Obama's Double Speak And Reversals of Position: Opposite Answers He's Already Given:

[anonymeme]

Obama's Double Speak And Reversals of Position: Opposite Answers He's Already Given:

First Re: Obama's Stance on Deploying More Troops to Iraq:

In the Feb. 26th Democratic debate Obama said in response to Tim Russert's question: "Do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?"

Obama responded: '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. So, that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places.'

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290014

"On Wednesday , Obama expanded slightly that he 'would always reserve the right to go in and strike al-Qaida if they were in Iraq" without detailing what kind of strike that might be — air, ground or both.' "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23374260/

Obama also said: "I said, 'Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/mccain.obama.iraq/index.html

And Here is the 2002 Anti-War Peace Speech he brags about giving -- while Hillary was already in the Senate being given cherry picked intel and having to make the hard choices in an atmosphere of fear and public hysteria:

Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html

So Obama knows Al Qaeda is there in Iraq, and he reserves the right to continue the war with strikes if they are there, so is he going bring them home or send more in, based on what he knows right now?

And what makes this quagmire of a war any smarter to maintain if he's President, han it was in 2002?

Only Obama can answer this I believe, but this is what he has already said about the subject.

***

Obama's Change of Mind or Reversal on Palestine Versus Israel...

QUOTE From Mother Jones Magazine: "The 'pro-Israel' crowd saw Obama as a potential threat. He's done his best two-step to prove them wrong."

"Last week, when Barack Obama became the first major candidate to break the silence on the situation in Gaza, he didn't criticize Israel, whose blockade of a civilian population has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations, nor did he call for restraint from the United States' top ally in the Mideast.

Instead, he fired off a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with a resounding message... 'The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel. If it cannot...I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all,' Obama wrote, adding he understood why Israel was 'forced' to shut down Gaza's border crossings.

The letter was notable not only because Obama had distinguished himself from the rest of the field, but also because it was a far cry from the Obama of last March, who let slip a rare expression of compassion for Palestinians by an American politician: 'Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people' he famously said at a small gathering in Iowa. What ensued in the 10 months between then and now is an object lesson in the intense pressure under which presidential candidates stake out ground on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and... goes a long way to explaining why the candidate with the most liberal foreign policy views went out of his way to take a hard line on Gaza."

He apparently did NOT do this out of any moral regard, but to enhance his electability.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/obamas-israel-shuffle.html


Here's what Ralph Nader said about Obama and his Palestinian-Israeli views on "Meet the Press."

"But Senator Obama is a person of substance. He's also the first liberal evangelist in a long time. He's run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself.

And I give you the example, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a real off the table issue for the candidates. So don't touch that, even though it's central to our security and to, to the situation in the Middle East. He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran--during the state Senate. Now he's, he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli.

He's not taking a leadership position in supporting the Israeli peace movement, which represents former Cabinet ministers, people in the Knesset, former generals, former security officials, in addition to mayors and leading intellectuals. One would think he would at least say, "Let's have a hearing for the Israeli peace movement in the Congress," so we don't just have a monotone support of the Israeli."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/02/sweet_ralph_nader_to_make_thir.html#more.

***

Obama's Change / Reversal About Bombing Iran From 2004 to 2007 Articles Here:


Here's one showing his position in 2004:

"Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
By David Mendell |Chicago Tribune staff reporter
September 25, 2004

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board...

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

And Here's the Reversal in 2007:

"September 13, 2007
Obama to Bush: Don't invade Iran

CLINTON, Iowa (CNN) ­ Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama warned the Bush administration against expanding the war in Iraq to neighboring Iran, telling an Iowa audience Wednesday that he hears 'eerie echoes' of the rhetoric that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

'George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear loud and clear from the American people and the Congress: You do not have our support, and you do not have our authorization, to launch another war,' he said.

The Illinois senator's comments came during a speech on the future of the 4-year-old war in Iraq, which he said has only bolstered Iranian influence.

Obama said the Islamic Republic poses a 'grave challenge' to U.S. interests in the Middle East by refusing international demands to freeze its nuclear fuel program and supporting Shiite Muslim militant groups ­ 'But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way the president and vice president talk about Iran.' "

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/13/obama-to-bush-dont-attack-iran/

[mythyc]

1. you missed one quintessential link that brings this all together

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

[anonymeme]

8. So the Formula in Here is: If You Don't Like the Truth, Just Call it Spam...

So I Guess the Formula in Here is: If You Don't Like the Truth, Just Call it Spam... Genius!

