No, what you're missing in the kool-aid is that in his speech to announce for the Presidency, he is dead set on a plan and will force the Iraqi's to take control, b/c we're leaving, due to the fact that there is no military solution. And staying there (besides a residual force) any longer is just wasting men and resources that could be used in the fight in Afghanistan and UBL.
Now, we're gonna talk to the generals on the ground, and "refine" our position, and delay the redeployment when circumstances dictate? Who dictates, and what circumstances? He is the NCA, and issues the orders to the Generals, that they carry out. It's that simple.
On FISA, what's funny is that you forget one amusing little detail. He opposed it then...but he "accepts" it now because of compromise. He says it's flawed and it's not the way he would have drafted the bill.
But he is still a part of the UNITED STATES SENATE
He could draft a bill w/out the immunity and make a stand on the issue and unite the Party and show the independents and disaffected Republicans that he will actually stand on an issue and for something.
Yet, he won't do that, he won't even vote to fillibuster the bill. He will give a half-hearted effort and vote to strip it out, and that will fail. He will then cave and vote for the bil.
He was against it, before he was for it, before he was half against it. And then he will be guilty of the same charge he leveled at Hillary Clinton for her AUMF vote in 2003.
Sometimes when you take the glasses off, you can actually see more clearly.
Obama did not vote in favor of cloture, so he did support the filibuster.
And Obama has always maintained that he'd consult with generals about how many troops would stay behind to protect the American embassy and train Iraqi soldiers. Your own quotations prove that.
