Earlier this week, Adam Graham mentioned that Obama may have overpromised during the campaign, and on first glance, it appears he may be right.
From the AP via Breitbart:
Vice President-elect Joe Biden told Iraqi leaders Tuesday that the incoming U.S. administration is committed to a responsible troop withdrawal that does not endanger improvements in security, an Iraqi spokesman said.
Biden delivered the message in talks with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on the second day of his visit to Iraq, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.President-elect Barack Obama pledged during his election campaign to withdraw all American combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office and shift the focus to Afghanistan to combat a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants.
Since the November election, however, the U.S. and Iraq have signed a new security agreement that provides for all the more than 140,000 U.S. troops to leave by 2012, despite concerns among senior U.S. commanders that Iraqi forces might not be ready by then to ensure stability.
Jeff Emanuel elaborates:
This latest is, of course, a far cry from the Obama who opposed the ’surge’ in forces and General David Petraeus’s commitment to emphasize counterinsurgency in Iraq, as well as from the Obama who both refused to admit that the new strategy was succeeding and then, even after begrudgingly admitting that some gains had been made in that Arab state, made the head-scratching claim that he would still oppose the successful change in course if, knowing ahead of time how amazingly it would succeed, he were presented with the opportunity to do so again.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton stated yesterday that troop withdrawal would be a top priority:
During her testimony Clinton pledged to help end the war in Iraq by safely withdrawing American troops and said the Obama administration is “not taking any option off the table at all” when it comes to dealing with Iran, but will pursue a new and “perhaps different” approach characterized by an “attitude toward engagement.”
It’s also interesting to contrast Joe Biden’s “We will end this war” from the VP debates to yesterday’s “the new administration will stick to the timetable in the [U.S.- Iraq status of forces] agreement.”
This is an issue that I wanted to remind readers to keep a close eye on. It is going to be interesting to see how a President Obama acts in comparison to what he campaigned upon in the early primaries. I’m not willing to say that he will fail to deliver upon his campaign promises, but as we all know, bold ideas are much easier said than done.
In any case, it will be fascinating to watch Obama grow as a leader, in either a good or bad direction, once he takes office. The world is a much different place than it was eight years ago. For those of us who were old enough to participate in the 2000 election, it seems like a different lifetime.
UPDATE: RightWingNews take:
And, if you recall the agreement specifics, the 2012 deadline is a best-case dead-line, subject to change if necessary.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Great Post!
January 14th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I heard today on tv obama is planning his second term already and I ask should we even put a good candidate like Romney up in 2012 or would he just be wasting his time? Seem like he thinks he’s guaranteed a landslide in 2012? As a GOP supporter it is just frustrating
January 14th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
the higher they go, the harder they fall.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I’m not at all afraid of putting Mitt up against him. I think Mitt can still make him look bad in the debates. Mitt is more articulate and doesn’t stand there and stutter like Obama.
Bring him on!
January 14th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I think it would be a mistake to just assume that any candidate could make someone look bad before their first day in office.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Tommy I think you’re giving our President elect too much credit. He’s not “evolving” on Iraq he’s having it both ways and he always has. Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser Colin Kahl recommended Barry keep up to 80,000 troops in Iraq through the year 2010.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/04/obama-adviser-keep-80000-troops-in-iraq/
January 15th, 2009 at 9:12 am
If you pardon the pun Illinoisguy, it is sometimes debatable who win debates. You know Mr. Romney (and maybe a few other people) better than I so for the sake of arguement, I assume that Mr. Romney is not only a good debator, but a great debator. Unfortunately, that in and of itself does not mean he’ll beat Mr. Obama, although I certainly hope he does if he in deed wins our nomination. People see what they want to see a debate if they really like or dislike a politician (especially the sitting President.) If we end up in an extreme senario where Mr. Obama is extremely loved, a good debator will only go far. At the other extreme, if people hate Mr. Obama at the end of 4 years, all his opponent will have to do is show. I doubt we will have either extreme senario, but I doubt an unemployed person is going to say to himself ‘Gee I don’t think candidate X will improve the economy enough to improve the job market for me, but I’ll vote for him because he won the debate.
Yes, sometimes debates matter, especially if elections are rather close, but I caution you not to put too much hope in debates. I know I have opinions (many of which may be extreme,) but I have not joined any camp yet, so I am open to listening to debates as well as speeches from the various candidates and camps.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:48 am
And just so we have a record of ALL of the promises:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obamas-agenda-difference-between.html
YES. WE. CAN.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Sampo,
I know that I probably am giving him too much benefit of the doubt. I’m trying give both sides until he’s taken the oath of office and committed to proposals as POTUS. I also don’t want to call him out until he’s officially outlined the offical proposal.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
He’s not going to give a darn what he said in the primaries, because the man seems to want to govern and the reality of Iraq has caught up with the Democrats by now, particularly the reality that they will be running the show.
I think he realizes the single-issue voters and activist groups are only of so much use. Sure, let’s try not to resort to war. The reality: sooner or later, war is inevitable.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
By the way, while you’re throwing all these different people on the board on the left as potential 2012 candidates, why not throw Jon Huntsman, Jr. on there as well? There has been speculation of him in a 2012 race:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/the_rising_jon_huntsman_jr.html?nav=rss_blog
January 15th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Good article on Huntsman.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Someone ought to do a front page posting on Huntsman and open up the discussion.
It’s not hard to see that he’s easily one of the best that we can find.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Ironically, he could be the one that could make Mitt’s path tougher. Huntsman is doing pretty well in life for a high school drop-out.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
The guy is a *much* better politician than Romney, so needless to say I wouldn’t mind that in the least
January 16th, 2009 at 7:49 am
I don’t know about being a politician, but Romney went from relative obscurity to within a whisker of winning the nomination. I agree that Huntsman will be a force to be reckoned with too. At this point, I’d much rather have Mitt, but who knows what the future holds?