Cheers from Obama's base, as I sit astonished at how ready Obama was to change the subject when things got awkward.
I've since looked it up online, and on CNN found that Obama complained about his remarks being taken out of context, and yes, he had acknowledged that al Qaeda is in Iraq.
This is a little better, but only a little. The problem becomes: why did Obama ever treat al Qaeda's presence as a hypothetical in the first place? This wasn't a minor slip in the debate, this is how Obama's website presents things as well. This is his official position on Iraq:
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. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.Once again, al Qaeda is treated in the hypothetical. Yet when pressed, Obama makes things definite. The CNN article quotes him as saying "I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets." So why ever speak hypothetically in the first place? Why say "if"?
The obvious answer is that he doesn't want people to pay attention to the fact that he wants to stay in Iraq. Staying in Iraq vs. withdrawing is something he can rally people around, staying with a big force vs. staying with a small force isn't as good a talking point. This also explains the bold red herring about the initial invasion: it only serves to distract attention away from Obama's actual position. One more sign Obama is long on rhetoric and short on substance.
7 comments:
I think you miss Obama's point. I don't think he really wants troops there. Nobody does except those who put them there, and those who did that (in my opinion) did it so that 1) they could use war and "national security" to systematically increase their control over our rights, and 2) to "scare" Iran (who was a much tougher target than either Iraq or Afghanistan) into submission to UN regulations by having 3 armed borders against them (counting the gulf and ocean) and a 4th, Pakistan, ostensibly our "ally".
Obama I think has little interest in all of that game playing as such, thinking that long-neglected domestic issues are more important (and they probably are) and knowing he can't pay for them if he has to maintain such a large, deployed force in active combat.
So what is Obama really doing with that big "IF"? Hedging his bets for his second term. One is judged for the 2nd term election by the performance of one's first term. If he makes the promise without conditions to get the troops out, and then can't because of the subsequent instability (that we *know* will happen), he loses out his big one and loses his second term - it's too easy a target for the right-wing media machine.
So instead, he hedges that promise. The big "IF" gives him that way out, that justification he can pull once in office to keep some troops there so that he can't be accused of breaking the biggest promises of his campaign.
Yes it's a lie, but it's a lie for a different reason: it's not that he wants troops there, it's that he knows he can't *really* withdraw them at the rate he promises without creating severe instabilities, so it buys him more time by being able to pull out that Al Quaeda trump card on HIS terms rather than on the publics. McCain's people are trying to call him on it, but it's not going to work 'cause the right-wing machine hates McCain almost as much as they hate Hillary and are just staying out of this one.
McCain thinking that Al Queda is training people in Iran does not inspire much confidence.
Yea, I'm with you there.
This campaign is starting to feel like a race to the bottom, with each candidate toping the former's worst stupidity.
This campaign is starting to feel like a race to the bottom, with each candidate toping the former's worst stupidity.
It certainly does. And the Democrats are once again disappointing me, and probably many liberals. The in-fighting is proving to many Americans that the talk of "change" and "bringing American together" is full of crap. They can't even get together as a party so their words look like what they are, pure campaign rhetoric of empty promises.
While the Dems all go at each other, people are going to get more and more disgusted and we are going to find ourselves with another Republican president.
The obvious answer is that he doesn't want people to pay attention to the fact that he wants to stay in Iraq.
Yep...people are dreaming of "change" when all we are going to get is the same ol', same ol'. The tar pit that is Iraq is going to be a sticky one for any future President to get us out of.
While I don’t believe we are always obliged to give the most charitable reading to what a politician says (they are, of course, politicians), I do think it is important to take them in context. Now, given the context of the question that Obama (and Clinton) were asked, which was itself framed as a hypothetical, then Obama’s hypothetical framing of the answer seems appropriate. Here are the two questions posed by NBC’s Tim Russert during the democratic debate:
RUSSERT'S INITIAL QUESTION TO CLINTON: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?
RUSSERT'S QUESTION TO OBAMA: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, 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?
From the two questions, it seems clear that what was on the table was not the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq, tout court, but the future possibility of al Qaeda escalating their activities in Iraq. This interpretation is also suggested by the fact that Obama, in his response, spoke of al Qaeda “forming bases in Iraq” and not simply about the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq tout court:
“As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.” (emphasis mine)
In other words, the fact that Russert’s question was framed as a hypothetical suggests, given standard rules of conversational implicature, that he was referring to a level of al Qaeda presence that does not currently obtain. Obama, then, was referring to a future situation, and pointing out that withdrawing US troops from Iraq does not preclude responding to a subsequent escalation in al Qaeda activity in Iraq (or elsewhere). If I am right on this score, then McCain simply ignored the context and spirit in which Russert’s question was asked in order to mischaracterise and promote misunderstanding of Obama’s position. While a politically clever strategy, I am not sure it is the most honest.
The obvious answer is that he doesn't want people to pay attention to the fact that he wants to stay in Iraq.
It is not clear to me why you think this is obvious. Here is the question Obama was asked and his answer in full:
RUSSERT'S QUESTION: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, 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'S ANSWER: Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- 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. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan. I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations. But if they are planning attacks on Americans like what happened on 9/11, it is my job, it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.
Why do you think it is obvious from this answer that Obama secretly wishes to stay in Iraq? And what sort of answer, in your opinion, should he have given? Should he have said: "Once we withdraw our troops from Iraq, we will never go back again, no matter what!" That hardly seems like a prudent position to have.
Read the CNN article. In the exchange with McCain, Obama made an explicit commitment to continue striking at Al-Quaeda targets in Iraq. You also ignore the puzzling statement on Obama's website.
Post a Comment