Zzzzzzzzzz.

I'm not yawning.

I'm pissed off.

Bring the troops home now means BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.

con·sul·ta·tion  (knsl-tshn)
n.
1. The act or process of consulting.
2.
a. A conference at which advice is given or views are exchanged.
b. A meeting between physicians to discuss the diagnosis or treatment of a case.

Otherwise you wouldn't have made this conclusion...

"Obama will comply."

com·ply  (km-pl)
intr.v. com·plied, com·ply·ing, com·plies

1. To act in accordance with another's command, request, rule, or wish: The patient complied with the physician's orders.
   
2. Obsolete To be courteous or obedient.

I'd like to second the forementioned yawning on this particular issue. Obama'll bring the troops home; McCain won't. If he does it in two years instead of sixteen months, I won't be heartbroken.

Let's vote for Obama, while at the same time being wary of him. Let's not forget that during the peak of "NAFTA-Gate", he said one thing in public--basically that NAFTA was bad--while his economic adviser reassured Canadian officials that his words were campaign rhetoric only.

Well, except for the story actually turning completely around to be that it was Clinton and not Obama making promises that it was lip service, you are right.  In other words, you are wrong.  Pay more attention next time and don't let yourself be spun so easily.

is quite a force at pollster.com.  He was dying for Blumenthal to put up that Minnesota poll showing Obama up only one.

I agree though with Kingsbridge's skepticism about Obama's Iraq plan.  Him and Hillary left enough wiggle room in both of their withdrawal plans.  McCain is not being honest about how long he would be willing to keeep incurring around 500 American casualties a year.  

This is how London-based Al Hayat newspaper, a liberal newspaper once said by the New York Times to be "regarded as by far and away the best and most intensely read Arab newspaper", described Obama's conversation with the Foreign Minister:

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign managers had reassured Baghdad that if Obama is elected he will not dramatically change Washington's policy towards Iraq and will take into account the opinions of the commanders in the field.

I don't know about you, but to me, withdrawing our forces within a year is a dramatic change from Bush's "stay-till-forever" policy regarding Iraq.

http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_persona l/en/7948.htm

Did you think Obama would not consult the Generals and the Iraqis and various experts? The Generals won't decide the CIC will, but any CIC worth anything wants input from every useful and knowledgeable source.

Warmongering general? the generals and the troops carry out the missions given to them. They don't make the decisions about whether, where and who we fight.

Your gratuitous Canada NAFTA reference is pure bullshit. The same right wing sources that leaked the 'memo' that mis characterized the content of the discussion claimed Hillary contacted them first. Neither was true and retractions where issued.

As you point out in the diary, Obama has outlined a plan for withdrawal, and the Washington Post confirms that his plan hasn't changed:

Mr. Obama has not altered his position: He still proposes withdrawing most U.S. troops according to a fixed timetable, set to the most rapid pace at which commanders have said American forces could be pulled out.

Obama has always said we should be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless going in, and he seems to have conveyed this message in his talk with Mr Zebrari.

Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security.

The Post concludes that Obama is wise to consult with people like Zebrari and understand their concerns.

Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.

But listening to what they have to say doesn't mean Obama must change his strategy. As Obama said during the debate in Philadelphia:

The president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission...Once I have provided that mission, if [the people on the ground] come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.

Obama has set the mission, and his mission differs sharply from John McCain's.

By the way this is not particularly surprising to me , it is actually reassuring to me .

I have said it for months now , even earlier on in the day that Obama and Clinton were posturing politically on Iraq and their positions were similar to Mccains .

I have very little regard for Clinton / Obama on Iraq because i get the sense that are not standing on principle and courage like Mccain is doing. ( at least he is making his position known regardless of political harm ).

I don't believe any responsible president when he gets in there would pursue a policy different than Mccain is saying on the campaign trail .

Like the editorial says things have changed dramatically over there yet both candidates were talking about Iraq like it was 2003/2004.

I give credit to Mccain for taking a principled position regardless of what the politics entails.

The whole thing seems eerily similar to the 06 congressional elections.

promise to withdraw troops , get in there and when the weight of responsibility falls on your shoulder do something else.

If this is what the Iraq Minister got and is Obama's true position , its not a profile in courage but at least it would reassure me who won't pursue a reckless policy despite the gains we have made.
 

If you're wondering what the difference is between a diary that makes a valid and sincere criticism of a policy issue and seeks honest debate, and a trollish diary that wants to anger and inflame people while confusing them with ill-considered conclusions, just look at the title of this one.

Seems to me that anyone looking for substantive debate wouldn't stoop to these tactics to get peoples' attention.

You have to understand a bit about Iraqi politics to get why Hoshyar Zebari would say what he did.  Zebari is a Kurd.  If the US withdraws from Iraq, the Kurds will be in a substantially weaker position vis-a-vis the central Iraqi government.  It's no exaggeration to say they're the ones who want the US to stay in Iraq for a hundred years (though they consititute approx. 15% of that country's population).

The US, moreoever, probably does have to provide some guarantees to the Kurds, or else if the US withdrew we could easily get pulled back into a big civil war.  Doesn't mean the US has to stay in Iraq.  It does mean (as Obama said during various times of the campaign) that the US should show us much care getting out of Iraq as showed carelessness getting in.

Upshot: it's difficult to imagine Obama keeping US troops in Iraq past, say, the two year point (90% of Dems now want all troops withdrawn, and he's campaigned on this the whole time).  Zebari, if not a liar, is saying something he hopes will be true.  What Obama almost certainly said is we'll consult with everyone (but the president defines the mission, this idea that a US army commander would have veto power gets the whole thing backwards).

I have one up on the list and since people are just looking at this one to laugh we have something that truly needs to be brought up to the attention of everyone. Have you seen this video clip?

Radio show host Michael Reagan said something that shouldn't ever be said. Here is a dailykos diary talking about it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/18/ 12713/0791/331/537672

"The president sets the mission, the generals and our troops carry out that mission," said Obama, offering a criticism of President Bush's reliance on the advice of Gen. David Petraeus in planning for America' future in Iraq.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20 08/04/clinton_obama_talk_iraq_republ_1.h tml

Obama renewed his pledge to start withdrawing troops as soon as he takes office. What more do you want. That was announced today. Jerusalem Post and CNN

this is absolutely ridiculous. the nafta flap wasnt a contradiction. he said he would renegotiate nafta to be fairer because it has some kinks that need to be worked out, otherwise michigan, pennsylvania, ohio and such would be doing just as well as the beneficiaries of nafta, like texas.

the only thing was that obama had said to reporters that goolsbee didnt talk to canadians when he in fact did. this mistatement was due to the fact that he didnt ask his campaign about this, and made a blanket statement in front of cameras.

HOWEVER, there was no talking out of both sides of his mouth! the media conflated the fact that he misspoke about goolsbee speaking to the canadians, and whether he really planned to renegotiate nafta.

those are completely two different issues.

Perhaps, I would not be surprised.

kingsbridge did this troll on dailykos too. Don't buy the McCain trolls

for a change.  I suppose this is, in a way, another troll diary for you, but you have a good point.

Let's vote for Obama, while at the same time being wary of him.

We need to be wary, but we don't have any choice right now.  We must trust him enough to give him some slack until the General Election, but be on our guard if he goes the Full Monty on us.

And this, by the way, is why I didn't like certain other candidates.  They had betrayed us specifically with respect to Iraq before.  So there is precedent for being cautious.

I'll offer you this, my pre-emptive petition for the impeachment of John/Jane Doe in 2009 if he/she doesn't get us out of Iraq.  I intended it for Hillary, back when she was "inevitable," but I would think it was equally applicable to Obama IF he lets us down on Iraq.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/18 /01140/190/932/411972

Petition:

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT JOHN/JANE DOE IN 2009 SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR NEEDLESSLY CONTINUING A FOOLISH WAR IN IRAQ AND WASTING OUR COUNTRY'S PRECIOUS BLOOD, YOUTH, AND TREASURE ON A DISTRACTION FROM AMERICA'S REAL SECURITY NEEDS.

Only to be used if John/Jane Doe keeps us in Iraq after being elected.  We can fill in the name of the president later.  Feel free to pass it around

Personally, I think Obama will get us out.  I fear more that he will dawdle too long, doing it.  The best way is the "precipitous" way, to just rip the bandage off so it doesn't sap the energy out of his whole four-year term.  There's no real reason to think it is any better for the Iraqis to do it slowly than quickly.  Meanwhile, our economy is suffering from this war and we need to stop the hemorrhaging.

No Zebari is playing you for a fool. Like all the competing factions in Iraq he has an agenda.

The Kurdish leaders don't want US troops in Kurdistan but they do want them in Sunni and Shia Iraq forever. They will do anything and say anything to make sure that that status remains unchanged.

You probably took Ahmed Chalabi at his word as well.

Nothing more to it.

Did you actually think he was going to withdraw troops from Iraq WITHOUT talking to our military or the Iraqi government? What? He was going to fly them out on commercial airlines? Your concern is duly noted.

Obama's position on Iraq has always been that: "We need to be just as careful getting out of Iraq, as we were careless getting in."

There's nothing wrong with keeping Obama on the straight and narrow on Iraq.  This doesn't strike me as a troll diary.

Noboby has to "play" you for a fool, McTroll.

I would rather trust Obama on Iraq than McCain. The Iraq Study Group didn't call for the total removal of troops, it said remove troops from the front lines and protect the Embassy.  I admit Obama has staked his campaign on the removal of US troops but the realistic option is to remove troops from the front line and let the Iraqis fight and help with training missions only.  Presidential candidates always play to their base during the primaries but move to the center in the general, John Kerry did this in 2004 concerning Iraq and now it's Obama's turn.