Now comes to the moment that you actually prove he takes different positions on these issues.
The world awaits your evidence.
I'll be your Huckleberry...
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/02/10/re marks_of_senator_barack_obam_11.php
But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace.
-10 February 2007
"I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability"..."And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies"
-4 July 2008
Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.
- October 2007
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future. Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. ...
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. ...
And the biggest of all when you take everything that is happening right now...
That is why this campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us - it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change. ...then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you.
...then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you.
Or will this be the truth...
But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.
All emphasis is mine...ask and you shall receive.
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.
First of all I should be more clear, Obama was always a moderate to conservative Democrat. I don't characterize his current positions as flip-flops, but rather as a revealing of the positions his primary campaign may have obscured.
Separation of Church and State. In the YouTube debate Stephen Marsh, an atheist, asked "Am I wrong in fearing a Democratic administration that may be lip service to the extremely religious as much as the current one?" Obama responded:
I am proud of my Christian faith. And it informs what I do. And I don't think that people of any faith background should be prohibited from debating in the public square. But I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state
Obama has proposed expanding Bush's Faith Based Initiative, rendering lip service to the extremely religious and taking a weak position on the separation of church and state that is not much different from the current administration's.
On the DC handgun ban when Obama was campaigning in DC he was asked "You support the DC handgun ban and you have said it is constitutional" and he replied "Right".
Choice. Obama's website has a whole section titled Fact Check: Obama's Strong Pro-Choice Record designed to lead people to believe that he takes a strong stand for choice. As your quotes demonstrate that stand is actually pretty soft, and is specifically weak on the late-term abortion prohibition, which President Clinton vetoed twice.
Iraq. Obama's web site says:
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.
NAFTA. In the February debate Obama said
OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, you know, when I ran for the United States Senate, the "Chicago Tribune," which was adamantly pro-NAFTA noted that in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA. And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all.
And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about.
I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, you know, when I ran for the United States Senate, the "Chicago Tribune," which was adamantly pro-NAFTA noted that in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA. And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all.
His hammer of a unilateral opt-out of NAFTA and strong opposition to NAFTA are no longer operative, now he prefers "opening up a dialogue."
On the death penalty what you quote from The Audacity of Hope shows the shift from "rape and murder of a child" to just "rape of a child". Obama opposed the Supreme Court's decision that the death penalty can only be punishment for crimes that cause a death, but the quote from The Audacity of Hope suggests he would support such a decision.
On each of these issues when you look closely Obama took a more consistently conservative position, he always caveats any statement that might appear liberal. But the casual follower of the campaign could reasonably think he was liberal given these statements.
When elected next year will be 2010, smartass. So on his site he's saying within 24 months.
Obama has also made no new statements about his strategy regarding NAFTA.
And yes, Obama supports the death penaly in cases of child rape. As he said in his book. You're reaching.
