That's the problem with party politics. Obama's the nominee and now he has to bring the party insiders onboard and they really, really want to stay in Iraq.

I imagine the assumption is that the general electorate doesn't care and the millions of small donors like him too much to not support him, even if he abandons their positions. If they are right, then this is not a problem for Obama and he'll cruise to victory.

If he's wrong, then he's blurred the difference between him and McCain and eliminated the enthusiasm of his core supporters. In this case, it's four more years, baby.

mmm. smell the F.U.D.

Hegseths article would be awesome if its entire premise were not a lie. Obama in the speech cited by Hegseths does not call for "immediate" withdrawl, but rather says:

"I would immediately begin that process."

There is nothing contradictory in Obama saying "it’s time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq."

Kevin, how about a little more critical reading of these jokers?

Hegseths article would be awesome if its entire premise were not a lie. Obama, in the speech cited by Hegseths, does not call for "immediate" withdrawl, but rather says:

"I would immediately begin that process."

There is nothing contradictory in Obama saying "it’s time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq."

Wow. It would be a monumental screwup if Obama actually did that.

Which is why it is the wet dream of the Corner, and has no basis in reality.

Senior Dem senators signing a letter urging an oil sharing agreement prior to awarding oil contracts, by Iraq legislatures.

Makes Obama, leader of the Dems, liable to enforcing this check point.

well, joe klein has assured us that obama is going to sell out withdrawal from iraq, and joe klein has never, in his life, been wrong, has he?

I expect Obama to shift from the "immediate" to the "responsible" withdrawal in all his future communications. Once in office, he'll do what the Democratic establishment wants on Iraq and on every other issue. What else would he do? He can't be accused of breaking a promise, since "immediately beginning a responsible withdrawal" isn't a well-defined term. Note that, so far as I know, he has never said "total" withdrawal, since he was always going to retain "strike forces" in the region.

The hard part is guessing where the consensus of the Madeleine Albright types will be in seven months time. I frankly have no idea.

Yeah, I do fear Mr "I'm above partisan politics!" will continue to try to be all things to all people, split the differences, etc. I think that people have been far too quick to see in him what they want to see / what isn't there.

Really? You want to stir up some anti-Obama excrement based on the delusional misrepresentations of an NRO blogger? Don't make me stop this car.

Recent reports and rumors...

Okay, trying to nail down anything re: the latter is a fool's errand, since the only thing more dubious than a rumor is a rumor circulating among right-wingers like, oh, say, pundits at The Corner. But you'd think that, in a blog post with no fewer than 4 links, Hegseth might provide one that directs readers to one of those "recent reports." No such luck.

In any event, if what Hegseth is going by is that particular snippet, then I don't get why anyone would think that the language Obama used is surprising. Were they expecting him to refer to his plan as irresponsible & immediate?

Well, if Obama did "aggressively" change stance on Iraq, he would get to watch his online fundraising shrink to a trickle.

Wonder if we can gin up a John Edwards write-in campaign?

Seems like "responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq" is the middle. Of course no one at NRO understands this. They'd prefer we had an Empire stretching from SE Asia through North Africa. And in the Trokstyite fashion they so love: endless war.

Why would this surprise anybody? He's a politician, not a wizard with silver bullets. Just like NAFTA, he is going to come back and say that the rhetoric got overheated during the primary season. We are dug in deep into Iraq, and complete withdrawal is a pipe dream. He could move 30K troops to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and still deliver on his word to withdraw from Iraq.

These things look pretty simple when you are not in DC. Once he moves into the White House he will have to make similar compromises that those dastardly Clintons made. Allowing gays in the military morphs into 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'. Immediate withdrawal morphs into "immediately beginning the process to gradually reduce the number of troops in the war theater". Absolutely no immunity or amnesty for telecoms becomes "a good compromise even though it provides amnesty".

If you're a member of the infallible Obama cult of personality, then this might be a bitter pill...

Move to the middle?? Newsflash: he's IN the middle!

