« Obama's War Will End Announcement was also a Victory Speech | coonsey's Blog | This Is the 'Vision' Republicans Want for Americans »
Republicans - Flip Flopping Like a School of Fish
The media is reporting that Republicans are supporting President Obama's decisions on a Iraq withdraw date and time line. They also report that Democrats are concerned about the amount of troops being left behind (35-50,000).
I think it's time to remind folks what Republicans were saying in the past two years about ANY time line or withdraw date:
Senator John McCain February 17, 2008:
"I still say setting a date for withdrawal is chaos, genocide, and we'll be back, because Al Qaeda will then succeed."
Senator John McCain March 28, 2007:
"This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. "A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it's a recipe for defeat."
Dana Perino March 28, 2007:
"The president was "disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law." She said Congress should allow General Petraeus's mission to succeed "by providing our troops the funding they need -- not by mandating failure."
Senator John Kyl March 27, 2007:
"I can't think of another conflict in which a deadline was set in the middle of the war that one side would withdraw from the conflict," said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chairman of the Republican Conference. "It's a heck of a way to fight a war."
Senator John Thune March 27, 2007:
"What are our commanders in the field supposed to think?" Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said in arguing that a withdrawal date would be self-destructive and urging passage of the Cochran measure."
Mitt Romney June 30, 2008:
"I do not propose nor have I ever proposed a public or secret date for withdrawal. It's just simply wrong." No. 2, with regards to this idea that I favor a specific date for withdrawal -- I do not. We've had, I believe since that interview that the senator quotes, we've had 10 or 12 debates. He's never raised that issue with me. He's never said, "are you for a date specific?" had, I said I will not leave Iraq until we have secured Iraq, make sure it will never become a safe haven."
Mike Huckabee December 13, 2007:
"withdrawal from Iraq would have more "serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis"
Senator Mitch McConnell March 28, 2007:
Senator Joe Lieberman May 1, 2007
'If the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.'
President George W Bush April 23, 2007:
"I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. ... I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job."
Eric Edelman July 17, 2007:
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq."
Vice President Cheney April 13, 2007:
"The...attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region."
Now the Republican leadership is changing it's tune:
Representative Eric Cantor:
*************************************************************************
To my recollection, Democrats on the other hand have been pushing for a withdraw date since 2005. President Obama campaigned on a withdraw date of 16 months from the day he took office and he repeatedly said there would be troops left behind for support. He was accused of surrendering to the enemy. He's yet to lie about his views or reversed his position on them -- unlike the Republican Party.
Who should you trust more? A party that continues saying the same things, or one that changes with the wind?
The Republican Party stood side by side with President Bush through out his terms in office with respects toward the war in Iraq and our economy (his spending) -- now they are once again backing away (flip flopping) from their so-called CORE PRINCIPLES during those times.
They are even going so far as claiming that Obama is a Bush clone. Newt Gingrich: There is "a Bush-Obama continuity in economic policy, which is frankly a disaster for this country and cannot work,"
Sorry GOP, you aren't kidding anybody.
I think it's time to remind folks what Republicans were saying in the past two years about ANY time line or withdraw date:
Senator John McCain February 17, 2008:
"I still say setting a date for withdrawal is chaos, genocide, and we'll be back, because Al Qaeda will then succeed."
Senator John McCain March 28, 2007:
"This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. "A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it's a recipe for defeat."
Dana Perino March 28, 2007:
"The president was "disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law." She said Congress should allow General Petraeus's mission to succeed "by providing our troops the funding they need -- not by mandating failure."
Senator John Kyl March 27, 2007:
"I can't think of another conflict in which a deadline was set in the middle of the war that one side would withdraw from the conflict," said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chairman of the Republican Conference. "It's a heck of a way to fight a war."
Senator John Thune March 27, 2007:
"What are our commanders in the field supposed to think?" Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said in arguing that a withdrawal date would be self-destructive and urging passage of the Cochran measure."
