Is Obama Following Bush On Iraq?

National Review Online: Democrat's Policy Seems To Be Strikingly Similar To The Status Quo

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Mark Hemingway.

---

When Barack Obama announced he was going to “refine” his position on Iraq last week, not surprisingly many of his supporters were in a snit. It’s hard to blame them.

Obama campaigned on a promise to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq immediately, at the rate of a brigade or two a month, effectively removing the U.S. presence within 16 months of him assuming office. To bolster his antiwar credentials when jumping into the primary, in January of 2007 he introduced legislation in the Senate to have all of the troops out of Iraq by March of this year. And during the primary, he reminded anyone with a microphone that he was the only major candidate who had opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. If Obama were to refine his positions such that he were no longer explicitly in favor of ending the Iraq war promptly, it could represent a significant blow to his credibility among party activists and longtime supporters.

For his part, Obama seems to be feigning incredulity that anyone would be paying attention to how a presidential candidate “refines” his signature issue. “I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement,” he told the Associated Press. “I am absolutely committed to ending the war.”

However, those paying close attention will note that Obama has significantly moderated his original antiwar and foreign-policy positions in recent months. Democrats and Obama supporters will be loathe to admit it, but Obama stands poised to adopt the three major elements of the Bush-administration foreign policy - staying the course in Iraq, endorsing the doctrine of preventative war and the strategic expansion of executive power to fight the war on terror.

While Obama hasn’t committed to any specifics regarding how he’ll change his Iraq position, evidence points to Obama doing almost a complete about-face on Iraq withdrawal. As George Packer observed in a recent issue of The New Yorker, recent success in Iraq has put Obama in a tricky spot - rapid withdrawal at a time the U.S. is succeeding would not be popular with mainstream voters, but going back on his promise to end the war would not be popular with the candidate’s base. “With the general election four months away, Obama’s rhetoric on the topic now seems outdated and out of touch, and the nominee-apparent may have a political problem concerning the very issue that did so much to bring him this far,” Packer wrote.

Packer further notes that the Center for a New American Security - “something like Obama’s foreign-policy think tank” - is urging a plan of “conditional engagement” not tied to a timetable. And former Obama adviser Samantha Power, not known for her discretion, told the BBC Obama “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 . . . 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.’” There are even reports that Obama might be trying to retain Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates, which would provide a degree of strategic continuity.

In other words, Obama will get the U.S. out of Iraq when it appears prudent to do so. That is, as far as anyone can tell, is also the Bush administration’s position. Those on the left hanging their hopes on Obama ending the war swiftly might be in for a rude awakening.

Then there’s the Left’s ideological objection the Bush administration embracing the doctrine of preventative war. In a much discussed article oped in the Boston Globe last week, Boston University Professor Andrew Bacevich excoriated the Bush administration for his foreign-policy legacy and called Obama to “persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course.”

In particular, he lamented that the Bush administration had “promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force.” Bacevich did not, however, take note of the fact that Obama has himself endorsed the doctrine of preventative war.

In his speech to AIPCE in early June, Obama said of Israel’s bombing of a Syrian site believed to be a nascent nuclear reactor, “Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.”

That’s even farther than the Reagan administration was willing to go when Israel bombed the Osirak Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. While it tacitly approved of Israel’s actions, as a matter of public policy the administration supported a U.N. Resolution condemning Israel’s actions and withheld a promised shipment of aircraft in response.

This acceptance of preventative war has major implications for Obama’s stance on Iran. According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama has said “global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons.” Presumably, “whatever it takes” would include bombing Iranian reactors, and other preemptive attacks on Iran. So while Obama has said he doesn’t believe diplomatic options with Iran are exhausted, he is not on principle opposed to preventive attacks on Iran, a position that is complete anathema to many supporters.

Finally, Obama’s near complete reversal on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act show that he ultimately supports the Bush administration’s expansion of executive power to fight the war on terrorism. With his support of the compromise FISA, he’s not just going back on his previous position on FISA legislation but embracing a warrantless-surveillance program that most liberal Democrats have opposed on constitutional grounds.

