, and don't get the troops out in 16 months, it could come back to haunt them. Why do you think they rushed Obama back out in front of the cameras? They were going to float this before a holiday weekend, to see if it went under the radar. It didn't and they had to take it back.
- Hetman, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2I saw the interview. He did say he was going to withdrawal the troops with in 16 months. However he made a stipulation that he would take the word of his generals and not do anything to endanger our troops. To me this sounds like he is giving himself an out. Seriously this is what the Bush administration has been saying since the beginning. As soon as Iraq is stable our troops will come home. And this is the reason I do not vote. It does not matter.
- steelersfan7roe, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2It's so cool to hate Obama now that he's popular.
He's the best hope for this country, ever. Criticize his decisions all you want, the important thing is he's basing them on merit, not on campaign contributions. He is controlled by donors who contribute 10 dollars a pop. That's what this country needs.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by