But, of course, this is identical to what Samantha Powers got caught saying about Obama planning a withdrawal from Iraq only in a "best-case scenario".

Obama isn't being shy about signaling that he's lying to the Democratic electorate about Iraq. But Kevin will pretend not to notice because he's voted Clinton off the island.

After 7+ years of either shameful neglect or intentional malicious destruction of American ideals, I'm comfortable with some ambiguity on the part of the next Administration.

It strikes me that Obama has a significant number of politically inexperienced advisers who are prone to being played. I respect the fresh perspectives and I'm glad they're getting the experience, but I'm thinking for the time being there might need to be a layer of insulation between them and the candidate. Academics are just a little too honest for politics.

A lot of people like to take (what they hope will appear to be) "moderate" positions so that they can cover the bases and not look out-of-line or dumb to any more people than they have to.

But does any body really have any reason to think that leaving 60,000 or 80,000 or any number of troops in Iraq is going to be any less spinning our wheels than keeping 100,000 + in there has proved to be?

President Obama should send Colin Kahl to Iraq until 2010.

What Obama needs to do is make clear to all his advisors that if they're going to take positions, even when confidence is supposedly assured, that are contrary to his campaign message, they need to explicitly disclaimer them. Then they can speak freely.

This is hysterical. Is Obama now responsible for everything one of his supporters says in the past? How far back does this go? Even what any of his supporters said when they were in Kindergarten? It would be easy to go after Hillary if we could do that!
Let's start paying attention to what the candidates say instead of going after some guy six degrees from the candidate and misinterpretating what he says for political advantage OK? And the only thing we have to remember about Obama is the wonderful speech against the Iraq War he gave in 2002 when he was in the Senate.

Petey....be very careful about accusing the candidate who is running against the candidate you support of lying.

Thin, thin ice there baby.

On topic, whe will these friggin academics learn?

What ASDF said. I would only add in my own opinion, that compounding this is the numerous Obama supporters who sniffle and bitch about how unfair it is every time the media reports something like this. It suggests they are not ready for prime time. Or have an irritating (and disturbing) sense of superiority that their guy is just so darn special the rules that apply to every other politican don't apply to him. Or maybe they just believe their own North Korean slogan chanting about how "the old politics is dying."

It remind me of that old joke about the guy telling his doctor that "it hurts when I do this." The punchline (of course) is the doctor says, "Don't do that." This ain't beanbag. When you say something dumb, or allow yourself to be put in a position for some operative to play you, expect it. Don't like it? Don't do it. Or don't try to run for the most powerful position on earth.

On topic, whe will these friggin academics learn?

Never. That's because you are asking them to behave in a fashion that is antithetical to all of their training. Academics, as a group, believe very strongly in thinking things through to their conclusions regardless of where that takes you. They believe strongly in putting their names on the things that they say. In short, they are trained to not keep things quiet if they disagree with you.

Candidates who hire academics need to be prepared for the fact that academics have very non-political approaches to dealing with things. Academics bring a lot to the table, but they aren't perfectly suited for campaign work. Candidates need to decide whether the value they bring outweighs the potential damage they will cause.

Barack Obama appears to have decided that they do. I applaud this, because I think that the mentality that concludes otherwise is dangerous. It should, however, be kept in mind before giving someone a security clearance.

"Petey....be very careful about accusing the candidate who is running against the candidate you support of lying."

That's so true, Keith G. Because lying about the conditions during a trip to Bosnia is the moral equivalent of Obama saying he's going to withdraw from Iraq when actually he's planning to be there with a high force level through at least the end of 2010.

Obama's willing to baldly lie about withdrawing from Iraq and about universal healthcare.

He's willing to lie about the core policy issues of the next administration.

That's amazingly fucked up.

And the "Democrats" who pretend not to notice that Obama isn't with us on the core policy issues of the next administration are even more fucked up.

Or have an irritating (and disturbing) sense of superiority that their guy is just so darn special the rules that apply to every other politican don't apply to him.

Oh, absolutely. Surely we can all agree that this is much worse than your chief strategist having a meeting, that hopefully *no* one will hear of, with a foreign government to push a policy that the candidate disagrees with. I mean, the academic probably already has tenure; Mark Penn has a family to feed on the near minimum wages that high-powered lobbying generate.

First of all, J. Michael Douche, the word "your" is misplaced. I have repeatedly said here I will vote for Sen. Obama if he is the nominee, despite cultists like you. So don't try to tag me as some Hillary operative smearing your guy. Your post proved my entire point, of course. P.S. Wipe the foam off your lip.

"Surely we can all agree that this is much worse than your chief strategist having a meeting, that hopefully *no* one will hear of, with a foreign government"

Sure. Because Mark Penn's personal financial sleaziness and all-around loathsomeness is the moral equivalent of Obama lying about withdrawing from Iraq and universal healthcare.

