President Bush agreed to “a general time horizon” for withdrawing American troops in Iraq
and recently
Iraq and the U.S. pushed close to a deal Thursday setting a course for American combat troops to pull out of Iraqi cities by next June on the way to broader withdrawal from the long and costly war by 2011.
You still manage to choose two of the most biased sources you could to try to prove a point. Let’s look at the facts shall we.
1. At the time Obama and other Dems. started calling for a timetable or troop withdrawal, immediate withdrawal in some cases, Iraq was unstable and it would have been accepting defeat.
2. Now we are able to talk about a timetable why? Answer: The troop surge ( the one that Obama refused to recognize the success of and liberals were totally against) worked. Iraq is now fairly stable and any withdrawal will depend on that stability.
It seems that you and other liberals need to learn what a flip flop is, because this most certainly is not a flip flop. Discussing a withdrawal time line due to success, not a flip flop. If Bush had decided to discuss a withdrawal time-line in the midst of failure after being so adamantly against defeat, that would have been a flip flop. Its kind of like when Obama says Iran is not a serious threat then turns around less than a week later and calls Iran a grave threat. That is a flip flop.
When a decision has been reached because the situation has changed, as is the case in this situation, then it is not a flip flop simply because those situations were the reason for the first position. As situations change, so should the actions of leaders to best respond to that. It is sort of like McCain supporting oil exploration when gas hit $4 a gallon. It forced him along with many others to realize that we have to become energy independent and that we are so dependent on oil that it has to be part of the equation until we become less dependent.
Hopefully this helps you in discerning what a flip flop is and what it isn’t.
You still manage to choose two of the most biased sources you could to try to prove a point. Let’s look at the facts shall we.
1. At the time Obama and other Dems. started calling for a timetable or troop withdrawal, immediate withdrawal in some cases, Iraq was unstable and it would have been accepting defeat.
2. Now we are able to talk about a timetable why? Answer: The troop surge ( the one that Obama refused to recognize the success of and liberals were totally against) worked. Iraq is now fairly stable and any withdrawal will depend on that stability.
It seems that you and other liberals need to learn what a flip flop is, because this most certainly is not a flip flop. Discussing a withdrawal time line due to success, not a flip flop. If Bush had decided to discuss a withdrawal time-line in the midst of failure after being so adamantly against defeat, that would have been a flip flop. Its kind of like when Obama says Iran is not a serious threat then turns around less than a week later and calls Iran a grave threat. That is a flip flop.
When a decision has been reached because the situation has changed, as is the case in this situation, then it is not a flip flop simply because those situations were the reason for the first position. As situations change, so should the actions of leaders to best respond to that. It is sort of like McCain supporting oil exploration when gas hit $4 a gallon. It forced him along with many others to realize that we have to become energy independent and that we are so dependent on oil that it has to be part of the equation until we become less dependent.
Hopefully this helps you in discerning what a flip flop is and what it isn’t.
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
I would consider that a true statement since Iran has no nuclear weapons.
He then stated recently that a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must prevent it from obtaining the atomic bomb.
A good policy, I would say, and not a change of policy, and not in conflict with his previous statement.
Bush, OTOH changed policy completely. Bush did not qualify his reasons for opposig a timetable, he just opposed them. The same arguments against the timetable could be used now even with the violence down.
Since Obama is a Democrat and perceived by you as a liberal, you twist his words and accuse him of flip-flopping, but you seek to justify a Republican’s change of fundamental policy. Yes, I do see where you are coming from here.
You still manage to choose two of the most biased sources you could to try to prove a point. Let’s look at the facts shall we.
1. At the time Obama and other Dems. started calling for a timetable or troop withdrawal, immediate withdrawal in some cases, Iraq was unstable and it would have been accepting defeat.
2. Now we are able to talk about a timetable why? Answer: The troop surge ( the one that Obama refused to recognize the success of and liberals were totally against) worked. Iraq is now fairly stable and any withdrawal will depend on that stability.
It seems that you and other liberals need to learn what a flip flop is, because this most certainly is not a flip flop. Discussing a withdrawal time line due to success, not a flip flop. If Bush had decided to discuss a withdrawal time-line in the midst of failure after being so adamantly against defeat, that would have been a flip flop. Its kind of like when Obama says Iran is not a serious threat then turns around less than a week later and calls Iran a grave threat. That is a flip flop.
When a decision has been reached because the situation has changed, as is the case in this situation, then it is not a flip flop simply because those situations were the reason for the first position. As situations change, so should the actions of leaders to best respond to that. It is sort of like McCain supporting oil exploration when gas hit $4 a gallon. It forced him along with many others to realize that we have to become energy independent and that we are so dependent on oil that it has to be part of the equation until we become less dependent.
