Crossposted from Flopping Aces

What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.

And that’s why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been — they’ve been talking about now for years.

LINK

Oops! I’m sorry, that was his position 6 months ago…before things REALLY quieted down in Iraq to the point where a potential President, his advisors, and all the senior military commanders in the region can walk around w/out body armor.

Question:

Is Senator Obama’s position still the same, or

Did he change it?

also:

NYT’s Rejects McCains Rebuttal To Obama’s Editorial

The media in the tank for Obama? Nawwwwww:

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles…

[Former Clinton aide and current NYT op-ed editor David] Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial [in an e-mail to McCain’s staff on Friday].

‘The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.’

Shipley continues: ‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.’

Here is the part in which the NYT’s say he does not define victory good enough for them: (from the Drudge link above)

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

Let me see….when the Iraqi’s skills in logisitics, C&C, and other supply matters get up to par, when their air force gets up to par, and when the Iraqi’s can defend their country without help…then we can declare victory.

Pretty straightforward to me but not the NYT’s.

I tell you what, McCain should offer to articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines victory in Iraq if Obama will agree to articulate, in concrete terms, how he defines defeat in Iraq. Shouldn’t be hard, he’s declared defeat plenty in times past.

Obama’s detailed plans? He detailed the number of Brigades he would withdraw. Thats about it. The rest of it was the same ole’ crap we heard from him before.

But the NYT’s, as the gatekeeper of the story they want to spin has decided only one side can be heard while printing pieces like What Hamas Wants and allowing a terrorist to write his own editorial.

Nope, the MSM is definitely NOT in the tank for Obama….

Sigh…

More here.