There's no reason to get hung up on the use of the word "refine." It means nothing, and it's no surprise.
Obama's statement this week is telling for another reason.
I've always said I would listen to commanders on the ground. I've always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he told reporters in North Dakota.
"That assessment has not changed, and when I have a chance to meet with some of the commanders on the ground I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies," he said.
Accoring to Obama, "the need to maintain stability" in Iraq now determines when the US should pull out. This, he claims, is what he has always said.
In fact, this is not true. He hasn't always said that. Yes, many statements he has made have at least been compatible with this one. But at the same time, he has also made statements of a completely different nature.
Some statements are somewhat precise and contain actual information. Others, not so much.
Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.
"If we can’t get the Iraqi government to stabilize in 7 years, we won’t be able to in 14. At some point the American people have to say, enough," he said.
So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight. And that is what I will do on day one, as president of the United States, if we have not done it in the intervening months.
I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home
In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation.
Prior to his Houston remarks, Obama's previous position favored an American combat troop withdrawal over a sixteen-to-eighteen-month timeframe. He has been less specific on the number and mission of any advisers he would leave behind.
By comparison, in The Audacity of Hope (2006), Obama wrote that "how quickly a complete withdrawal can be accomplished is a matter of imperfect judgment based on a series of best guesses."
Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois who is among the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination and a long-term opponent of the war, caught the mood of the Democrats when he said: "We are not going to babysit a civil war."
As a candidatefor his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.
"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."
Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went against their Senate colleagues yesterday by voting to cut off funding to American troops in Iraq after fierce pressure from anti-war groups determined to face down President George W Bush.
...
With funds due to run out in September, most Democrats decided that the political and potential human cost of denying funding for US forces in action was too great a risk.
But Clinton and Obama strategists calculated that supporting the compromise Bill could sound the death knell of their campaigns because party activists are overwhelmingly opposed to anything that might prolong the American presence in Iraq.
...
Mr Obama took another opportunity to mention his 2002 stance and added: "This President has led us down a disastrous path
"He has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war... we should not give a blank cheque to continue down this same disastrous path."
Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.
CLINTON, Iowa– Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama this afternoon called for an immediate start to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq -- with a goal of full removal by the end of 2008 -- as he suggested the nation has lost its way because of the war.
...
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was," he said. "'The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now."
Speakingon the Senate floor on January 30, he asserted that "redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve ... political settlement between its warring factions".
The key is "to give Iraqis their country back", since "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war".
DemocraticSenate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.
Obama In 2004: "[W]hat I also said was, once we go in, then we're committed. I
did believe in the Powell theory of you break it, you own it." (PBS' "The
Charlie Rose Show," 11/23/04)
Obama In 2004: "So what I said was, once the decision was made, then we've got
to do everything we can to stabilize the country, to make it successful,
because we'll have too much at stake in the Middle East. And that's the
position that I continue to take." (PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show," 11/23/04)
In fact, one would have to look pretty hard to find statements that accurately reflect what Obama has always said with respect to pulling out of Iraq.
So what exactly will it take to "maintain stability?" How much stability must be in place before the US can pull out? And how long will it take to get there?
It is, of course, a question which can only be answered when the war is history.
Until then, Obama's answers will likely continue to be of a tactical nature. As he himself said:
RUSSERT: [...] In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, "I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know," in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: "There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage." That was July of ‘04. And this: "I think" there’s "some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war." It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.
SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.
If I could vote in US elections, I would consider voting for the canditates with the most progressive views, even if I disagreed with them on some issues. (Voting for people who support the death penalty etc, would be out of the question, but that's another issue.)
But what I can't stand is a candidate getting away with all kinds of bullshit, just because he's your guy. Bullshit like saying that he has always said this and that, because, after all, isn't it obvious that you always have to consider the present situation and refine your policies accordingly? And what that really means is impossible to say until you actually make the decisions. It's so obvious, that you don't have to mention it each time you rely on talking points that contain a different message, as they are designed to attract certain voters.
The only long term purpose the Bullshitter's Privilege really serves, is to make sure that candidates will know that they can get away with it in the next election as well. And the next. And the next.