"the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000"80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

As you point out --- Timelines are a byproduct of conditions on the GROUND. No candidate can GUARANTEE a complete or even almost complete removal of troops without first discussing conditions on the ground. Any candidate that SAYS they can are lying.

Ask Hillary for a SPECIFIC DATE as to when she'll have all the troops out of Iraq. You won't get one.

The difference between these Dem candidates and Bush/McCain is --- the Democrats WANT and DESIRE to get out of Iraq.

They should make an issue of it. Obama himself has on two occasions indicated that his withdrawal strategy will be hostage to "events on the ground." Specifically, he has said that he will not withdraw in the face of increasing sectarian violence, which the Shiites can arrange simply by fighting each other. Obama will be in Iraq as long as Iran wants him there.

So much is going to depend on the quality of advisors surrounding these candidates. Obama's just aren't up to taking on Iran.

Nobody cared when Powers said it, nobody will care now. Obama often talks about being surrounded with people who hold different views than he does. It's the Team of Rivals concept.

If anything, he could spin it into a positive.

No surprise. This is not the first time his staff has suggested he won't exit from Iraq as planned. Obama's poor and inexperienced leadership and management skills have resulted in many of his staff saying embarrassing and contradictory things that either conflict with Obama's public pronouncements or show the lies and pandering Obama is engaging in.

I do not trust Obama to exit from Iraq as he has stated is his intent. First, while he made a nice speech about Iraq years ago (his claim for running for president). Second, numerous times his staff have said he'd look at it all again if and once elected. Third, he is also quoted as not so opposed. Finally, where it counted, funding, he has always voted for funding. Combine this with his lack of legislative, foreign policy, and military experience, I've got to conclude that he will not act as he has told voters in the campaign.

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

I bet they try to defuse the Mark Penn problem re NAFTA by linking it with this. But if they do, it's a poor analogy. In this case it's an adviser with a "view" - not someone who's gone to a meeting to arrange for this to happen. Penn is employed to help with NAFTA, while this adviser is not employed by Iraq or the US military.

But likely they will try to knit these totally separate issues together. Problem is this, I think: The people who will be affected by the NAFTA flap are folks who don't read much and work hard at the kinds of jobs that they fear losing and fear NAFTA accordingly. Whereas the people who might hear an "argument" to tie these together are more in touch with the news and likely will see through the smoke-screen.

The Mark Penn/NAFTA problem will catch hold. I predict this will not.

Oh, diverse viewpoints among advisers. The horror!

Is it just me, or does Clinton get away with a lot of crap.

We don't know when her "final" withdrawal date is.

Mark Penn is advocating a position on free trade with Colombia that's the complete opposite of Hillary's... not any news on the major networks.

What gives?

Hehe, guess I was right.

"It's unclear right now whether the Hillary camp will try to make an issue of this today."

Looks like they just did.

Why doesn't he just tell the truth? I don't understand why he can't just be honest about his plan for Iraq. The American people will go along with almost anything as long as their leader appears confident in their plan. If he can't show consistency and expertise on this Iraq plan, McCain is going to happily parade his crappy 100 year plan to the whole country saying, "You may not agree with what I stand for, but at least you know where I stand." Come on Obama, get it right!

Did everybody miss Obama's Hardball interview?

I know it was 2 days ago, so it's ancient history and all, but he said he wants opinions from all points of view and wants EVERYONE to be able to express their points of view without being afraid to do so.

I know we have 16 years of Presidents that have surrounded themselves with "Yes-men", but Obama said, not 48 hours ago, that he is going to listen to varying points of view.

This is not news, other than the fact that Hillary will run with it. She will fail.

All the April Polls show Clinton to be around 45% to 53% in Pennsylvania while Obama is around 40% to 43%...... Will the news about the 60,000+ troops staying until 2010 or longer hurt the Obama Camp and bring Clinton's numbers up before Pennsylvania votes on April 22nd?

I believe it will......GO HILLARY!!!

Given Mark Penn's recent activities, I'm not sure the Clinton campaign wants to start a discussion about the viewpoints of campaign advisers.

Well as Obama's foreign policy makes unnecessary to take the supremely idiotic, counter productive and economically, politically and military suicidal step of "taking on" Iran, I'm fine with it.