Hopefully this helps you in discerning what a flip flop is and what it isn’t.
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
I would consider that a true statement since Iran has no nuclear weapons.
He then stated recently that a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must prevent it from obtaining the atomic bomb.
A good policy, I would say, and not a change of policy, and not in conflict with his previous statement.
Bush, OTOH changed policy completely. Bush did not qualify his reasons for opposig a timetable, he just opposed them. The same arguments against the timetable could be used now even with the violence down.
Since Obama is a Democrat and perceived by you as a liberal, you twist his words and accuse him of flip-flopping, but you seek to justify a Republican’s change of fundamental policy. Yes, I do see where you are coming from here.
You still manage to choose two of the most biased sources you could to try to prove a point. Let’s look at the facts shall we.
1. At the time Obama and other Dems. started calling for a timetable or troop withdrawal, immediate withdrawal in some cases, Iraq was unstable and it would have been accepting defeat.
2. Now we are able to talk about a timetable why? Answer: The troop surge ( the one that Obama refused to recognize the success of and liberals were totally against) worked. Iraq is now fairly stable and any withdrawal will depend on that stability.
It seems that you and other liberals need to learn what a flip flop is, because this most certainly is not a flip flop. Discussing a withdrawal time line due to success, not a flip flop. If Bush had decided to discuss a withdrawal time-line in the midst of failure after being so adamantly against defeat, that would have been a flip flop. Its kind of like when Obama says Iran is not a serious threat then turns around less than a week later and calls Iran a grave threat. That is a flip flop.
When a decision has been reached because the situation has changed, as is the case in this situation, then it is not a flip flop simply because those situations were the reason for the first position. As situations change, so should the actions of leaders to best respond to that. It is sort of like McCain supporting oil exploration when gas hit $4 a gallon. It forced him along with many others to realize that we have to become energy independent and that we are so dependent on oil that it has to be part of the equation until we become less dependent.
Hopefully this helps you in discerning what a flip flop is and what it isn’t.
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
I would consider that a true statement since Iran has no nuclear weapons.
He then stated recently that a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must prevent it from obtaining the atomic bomb.
A good policy, I would say, and not a change of policy, and not in conflict with his previous statement.
Bush, OTOH changed policy completely. Bush did not qualify his reasons for opposig a timetable, he just opposed them. The same arguments against the timetable could be used now even with the violence down.
Since Obama is a Democrat and perceived by you as a liberal, you twist his words and accuse him of flip-flopping, but you seek to justify a Republican’s change of fundamental policy. Yes, I do see where you are coming from here.
You still manage to choose two of the most biased sources you could to try to prove a point. Let’s look at the facts shall we.
1. At the time Obama and other Dems. started calling for a timetable or troop withdrawal, immediate withdrawal in some cases, Iraq was unstable and it would have been accepting defeat.
2. Now we are able to talk about a timetable why? Answer: The troop surge ( the one that Obama refused to recognize the success of and liberals were totally against) worked. Iraq is now fairly stable and any withdrawal will depend on that stability.
It seems that you and other liberals need to learn what a flip flop is, because this most certainly is not a flip flop. Discussing a withdrawal time line due to success, not a flip flop. If Bush had decided to discuss a withdrawal time-line in the midst of failure after being so adamantly against defeat, that would have been a flip flop. Its kind of like when Obama says Iran is not a serious threat then turns around less than a week later and calls Iran a grave threat. That is a flip flop.
When a decision has been reached because the situation has changed, as is the case in this situation, then it is not a flip flop simply because those situations were the reason for the first position. As situations change, so should the actions of leaders to best respond to that. It is sort of like McCain supporting oil exploration when gas hit $4 a gallon. It forced him along with many others to realize that we have to become energy independent and that we are so dependent on oil that it has to be part of the equation until we become less dependent.
Hopefully this helps you in discerning what a flip flop is and what it isn’t.
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
I would consider that a true statement since Iran has no nuclear weapons.
He then stated recently that a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must prevent it from obtaining the atomic bomb.
A good policy, I would say, and not a change of policy, and not in conflict with his previous statement.
Bush, OTOH changed policy completely. Bush did not qualify his reasons for opposig a timetable, he just opposed them. The same arguments against the timetable could be used now even with the violence down.
Since Obama is a Democrat and perceived by you as a liberal, you twist his words and accuse him of flip-flopping, but you seek to justify a Republican’s change of fundamental policy. Yes, I do see where you are coming from here.