Thank god Obama only wants to sell out the Democratic Party on policy.

You know, whether he gets the answer to this leak or not, I'd really love to hear some first hand accounts of these types of leaks.

How does it happen? I imagine some people run straight to a journalist when they find out something juicy, others are probably badgered by a wiley reporter who's really skilled at getting info outta people (and without torture!). And then I expect there are bribes various and sundry sorts.

How about it Kevin, any chance you could get some folks who have leaked and been leaked to to spill their guts (anonymously due to the fact that they are not authorized to talk about their past infidelities, etc etc etc)? On the blog ideally or in the Monthly is okay too. Please??

What is the evidence that Obama is lying about wanting to withdraw from Iraq? As far as I can tell, all that you have is that one of his advisers disagrees with him, and another of his advisers has said that, if things go badly, they won't withdraw all of the troops. I would note, first of all, that Petey grossly misrepresented Samantha Powers on the latter statement. On the former, how does this differ from the fact that Mark Penn obviously disagrees with Hillary Clinton on trade policy, other than that Penn has a much more important role in the Clinton campaign than Colin Kahl has in the Obama campaign.

Quite how you can come to the conclusion that Obama is lying about a major policy matter while avoiding the conclusion that Clinton is doing the same eludes me. There is, if anything, more evidence to suggest the latter rather than the former.

In practice, I think that neither is true. I don't think that either candidate is lying. However, I think that surrounding yourself with people who disagree with you because they have honestly come to a different conclusion is a lot better than surrounding yourself with people that disagree with you because someone has paid them to hold that opinion.

While I am not enthusiastic about the idea of a President Obama; it is certainly sensible for the candidate Obama to have people providing him with as many scenarios as possible concerning one of the most important subjects of his primary campaign and possible presidency.
"Through 2010..." That is two years after the inaugeration. And eight months after Sen. Obama's time frame of 16 months. It appears to me that the paper in question is postulating a possible increase in violence that might be quelled by the rapid assistance of US troops. In other words, the Senator doesn't wish to tie himself down completely to a strategy that may, and I emphasize may very heavily, change radically on short notice. Really quite sensible when you think about it.
I still prefer Sen. Clinton, though.

"What is the evidence that Obama is lying about wanting to withdraw from Iraq? As far as I can tell, all that you have is that one of his advisers disagrees with him"

Samantha Power admitted that Obama wasn't planning on keeping his word and withdrawing from Iraq unless events played out in a "best-case scenario".

Of course, that admission got lost in the "monster" comment because harsh language is so much worse than a candidate for the Presidential nomination lying to the Democratic Party on core policy issues.

This is petey you people are arguing with. When has he ever felt that he should be bound by any notuion of honesty or realism?

"This is petey you people are arguing with. When has he ever felt that he should be bound by any notuion of honesty"

What am I lying about here, Soulite?

AS the old saying goes there are sardines for trading and sardines for eating.
Obama's withdrawal plan came early in his campaign when talk is cheap.
Now that he has a good chance at being POTUS he must know that this plan is just unworkable and he will have to eat his words.
If you haven't please watch the two panels at iden's hearings thursday for a real idea of Iraq. Three ex-generals testified and I think the conclusion was that US troops would have to be embedded in Iraqi units for several years.

This may be Obama's way out. He could well pull out COMBAT troops sooner but leave ADVISORS in large numbers there.
In fact this probably would be what all three candidates would do.
How Obama will change his story from trading sardines to eating sardines will require great finesse.

Why do I feel like I just wandered into Ezra Klein's comment section by mistake?

Can it really be that everyone here has missed the point of the post? It seems it can.

Doug - you might want to recompute your timeline. The next president takes office in January 2009, which is only 1 year from 2010. 16 months from January 2009 would be somewhere near mid-2010.

I think that Obama's opinion may be better on this than that of his advisor. People may think that the policy advisor, talking about his area of expertise, has to have the better opinion. But that is of course not so.

The policy advisor's career is probably more precarious than Obama's is. He may have to hedge his bets or avoid stepping on toes on his specific set of issues more than Obama has to with his opinions on it. Therefore the policy advisor's opinion may include more human error than Obama's in some situations when the real answer called for is a dramatic one.

The Iraq mess spreads tentacles everywhere.

There are those who want us there forever, and those who, rightly so, see the debacle as a destructive force on our economy and global reputation.

Having accomplished the mission and reached a "defining" moment isn't it time to celebrate our 5 year foray into the heart of the Atab world?

Obama has credibility on Iraq, where he has unwaverly denounced the mess.

Having a residual force will become the nuanced argument for months to come.

Somehow, the press tends to spend more time on what folks "associated" with say/said versus the candidates themselves!

Isn't Petey a synonym for "dick"?

