It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama flip flops, typical politician, NO HE CANT

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:01 PM
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website: “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.”

Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.

A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline, and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan.

“I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he told reporters in Fargo, N.D., according to CBS News. "When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."


We are starting to see more and more of this flip flopping from O, I guess the illuminati has more power to change things than even Obama realized. What ever is planned for the middle east Iraq must be the "central command."

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:14 PM
Politics at its best. Promise one thing and change it as you go. The same o same o no matter which way you go. Appreciate the new info.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:17 PM
well, what he said was technically correct about removing troops from
Iraq. he never did say what he would do with those troops though, people
just assumed he would bring them h ome.

the part you quote from his website was under a title that states "bring
troops home". when he talks about withdrawing troops from Iraq, he
doesnt plan to bring them home, his plan from the beginning was to
redeploy them to other parts of the middle east.

Its in his The Obama plan, called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.
In his plan he stated he will “de-escalate” the war and redeploy to
surrounding “points of interest” in the region.

this man has no shame.

you want change,vote obama,
thats all you'll have left after he raises taxes.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:56 PM
I've got to say, I don't like this. This is my biggest issue - getting out of Iraq. I don't really care (so much) what other plans the next president has, when it comes down to who I support, it's the guy who is most likely to end the war. And that's been Obama (excluding Paul). He's STILL the one that's most likely going to end the war, it may take a little longer than he first proposed, but it's still faster than McCain would do it.

(Ron Paul, why have you forsaken us???)

The thing is, if we can trust Obama to mean what he says, then this makes sense. He's not the president yet, he doesn't have foreign policy experience and it would be irresponsible of him to reject what the generals and other war advisors would say and just start hauling troops out willy-nilly.

I do know that he's said before, we have to be as careful getting out as Bush was reckless going in. I have heard him say that. And IF we can trust what he is saying, I think it's a good thing that he's willing to REFINE his direction a little as long as the GOAL is still the same: Ending the war.

IF, on the other hand, he's setting us up for a complete change of GOAL, by putting the spark out there that he might want to change his mind, then all hope is lost.

Over the past 8 years, I have gotten very suspicious when I hear Bush say something like this. Because time and time again, a "hint" at something ended up to be the beginnings of an unraveling. I can think of times I heard him say something and I thought, "He's setting us up." And sure enough, a couple months down the line, he screwed us again.

I don't have any reason to believe that Obama is like Bush. If I take Obama at his word, then I don't have any problem with him deciding to leave open the possibility of refining his plan until after he visits Iraq and talks to the people who know best. I think that's wise. If he would decide to withdraw in 24 months or a delayed withdrawal or some other alteration in the PROCESS, as long as the goal remains the same, I'm ok with that.

But I'm NOT ok with this being a set-up to stay over there for 5 more years. But for now, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and listen to what he says. I have reason to trust him. If he betrays that trust, then ... I don't know.

Video of Obama on Refining Plans

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:00 PM
It looks like maybe, at long last, the "Obamites" are starting to see through the spitshine and realize that he's nothing special...just another politician. Expect to see a lot more backtracking over the next several months. I don't think he has much of a chance to win if he loses the anti-war crowd.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

First, i am not a McCain supporter, so don't start bashing me for pointing out some observations.
I agree with you about ending the war and getting out as safely. That is a priority.
However, I don't like the way he changed his promise. My observation of this issue is that he should of sought advice from the field commanders before opening his mouth. Wasn't it a couple of months ago that McCain invited him to Iraq to talk to the military to see what the real situation was in Iraq? I'm not saying he should have taking McCain up on his offer, but he should have been better informed in order to reach a logical decision on how soon we can withdraw our troops. As a Senator of the United States, I expect better and that goes for all Senators. There is no reason why they shouldn't be realistically informed about the war.
I do see the urgency in your desire to withdraw our troops and a big hoorah goes out to you on that one.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
It looks like maybe, at long last, the "Obamites" are starting to see through the spitshine and realize that he's nothing special...just another politician.