Well, yeah, sure, the Clinton campaign could try to insist that Obama must agree with everything any of his advisers is, well, advising.

But, seeing as *her* chief strategist has "strayed off message" more than a little himself in his recent lobbying efforts on behalf of the Colombian government, in regards to that bilateral free-trade agreement that Clinton publicly opposes, it would be a stupid, stupid line of attack.

(Not that that will stop her - just watch.)

So eager to post bad Obama schtuff, you forgot to do the math. Dolt.

I want a President who does not etch all details in stone a year ahead of when he gets sworn in to office, and will leave himself the flexibility to adjust to the actual conditions at the time he takes office. "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Bush is a fine example of that.

"We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq, as we were careless in going in" Senator Barack Obama.

If you want more of the type of stubborn inflexible stupidity that George W. Bush has provided then Senator Obama is not your Man. He has always said that his plans were forward looking calculations subject to change if conditions have changed by the time he takes office.

That is the hallmark of a rational leader. Only idiots and liars promise that nothing will change in the future.

Obama MUST surround himself with people who have the exact same policy views as himself. Obama MUST NOT speak with or accept the support of people who do not have the exact same policy views as himself. After all, it is what has made Bush such a great leader, right?
All the blather about what policy advisers think or say is so old I just want to throw up at times. Do you want a president who surrounds himself with yes wo/men? I'll pass on that myself.

Once again, math rears its ugly head.

16 months = 2010

It's one to forget that when posting the blog, but it's been duly noted by many comments here, so it should be corrected, no?

The characterization that this is "straying off message" is clearly inaccurate and thus, inciting the Clintons to attack using this inaccuracy, now published, as fact, seems needlessly destructive.

Given the clusterf@ck that Hillary's campaign has turned into, I find your comments about Obama's management style and leadership abilities a little ridiculous, Weaver.

Obama should surround himself with only people that agree with him and confirm his pre-existing opinions. Look how well that worked for W!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama speak on having our troops in an 'overwatch' position and indicated that the overwatch position was outside of Iraq in Kuwait? BTW Jan '09 to May '10 is 16 months.

I am amazed that no one actually looked at Kahl's publication to be found here:

http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?1888

It does not reference 60,000-80,000 troops remaining at all. Seems the Sun has taken info from a separate publication (the first one) from CNAS which was written by James N. Miller and Shawn W. Brimley not by Kahl at all.

So we should actually all be writing to the Sun to debunk their article.

Hey Greg,
How about you provide some information about where you got turned onto this information?

If it came from anyone around Clinton which it should have if they are even a little good at Op-Research, then they already made it an issue.

Di you guys see this article?

New study shows US lawmakers have as much as $196 million invested in defense companies
The Associated PressPublished: April 3, 2008

I care more about will the Democrats prop up certain people in power, and divide Iraq and privatize their oil against popular will- basically will they follow Bush's plan or will they detract from that plan.

Oops! Have you noticed how one by one the things that attracted so many Democrats to Obama have turned out to be a mirage?

Obama was seen as the one who could unite the races in America. Oops. Rev. Wright.

Obama was seen as the one who never supported the war in Iraq. Oops. That was just one speech when he wasn't even in the Senate yet. Once in the Senate he voted the same as Hillary on every war vote.

Obama was seen as the one who would get us out of Iraq. Oops. His adviser slipped and said we'd still be there in 2010.

Well, at least we still don't really know Obama, so there is still plenty of room for illusions. Someone said that we already know 90% of Hillary, but we only know 50% of Obama, and that 50% includes all the good stuff.

I agree that realistically a pull out in Iraq would be disasterous for the region given the mess left by GWB.

So we have to deal with it intelligently. How? By bringing a world coalition and yes it would mean dividing the spoils of war if you will. It would mean no exclusive US contract for the oil spigot.

In return the world would have to bring their troops in to do some of the grunt work to take the pressure off the US and the massive debt that is killing the economy.

But Obama's sound bytes give the impression he will leave ASAP, when even I know it is not feasible given the conditions left by our dear present leader. However, I think he has to say it because there has to be some distinction between he and McSame.

Well first of all, what someone says they will do during a campaign and what they actually do when they get there and find out all the stuff nobody else but the administration that is leaving knew, is often rather far apart.

Personally, I think it should be up to the Iraqis and my understanding is that they want us out. End of story.