He's willing to lie about the core policy issues of the next administration.

Barack Obama says, "We can't just tell people what they want to hear, we need to tell them what they need to hear."

When the opposition can do nothing more than to speculate about a candidate's "secret plans", they are in deep, deep trouble.

Obama is gonna kick the warmongering, cancerous leper John McCain's ass so badly, he is going be scratching his hemorrhoids when brushes his teeth (unless those are dentures).

Al is supporting Obama? Guess I'll agree with Petey for the moment. I have no committment to either candidate, except versus McCain.

Am I crazy? If Obama is elected he would take office January 2009. If he were to remove troops in 16 months from that date that would make it Spring 2010. So his campaign promise is to be out of Iraq sometime in 2010 and this guy is saying that we will have to have troops in Iraq sometime in 2010.

What am I missing here? What is the big gotcha?

Why not keep extra troops in Afghanistan for a long time, not Iraq? Then, if things really go FUBAR in Iraq we have some forces nearby, but meanwhile we can work on the more serious (?) threat still in Afghanistan and along the border with Pakistan.

...Let's start paying attention to what the candidates say.... And the only thing we have to remember about Obama is the wonderful speech against the Iraq War he gave in 2002 when he was in the Senate. Al at 2:13 PM

....Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit
of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress
debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 time frame, he was a minor local official
uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior
to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to
announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's
not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In
his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider
the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to
say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I
didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different
set of choices."....

Hmmm, sounds like equivocation, yes it does.

Who speaks for Obama? not Samantha?

....... a top Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Power made the case on British television
(video link included) that Obama's pandering rhetoric on a withdrawal of troops from Iraq was
just that...:

The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is acommitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"
"You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in
January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a
presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he
pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily
access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology
to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"
"It's a best-case scenario," she said again.

BC, I was following the logic of the words "...through 2010?" That seems to say that the troops would be in Iraq the whole of 2010, thus giving a total of 24 months. Well actually 23, since Inaugeration Day is 20 January, 2009.

Geez, complaints about "lying" from a supporter of the Tigress of Tuzla . . . Irony lies down and dies.

Sorry Squeaky two wrongs don't make a right.

Armin: So his campaign promise is to be out of Iraq sometime in 2010 and this guy is saying that we will have to have troops in Iraq sometime in 2010.

Doug: BC, I was following the logic of the words "...through 2010?" That seems to say that the troops would be in Iraq the whole of 2010, thus giving a total of 24 months. Well actually 23...

According to the NY Sun article:

...recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010

Kahl has been pretty consistent in being cautious when it comes to withdrawal--not necessarily because he thinks it's appropriate we stay, but because of logistical and security issues. E.g., (see here):

The big question is whether you are going to totally withdraw American forces. That would have to be done with a lot of careful thinking, because the people I speak to say as a rule of thumb that given the number of forces and the amount of equipment we have in Iraq, and given the dangerous circumstances, it'll take about a year if all you want to do is get our troops out, and it'll take two years if you want all their stuff out. All people talk about a precipitous situation. What would that mean? I think that would mean a withdrawal that is shorter than a year or a year and a half. And there is danger when we withdraw large numbers. We're not talking about withdrawal of 50,000 troops in that context. We're talking about if you start to cut the force in half. If that is not done carefully, there are risks.

Obama may be overly optimistic and Kahl may be overly pessimistic. But from this vantage--nine months before Obama could take office, during which the situation in Iraq could change significantly--the difference in their positions is noise.

This report, if true, leads to a couple of bad conclusions.

First, as premise, it seems clear that Obama is gaining votes by his opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to get out.

Bad Conclusion sub 1, Obama may be willing to ignore the work of his own expert advisers and withdraw even if that is a bad idea.

Bad Conclusion sub 2, Obama may be willing to stay in Iraq against the wishes of a large portion of his base after he benefits from their votes.

Good Conclusion sub 3-5, this academic isn't a thoughtful policy guy, Obama has other experts who give him views where getting out is best, or the whole story is overblown or made up.

mere mortal: Obama may be willing to ignore the work of his own expert advisers and withdraw even if that is a bad idea.

What advisers would that be?

Obama may be willing to stay in Iraq against the wishes of a large portion of his base after he benefits from their votes.

What leads you to believe that Obama would do that?

...this academic isn't a thoughtful policy guy, Obama has other experts who give him views where getting out is best...

What leads you to conclude that Kahl hasn't advocated getting out, or isn't thoughtful?

TODAY IS THE DAY to withdraw from Iraq, but it cannot happen with George and Dick in office. WE MUST IMPEACH in order to leave that quagmire. Call Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

Very good site. Thanks!
Cingular Wireless

Useful site. Thank you.
Rimonabant

Nice site. Thanks!
Tramadol