Why Did Obama Change Positions on Iraq?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

nXbARp

Qmdzvmxo of OR 12:43PM July 15, 2009

yeah, there were a few typos there, but if u read it, it genuinely makes you think...

ashley tengler of CA 10:32PM September 27, 2008

The bottom line, is that Obama changes his mind constantly. He stole the majority of his economic plans from Hillary Clinton, and lets face it, arent his plans for the economy the only strengths he seems to have?
The facts are: Obama changed his opinion on the way. whether or not he "learned" more about the war, he either lacks the confidence and dignity to stand for what he beleives, or he is simply changing his mind to say what he thinks the people want. last time I checked want that called making campaign promises?
oh, and what about offshore drilling? Obama was strongly against it, but now... they say he has "softened" his standpoint. I beleive it is apparent that he is weak when it comes to decision making, and even weaker when it comes to standing by his decisions under pressure.
here is no way for us to know what the true intentions of our candidates are, and what they will actually do when they get into office. One thing that is important to me, at least, for our president, is that he knows what he beleives is.
It is pretty transparent that Obama is just another greesy politician trying to get in hands on more power.

ashley tengler of CA 10:26PM September 27, 2008

HE is a good president but should change his view on life for people. But he has to be a better listener wheen it comes to the war in iraq. so he should be a the president of the united states.......

cody maxwell from haromon middle school of OH 8:08AM September 17, 2008

and you will not hear it from Obama and defiantly not McCain ----- Ron Paul is a the gold standard of a someone who loves our Constitution.
^^^ thank you for linking the votes hopefully some people start to question what is going on here ----
Bob Barr also has a great video on his site right now for those of us who no longer want out 1 trillion a year foreign Policy that only cause more and more issues everytime we turn around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0Wqj3BSvU&feature=user
"I hope our Wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be" -- Thomas Jefferson

Kelly of CA 6:37PM July 07, 2008

Obama is not going to get us out of Iraq voting to give blank checks of 162 billion to provide supplemtal war funding through june of 2009 for Bush's War --- it is all lip service
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-161
This s not leadership --- Plain and simple!
Where is the voice of what we really need??...... a Non-Interventiionist Foreign Policy
RON PAUL voted agaist the 162 billion!! a Real leader --
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-432
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. ~ ~~ Ron Paul

Adam of MN 6:14PM July 07, 2008

The Islamofascists, in perpetual quest of greater wealth and power, rant to incite the impoverished Islamic peoples to violence against the notorious injustices of the powerful Judeofascist land robbers. The Judeofascists, in perpetual quest for greater wealth and power, wail and lobby to incite the American People into providing military protection against this persecution by outraged Islamofascists. To add credibility to these rantings and wailings, intermittent battles are fought. The result is that these clever Islamofascists and Judeofascists do gain great wealth and power, at the expense of the Arab, Persian, and American peoples.
The continuous illegal sacrifice of the wealth and blood of the American People on behalf Israel is all that perpetuates this destructive symbiotic relationship between the Islamofascists and the Judeofascists. But when, in the normal course of the American Cultural War, the Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs are finally expelled by the Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals from their positions of power, the economic and military support for the Judeofascists will finally end; and that will end the support for the Islamofascists. The end of the era of Neo-Con/Neo-Lib military intervention in the affairs of the Arab and Persian peoples shall be the start of an era of constructive relations with the American People.
The Judeofascists, who live in a glass house surrounded by Islamofascists, could continue fight for survival politically and militarily, until nuclear armed Israel finally becomes the site of a second great Judeocide, Holocaust II; or, they could offer sincere apologies, and generous economic reparations for the stolen land, damaged infrastructure, and losses of innocent lives; to finally win for themselves by just and peaceful means, what they cannot win by unjust and violent means.
Shall the World be cheering, and the Diaspora wailing; or, shall the World and the Diaspora be cheering?

Jeugenen of MA 2:13PM June 22, 2008

"So that's what Bush has done about energy over the past 8 years - nothing. Now McCain has taken more money from the oil lobby than any other candidate. So what can we expect is more of the same. Nothing. Let's remember that the oil companies are already given about $19 billion or so in tax breaks, and he wants to give them more tax breaks."
So take away the tax breaks. I'm all for it. But I would like to know what new tax breaks for the oil companies Bush is proposing. Please point me to legislation so I may read it.
"Let's also remember that the oil companies are sitting on huge land leases already - and they've done nothing to develop them. Why? Because the costs for drilling and distribution outweigh the benefits - poor use of capital."
Oh, this talking point. Since no Congressman and woman will answer this, I want you to. Where are these mythical 68 million acres? It's funny that you say in once paragraph that the oil companies don't develop these acres because the cost outweigh the benefits. Guess what? This is exactly what it means to do business in a capitalistic society! If you know the risks won't pay off, why in the world would you make the investment? No business would survive. Of course, you probably are for Congressman Hinchey's idea of nationalizing the oil industry for the people. Then we can see all of that mythical 68 million acres developed the way it needs to be!
"What the hell are you talking about? Innovation isn't going to come from new drilling - yes there will be developments in new drilling technologies, but the future is to focus on alternatives - I'd include nuclear (which Barack doesn't support), solar, wind and particularly clean coal. None of those innovations will come from opening up more land."
Thanks for refuting your own argument. I will say this. Since you want alternative energies, which one would be the most viable for the future? Wind? Solar? Hydrogen? Water? Biofuels? Nuclear? Here's an idea. Why not do them ALL? Since the other energies are still expensive relative to oil, we will be dependent on oil for long time. If we are allowed to drill for new oil, we can sell the oil not only here in the U.S., but on the open market. With the added revenues for companies and taxes for the states and federal government, we can use those monies to invest in all of these other energy sources. And then once one of these new energies prove a viable substitute to oil, we can slowly remove ourselves from oil and go on an alternative energy. This is how digging for oil NOW can lead to new innovations in technology.