Mitt Romney June 30, 2008:
"I do not propose nor have I ever proposed a public or secret date for withdrawal. It's just simply wrong." No. 2, with regards to this idea that I favor a specific date for withdrawal -- I do not. We've had, I believe since that interview that the senator quotes, we've had 10 or 12 debates. He's never raised that issue with me. He's never said, "are you for a date specific?" had, I said I will not leave Iraq until we have secured Iraq, make sure it will never become a safe haven."
Mike Huckabee December 13, 2007:
"withdrawal from Iraq would have more "serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis"
Senator Mitch McConnell March 28, 2007:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said that effectively sets a "surrender date" in the war.
"Setting a date for withdrawal is like sending a memo to our enemies that tells them to rest, refit and re-plan until the day we leave," he said. "It's a memo to our friends, too, telling them we plan to walk away and leave them on their own, regardless of what we leave behind."Senator Joe Lieberman May 1, 2007
'If the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.'
President George W Bush April 23, 2007:
"I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. ... I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job."
Eric Edelman July 17, 2007:
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq."
Vice President Cheney April 13, 2007:
"The...attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region."
Now the Republican leadership is changing it's tune:
Obama's plan "is a testament to the success of our troops in stabilizing and significantly reducing violence in Iraq" thanks to the so-called "surge" strategy, said House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner.
"I believe he has outlined a responsible approach that retains maximum flexibility to reconsider troop levels and to respond to changes in the security environment should circumstances on the ground warrant,"Representative Eric Cantor:
"Today?s announcement makes clear that the Iraqi people can take a huge step forward in assuming greater control of their nation and future," the number two House Republican, Representative Eric Cantor, said in a statement.
Obama "deserves credit for not listening to the chorus of voices calling for a rapid drawdown of forces regardless of the consequences for Iraq, our military and the American people," Cantor said in a statement.
*************************************************************************
To my recollection, Democrats on the other hand have been pushing for a withdraw date since 2005. President Obama campaigned on a withdraw date of 16 months from the day he took office and he repeatedly said there would be troops left behind for support. He was accused of surrendering to the enemy. He's yet to lie about his views or reversed his position on them -- unlike the Republican Party.
Who should you trust more? A party that continues saying the same things, or one that changes with the wind?
The Republican Party stood side by side with President Bush through out his terms in office with respects toward the war in Iraq and our economy (his spending) -- now they are once again backing away (flip flopping) from their so-called CORE PRINCIPLES during those times.
They are even going so far as claiming that Obama is a Bush clone. Newt Gingrich: There is "a Bush-Obama continuity in economic policy, which is frankly a disaster for this country and cannot work,"
Sorry GOP, you aren't kidding anybody.
Advertisement
Democrats "continue to say the same things"??? Oh please. You're just selectively picking your facts. I guess you don't care to include how people were initially in favor of the Iraq war and then changed their minds.
The Republicans are not "changing their tune" because a lot has changed in Iraq since alot of your quotes were made. Specifically, Iraq has turned to our favor and we're winning the war.
Obama's plan will still leave 50,000 American troops in Iraq. When Obama was campaigning I thought he said he was going to end the Iraq war and remove our troops. Leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq sounds different from what his campaign promises. Do you think when Obama was talking about a 16-month timetable that he was considering still leaving 50,000 soldiers in Iraq after the end of 16 months?
February 28, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we did know he wanted to leave residual troops. Some on the Left have been complaining about that for months prior to Obama's announcement. This should not have been a surprise to anyone.
February 28, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did he ever say that "residual" would mean 50,000? How many troops were there before the surge? 150,00? So Obama's "withdrawal" from Iraq means leaving one-third of the original number of troops? C'mon - you can't be serious that he's being consistent
February 28, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's Promise made during campaign
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."
Plus a couple of months, Obama is doing EXACTLY what he promised. He's always said he would leave a residual force.
I would imagine the flip flop by Democrats on going to Iraq has SOMETHING to do with the LIES they were given for GOING there in the first place.
February 28, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You honestly believe that 50,000 is considered a "residual" force. I don't think the pre-surge troop count ever got north of 125-150k.