As a Clinton supporter I would say that Obama's timeline is not unrealistic. No one is going to bring all the troops home on January 21st.

That said, I think that many Obama supporters, if they were honest with themselves, would admit that they expected he would get us out alot quicker than that. And, with govt. being the way it is you can almost guarantee it will take at least as long as he predicts.

What this does is put Obama almost in lockstep with Clinton on most policies. And once again the nomination is not about platforms. It is about identity, and a botched primary process.

Not about identity, but about who runs the party- activists from all 50 state party organizations organizing from the ground up (the people who got Howard Dean elected as DNC chair with a mandate to implement the 50-state strategy), or fat cats dictating from the top down (who will once again
abandon that strategy and with it any hope for building a majority that can elect a real progressive in the future). Keep your eye on the ball. It's about lot more than these two particular individuals, and no I'm not talking about demographics.

Can you read, Louisville? Right there above in black and white:

Both the Obama campaign and Kahl, who is day-to-day coordinator of Obama's working group on Iraq, say his views expressed here are not those of the campaign in any way. Obviously, candidates surround themselves with multiple advisers with a range of views about stuff, and can't be responsible for all of them.

Perhaps he ought to include Gen. Odom as one of those advisors, who's telling Congress we need a swift withdrawal.

It is now Friday afternoon.

Hillary, where are the tax records.

Hillary, where are the tax records.

Hillary, where are the tax records.

2010 is 12 months from Jan 2009.

Obama said 16 months.

Can you do math? I knew you could.
Just more bs FoxNews propaganda being pushed through the socalled "MSM"

http://www.foxattacks.com

RyeLiz wrote:

"I am amazed that no one actually looked at Kahl's publication to be found here:

http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?1888

It does not reference 60,000-80,000 troops remaining at all. Seems the Sun has taken info from a separate publication (the first one) from CNAS which was written by James N. Miller and Shawn W. Brimley not by Kahl at all.

So we should actually all be writing to the Sun to debunk their article."

Repeated for emphasis. Let's not let these sorts of "errors" slide. I've already written to the HRC website asking that they amend the text on the blog front page accordingly.

liam,

They're out already. Shut up with the stupid repeating questions.

Read what the Kahl. Through 2010. Not sixteen months after Obama's sworn in, not May 2010, but the end of 2010. 60,000 to 80,000 soldiers still in Iraq.

"Obviously, candidates surround themselves with multiple advisers with a range of views about stuff, and can't be responsible for all of them," wrote Greg Sargent.

And then said: "It's unclear right now whether the Hillary camp will try to make an issue of this today."

So where's the outrage about Team Obama making an issue about Mark Penn's meeting with Colombian officials? Shouldn't Greg have written about that meeting: ""Obviously, candidates surround themselves with multiple advisers with a range of views about stuff, and can't be responsible for all of them"?

Or is that somehow...different?

Tell me, Greg?

Ryeliz & mayur12,

You all seem to be clever but not nearly enough to pull it off. The link you reference is to a CNAS Policy Brief. What the Sun article is discussing is something altogether different: "A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office." Notice the word "confidential" in the sentence. That means not available to the public unlike a copy of a policy brief. It is also worth noting that neither Kahl nor the Obama campaign are questioning the newspaper's characterization of Kahl's position paper to the CNAS.

Nice try at spinning. However, this is of a part with previous history on this issue: Obama's failure to support Feingold's legislation to set a withdrawal date; Powers's comments to the British; Kahl's paper for the CNAS.

Perhaps you two need to join up with liam to start making some noise about HTC's tax returns to change the narrative.

mikeyleigh:

My apologies. I take back my post earlier. The similarity of titles had me confused, and I assumed (you know what they say about that).

Regardless, it's a non-story, both in terms of a) the actual "difference" between Kahl's statement and Obama's own statement on Iraq (2010 is 2010 either way) and b) the fact that advisers are, after all, supposed to propose policies that aren't in lockstep with their bosses. That's why they call it advice, right? :)

Incidentally, I happen to think the Penn thing is essentially a non-story... with the *exception* that a) in Penn's case, a direct conflict of interest is involved, which is a problem, and b) Penn's acts give lie to Hillary's statement in Ohio that "if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments and basically saying ignore what I'm saying because it's only political rhetoric … I think it raises serious questions."