Chris of AZ 6:58PM June 20, 2008

lostinspace, where to begin?
"Classic canard - environmentalists cause the energy problems. Given that Bush and the Republicans have controlled Washington for the last 8 years, when oil was $20/barrel, and they either ignored putting money into developing alternative energy or just plainly cozied up to the oil companies themselves, I think we know where to put the blame for higher energy. Bush and the republicans have also fought every attempt to increase CAFE standards for autos - all of which would have saved us from upping our consumption. Instead, we had tax credits for buying an SUV."
The environmentalists are a GIANT problem with energy concerns here. If you don't think so, then you are more partisan than I thought. Why fight over a stupid polar bear, when it is not threatened? Why worry about caribou in a region that is not even habitable to animals? Why continuously worry about oil spills when the last major oil spill was due to a tanker hitting a rock and the one prior happened 39 years ago, when technology has improved? Why oppose nuclear when we have proven technologies to dispose the waste without destroying the environment (which, by the way, is the cleanest form of energy as it emits NO greenhouse gases)?
Conservation and increasing CAFE standards are not going to save you money. These things are determined by consumer behavior. Besides, what are increased CAFE standards going to do for you, if you don't buy a car with higher CAFE standards? Are you going to suggest the government should force individuals to buy new cars?
"The other reality is that the reason why oil is so high is because it's priced in dollars. The dollar, under Bush, has been CRUSHED by 40% - in 2000 dollars, we'd be paying around $80/barrel - still high, but nowhere near where it is now. So we have the Bush administration to thank for these oil prices."
Um, the Bush administration can't control oil prices. And I am always suspect when libs start throwing around numbers. If the dollar inflated by 40%, we would have a lot more things to worry about besides oil. Face it, the only reason the price of crude is high is because of supply and demand. This a global product, and we have no more a way to control the price if we wanted to.

Chris of AZ 6:48PM June 20, 2008

"You think it's alright that we Americans continue to pay $4 and up per gallon for gas, and give our money to people who can care less about us, and we shouldn't be looking in our own backyard for energy?"
No, I didn't say that - I said it was pandering to think that it's going to work, just like his gas tax holiday. I said it will have no short term impact. Realistically, it will also have minimal long term impact based on the assessments for how much oil is in the ground there, the type of oil (high sulfur content), and how much it costs to extract it. And given that the states themselves don't want it, it ain't going to happen. He knows it - it's pandering.
"Just think of all the money, all of the potential jobs created, all of the revenues to the government(s), all of the potential innovations we have left on the table for more than 30 years because the true group of special interests that have a grip on Washington - namably environmentalists - have convinced politicians that it is in their best interest to go against the will of the people and prevent domestic oil production?"
Classic canard - environmentalists cause the energy problems. Given that Bush and the Republicans have controlled Washington for the last 8 years, when oil was $20/barrel, and they either ignored putting money into developing alternative energy or just plainly cozied up to the oil companies themselves, I think we know where to put the blame for higher energy. Bush and the republicans have also fought every attempt to increase CAFE standards for autos - all of which would have saved us from upping our consumption. Instead, we had tax credits for buying an SUV.
The other reality is that the reason why oil is so high is because it's priced in dollars. The dollar, under Bush, has been CRUSHED by 40% - in 2000 dollars, we'd be paying around $80/barrel - still high, but nowhere near where it is now. So we have the Bush administration to thank for these oil prices.
So that's what Bush has done about energy over the past 8 years - nothing. Now McCain has taken more money from the oil lobby than any other candidate. So what can we expect is more of the same. Nothing. Let's remember that the oil companies are already given about $19 billion or so in tax breaks, and he wants to give them more tax breaks. Let's also remember that the oil companies are sitting on huge land leases already - and they've done nothing to develop them. Why? Because the costs for drilling and distribution outweigh the benefits - poor use of capital.
"all of the potential innovations we have left on the table"
What the hell are you talking about? Innovation isn't going to come from new drilling - yes there will be developments in new drilling technologies, but the future is to focus on alternatives - I'd include nuclear (which Barack doesn't support), solar, wind and particularly clean coal. None of those innovations will come from opening up more land.

lostinspace of ME 3:56PM June 20, 2008