You sound like my 1st grader with the all-caps LIES that you like to throw around. There's about as much credibility to that statement as me saying that Obama is a Muslim.
February 28, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You teach 1st grade? Interesting.
"There's about as much credibility to that statement as me saying that Obama is a Muslim."
Funny. "that statement" would be your own, in context.
February 28, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone believed a President would allow for a total withdraw from Iraq, they were ill informed. A residual presence was discussed by this administration during the election. An orderly withdraw was part of that discussion.
With a five hundred million dollar embassy in Iraq, do you think we were going to withdraw, totally?
February 28, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Going from 150,000 to 50,000 doesn't sound like a withdrawal. It sounds like a reduction. But there's no way Obama ever intended to leave this many troops in Iraq when he said he'd be withdrawing from Iraq
February 28, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's sell the embassy and bring all the troops home. Many of us voted for Obama in the primary because we believed he'd be more likely to get us out of Iraq. We were wrong.
February 28, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you were correct...he WAS more likely to get us out of Iraq.
I don't think he likes the idea of being there one little bit, but I'm glad he's being responsible about getting us out. I doubt he pulled that 50,000 troops figure out of his butt...Someone (or more that one someones)who he trusts is/are suggesting figures, and I'm sure he'll reduce as he's able.
Can you really say that if he had said we would need to leave a residual force of 50,000 for awhile you would have voted for someone else?
February 28, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason I voted for him in the primary was Iraq. Hillary had a better health plan.
February 28, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to remind folks that he SAID (yesterday) there would be 35,000 - 50,000 left behind for another year or so.
I'd also like to remind you that there are more than 150,000 in Iraq right now. That doesn't count the SUPPORT troops. There's over 175,000 troops in that country.
I'm sure for the most part, those soldiers that are part of that 100,000 that are LEAVING Iraq are VERY HAPPY to do so and they also think it's considered LEAVING.
If you truly felt that ALL troops should be remove immediately, than you should have voted for either Bill Richardson or Ron Paul.
February 28, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey - you are so incredibly hypocritical. There's no way that you can say with a straight face that Obama hasn't changed his tune on Iraq. He has not "continued to say the same things". Obama campaigned on withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq. Now all of a sudden he has 50,000 soldiers as the "permanent" Iraq solution. This is roughly the size of the US forces in South Korea during the Cold War. This is not a "withdrawal" from Iraq.
Obama's current position is very different from his prior position - "there is no military solution to this war"
But if you want to continue to daydream that Obama's position hasn't changed, be my guest.
February 28, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, if you are trying to make a point, you could at least document it. hahahahahahaahaha
Kidding. Good job Coosey. Nice read. I love documentation.
February 28, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe the number of responses to "MiddleClassBill." Talk about feeding the trolls.
February 28, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the complement. It's amusing that anybody who disagrees with a statement is considered a troll.
I disagree with such a stereotypical comment that was made in the original post and I am a troll.
I thought TPM was a place to debate issues, not just pile on to one side of the argument
March 1, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
coonsey: If you can get MCB to back up his claims solidly, more power to you.
MCB: You are free not to reply to this comment.
"Thanks for the complement. It's amusing that anybody who disagrees with a statement is considered a troll."
It would be amusing, but it's not so here. You are falsely framing the meta-debate. If that's not due to ignorance, you're trolling.
"I disagree with such a stereotypical comment that was made in the original post and I am a troll."
No, how one posts determines troll status, not mere civil disagreement. And you didn't just post one comment, you've posted quite a few comments to this thread. The quantity and quality of those multiple comments is a sound basis for judgment of troll status.
"I thought TPM was a place to debate issues, not just pile on to one side of the argument"
So do most of us, as far as I know. That's why it's odd to see you being so overtly hypocritical; you're different in that regard. Here you are piling on to one side of the argument, over and over again, while apparently decrying the style! If that's not ignorance it's deliberate hypocrisy or trolling on your part. Whatever.
Go figure.
March 1, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink