Has Barack Obama changed position on Iraq?

Barack Obama today attempted to put down suggestions that he is flip-flopping on his plans for Iraq with a major foreign policy speech in Washington. Did he succeed? Here, we track the Illinois senator's position on the conflict throughout the past year - in his own words. Take a look and tell us what you think.

September 12 2007

"We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

"We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces."

September 26 2007, NBC/MSNBC debate in New Hampshire

"If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment. We've got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month.

"I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq. ... I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out. "

January 31 2007, CNN debate in Los Angeles

"It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. ... It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are."

"... We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq."

July 3 2008, Fargo, North Dakota

"I have always said I would listen to commanders on the ground. I have always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed and 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."

Later that same day

"Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I’ve also said that I will be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that I would bring our troops home in the pace of one to two brigades per month and that that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed.

"... So we are going to go visit Iraq, I want to have conversations with commanders on the ground, Iraqi officials. When I come back, that information will obviously inform how we shape our plans moving forward. For example, does it - what is the current training situation and how many residual troops might be needed in order to train Iraqis to stand up both the army and the police?"

July 15 2008

"I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we’ll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

"We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy – that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later."

Comments

[David Allen]

Many in the US are beginning to have grave doubts about this man. He is going to Iraq next. If on his return he has significantly altered his point of view or shifted his position towards the centre again, something he has been doing often recently, I believe he may find himself in serious trouble with an increasingly sceptical US electorate.

[J Gary Fox]

Thank you for tracking the twists and turns of Obama positions.

Great job!

Our American public can't seem to keep track of what a Pol states as a position and the reversal of a position.

“The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax” ….

Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

Orwell 1984

When I posted an anti-Obama comment with an Orwellian phrase on Huffington Post ... I was banned from further postings.

I'm waiting for the security forces to arrive and take me to room 101.

Gary

Princeton Junction, NJ

[haralambos]

Did he have a position? A stance maybe

[haralambos]

"I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later."

And what happens when the secure areas become volatile again? May I suggest calling it Operation Yo-Yo?

[haralambos]

Apologies for hogging this site - I promise this will be my last post on this subject - strip away the jargon and what I think B.O. is proposing is an orderly retreat. Let me assure you that Muslims do not hold "turn the other cheek" in high esteem - the group is culturally very revengeful - show fear and turn your back and it will incite even the moderats (if such a thing actually exists)

What happened to CHANGE? Talking to the U.S. commanders on the ground (as oppossed to the air?) is what everybody else is doing isn't it? Well duh we already know what they think - just get them on the phone already! What he needs to do is talk to the other side, surely.

[attila]

Another interesting article by Hannah Strange. Well researched, confirms what other people have been saying with evidence.

Fact is, we can't put a public date on withdrawal. Guiliani got one thing right, when you name your targets publically, you're asking for it if you don't acheive (or change your mind about) them.

Who don't politicians suggest Kurd independence? At least then any withdrawal from Southern Iraq can save partial face.

[Maria Coleman]

So what? Will Barack Obama's speeches make any difference should he or, for that matter, any other presidential candidate eventually take office? Iraq is a mess, created by the Bush administration and words alone will never bring back the dead or ease the suffering of those afflicted there. The US's preoccupation on the superficialities of their candidates is a dangerous way to vote. Ms Strange, please use your skills to report substance, rather than playing to your readers' prejudices.

[Kent]

If you thought from the beginning that the troops were just going to pack up and march out of Iraq then maybe what Obama is saying now is a flip-flop to you, but if you actually thought about it, then you would realize that it was going to take some time and that there were going to have to be some "refinements" along the way. Some common sense should apply. What would you do if it was your decision? (Staying in Iraq indefinitely is not an option - they don't want us, we can't afford it.)

[Maggie]

This is great. On July 3, Obama said: "I have always said I would listen to commanders on the ground." But based on what I can see here, he never actually said that before this date. Oh well...

[haralambos]

B.O. is clueless - isn't he? It's buzz word compliant and as he tries to boil the ocean and make it sound like blue-sky thinking while his ideas circle the the drain

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

I don't know.

