Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
<
On Thursday Obama made another one of his Kerry-like consistent inconsistencies as he struggled to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove U.S. combat troops from the war:
Republicans pounced on the chance to characterize Obama as altering one of the core policies that drove his candidacy "for the sake of political expedience." He denied equally forcefully that he was shifting positions.
Arriving in Fargo, Obama hastily called a news conference to discuss news of a sixth straight month of nationwide job losses, but the questioning turned to Iraq policy and his impending trip there.
"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he said. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy."
He left the impression that his talks with military commanders there could refine his promise to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office.
Less than four hours later, after the town hall meeting, Obama appeared before reporters for another statement and round of questions to "try this again."
[. . .]
He said that when he talked earlier about refining his policy after talking with commanders in Iraq, he was referring not to his 16-month timeline, but to how many troops may need to remain in Iraq to train the local army and police and what troop presence might be needed "to be sure al-Qaida doesn't re-establish a foothold there."
Colin Kahl, the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq, recommends that we keep 60,000 - 80,000 troops in Iraq through 2010.
As Obama tries to figure a way out of his outdated Iraq policy, he reminds me more and more of John Kerry who also claimed to be consistent all along.


