No Flip-Flopping on Iraq

[Pujah]

My Plan for Iraq

 

By BARACK OBAMA

Published: July 14, 2008

 

THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

 

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

 

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

 

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

 

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

 

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

 

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

 

Con’t reading …

[Baashi]

Pujah, qallanjo the man changed his position on Iraq. Even I, of all people with Obama biases, noticed it. Politically speaking, his move to center is justifiable. But Obama is not the man he used to be. Blame American style politics if you must but it is clear that he needs Hillary rednecks, independants, and moderate GOPers in order to beat his rival. That I understand. But don't tell me he has not changed his strict standards for immediate Iraq withdrawal.

[Pujah]

^^ Yes he changed his positions on FISA and public financing but nothing else as far as I can see - the man has always had some nuanced positions.

 

Here is a form letter I received from his senate office after sending some heated emails to his constituency service office last week.

 

=============================

 

Dear xxxxxx:

 

Thank you for contacting me concerning the President’s domestic surveillance program. I appreciate hearing from you.

 

Providing any President with the flexibility necessary to fight terrorism without compromising our constitutional rights can be a delicate balance. I agree that technological advances and changes in the nature of the threat our nation faces may require that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 1978, be updated to reflect the reality of the post 9/11 world. But that does not absolve the President of the responsibility to fully brief Congress on the new security challenge and to work cooperatively with Congress to address it.

 

Congress has been considering the issue of domestic surveillance since last year. Just before the August recess in 2007, Congress passed hastily crafted legislation to expand the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant or real oversight, even if the targets are communicating with someone in the United States. This legislation was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007.

 

On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3773, the “Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007” (RESTORE Act) by a vote of 227-189. The House bill did not provide retroactive immunity for private companies that may have participated in the illegal collection of personal information, nor does it provide immunity for Administration officials who may have acted illegally.

 

On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. During consideration of this bill, I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, which would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, the bill did not provide for a mechanism that would allow the American people to learn exactly what the Bush Administration did with its warrantless wiretapping program and provided for no accountability.

 

The House and Senate worked out a compromise, reconciling differences between the two versions of the bill. While I recognize that this compromise is imperfect, I supported this legislation, which provides an important tool to fight the war on terrorism and provides for an Inspectors General report so that we can finally get to the bottom of the warrantless wiretapping program and how it undermined our civil liberties. Importantly, the improvements in the bill were the result of a strong grassroots movement of Americans who demanded the protection of their civil liberties. However, I remain disappointed that this bill, now signed into law, grants an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program. I joined several of my colleagues in efforts to remove the immunity provision from the bill, and I am sorry to report that these efforts failed.

 

The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. In a dangerous world, the government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. The American people do not want the President or the Congress to use our security imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties.

 

Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch as this debate continues.

 

Sincerely,

 

Barack Obama

United States Senator