But it is a deep comment on American politics that you can ask this question.

I can't help thinking of the plight of voters. Yeats' line comes to mind:

"Things fall apart; the center cannot hold"

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

It's not just Obama by any means.

It's all of them. It's the lamentable American system.

There's the Hillary of the early White House years, efficiently addressing important problems, and there's the Hillary of the Pennsylvania primary, posing as a hillbilly and throwing cheap insults.

There's the John McCain of 2000, attacking the nasty influence of the Religious Right in American politics, and there's the John McCain of 2008 calling the atrocious John Haggee a religious advisor.

There's the unpleasant Romney of 2008 preaching to us about religious liberty and the Romney of 2008, delberately, repeatedly referring to Obama as Osama.

There's the "compassionate conservative" and "Christian" George Bush who put to death a record number of prisoners on Texas's death row and is responsible for about a million deaths as president.

On and on it goes. It's simply a bizarre circus, a parody of honest politics, making the choice represented by the franchise almost meaningless.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

Oh, by the way, Obama is ahead by 8 points in one recent poll.

[Bob Evans]

Mr. Obama said he wants to "....prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate."

Does anything else better illustrate his ignorance of the history of this region and its culture. Worse, it is telling of his inability to grasp world affairs?

[Rawlings]

What is the change in Obama's commitment? I hope we are not having an issue with English Language. Anyway, afterall he a Professor while some of us are merely college students practising Journalism or simply JEALOUSY!

[Rawlings]

His commitment on Iraq has never changed a bit reading through his comments. I wonder why critics cannot be sincere in their criticisms of Obama. Absolutely nothing has changed rather he should be commended for providing the Bush administration with platforms in which their recent decisions are based e.g. diplomacy in Iran and withdrawing troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

[William Hagerbaumer]

This is interesting. I fail to see any evolution in his thoughts on the subject. He seems to be saying the same thing over and over in somewhat different words, but basically he has not changed one iota.

[David Amurun]

I just wonder why people complain when leaders change their position on issues...Obama has not changed his position on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, he's only added that..He will consult with military leaders in Iraq..that is not a change in position..

[Rachel W]

I'm obviously missing something because his position, to me, sounds like it remains the same over time. I'm also unclear why his recent statement that he would consult with commanders on the ground has caused such an uprising in the media, given that he's said this same thing before in different venues during the primaries.

In each of the postings of his quote above (and one below), he still says he will end the war; he still says that he will do that by removing about 1 - 2 brigades. In September 2007, when he proposed bringing the troops home using this slow and measured withdrawal he doesn't provide the 16 month estimation, but he does say by end of the next year, which in fact comes out to be 16 months (if in fact the withdrawal had started in Sept. 2007). And while he doesn't say it in EVERY speech he has also said in more than a few speeches over the last year or so that he would include feedback from commanders on the ground and make tactical adjustments. He still advocates being as "careful getting out as we were careless getting in." So, I'm curious, what exactly was the major shift in his position that have cause the heightened media coverage?

But two more things:
1) Correction: I noticed you have January 2007 for the N. H. debate, but a transcript on the ABC News site lists it as being on January 5, 2008.

2) You forgot to include the following two quotes as well:

FROM November 2007 Meet The Press: (Discussing a withdrawal from Iraq and how many would be left to guard embassy, etc.):
Well, you know, I’m going to leave that up to the, the commanders on the ground, because my job is to set a clear mission for them. Their job is to then tell me, “This is what we need to achieve that mission.”

FROM Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: The World Beyond Iraq March 2008 -
"In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. Let me be clear: ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure."

Thanks for posting these quotes they are helpful.

Rachel W
New Jersey

[Mario]

Common people, give the man a break.. Everyone makes mistakes.. A lot of people keep concluding that this man is going to ruin the world just because he is part black and maybe a former Muslim. Listen to what Mccain says.. Mccain doesn't sound any smarter than Obama.. I believe people who are democrats should not decide to vote Republican just because Obama makes mistakes in his speeches and because he is part black and a former Muslim.. I think the world and the U.S. should accept change.

[anyone]

silly,
you need to the know the facts before promising anything. SOunds like a quality a president should have. CHeck out the 180 Mccain did and hardly got any coverage. Let me link you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daO8e4y-RHU

[Michael Sheridan]

I rather doubt if people who post accusations of inconstancy on Obama's part based on his statements on Iraq actually understand how seriously they damage the credibility of their anti-Obama position in so doing. Instead, they reveal only that they are determined to oppose him, no matter what he says. For his statements as quoted above to have been any more consistent, he'd have had to repeat himself word for word every time.

Kudos to Haralambos, however, for his post presenting some criticism with thought behind it.

It's all moot now, though. Maliki wants us out and has endorsed Obama's plan (while being careful not to specifically endorse Obama, a major diplomatic no-no). Now that even the White House is talking about withdrawal on a "time horizon," McCain will have to find another issue to campaign on. I'd wish him luck, but I'm an Obama supporter so I'll just wish him well.

[sinna mani]

Cut and run would be as bad as going in foolishly. What is needed an understanding with the Iraqi government as to the earliest point at which Americans can conveniently depart. The Iraqi government seem to suggest that sixteen months would be sufficient. So Obama has been right all along. Now it is upto the Iraqis. The recent return of the Sunnis to government augurs well for this process. Thanks to the secular nature of the Iraqi people the country has not proved to be a fertile ground for Al quaeda.

[J. Brooks Waddington]

Obama seems to keep the same position, and I agree. The war was wrong from the start. We invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us first. America does not do that. Now we are there and both human life and Democracy are precious. We need to exit in a responsible manner that preserves both. Obama sees how expensive this war is. He sees the stress this war is putting on our service men women and families. Our country is hurting. What happened to " Walk softly but carry a big stick. Was it not 19 Saudis trained with Saudi money led by a Saudi Prince.

[Harvey]

David, Gary, Haralambos, did you actually read the article on which you commented? I found Obama's position on Iraq to be remarkably consistent in the quotes in the article. He's pretty articulate, so he doesn't use exactly the same words all the time--maybe that's what confused you. Obama understands the difference between strategy and tactics, which the current administration and John McCain apparently haven't up to this point. Because of the pressure Obama is applying for redeploying troops from Iraq, even the Bush administration is starting to see the light.

[Jaylove]

September 12 2007: " We must get out strategically and carefully.

September 26 2007, NBC/MSNBC debate in New Hampshire: " We would get combat troops out of Iraq"

July 15 2008: " I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war."

I don't see any flip-flopping of policy. Logistics are changing, true. But the policy remains the same: he's ending the war. That's all that matters. As to HOW, I'd be surprised if he came out with a concrete answer now and did not refine it. He, above all else, needs to study the situation carefully as it unfolds.

[LindaG]

Maybe Ms. Strange can summarize his thoughts on Iran for us as well

[Adam P Clayton]

Everything he is saying is consistant, based on the level of knowledge he had at the time. As ANYONE becomes more knowledgeable about ANY situation. They will change their ideas and strategies based on the information present. It's as if I asked you if you like Life cereal or Lucky Charms and you have never tried them. You may have an idea of which you would like better based on other cereals, but until you try them you can not give an informed decision. Which is why he is speaking to military officials and government leaders to inform himself of the situation.

Though, he has stuck true to trying to end this war. I believe he will gather all the information to do that appropriately. Leaving wrecklessly is just as dangerous as entering wrecklessly (which we did) . This will be a very strategic withdrawl based on advice from gov't leaders and military personnel.

I envision this as a center outward type of redeployment. Securing central areas with new Iraqi forces then slowly working your way out from there till you reach the border.

If areas are truly secure then there should be less worries about it becoming volitile again. Otherwise, it wasn't secure in the first place. Ultimately, it will be up to the Iraqi forces to maintain their own security. They will never be able to if we dont give them the opportunity to.

[james phillips]

Obama has made no substantial changes in his position on the Iraq war. He has however been making much more fuss abou Afghanistan recently.

[Ben]

The tragedy in Iraq commenced when Bush & pony Blair lied to the WORLD as regards WMD's. That lie led and has continued to leed into depressing events in Iraq. There is no decent apology that can be given to the irrelevant and numerous misguided air raids that saw many innocent people die including weddings being bombed in Iraq. That scar stays on the bloody hands of Blair and Bush. Call it Operation Yoyo or whatever, pulling out of Iraq is innevitable. It is a sovereign state, and it is a must for boths the Brits and US to pull out. At least B.O. is courageous enough to call the shot boldly that most Americans feel embarrassed about. Shame on them!!!! So find something better to report on than leaving the real subject un attended.

[Ben]

Ms Strange needs a deeper understanding of issues than pick on flimsy staff. The gyst of BO message has not chnaged. e phraseology may have, but the crux is PULLout of IRAQ Ms Strange!!! We are tired of the endless war.

[Dennis D]

The flaw in the Obama position was the timing of his desire to withdraw. It was WRONG in 2007 and 2008. Now he wants to be out in late 2009 or early 2010. Even a broken clock gets it correct twice a day.

[Dennis D]

I find it curious that Obama and the Dems repeatedly said " Listen to the Generals". This week Obama practically dismissed anything General Petraeus had to say ". Ich ein Beginner. "

[Dennis D]

President Bush 2005
Our strategy in Iraq has three elements. On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies, so we're helping the Iraqis build a free society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis. We're working with the Iraqis to help them engage those who can be persuaded to join the new Iraq -- and to marginalize those who never will. On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.
In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today, I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to victory in Iraq -- and that's the training of Iraqi security forces. To defeat the terrorists and marginalize the Saddamists and rejectionists, Iraqis need strong military and police forces. Iraqi troops bring knowledge and capabilities to the fight that coalition forces cannot.

Clearly the Plan President Bush outlined 3 years ago is working. This speech of Nov 2005 to the US Naval Academy outlines exactly what led to success in addition to the surge. Give the man some credit. Eventually he got it right.

[Dennis D]

There is a HUGE difference between immediate withdrawl in 2006 and in 2008. HUGE difference. The Obama position was for immediate withdrawl REGARDLESS of the Conditions on the ground.. His position only looks realistic today because of the IMPROVED conditions on the ground brought on by the troop surge he opposed.

[Whodatt_99]

It's not that people are bothered by politicians changing their positions, as B. Hussein Obama has clearly done, it is that when the politicians DENY that their position has changed. As B.Hussein Obama has clearly done.

[Frederick K. Zahrt]

I don't think we were careless when we got in....do you?
I think our leaders have acted properly with information from those on the ground!

[glen]

There's only a few things you need to know about this Marxist. He voted against the Iraq war, but that's because even though all the world's intelligence agencies told us that Sadaam had WMD, only the Far Left, Obama, (and of course Bush and Cheney) KNEW he didn't have them. (btw, just how did you know that Lefties and why didn't you share that information with us? you might have stopped the war).
The other thing is that Obama voted against funding to support the troops, a truly mean-spirited and hateful action to take against his serving fellow-countrymen. Yet this man wants to be their Commander in Chief.
Obama changes his position from day to day on many issues, it depends on who he's talking to. It especially applies to this war: June 06 he opposed a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, then in Nov. 06 he supported it, why? nothing changed, Aha, but an anti Iraq-war candidate opposing withdrawal from Iraq might not get the nomination nod. The mark of a true politician, artful, deceitful, arrogant and sadly, in this case unpatriotic.

[WorldCitizen]

Let's start with the facts:
1. The UN, all the major European powers (including France), the US and Russia all agreed there were WMDs in Iraq
2. In 1998 and earlier, key democratic congressional leaders as well as President Clinton said that Iraq "posed a serious threat to global stability ... and they have used WMDs on their own civilians"
3. Saddam himself stated that he deliberately built up the threat of WMDs for respect and to make his neighbors fear Iraq. So this "hoax" was perpetrated from the inside out; the Intelligence agencies of numerous countries were consumers of this canard
4. The UN, in a number of resolutions passed by the Security Council (France, UK, US, China and Russia all have veto power), gave the US authority to take military action. If you've read the papers, the US and Iraq are negotiating hot and heavy now on the presence of US troops as the UN MANDATE EXPIRES AT THE END OF THE YEAR which provided the permission in the first place
5. You may love Bush or hate him; I don't care either way. However, to seriously distort the facts and claim the US acted without UN permission is wrong. To claim the US supposedly engaged in a big conspiracy with every other major power to make up the presence of WMD is also a lie. One wonders if the US had made it up, wouldn't they have planted WMD to cover up the "lie"?

The people spreading factually incorrect arguments and engaging in attacks are destroying civil discourse. This is called an ad-hominem attack - here is the definition from wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Listen up! Read different news sources, different points of view; apply common sense and argue on the merits.

Have a great day!

WorldCitizen

[Paul]

Please post comments in Spanish so B.O. won't be embarassed for America.
Paul - Houston, Texas

[Chris Vehr]

"...targeting any remnants of al Qaeda..."

"Remnants of al Queda"??? Remnants would be caused by destruction. What would have destroyed al Queda? For a guy who refuses to acknowledge that the surge was successful, Barack Obama implies that our nemisis in Iraq either self destructed or turned and ran, leaving bits and pieces of itself along the way. Now, what would have caused that?

...that or he is too stubborn to read the writing on the wall.

How can he tell us what he will do before he has even listened to "the leaders on the ground"? If elected, he will make one rookie mistake after another. Our military will be demoralized and any thoughts of a democratic, free Iraq will be reversed.

[jim wadsworth]

Obama is an empty suit played by the DNC and Move on .org group. He will say anything, use anyone to be President. It would be good to have a black president, but not this guy. At this point in history, the U.S. must be remeemberred as being commited to world freedom first, world peace second. A strong, resolute leader is required to take use forward, not Barack Obama.

[Jim S]

If his position hasn't changed, he was wrong with regard to conditions on the ground and what it would take to end the war. If his position has changed, he was both wrong and hypocritical to say that it hasn't. This man will say anything to get elected. Isn't that much clear?

[robert Lamb]

Obama has never stated a position on anything of consequence. His stock-in-trade consists of the 'glittering generality' with a good dose of 'pixie dust.'

Substance - NIL.

R. Lamb

[Dan Saintpeter]

Rawlings,
Maybe you missed it, but Obie now says that regardless of what the Generals on the ground say, he, as head honcho, will have other things to consider when making his decision to cut and run before the job is done. No word yet on what he'll do if Iraq turns back into a pile of dung.
What I truly find amazing is that liberals who jumped on Obie's wagon becuase he promised to "Bring our troops home", now seem silent as he routinely suggests we pull troops out of Iraq and "surge" Afghanistan. The real scary part is that he thinks that US troops can enter Pakistan without causing WW3. This man is clueless and his ignorance may cause WW3.

His commitment on Iraq has never changed a bit reading through his comments.

[Brian]

It's not listed in this article but during the primary he stated repeatedly at rallies that he would have the troops out in 2009. He's like every other politician says what he needs to get in and then we will see the real Obama.

[Susan]

On what position has Obama NOT turned himself around?

[macdoodle]

HIS SENATOR OBAMA PAGE SHOWS HE WANTS troop withdraawl
does this have to be adjusted as the events change.
yes

is keeping up with the realities of a changing situation now flip flopping?

many of us aren't so happy on fisa compromise.. but this IS CONSISTENT.

as is supporting the returning troops needs vs McCains i got mine..

anyone see the pic of mccain and senior bush in the golf cart.
hohoho.

[macdoodle]

comment disappeared !?ah well
senator obama page on iraq written early is as you can see not a filp flop.
adjustments to timelines etc fro changing need is a good thing.
inflexibility and lies got us bankrupt and feared ,lost world respect by many.

im not defending on fisa. not sure why the compromise there.. except there was pres veto promise announced, i think.. can be repaired after Jan.

so what do you think of the world tour?

looks like the world could actually like and respect us and work with us again..

whoo hoo ..... fired UP !