For the record - alot of us Obamanites have called him nothing but a politician
I have yet to see anyone on here praising him to be God or perfect. He is a politician. But he is the best for the choices we have. So please don't stereotype me - cause i dont do it to you

I don't think he has much of a chance to win if he loses the anti-war crowd.

i can see why some would think this - except for the fact that his only 'real' opposition is McCain. McCain wants war. Its not hard to see, imo.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:27 PM
Just in case they take this down, I wanted to memorialize the actual section from the website here:

This is becoming clearer by the day. Obama had to say one thing to the far left, anti-war wing of the Democratic party in order to beat Clinton, and now must say something else to win over everybody else. I have a lot of friends that were passionate about Obama that are totally disillusioned by now, especially after this deal with bringing the troops home and FISA.

Oh, and one other detail from the site. How does carrying out strikes against al-Qaeda in Iraq afford those attacked Constitutional Rights that Obama says terrorists should have??

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:42 PM

Originally posted by jam321
However, I don't like the way he changed his promise.

What was his promise? Did he make a promise?

Or did he say, "This is the plan. If I become president, this is what my plan is..." Because frankly, a plan is not the same as a promise. I've had many plans that didn't work out, but if I make a promise, I keep it.

By the way, I'm not going to "bash" you.
I'm not in the practice of "bashing" people here on ATS.

December 26, 2007

When asked about his plan, Obama said: "I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of State nominee, my Nation Security Advisor nominee, and they will have a new mission - which is to end this war. And it appears, based on the advice that I've gotten from military commanders, that we can safely bring out 1-2 brigades per month. At that pace, we will have our combat troops out in 16 months."

This is why I say it's important to listen to what he SAYS, not what we want to hear. If we "perceive" him to promise something, when he really didn't, we can hardly blame him for breaking a promise he didn't make.

I'm open to hearing him actually making a promise about this. I don't think it would be wise for him to make a promise before he could have experts evaluate the situation.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by jamie83
I wanted to memorialize the actual section from the website here:

Don't forget to memorialize the title of the page:

PLAN for Ending the War in Iraq

March 7, 2008

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:04 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I stand corrected. Thanking you pointing out my error. It is a plan and plans can change. However, I still feel that he didn't consult with military commanders adequately. That's the reason McCain attacked him about not having been to Iraq recently. And I also believe that if the military felt this was possible word would have already leaked out. Even though it may cost them their career their are some commanders who have strong convictions and are willing to sacrifice it for what is right. Just ask some of the ones who have been forced to retire lately. What really matters is that he gets informed quickly and do what is best for the military. They are the ones who are paying the ultimate price.
The bashing part wasn't meant for you. Some people are strong in their beliefs and as soon as you say something about Obama that don't suit them, they throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at you.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Don't forget to memorialize the title of the page: PLAN for Ending the War in Iraq

OMG.... this is reminding me of when Bill Clinton supporters were defending Clinton by saying "having sexual relations" didn't include oral sex, and when they were discussing the meaning of the word "is."

Ok, I'll memorialize the word PLAN if that makes you feel any better about Obama lying to you:

Yes, Obama has been been "consistent" and "principled" until the Democratic primaries ended, at which point he became inconsistent and unprincipled. Anybody ever hear of public funding of campaigns and no retroactive immunity for telecom companies?

This is really dripping with irony considering that the first line of Obama's PLAN is "Judgment You Can TRUST."

Um... no. When somebody tells you one thing time after time then changes it, it's not something you can trust. And when somebody comes up with a PLAN regarding the war then changes it a few weeks later, that's certainly not a display of good initial judgment, is it? I.e., if his judgment was so good, he wouldn't need to be changing his PLAN now that the primaries are over.

And worse yet, how can you defend a guy running for President who comes up with what's presumably a well thought out PLAN about the Iraq war and in a matter of weeks decides to CHANGE his plan for no apparent reason? What's different now compared to when Obama crafted his big PLAN for ending the Iraq war?

I'll tell you what's different: The Democratic primaries are over! Certainly nothing is different on the ground in Iraq or politically in the Middle East.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:19 PM
Flip Flop Flip Flop .... putting Kerry to shame!

Obama got the nomination largely based upon his 'plan' for Iraq. Now that plan has suddenly changed. He just said what he had to during the primaries to get votes, and now he's changing his 'plan' and it will end up looking like what Hillary had all along.

Either he was totally dishonest and knew his 'plan' was not feasible all along, or he was totally out of his element and had no clue what he was talking about when he made the 'plan'.

Either way - a great deal of the votes he got to get the nomination were based on the 'plan' (election rhetoric) that he's tossing out. Welcome to politics as usual. NO CHANGE. (except Obama's 'plans' when ever he feels the whim)

For the record - Hillary was right. Her plans and what she said about babysitting a civil war in Iraq. Is it too late for the dems to wake up and nominate her instead? Yep. It's a shame.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Flip Flop Flip Flop .... putting Kerry to shame!

I would respectfully suggest that the term "flip flop" has been invented by the media to soften the meaning of what in any area outside of politics would simply be called what it is -a lie.

And this is not an isolated incident. Obama has specifically changed his position on several issues after the primaries were over, and each change has been in the same direction -to the right.

The only PLAN Obama has is to say whatever he thinks is going to get him elected. But like with Kerry, this strategy can't work on a national level. It might work locally, but on a national level people are too smart and too skeptical to fall for his nonsense.

And by the way, no, it's not too late for Hillary to be the nominee. She has only suspended her campaign, and the super delegates are all free to vote their conscious at the convention. I think it would only take about 200 super delegates to "flip flop" like Obama has done to give the nomination to Hillary.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by jam321
However, I still feel that he didn't consult with military commanders adequately.

I agree with you. It would have been better if he had at least talked with people who really know what's going on over there before making and publicizing any plans. But I believe his plans were made with the information he had at the time. In other words, best case scenario.

What really matters is that he gets informed quickly and do what is best for the military. They are the ones who are paying the ultimate price.

Exactly. And while getting them out is a priority, getting them out safely is MORE important than getting them out quickly.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:47 PM
BH, even if Obama does a complete 180 and says he now believes we need to stay in Iraq another 5 years, you know and we all know you would vote for him.

There's nothing he could do to make you not vote for him because he's just so gosh-darned cute, isn't he???

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Nice thoughts on all of this. I use to believe what O said when he first started campaigning. "People are tired of the same old politics in washington, blah blah blah." But now with this coming to light and other issues that have been hitting the MSM about his flip flopping or mind changing I have lost some trust in the words that he speaks. He has told the primary voters, (who got him the nomination) that he would do certain things and it attracted alot of left wing voters that he now risks losing over playing typical Washington politics that he vowed to change. In my opinion he is no different than any of the veteran politicians who will do or say anything to get elected.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:17 AM
If our only reasons for voting for Obama were "anti-iraq" then yes, sos, your assumptions would be correct


since we like him for more than ONE reason - i think its safe to assume we'll still vote for him.

The only people i see treating Obama like a god is those in opposition to him.



Sounds like something on the loosing football team would say about the star quarterback on the opposing team.

Sorry you dont like Obama. I really am.

But my assumption is you better get used to it, because if McCain doesnt have any aces up his sleeve, Obama will be the next POTUS.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

I dont think people treat him like a God and freak out whenever he makes a mistake. One of the reasons I posted this thread and media outlets pick upon it is not because of a mistake. Everyone will makes mistakes. The thing is that Obama keeps telling us that we are tired of the typical politician and he represents change. This is turning out not to be true. This thread is an example of that and there are other examples on this site as well as others.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

But my assumption is you better get used to it, because if McCain doesnt have any aces up his sleeve, Obama will be the next POTUS.

I think Obama IS the ace up McCain's sleeve.

Seriously, I don't think there's any way McCain could have beat Hillary Clinton, especially if she was the nominee and would have had Obama as VP. That ticket would have won 40 states.

Now McCain gets to run a campaign where his strengths match up perfectly against Obama's weaknesses. Plus, Hillary's supporters are irate because of the WAY Obama is about to get the nomination.

Haven't you noticed that ever since Hillary dropped out the MSM has suddenly started pointing out Obama's flaws, inexperience, and inconsistencies? It seems like McCain's the one candidate who's been getting a free pass from the MSM all along.

Good news is Obama already has his 2010 Senate campaign funded by the likes of Richard Holbrooke from Perseus LLC. At least he's planning ahead.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in