In a recent oped for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, liberal standard-bearer Sen. Russ Feingold wrote, “When the president claimed that he could wiretap innocent Americans without a warrant, he asserted one of the most intrusive government powers imaginable.” By Feingold’s own logic, Obama is not averse to wielding the “most intrusive government powers imaginable” for himself. Similarly, before Obama was in the Senate, he said he supported repealing the Patriot Act, but after he was in the Senate he voted to reauthorize it. (To be fair, it was reauthorized with minor changes.)

No doubt many people are eager to support Obama’s foreign policy because of pragmatic issues, or in response to the perceived incompetence of the Bush administration. And nobody’s arguing that there aren’t other, very important differences between the Obama, Bush, and McCain foreign policies - Israel is a point of contention, among other issues.

But if significant numbers of Democrats are supporting Obama because they believe he represents a complete ideological break from the Bush administration’s foreign policy, they’re kidding themselves. Ultimately, electing Barack Obama may go a long way toward validating much of Bush’s foreign-policy legacy.

[ubrew12]

Obama would never have invaded Iraq in the first place. The reason so many of us warned for caution on entry into the war was because its easier to start a war than end it. If Obama is confused about how to end the war, he''s entitled to be confused. Bush was never confused when he started it, and some people confuse that with ''leadership''.

[tbweb]

Is Obama Following Bush On Iraq?

Obama is following Bush on funding Faith based initiatives, so who really knows! I didn''t think Obama would follow Bush on anything but he has already surprised me. It can''t be dismissed. But Iraq now seems to be setting its own timetable and path for U.S. withdrawal beyond the control of U.S. leaders upsetting the apple cart!

[sandyu73]

Three men - a Canadian farmer, Osama bin Laden and a Texas Gentleman are all walking together one day.

They come across a lantern and a Genie pops out of it. ''I will give each of you one wish, which is three wishes in total'', says the Genie.

The Canadian says, ''I am a farmer and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada''

POOF!
With the blink of the Genie''s eye, the land in Canada was forever fertile for farming.

Osama was amazed, so he said, ''I want a wall around Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq and Iran so that no infidels, Americans or Canadians can come into our precious land.''

POOF!
Again, with the blink of the Genie''s eye, there was a huge wall around those countries.

The Texan says, ''I am very curious. Please tell me more about this wall.''

The Genie explains, ''Well, it''s about 5,000 feet high, 5oo feet thick and completely surrounds the countries. Nothing can get in or out; it''s virtually impenetrable.''

The Texan sits down on his Harley, cracks a beer, lites a cigar, smiles and says, ''Fill it with water.''

[xlib]

Is the empty suit following Bush on Iraq?? Well, that would depend on the group he''s talking or pandering to. If it''s a group that he, or his handlers, think lean that way, You BETCHA!! The empty suit will say and do anything that soros wants him to.

[xlib]

ubrew12-so just who are "many of us"??? I do believe the dems were all for it. As for obama being "confused" on how to end the war, here''s something-how about winning the d(*m war?? As for Bush starting the war, sweetie pie, Congress was for it and gave the OK. Congress is still funding the war. I can see the way things will be. The empty suit will scr$w up and you and other leemings will make excuse after excuse.

[noloyalisti]

We should get the heck out ASAP. We have no business there and we won a few days after we invaded. After that we lost the Iraqi people (and killed many of them needlessly). In truth, we invaded an unarmed country and destroyed it. We owe them major restitution like Germany had to pay after WWI.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "National Review Online: Democrat''s Policy Seems To Be Strikingly Similar To The Status Quo"

Now you''ve really done it. Now you have left me with little choice but to agree with the fascistic and criminal dead-brains at the National Review Online.

Thanks a lot Democrats.

[wisepeace]

Obama is a candidate because people voted for him based upon his stated positions on the issues. If he changes his positions then we should be able to change our votes. Since he has little experience and is only a candidate based upon "talk" shouldn''t we demand that he walks his talk or gives up being a candidate. Otherwise he is a fraud.

[verycold]

Barack took his very liberal position to win his party''s nomination. He had the upper hand since Hillary did support this war even though she says she never authorized force. So....Barack used that fact that he wasn''t in the US senate at the time and therefore he can only speculate if he would or would not have voted to use force. So once he got the nomination he can then quickly slide to the middle to assure those in the middle on this particular issue that he isn''t like his supporters and really does want the US to win this war. The crazy liberal left most assuredly wants us to lose so that Bush can look even worse. It is all about Bush/republicans not about the welfare of this country at all and it most certainly is not about caring for the troops. Barack has the crazy left in his pocket no matter what he says and does. He knows that. They are bagged even if he chooses to stay in Iraq for a 100 years. Those of us that supported the war are the ones he is seeking to assure that he won''t just pull the troops without understanding the dire consequences. I should say here that the ONLY two men that convinced me to support this war was Colin Powell, now an Obama supporter, and Bill Clinton, a forced Obama supporter. Bush never made the case to me since I never voted for him to begin with.

[nomorewars]

Obama is a candidate because people voted for him based upon his stated positions on the issues. If he changes his positions then we should be able to change our votes. Since he has little experience and is only a candidate based upon "talk" shouldn''''t we demand that he walks his talk or gives up being a candidate. Otherwise he is a fraud.

You speak the truth here.

That''s why I''m voting for chuck baldwin, mclame and nobama are two idiots with the same goal.

[ubrew12]

Xlib said: "I do believe the dems were all for [the war]. " They voted under duress and made sure language was inserted making it ''a last resort''. Bush proceeded as if it was a first resort. McClellan voted against it: he was turned out of office. Daschle called out Bush on his hasty invasion, reminding him of the war resolution: he was turned out of office.

"As for obama being "confused" on how to end the war, here''s something-how about winning the d(*m war?? " If you think this war is going to go away, you''re as naive as I think you are.

Might doesn''t make right, it makes terrorists. Like you.

[imnho]

I think its just a fact finding trip.(commonly called a junket or boodoggle).

I have no personnel objection to Obama doing a trip to Iraq. He is likely to have to alter his time table for withdrawl if things change in the middle east.

Bush has slready demostrated that not being willing to be open to aknowledge reality does not work very well.

[aakalan]

This article is not just disingenuous. It''s an outright lie. Shame on you, NRO.

Obama has not changed his position at all. At more than one debate he stated that he would adjust his withdrawal plans based on the situation on the ground.

So what''s new here? Nothing. Nothing at all. It''s the same he''s been saying all along.

But that doesn''t stop you from wrapping falsehoods in propaganda, does it? It never has.

This magazine, this site and this article are garbage.

[samthetvcat]

omg, the GOP are so lame - why on earth you can''t seem to capitalize on Barack being equally lame is a puzzle. Don''t you have anything else other than taking the opponent''s strongest argument and turning it on him and finding evidence to bolster the claim? Trying to pull a fast one on the public isn''t working for Barack and he''s still winning, so why would you think it would work for you?

Why don''t you just point out the truth about Barack? That he''s trying to hold several different positions simultaneously, and when that''s not possible he takes as far-right a position as he can such that it''s just left of McCain. And that he''s willing to ''take his lumps'' from his supporters because we, unlike the powers that be, don''t have the power to stand in his way of getting what he wants which is power.

Because then the argument then becomes if the two candidates are virtually the same then why not go for the vet to spearhead the redeployment?

The hatred for you GOPigs is so intense, people can already tell Barack''s a flip-flopping phony but cling to him anyway because you pigs keep acting greasy with you''re skeevy ''strategy''. And Barack knows that - you all need to make people feel like McCain can offer an alternative of truth.

Then again, maybe that argument really can''t be made . . .

[ajmarine111]

Why don''''t you just point out the truth about Barack? That he''''s trying to hold several different positions simultaneously, and when that''''s not possible he takes as far-right a position as he can such that it''''s just left of McCain. And that he''''s willing to ''''take his lumps'''' from his supporters because we, unlike the powers that be, don''''t have the power to stand in his way of getting what he wants which is power.


Posted by SamTheTVCat at 03:47 AM : Jul 08, 2008



Someone once said that Obama could sing a song by some artist that goes "I''m going to grab a gun and kill all the whitey''s I see" and he would still get elected.

Some people want anyone but a Republican in the White House, no matter what they say.

[crater7]

" G W OBAMA."


THE KING OF CONN.

GOD "BLESS" AMERICA. NOT "G D" AMERICA.

