A seemingly shifting un-shifting position
Posted by seed @ 1:59 PM
Consider the convenient memory afforded to Obama lifted. All the following is quoted, respectfully, from CommentaryMagazine.
Saddam Hussein had "repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity," and that he "butchers his own people," Obama nevertheless held that, despite all these well-proven crimes, Saddam posed no "imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors." What is more, he added, "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
Chicago on October 2, 2002
There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
Chicago Tribune in July 2004
... even though Bush had "bungled his handling of the war," simply pulling out of Iraq "would make things worse." ... He himself would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.
September 2004
Once the decision was made, then we've got to do everything we can to stabilize the country, to make it successful, because we'll have too much at stake in the Middle East. And that's the position that I continue to take.
November 2004
Obama also re-stated his belief that, having gone in, we had an obligation to "manage our exit in a responsible way--with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis."
Novermber 2005
...we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" ... "we have a role to play in stabilizing the country as Iraqis are getting their act together."
January 2006
We cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve."
October 22, 2006
Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there." ... the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly."
January 10, 2007
...the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops "immediately." "Not in six months or one year--now."
May 2007
Much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?--the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shiites. We should start negotiating now.
January 2008
As commander-in-chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. (Previously Obama had asserted categorically that, on his watch, no permanent American bases would be left in Iraq and that the few American troops remaining there would have only a very limited mission: to protect our embassy and our diplomatic corps and to engage in counterterrorism.)
February 2008
Those last two are astounding. Especially since the Anbar Awakening occurred before the 2006 elections.
Leave a comment