Is Obama backtracking? Well, yes and no.
Mr. Obama was scrolling through news reports on his Blackberry – taking particular note of stories about his Iraq policy – when he told his advisers he wanted to better explain a statement he made earlier about continuing to “refine my policies” regarding a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
“We’re going to try this again,” Mr. Obama said, standing behind a lectern that was hastily set up on the lawn of a park here. “Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq.”
Granted there is only a small difference between what Obama campaigned on and his recent statements yesterday — getting the troops home in 16 months compared to 11 months.
“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”
His original On the Issues fact sheet notes quite clearly he would redeploy troops in 11 months (pdf via in case it changes). Five months difference may not be a lot, but it is enough for the McCain team to zero in as a flip-flopper, leaving Obama wide open to being “swiftboated.” Note, the only thing different between yesterday’s statements and his original fact sheet is the timeframe of 5 months. Nothing else has changed, as Taylor Marsh points out. What she does point out is that Obama’s timeframe for redeployment changed back at the Dartmouth Debate.
So, for all the squawking of flip-flopping, not on this issue. The timeframe change on redeployment happened a while ago, and everyone either missed it or dismissed it. On the other hand, changing the timeframe for redeployment by 5 months may not be construed as true backtracking, being that this is a constantly changing situation, and changing situations need to have flexible solutions — something the neocons and Bush the Lesser never understood (i.e. stay the course).
However, it is the FISA legislation, and retroactive immunity that is the real story of backtracking by Obama. Glenn Greenwald calls bullshit on Obama’s latest statement on his FISA support, while giving him kudos for allowing an open forum.
Barack Obama has issued a new statement on FISA in response to the growing number of his supporters objecting to his position. Genuine credit to him for being responsive this way and for having his site be a forum for disagreement among his supporters and himself. Providing a forum for those sorts of debates is a sign of a secure and healthy campaign.
Despite that, the statement contains many dubious claims and, in a couple cases, outright misleading statements. Worse, Obama’s statement only addressed the objections to the telecom immunity provisions of the bill, while ignoring the objections to the (at least) equally pernicious new warrantless eavesdropping powers the bill authorizes.
Read the entire post of Glenn’s to understand the full implications and falsehood’s of Obama’s claims.
Finally, we must note, as voiciferously as possible, that it is McShame that employs true flip-flopping. He flipped on his Iraq stance, taking the democrats stance after his disasterous 100-years statment.