It's Obama's own words with links to documentation. You didn't like the questions necessary tto make an informed opinion and an educated vote, and you don't like the answers.

Col. Nathan R. Jessep was apparently right, then... 'ey?

[Maribelle]

11. Since that poster made the entry one minute after your op, I doubt he even read your op

The nasty Obama supporters do this all the time. I swear they just sit there clicking their mouse on the refresh button waiting to attack any new op that favors Hillary or speaks the truth regarding Obama.

Then on top of this, they truly believe with reckless confidence calling another’s post spam does not ring hollow. Ding-a-lings.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anonymeme]

5. Is There a Rule In Here That I Have to Show a Profile?

Is There a Rule In Here That I Have to Show a Profile?

I'm J.Q. Public and I'm old enough and intelligent enough to know a thing or two.

I'm a good role model -- you guys should follow my lead -- and that's all you need to know about me.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

6. Oh how a cute! Another brand new poster trying to swiftboat Obama

HOw much is the dirty tricks wing of the Clinton campaign paying you to come her and post lies, distortions and bullshit?

[anonymeme]

7. Looks Like He Swift-Boated Himself, I Posted Quotes Of Obama's Own Words w/ Links to Documentation..

Looks Like He Swift-Boated Himself, I Posted Quotes Of Obama's Own Words w/ Links to Documentation...

It's ALL Obama in his own words, doing everything from soft come-abouts to radical 180s.

[flordehinojos]

9. thank you for posting.

it is always interesting how obama contradicts himself ... he is a smooth operator ... once upon a time smooth operators were considered to be not so nice. what has happened to change things around?
partly (as i answer my own questions) it has to do with GWB who made it allright to lie and spin while many considered him velvety smooth. that is the same with obama.

[Maribelle]

10. Obama speech in October of 2002 -- for years it was posted as 10-26-2002

However, at some point the date was conveniently changed to 10-2-2006. Why is that date significant?

Because the craftily modified date of 10-2-2006 makes it appear Obama gave his speech used to prop up his 'judgment' before the IWR vote. The 10-26-2002 date is two weeks after the IWR vote.

And, in addition, if you examine the substance of his speech, a lot of the meat that you can pull out of the fluff appears too similar to some speeches given on the floor of Congress just prior to the IWR vote.

Since anti-war rallies happened throughout October in Chicago, it was too cute by half for Obama to simply change the date to 10-2-2002.

But I believe the speech itself it total proof that Obama gave the speech after the IWR vote.

[Iceburg]

12. Change you can count on. /nt

[anonymeme]

15. Thank You All Especially flordehinojos, Maribelle & Iceburg...

Thank You All Especially flordehinojos, Maribelle & Iceburg...

Iceberg now THAT was funny -- change you can count on... every time the wind blows apparently! *L*

[stillcool]

13. I'm not understanding..

Isn't there a difference between "War" and 'Strikes'. You know like the bombing that went on during the Clinton Administration?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/regindex.htm



US Military Expansion and Intervention

The United States has over 700 bases in 130 countries. As of April 2007, 146,000 US troops were actively serving in Iraq, and thousands of special forces were fighting in the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Africa and other regions. Back at home, the US government openly threatens Syria and Iran while covertly supporting coups, protests and uprisings in other countries, such as Venezuela and Kyrgyzstan. Washington defends its military expansion and interventions in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. However, as critics often point out, these interventions probably increase the threat of terrorism. The pattern of US interventions does not show support for democracy either. Instead, as a prominent study by the Library of Congress has shown, US interventions tend to have undemocratic results. Often they install tough military regimes that pay little heed to their people, privileging cozy relations with Washington and support for its economic and geostrategic interests.

The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

[WVRevy]

14. Wow...You mean his stance changed...

...over a four year period, when before the invasion Al Queda wasn't in Iraq, and now they are?

*gasp*

You mean to tell us that Obama doesn't believe the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday?

What a concept!

:banghead: