« ObamaPanic Take 2 - She's a Monster!! | Main | Oil November 2000: $28 A Barrel. Oil March 2008: $106 A Barrel. Replacing The Bush-Oil Industry Plutocracy: Priceless! »

ObamaPanic Take 3 - Obama Is Soft on Iraq Withdrawal

The Obama gift that keeps on giving -- to the Clinton campaign -- is his poor choice of advisers that keep leaking the fact that Barack Obama, the mighty man of change, has not been truthful in his campaign statements to the American people.

Samantha Power -- Harvard professor, author of books on the Rwandan genocide and slain UN official Sergio Vieira de Mello and resident big thinker in the Obama camp -- said in an interview with the BBC that Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq would inevitably depend somewhat on the circumstances he finds when he takes office. The Clinton campaign this afternoon pounced on the matter of fact remark as proof that Obama's promise to get out troops out of Iraq was disingenuous -- just an hour or two after the Clinton camp successfully demanded Power resign her campaign advisory post for another recent comment, telling the Scotsman newspaper that Clinton was behaving like a "monster."

Sooner or later the Barack Obama campaign had to rely on something other than just plagiarized speeches, and we're seeing the painful result of that.

Powers resigned today, but there will be more revelations of Obama's disingenuous assault on the Democratic electorate, no doubt.

Here's what Power said in the BBC interview. remember, Obama has made much to do about his 'hard line" stance on Iraq, and how Clinton hasn't committed to pulling out the troops like OBamabi has... and we now know that Barack was just bullshitting the American electorate again.

BBC: "You said that he'll revisit it when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment isn't it?

POWER: "You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. [Which is exactly what Clinton has said as well - Lee] We can't even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. [Clinton has said the same thing, that we won't know the extent of the mess until the new President takes office - Lee] He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.

He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn't have daily access now as a result of not being the president. So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, well I said it therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me -

BBC:Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?

POWER: It's the best case scenario.

BBC: It's the best case scenario.

POWER: It is -

BBC: And of course in Iraq we've never seen best case scenario.

POWER: We have never seen best case scenario

BBC: So we needn't necessarily take it seriously at all.

POWER: What we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible. And that's the best case, estimate of what it would take.

The best estimate and as quickly as possible - just like Clinton. Oh, Barack, when will the lies stop?

Clinton skewers Obama

Here's a transcript of the press conference. Note: Questions are paraphrased. Answers are not.

"I want to say a few words to start about something that one of Sen. Obama's top foreign policy aides told the BBC recently about Iraq. Sen. Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in Iraq is the core of his campaign, which makes these comments especially troubling. While Sen. Obama campaigns on his plan to end the war, his top advisors tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan, should he become president.

"This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. We saw this with NAFTA as well. He's attacked me continuously for having no hard exit date and now we learned that he doesn't have one. In fact, he doesn't have a plan at all, according to his top foreign-policy advisor. If he keeps telling people one thing while his campaign tells people abroad something else, I'm not sure what the American people should believe."

Chaos in the Obama camp, and they are clearly reeling.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (6 votes cast)


Comments (3)

John McCain must be smelling victory coming all the way up Broadway. The continued infighting between Clinton and Obama delivers nothing but more good news each day. And the Florida and Michigan mess is whole other matter.

Smells like the 1968 mess. Looks like the 1968 mess. It's the party bruising 1968 mess all over again.

In fact, according to the national polls, her tactics ARE working. Of course, Obama's decline could also be simply due to the problems his campaign is having on Rezko, NAFTA, Iraq . . .

Paul Hooson ~ I disagree on the similarity to 1968. That year was completely unique. Humphrey entered late and, due to the few states which awarded delegates through primaries, was able to win a majority of delegates without directly competing in a single primary himself. It was the last cycle the "party establishment" had full control of the convention and the selection process. The only similarity this year potentially is, as you say, the mess.

Lee Ward:

Jim's right - Obama dropped 6 points and Hillary rose 6 points in a shift that began February 28 - clear proof that Hillary's plan is working.

And Obama outspent Clinton by a huge margin in Ohio and Texas, Larkin, and couldn't buy the election there, and he won't be able to buy it in Pennsylvania either. The February millions were gathered before the shift.

Paul - the party will unite behind the winner. Yes, ex-Republicans like Larkin will probably vote for McCain instead if Clinton wins the nomination, but there was always that danger anyway -- true Democrats aren't counting on the those people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 to carry the election for us. All they're doing is trying to write a moderate agenda for the Democratic party and help elect a guy who will sit down and broker deals with the Republican'ts -- I say throw them out.

I wonder how much 'ex-Republican' money has gone into Obama's campaign in an attempt to stop Hillary?


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.