Bush shifts toward Obama - Iraq Timetable & Negotiating with Iran

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cleverboy, Jul 19, 2008.

  1. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #1
    This whole thing makes Bush and McCain look very odd to anyone following things. Obama has been saying with should negotiate with foreign leaders like Iran with no preconditions (other than not being terrorists like Hamas, though the U.S. has officially ).

    In a Shift, U.S. Joins Nuclear Talks With Iran
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html?ref=europe

    Bush, in a Shift, Accepts Concept of Iraq Timeline
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
    I mean, the most curious thing was a recent interview with the leader of Iraq:
    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/19/maliki-i-support-obamas-withdrawal-timetable/
    Now, the key points, are that the Bush administration still seems to want to imply that they still have preconditions, even when they're supposedly entering negotiations. Extremely weird. Moreover, they're not talking "timetables" but "time horizons". Que? It's like a lot of bustle just to say and do absolutely nothing.

    Given al-Maliki's position, I'm getting the impression Bush is trying to save face on the "timetable" issue. On negotiating with Iran, it just sounds like they're trying to spin news and events not headed in their favor.

    ObeyGiant already started a thread on the Iranian negotiations:
    Rumors of Diplomacy: US Envoy to meet with Iranians
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=523732

    After early concerns that improvements in Iran will favor McCain's position, it seems like the shift lately is in the other direction. It will make for an interesting review of events after McCain wins in November.

    ~ CB
     
  2. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  3. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    Please, never say "Bush" and "Obama" in the same sentence ever again.

    Unless it's "Obama is sooooo much better than Bush"
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    stevento is still in Hillary's panties, and that will never change.
     
  5. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #5
    That's the crazy part. Bush is starting to ape what Obama's been saying for years, but only as he's on his way out the door. That's some serious shifting, even if its superficial. It's almost like... McCain can't show himself to have policies distinctly different from the Bush administration, so the Bush administration is shifting its policies so that McCain can manuver to a more favorable... and defendable... position. Honestly, months from now... unless this blows up in some very public way, most people won't know these positions were held mostly by Obama, they'll be thinking... hey, these two guys are mostly the same... Obama and McCain want us out of Iraq, they both have a timetable... now, which one do I trust more... who cares more about America? At that point, McCain will claim his booby-prize.

    ~ CB
     
  6. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    well, i think obama is much better than bush. but if you click this link and look at the first cartoon on the page, you'll see i'm not the only one who feels like obama and bush are a little too much alike.
     
  7. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #7
    Actually, running for George Bush's FIRST term, while inaccurate on a range of issues, isn't really as much a problem. Fact is, George Bush said a LOT of things about being a "uniter" (before he became "the decider") and pledging to do things for his constituancy, that never quite lived up to the promise. Even on the faith-based programs, the head of his program quit, and due to the clear lack of stewardship, most people see the effort as having been largely empty. So, the real question is not really "like Bush" in substance, but will Obama be "like Bush" in execution. Because if he DOES execute these policies, he'll be nothing like the Bush we have now, and not like the third term Bush candidate we'll get when McCain is inevitably elected. Both Clinton and Obama has said ad nauseous that the gulf between Democratic candidates is minor and between Democrats and Republican candidates is tremendous. Any pro-choice voters would be well advised to understand what this next President will mean to the Supreme Court. But, I have little faith they will. It'll just be a pathetic day.

    ~ CB
     
  8. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #8
    As to Bush's "shift" towards Iraq?

    Is it truly a shift, or is it moving towards a previously stated goal?

    This " shift " wouldn't have anything to do with things going well enough in Iraq that the Iraqi's are prepared now more than ever to take responsibility for their own nation and its security.

    NO! NO! NO!

    It cannot be any of the above, it has to be he is mimicking Sen Obama. :rolleyes:

    Please do not believe me, just ask ANY Obama supporter! :p

    Obama is ALL about change ..... but what exactly is he going to change???

    Bad to worse <--- is a change, isn't it? :D
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    Please. :rolleyes: Bush is shifting to Obama's idea, first with Iran and now with this. Not the other way around (except with FISA, which most of us gave him a well deserved thrashing for). Keeping digging though.

    As for the rest, they were trying to distance themselves from Maliki saying what he did about wanting the US out, something the Iraqis have been wanting for a long time, but the writing is on the wall. No matter how much they trying to spin it, what Maliki said was not mistranslated. They want us out. So we get more of "the surge is working", as we see above, even though as we've tried to point out over and over again, it really isn't that simple:

    The Surge Caused Everything!

    The fact is, while yes, violence has gone down (for lots of reasons) that's not the end all be all. Even if we ignore the fact that the "surge" was only supposed to last a few months and be long over by now, there was so much more to it that was supposed to happen that didn't. And while they can say 15 out of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory", the truth is they haven't been met. But they want us out, we're going to have to be out, so even the right is now saying we'll be getting out.

    Try as they might to call this a victory though, complicit media and Dems letting the meme go out as is that the surge is working and we're "winning", the simple fact is that this was a mess going in, and nothing will change how bad it's been over the last few years, including now, slight reduction in violence in some areas or not.

    As for Iran, we didn't really have any choice but to negotiate thanks to still be bogged down in the war we're supposedly winning in Iraq and the disaster the 'stans have become that was supposed to have been taken care of years ago too.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    I posted about the Iraq time table in the Iraq Awareness thread, but this caught my eye too:

    Study Cautions Against Strike on Iran's Nuclear Facilities
    K.
     

Share This Page