[Wax]

Clearly his position has been very consistent. It seems like some posters have not actually read the substance of this article; rather, they have jumped to conclusions based on what they were 'expecting' to find in the words. Lets be sure that we have properly informed ourselves before we hop on a band-wagon -- either for or against this man.
Great article.

[Art]

Circumstances change all the time. No one remains static. Obama represents the best hope the USA has to overcome the corruption, mismanagement of the Bush administration.
It's too bad that Bush-Cheney can't be impeached after the election or even before.

I just wonder if the men and women serving overseas presently will get their absentee ballots in time to join those wanting change to vote.

[American Girl]

David Allen, you are incorrect about people "starting to have their doubts" about Obama. Many of us have known for a long time. This man is a dangerous, calculated Socialist. His speech to the German people looked to me like he was running for President of the world!!

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, and certainly not a Socialist State. Every country should decide for themselves what kind of government they want, but I fear that the Elites of the world are pushing One World Government on us with Obama running the show!

As a Republican, I blame the Republican Party as much as anyone for this. They forced McCain upon us..which just increases the opportunity for Obama to get elected.

Despite the dangers of an Obama Presidency, I will be writing in Ron Paul. He showed millions that Government is NOT the answer to our problems!! You think you have to ask permission from your government to do anything now, wait until we get one world government!

The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me!

[Joe]

Oh come on. Obviously he wants out; obviously he wants to leave with some kind of job done. You want him to tell us in advance which way his troops will move, on which road and on which date? Are you mad? You might as well ask a tennis player to promise that he'll play a backhand smash on the fifth point following. Plus, don't forget he didn't create this mess in the first place.

[Daphne Kenward]

McCain keep going on about the SERGE, he need to get real the reason the SERGE worked was because Alsadar who fronts the Madi Army had a CEACE FIRE for 6 months.

Why should Obama change his view on the war, if Iraq was not attacked America would not be out there they would be in Afganistan.

More over, I think its time McCain grow up and get over his idea of what he thinks is a success story. And perhaps he could change the story and lets deal with the ECONOMY, forget the serge, it was down to the Madi Army ceace fire, nothing to do with McCains SERGE.

[Alan of the Great White North]

Just asking but why is it an issue what color Obama is? Reading both his and Bill Clinton's backgrounds, you guys already had your "black man" for president in all but melanin.

[Laki]

Gary, I can't believe you actually read 1984 and you seem to only be drawing comparison's between this book and Obama.

Lets try this: Bush renamed the "war on terror: to the "Long war"

1984... "it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous."

US attacked Iraq on the pretext of WMDs that never materialized. Soon after the story was completly changed to Saddam was a bad guy, therefore it was justified. "Doublethink" anyone?!?

Surely, your ability to exhibit critical thinking should raise a red flag that 100s of thousands of people died as a result of your government's lie. And you should be action holding your government accountable as is morally required of any decent human being. Instead you try and act intelligent by drawing comparisons between 1984 and minor discrepancies in Obama speeches. Please.

[Darrin Buckhalton]

If we are soooo interested in fighting terrorism... why not go to North Korea... No one has a clue as to the despair those people live through... but whatever the case may be... getting out of this war whatever and whenever possible is the best thing that could happen... God help us... there are far more pressing issues that need to be dealt with ASAP.. one of them being global warming... at the rate people are consuming our resources... there wont be anything to fight over eventually.

[Eddie]

I read the comments by Obama. He started by saying that he would initiate an orderly withdrawal within a 16 month timeframe, with reference to the opinions of military commanders on the ground, and ended up saying that er......he would initiate an orderly withdrawal within a 16 month timeframe, with reference to the opinions of military commanders on the ground.

I guess people - and journalists - read into things what they want to read.

McCain on the other hand has said he will maintain a troop presence indefinitely, that any timeframe is tantamount to surrender and then that '16 months sounds like a pretty good timetable to me.'

He then went onto say the following week that he never mentioned 'timetables'.

Flip-flopping of the advanced nature of Senator McCain's should only be attempted by experienced political contortionists. Under no circumstances try this at home.