The bulk of the American people want the hell out of that mess, as quickly as is decently possible. He is right where people want someone to be. Obama gets that.

Hegseth is almost certainly correct. It will be carefully couched in ambiguous language, but there will be no promises of immediate withdrawl from Iraq. There is no good reason to give McCain a chance to draw a big distinction between Obama and McCain on continuing the process of pacifying Iraq unless there is a significant deterioration in Iraq over the rest of the summer.

Obama has the nomination now- he will run to the center on a whole host of issues, now. He does not need to worry about pissing off the extreme anti-war faction- they have no where else to go.

I heard an interview with one of Obama's foriegn policy advisors, Richard Danzig, on NPR this week. Danzig said that Obama can foresee leaving tens of thousands troops in Iraq after a "withdrawal". Danzig said the troops would provide security for the embassy, train the Iraqi army and hunt Al Qaeda in Iraq. This is beginning to sound like McCain's plan to leave a significant force in place like Germany after WWII or Korea.

This would be pretty blatant, if he actually did this. After all, this was the issue on which he differentiated himself from Clinton and with which he beat her over the head throughout the primary. It would also make one wonder whether or not, if he had been in her shoes in 2002 -- a member of the Senate trying to position himself for a future presidential run -- he would have voted, as she did, for the Iraq AUMF.

Keep it up Obama and the only people who'll vote for you are the fundaloony evangelicals who like your Old Testament Prophetic style ex-preacher and don't like John McCain one bit.

Obama is already on record that he will only withdraw “combat� troops without clearly specifying who all counts as “noncombatants� how many will get left behind in Iraq. (Think Vietnam and “advisors.)

And, he’s reserved the right to reintroduce combat troops as the situation warrants. And, who would define if the situation warranted? Well, President Obama, of course.

In other words, he’s ALREADY a squish on Iraq.

And, you don't need the misrepresentations and distortions of National Review to tell you that.

Instead, note what "txurruka" mentions just above.

This is the same Obama who is a domestic squish, recently telling Rolling Stone that getting us national healthcare will be one of the three benchmarks of his administration, while continuing to ignore the critiques of Krugman et al about how the plan he offers could actually make the road to national healthcare worse not better.

IntelVet: Vote Green. Vote Socialist or Social Democratic.

IMPEACH THE ADMINISTRATION YOU HAVE, so YOU don't have to IMPEACH the administration YOU want. Call Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is. Obama has always said that we need to leave Iraq with the kind of caution that we didn't exercise in getting in. That's not squish on Iraq, and certainly not a flip flop; it's just sensible. Not to say "pragmatic," an adjective often and quite properly applied to Obama.

lol.

He seeks the nomination by promising stupid, impractical, inhumane and damaging policies
to the stupid, impractical, inhumane and damaging
wing of his party and once his nomination is secured he starts backpedaling towards something sane.

What a huge surprise!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that Obama is on record as saying that the Iraq war was (is) wrong, which should be the critical point.

It was, is and irretrievably always will be, first and foremost, wrong, in every sense in which that word can be used.

Kevin,

The speech today to Latino Electeds had much of the same "gradual, responsible" rhetoric. I can't find the text online.

Will said "[Democratic party leaders] really, really want to stay in Iraq." Where is the evidence of this? True, some senior party members have been unwilling to stand up to this administration on Iraq, but a lot of that is based on two facts: (1)with a functional majority of 49 in the Senate, they don't have the force to really spear a revolution against the current policy, and have been stuck trying to make changes in the margins (and the margin in the House is also too small); and (2) they know how the GOP will spin any funding cut to the troops (which is the only practical way the Congress can stop or slow down the war).

That is a lot different from "really, really wanting to stay in Iraq." It may represent insufficient courage, or a different assessment of the political realities, but sure doesn't equal the charge Will makes.

More importantly, Obama is facing the ugly reality of withdrawal. The likelihood of civil war, ethnic cleansing and even the spread of war to neighboring countries are all real possibilities. This reality highlights the absolute evil and incompetence of the Bush administration's invasion. However, the next president is still faced with this reality even though it was caused by GOP stupidity, arrogance and greed.

