What Obama said to Kroft is entirely consistent with what he wrote in Audacity: I did not consider the case against [the] war cut and dried.

He goes on to report that he argued in the speech he gave that the war was ill-prepared -- no exit strategy and no alliances, and hence illconceived.
And that we had time to do better since the threat of Saddam was not imminent. On the prior page he lists all the reasons that getting rid of Saddam would be a good thing.

So how much real difference is there between McCain's position this is a good war but you need to do it right and Obama's you sholdn't do this war until you get it right?

As one of many vocal anti-war advocates, I feel pretty strongly about the necessity of the draw-down and eventual withdrawal of troops from the Iraq theatre. But that being said, I don't think it's wise to use any sort of timetable as scripture, especially where the lives of both our soldiers and Iraqi citizens are at stake.

Obama has been one of the most strident anti-war critics, bar-none. I'm an Obama supporter, but I'd be very disappointed if he were to stubbornly cling to a timetable, consequences be damned. Circumstances in war change rapidly, and strategic flexibility is a military leader's best friend.

Isn't this a case of Obama telling voters the truth instead of what they want to hear (at least on the Dem side)?

Of course the commander-in-chief needs the flexibility to assess what gets presented to him that he doesn't see now, the question is whether you trust him to make better judgments with all intelligence than the previous and alternative candidates. I do.

BHO Plan (Campaign website): "Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."

Sen. John MCain (hypothetical debate): " My friends, I am pleased that the junior Senator has agreed with my considered view that timetables cannot be set in stone. Of course, he was for timetables before he was against timetables. Now I understand why John Kerry took time away from his windsurfing to endorse the junior Senator."

Ruh-roh.
Wasn't Hillary killed in the 'sphere for this exact thing?

Greg,

It looks like Mr. Obama committed without hesitation to adopting a timeline.

Kroft's follow-up question was poorly designed to highlight relevant distinctions or otherwise get to the bottom of a complicated policy issue.

It was, however, well designed as a "gotcha!" question-- a question to which an honest answer could be horribly misconstrued in the arena of watered-down debate that is the MSM.

Thank you for playing into that. I would think that, next time, TPM would much prefer skipping the obvious political analysis for something that adds depth to the war debate, or calls out Kroft for thinning the paint.

Shiva

This seems like a gross mischaracterization of the exchange, or at least, bad faith selective highlighting of the less important part of what Obama said. It will come as a relief to my mother-in-law that Obama thinks "now is precisely the time" for withdrawal, and that "it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently." That seems like the important bit.

It's simply not surprising that Obama might keep troops on the ground if Saddam Hussein rises from the dead and joins forces with Osama bin Laden to deploy long-sought-after weapons of mass destruction from secret Iraqi ICBMs. It's just common sense, and thank God Obama has it.

The failure to properly assess the situation has always been the problem with Iraq. President Bush and those who voted for the war failed to properly assess the situation before going in... otherwise we wouldn't have invaded in the first place. The war has been largely botched since the invasion due to a failure to properly assess the situation. The last thing we need is a redeployment of the troops that is as haphazard and poorly executed as the war itself.

It's called bait and switch. Having locked up the anti-war vote, Obama is pivoting to face McCain. He figures, quite rightly, that his base has too much invested in him to back away now that begins to pander to the Patriots.

Obama needs to fine tune this a bit. He should emphasize that he's looking for a way to WITHDRAW responsibly; i.e., his emphasis is going to be on withdrawal, not permanent bases, 100 years war, etc. As long as he keep stressing that his goal is withdrawal, I don't worry too much about this being a "I was against the war before I was for it" moment.

And for you Hillarybots out there: just this weekend, Clinton was claiming that, because the Republicans nominated McCain, we need to show we're tougher than the Repubs on national security.

Do you really want to support someone whose plan for the general election is to out-warmonger the biggest hawk in the Senate?

"Now, it's understandable that a candidate would want to give himself flexibility to maneuver as commander in chief, but this is one matter on which proponents of a firm timetable for withdrawal decidedly don't want to see any flexibility preserved.'

Good one, Greg. Those people should love George W Bush, since he would meet their rigid standards for being inflexible at all times, regardless of how conditions and facts may have changed.

Those people are not seeking a rational leader; they are seeking a prophet and messiah.

I have to agree with others. This is a silly post.

Next Statement Coming... I was againist timetables before I was for them.

This advice given directly to Obama by none other than his good friend and supporter, John Kerry.

Before you go nuts here, this is all said in fun,(however, if you dig deep enough i believe you can find where Obama was not sure that timetables were a good idea) but I do have one thought. I can see this as plain as day on a debate with McCain and Obama.

Obama: I was againist this war from the start Senator McCain.

McCain: My friend, if you were againist this war, then please tell the American people why you voted repeatedly to fund it.

Obama:..............................uh, wait, wait, wait :/

And that will be the end of Obama's so called advantage againist McCain on the war in Iraq.

Steve Kroft said: At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population . . .

In fact, American casualties are up.

And violence is escalating every day.

Yet, by accepting Kroft's faulty premise that the exact opposite is true, Obama parrots McCain's talking points. Not the first time Obama has done this (argued on a faulty premise and/or parroted McCain), and it surely won't be the last.

But there is no need to ignorantly accept CBS's or Obama's bullshit premise on what's going on in Iraq. The facts are easy to ascertain. Obama knows the situation in Iraq is worsening. That's why he needs to say on record, "I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation."

It's a disservice to vast numbers of uninformed voters that John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich are no longer in the race to call the frontrunners on their misstatements and mischaracterizations of a variety of "situations." And it's deeply depressing that Americans so desperately want to be absolved of our responsibility for the disaster in Iraq (or New Orleans or Guantanamo or any number of places) that we'll passively believe anything we're told by our favorite candidates. At this point, the 2008 presidential election has effectively been degraded to nothing more than an American Idol contest.

Now, now! I accused Greg of being pro Hillary just last week. Perhaps we're the true partisans here.

McCain: My friend, if you were againist this war, then please tell the American people why you voted repeatedly to fund it.
Obama:..............................uh, wait, wait, wait :/

And that will be the end of Obama's so called advantage againist McCain on the war in Iraq.

Posted by Junionman

Not by a long shot. Obama's answer is a fairly easy and obvious one: once the troops are in the field you don't leave them there without ammo, food, or armor.

Defunding a war with troops in the field is one of the most ham-fisted ways to affect foreign policy imaginable; it's like trying to drive a finish nail with a sledgehammer.

The way I understand both the Obama and Clinton commitments is that they want to get out of Iraq but in a controlled, careful manner. I believe that is the way it should be and that we cannot know what conditions will be when the the future president takes office. The main thing is they want to get out and are opposed to permanent military bases.

I hear very little consideration given to the Iraqi civilians which troubles me greatly. The iraqis have suffered far more casualties, have miserable medical facilities and no support for the many who need prosthetic limbs and rehabilitation. There is much talk in our press about Christian values but little Christian concern for the innocents. We were not invited to Iraq, we broke it and we must some how help fix it.

My vote goes to Obama because he was against going in originally. I have yet to understand how the interests of the USA are being served by being in Iraq. On the contrary, we seem to have lost everything by engaging in this preemptive war and occupation.

Junionman,

I think that the difference between voting for the AUMF and voting for funding the war are very simple issues for Obama to disentangle. Horse meet barn door. And that's what a good leader does: explain their reasoning. I really don't think this is a hard one for the American public to grasp and the upside for Obama would be great in a debate with McCain; Obama can show the difference between supporting the war and supporting the troops. And if McCain gives him that opening then I say, take it.

As to blaming Hillary, I most assuredly do. See former Republican Lincoln Chafee's comments in his new memoir (he voted against the AUMF as you may recall):
That includes New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, whom Chafee says put her presidential ambitions above standing up to Mr. Bush and the rush to war in Iraq.

“I find it surprising now, in 2008, how many Democrats are running for president after shirking their constitutional duty to check and balance this president,” writes Chafee...

“They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.”

Having said all that, I'm damn sure voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination. So Junionman, we can have our differences now, but I'll be in that booth in November voting for the Dem nominee, and I hope you'll be there too.

So if I understand people here Obama will get a pass on anything he does in Iraq, no escalation too great, all because of a single speech he made when he bore no responsibility for the outcome of a decision he had no part in making?
Obama in the past most definitely did commit to a timed withdrawal from Iraq. Fact. And in the past HRC was slammed by the netroots for not making that same commitment. Fact.
But now that Obama is backstroking towards the center right all his earlier statements just get flushed down the memory hole?
Why? Or is that a racist question too?
You can be sure that the Republicans will pound him hard on this and he will have to respond by becoming yet more hawkish.
He will be "saying anything" as he says. Sad.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
US essayist & poet (1803 - 1882)

So if I understand people here Obama will get a pass on anything he does in Iraq, no escalation too great, all because of a single speech he made when he bore no responsibility for the outcome of a decision he had no part in making?
Posted by JTHB

I know I've said nothing of the kind, and I don't believe anyone on this thread has either. Now if you think the stand Obama took during his senate race was one of a political calculation that engendered to risk to attaining the office he sought--OK. That's your interpretation and you're welcome to it. I see it differently.

As to your backstroking accusation, for all the reasons I've laid out upthread, I think that any other answer to the question he was given would have been cynical political triangulation on his part. So maybe you and I just respond to different styles of leadership in our politicians...

Of course what you call his "style of leadership" I think many people will call hypocrisy. And worse.
Mark you, I don't care what Obama has to say about anything and not only because I don't really believe his bs. The Dems could run a native born Vlad the Impaler and I'd vote for him before I'd help elect 10,000 Years In Iraq McCain.
I just want to be clear on the latest tenets of faith in the Church of Obama, that's all.
So thanks for that.
Posted by JTHB

Well good on you for ignoring my arguments upthread and sticking to your HRC talking points. There aren't tenents of faith and there's no church, but there is a lot of energy, momentum and new voters--which seem to provoke your ire for some reason. I wonder why...