You still manage to choose two of the most biased sources you could to try to prove a point. Let’s look at the facts shall we.
1. At the time Obama and other Dems. started calling for a timetable or troop withdrawal, immediate withdrawal in some cases, Iraq was unstable and it would have been accepting defeat.
2. Now we are able to talk about a timetable why? Answer: The troop surge ( the one that Obama refused to recognize the success of and liberals were totally against) worked. Iraq is now fairly stable and any withdrawal will depend on that stability.
It seems that you and other liberals need to learn what a flip flop is, because this most certainly is not a flip flop. Discussing a withdrawal time line due to success, not a flip flop. If Bush had decided to discuss a withdrawal time-line in the midst of failure after being so adamantly against defeat, that would have been a flip flop. Its kind of like when Obama says Iran is not a serious threat then turns around less than a week later and calls Iran a grave threat. That is a flip flop.
When a decision has been reached because the situation has changed, as is the case in this situation, then it is not a flip flop simply because those situations were the reason for the first position. As situations change, so should the actions of leaders to best respond to that. It is sort of like McCain supporting oil exploration when gas hit $4 a gallon. It forced him along with many others to realize that we have to become energy independent and that we are so dependent on oil that it has to be part of the equation until we become less dependent.
Hopefully this helps you in discerning what a flip flop is and what it isn’t.
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
I would consider that a true statement since Iran has no nuclear weapons.
He then stated recently that a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must prevent it from obtaining the atomic bomb.
A good policy, I would say, and not a change of policy, and not in conflict with his previous statement.
Bush, OTOH changed policy completely. Bush did not qualify his reasons for opposig a timetable, he just opposed them. The same arguments against the timetable could be used now even with the violence down.
Since Obama is a Democrat and perceived by you as a liberal, you twist his words and accuse him of flip-flopping, but you seek to justify a Republican’s change of fundamental policy. Yes, I do see where you are coming from here.
Ah, the clip edited by Fox News...you guys are a trip…
Fox news is much more reliable and trustworthy than MSNBC. Do you really want to talk about which source is more biased?
LOL , I am sure you would like to change the subject at this time, but really the discussion of media bias might be best for another thread.
You might consider addressing the fact that the clip you posted was edited to change the meaning and make it look like he said two different things when in fact he did not.
What Obama said was:
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
What the clip said was:
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us..(edit)”
And might consider addressing the fact that Bush has said a timetable would allow the insurgency to wait until we are gone and launch and attack. That fact has not changed, yet the Bush admin has flip-flopped on the policy. Coincidentally, it’s election year…
You still manage to choose two of the most biased sources you could to try to prove a point. Let’s look at the facts shall we.
1. At the time Obama and other Dems. started calling for a timetable or troop withdrawal, immediate withdrawal in some cases, Iraq was unstable and it would have been accepting defeat.
2. Now we are able to talk about a timetable why? Answer: The troop surge ( the one that Obama refused to recognize the success of and liberals were totally against) worked. Iraq is now fairly stable and any withdrawal will depend on that stability.
It seems that you and other liberals need to learn what a flip flop is, because this most certainly is not a flip flop. Discussing a withdrawal time line due to success, not a flip flop. If Bush had decided to discuss a withdrawal time-line in the midst of failure after being so adamantly against defeat, that would have been a flip flop. Its kind of like when Obama says Iran is not a serious threat then turns around less than a week later and calls Iran a grave threat. That is a flip flop.
When a decision has been reached because the situation has changed, as is the case in this situation, then it is not a flip flop simply because those situations were the reason for the first position. As situations change, so should the actions of leaders to best respond to that. It is sort of like McCain supporting oil exploration when gas hit $4 a gallon. It forced him along with many others to realize that we have to become energy independent and that we are so dependent on oil that it has to be part of the equation until we become less dependent.
Hopefully this helps you in discerning what a flip flop is and what it isn’t.
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
I would consider that a true statement since Iran has no nuclear weapons.
He then stated recently that a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must prevent it from obtaining the atomic bomb.
A good policy, I would say, and not a change of policy, and not in conflict with his previous statement.
Bush, OTOH changed policy completely. Bush did not qualify his reasons for opposig a timetable, he just opposed them. The same arguments against the timetable could be used now even with the violence down.
Since Obama is a Democrat and perceived by you as a liberal, you twist his words and accuse him of flip-flopping, but you seek to justify a Republican’s change of fundamental policy. Yes, I do see where you are coming from here.