[gunfighter51]

Of course he''s going to follow GW on the Iraq war, what did you expect him to do to get elected?

Just another playback of 06'' when the wimpocrats told us they were going to get us out if elected, I''m still waiting..............

[bluestardad]

ALL POLITICIANS WHO KEEP AMERICA INTO IRAQ AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE BEATEN FROM OFFICE

[a8151947]

All you have to do is look at him and you know he is going to lie, about every thing. All of you who voted for him should have to live with him.

[irliberal]

All you have to do is look at him and you know he is going to lie, about every thing. All of you who voted for him should have to live with him.

Posted by A8151947 at 08:03 AM


But enough about GW Bush...

[hungry1968]

National Review Online - all their twisted and mangled "news stories" that aren''t worth the paper they''re printed on.

The Fox News or Weekly Standard of journalism - not to be taken seriously.

[omnibus66]

It''s a good thing that CBS posts some of the NRO articles on their site. How else could rational, sane people see how inane and utterly ridiculous the NRO is?

Exposure to the light is sometimes an effective way to kill a disease.

[hologram5]

The United States is on a fast track to nowhere. We are in serious trouble and need to do something for the sakes of the children. Join the revolution, vote for someone who still retains integrity and honor.

[glady1930]

It is hard to tell what Obama thinks, or expects to do from one day to the next. He changes what he says every day, and that leaves peoples wondering what the h-ll they are getting into come November.

I don''t believe any politican...they are only out to help themselves. I think we actually need a benevolent dictator. Couln''t be much worse that what we have had the last few years and what we can expect going forward. Heaven help us.

[glady1930]

To: Hologram5

And....pray tell who might that someone be? I have looked at eveything going and can''t find a soul that meets that criteria.

[johnny1285]

I AM AN IRAQ WAR VET AND KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THINGS IN IRAQ WERE GETTING BETTER WHEN I WAS THERE...

ONLY WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN DECLARE OUR OWN DEFEAT.

;)

[old300d]

Obama = Bush


both talk to us like preachers. Both claim to be Christians but appear to know little about the Bible.

Bush was the one we sent to change things in Washington, remember ?

Obama has the same exact message Bush did ! ! !

We need change and because he is a Christian we should trust him ? ? ?

Are we going to fall for that again ? ? ?

[questionnews]

The United States is on a fast track to nowhere. We are in serious trouble and need to do something for the sakes of the children. Join the revolution, vote for someone who still retains integrity and honor.

Posted by hologram5 at 09:51 AM : Jul 08, 2008

Absolutely......Stewie Griffen 08''

[old300d]

Why would we believe that Obama is the one to change Washington ?

He is a Washington insider all the way ! ! !

We should trust him because he attended the T.U.C.C. for 20 years ?

We should trust him because he is a Chicago lawyer ?

We should trust him because he got a sweetheart deal on his house loan ?

We should trust him because he says that the Nation of Islam helps people ? ? ?

Why should we trust Obama ? ? ?

[rational_1]

Obama has not changed his position at all. At more than one debate he stated that he would adjust his withdrawal plans based on the situation on the ground.
So what''''s new here? Nothing. Nothing at all. It''''s the same he''''s been saying all along.
Posted by aakalan at 01:20 AM : Jul 08, 2008

But that''s exactly what the current administration is doing - adjusting troop levels to reflect the situation on the ground. The idea of measured U.S. troop withdrawal dependent on Iraqi military readiness is the status quo. On his website Obama still says he would remove all combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

But what he''s saying lately is a recapitulation of W''s policy of getting troops out as the situation stabilizes. So, he''s being a typical pol in trying to appeal to everyone.

[jon2012-2009]

I don''t get my news and analysis from NRO for the same reason I don''t get them from the posted commentaries here: the facts and logic could be tricky. At least, the posts represent a spectrum of opinions instead of being relentlessly one-sided.

[penrod8]

Of course he is following Bush. His advisers, Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, Kennedy, Clinton (times two, Howard Dean, McCaullife, and others don''t have a plan, never did, never will.

[a8151947]

This guy is a JOKE. LIE LIE LIE that is all he does. That is all he knows how to do. No GOOD.

[wardoglrs]

He betrayed us by voting for the FISA bill. were is all the talk about that on CBS?