Obama would be irresponsible if he did not gravely consider the consequences of the speed and process of a withdrawal, even as he remains committed to withdrawal as a firm policy. I see no waivering in his commitment to that policy.

Obama is a politian. I support him, but he (like Mccain, Clinton (s), Bush, etc) will say whatever he has to say in order to win. Remember, his pandering to AIPAC. We just have to trust and hope.

How can Obama 'move' to the center here? His position is already supported by the vast majority of the population. It is by any rational definition a 'centrist' position - get out of Iraq as fast as possible without causing even more damage than the Bush administration has already caused.

The McCain position is essentially permanent occupation. The US will stay in Iraq for as long as it serves the neo-con cause. The Iraqis will be free to elect any government that is willing to accept permanent US occupation.

This is not of course a practical option. The main reason that the anti-US insurgents have stopped fighting the US forces since the November 2006 midterms is that there is no point fighting if the US is going to withdraw in any case.

Obama's position is that the only remaining US objective is to withdraw in an orderly manner. If that results in Iran increasing its influence further, that is an acceptable cost. If the Iraqis elect Al Sadr, so be it. If the Iraqis void the oil contracts with US companies, tough.

I will certainly not trust Obama after his FISA capitulation. He has proved that he is a rookie politician embracing the tired old conventional inside the beltway strategy.

Unfortunately, I think there are a lot more downers to come from Senator Obama.

"Danzig said that Obama can foresee leaving tens of thousands troops in Iraq after a "withdrawal". "

This is his plan. Also, leave many others in the region, and leave Blackwater and co. in Iraq as guards (American soldiers could do that, but Blackwater helps to mask the extent of the American presence there (mask it for those outside the Middle East)).

NAFTA
FISA
Death Penalty
Clean Coal
Nuclear
Ethanol
AIPAC
Changing course on tax cuts
Neo-liberal foreign policy types
Rubinesque economic advisors

Dammit. I'm so pissed I have to vote for this guy.

(Careful, though, in your criticisms--someone from DailyKos will come over and accuse you of supporting McCain.)

obama is just another lying liar, representing the same corporate interests. His role is to fool the public that we will see change and then pick up where the chimp left off:

*continuing Iraq war

*maintaining the fake "war on terror" (yes, 9/11 was an inside job)

*using scare tactics to undermine constitution

*enable the continued looting of the federal treasury by the military-industrial complex

*restart the Social Security bamboozle - it will be a DEMOCRAT that destoys it (just like it took a democrat to undermine welfare).

Oh, ph-leez, noone smart ever believed in immediate withdrawal anyway, least of all the "lightworker" himself. There's still a big difference in the positions of Obama and McCain in that the former would withdraw slightly faster and probably spend less money. That's about all you get because that's about all you can get. Just get over it.

"Move to the middle" eh?
I guess that means Obama will come out in favor of removing troops from Iraq and ending this pointless war.

If you're a member of the infallible Obama cult of personality, then this might be a bitter pill...

I wouldn't be so sure.. he is The One, after all, facts/prior positions/statements/logic be damned. Before, it was, "Obama was against Iraq from the beginning, and he wants to (start to) withdraw our troops immediately! Therefore, he is better than Clinton!" And very soon, it will be "Obama is for a responsible withdrawal - of course he couldn't have withdrawn our troops immediately, everyone knew that.. it's completely reasonable. Therefore, he's better than McCain!" I'm not so annoyed that I'll have to vote for him as I am that I'll have to listen to the inane arguments presented by his diehard supporters.

All prior statements are inoperative.
--Ron Ziegler

When has Obama ever been to "left" on Iraq?

Obama is for a responsible withdrawal - of course he couldn't have withdrawn our troops immediately, everyone knew that..

This has been his position for a couple of years now. It's why a lot of people preferred Edwards, Richardson and Kucinich.