Ah, the clip edited by Fox News...you guys are a trip…
Fox news is much more reliable and trustworthy than MSNBC. Do you really want to talk about which source is more biased?
LOL , I am sure you would like to change the subject at this time, but really the discussion of media bias might be best for another thread.
You might consider addressing the fact that the clip you posted was edited to change the meaning and make it look like he said two different things when in fact he did not.
What Obama said was:
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
What the clip said was:
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us..(edit)”
And might consider addressing the fact that Bush has said a timetable would allow the insurgency to wait until we are gone and launch and attack. That fact has not changed, yet the Bush admin has flip-flopped on the policy. Coincidentally, it’s election year…
All this talk about the timetable, yet no clue about the facts. When democrats were yelling for withdrawal and a timetable for the withdrawal, Iraq was unstable. What part of that do you not understand? The people of Iraq were not in a position to take care of themselves and keep the insurgency out. Now they have stability and training that was provided through the efforts of our troops throughout the surge that will make it possible for them to hold back that insurgency. Again, situation changed. What part of that do you not get?
You see, I pointed that out in the first reply. I did not try to change the subject, but rather educate you on what a flip flop is. You still seem to have a “hard time learning new tricks.”
As to Obama on Iran. He has been totally clueless from the get-go wanting to meet with its leaders. He claims they are not a threat, then claims they are a threat. You see, their threat to Israel and our foreign interests makes them every bit as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. It does not take a huge super power to cause mass destruction. Sometimes the worst bites don’t come from a 15 foot python, but rather a small black widow spider.
I would think, by the way with you being so opposed to the war, that you would be happy to see the success and see the light at the end of the tunnel. I think what is upsetting you is the light didn’t come from Obama, rather at the end of Bush’s administration. I can see where that may upset you a little. After all, liberals have staked so much on defeat that they don’t really know how to react to victory. My suggestion is, don’t get bitter because you along with other liberals were wrong. It is unhealthy.
You still manage to choose two of the most biased sources you could to try to prove a point. Let’s look at the facts shall we.
1. At the time Obama and other Dems. started calling for a timetable or troop withdrawal, immediate withdrawal in some cases, Iraq was unstable and it would have been accepting defeat.
2. Now we are able to talk about a timetable why? Answer: The troop surge ( the one that Obama refused to recognize the success of and liberals were totally against) worked. Iraq is now fairly stable and any withdrawal will depend on that stability.
It seems that you and other liberals need to learn what a flip flop is, because this most certainly is not a flip flop. Discussing a withdrawal time line due to success, not a flip flop. If Bush had decided to discuss a withdrawal time-line in the midst of failure after being so adamantly against defeat, that would have been a flip flop. Its kind of like when Obama says Iran is not a serious threat then turns around less than a week later and calls Iran a grave threat. That is a flip flop.
When a decision has been reached because the situation has changed, as is the case in this situation, then it is not a flip flop simply because those situations were the reason for the first position. As situations change, so should the actions of leaders to best respond to that. It is sort of like McCain supporting oil exploration when gas hit $4 a gallon. It forced him along with many others to realize that we have to become energy independent and that we are so dependent on oil that it has to be part of the equation until we become less dependent.
Hopefully this helps you in discerning what a flip flop is and what it isn’t.
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
I would consider that a true statement since Iran has no nuclear weapons.
He then stated recently that a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must prevent it from obtaining the atomic bomb.
A good policy, I would say, and not a change of policy, and not in conflict with his previous statement.
Bush, OTOH changed policy completely. Bush did not qualify his reasons for opposig a timetable, he just opposed them. The same arguments against the timetable could be used now even with the violence down.
Since Obama is a Democrat and perceived by you as a liberal, you twist his words and accuse him of flip-flopping, but you seek to justify a Republican’s change of fundamental policy. Yes, I do see where you are coming from here.
Ah, the clip edited by Fox News...you guys are a trip…
Fox news is much more reliable and trustworthy than MSNBC. Do you really want to talk about which source is more biased?
LOL , I am sure you would like to change the subject at this time, but really the discussion of media bias might be best for another thread.
You might consider addressing the fact that the clip you posted was edited to change the meaning and make it look like he said two different things when in fact he did not.
What Obama said was:
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
What the clip said was:
Obama said of Iran “They don’t pose a serious threat to us..(edit)”
And might consider addressing the fact that Bush has said a timetable would allow the insurgency to wait until we are gone and launch and attack. That fact has not changed, yet the Bush admin has flip-flopped on the policy. Coincidentally, it’s election year…
Sorry, Swampy, but I don’t see where Fox’s “editing” changed his thought.