Kevin, we have to be careful to not be so susceptible to right-wing provocations.

The reason the wingnuts are pushing this theory is in hope of sowing doubts about Obama. The Right is trying to paint Obama as an empty suit, all talk, etc. One of the ways they want to do that is to portray him as an unprincipled flip flopper as a way to tarnish his brand and demoralize his base.

Kevin, we have to be careful to not be so susceptible to right-wing provocations.

The reason the wingnuts are pushing this theory is in the hope of sowing doubts about Obama. The Right is trying to paint Obama as an empty suit, all talk, etc. One of the ways they want to do that is to portray him as an unprincipled flip flopper as a way to tarnish his brand and demoralize his base.

Why not?????

He's seen that it didn't hurt the Democrat congress to promise they would get us out of Iraq before they were in power and now after 2 years just keep voting to fund the war.

"The reason the wingnuts are pushing this theory is in the hope of sowing doubts about Obama. The Right is trying to paint Obama as an empty suit, all talk, etc. One of the ways they want to do that is to portray him as an unprincipled flip flopper as a way to tarnish his brand and demoralize his base."

The right doesn't have to lift it's (their?) finger. Obama's doing it all by himself. Doesn't mean the base is going to vote for McCain--just means we have Senator Obama's number. Once elected (and he will be) he need not look for any honeymoon from the left.

The other day someone called me an idiot for saying "Obama is acting like a politician." I don't remember who it was, I won't bother to go look, and I don't want or need an apology. Just read the comments here, and note. There are a lot of idiots.

I voted for Obama, hoping for a more-decent-than-average politician, not a messiah. I haven't given up hope yet.

Anyone advocating "leave Iraq this minute" is an irresponsible fool, and I say this as someone who's always been against the invasion. How typical of the worst behavior of America it would be to go in, bust up the place, and leave when it gets too tough. Most Americans aren't against the war because it was wrong in the first place, they turned against it when it stopped looking like an easy win. In this climate, to advocate a gradual withdrawal is almost an act of political courage.

Hegseth probably has no inside information, rather, he's simply done what a lot of people should have by now: formed an outline of Obama's character and drawn reasonable conclusions about what he will do going forward. One of the most unfortunate things about Obama's FISA flip is that it pretty much signals everything is for sale -- that if Obama has any core principles, he does a good job of hiding them behind his soaring rhetoric.

I wonder how many people still think Obama really would have voted against the Iraq War bill. The number, I'm sure, is shrinking faster than the polar ice caps.

Tough choice---sattelite guided bombs or hand to hand civil war---secret police AND Blackwater or secret police--- artillary shelling with white phosphorous or car bombs---Best trained invaders in the world or poorly lead local militia---bombed into the stoneage and kept there or taking a chance on rebuilding the infrastructure---being bled for EVERY drop of oil or just selling it as you are able---tough choice.

First FISA and now this shit. Hillary is looking better every day. And Obama is looking like an empty suit.

Say anything to get elected. That's different from Hillary how?

This is one of those bizarre issues that folks were all excited about in the primaries. In reality you never could slide a paper between Obama and Clinton on the issue. Obama isn't flip-flopping. Both of them were always for a responsible withdrawal.

Executive summary: An unrecorded speech six years ago has been dutifully rewarded.

txurruka: I heard an interview with one of Obama's foriegn policy advisors, Richard Danzig, on NPR this week.

me too....

he said...the first brigade would begin pull out within obama's first 60-days...

then 1-brigade per month after that..

the whole process would take about 18-months ..

mccain isnt saying anything like that...

I don't believe there is a middle ground for Iraq. One side wants to withdraw the troops, which makes sense if one believes we cannot succeed, our troops are only making things worse, our troops are doing more harm than good, or the cost is too great. The other side wants to keep the troops in, which makes sense if one believes that a stable democracy can come about, or that a withdrawal of our troops will lead to an even worse bloodbath than what we're seeing now.

I just don't see a middle ground. To leave the troops in without fully seeking success would seem to be the worst of both worlds.