Why Obama’s Iraq policy created a media tizzy

Tom Curry National affairs writer • Profile • E-mail

WASHINGTON - When a candidate accuses the news media of making too much of one of his statements, you might suspect that he’s trying to tamp down a potentially damaging debate.

In a Fourth of July dust-up that many Americans may have missed while out shopping for charcoal briquettes, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told reporters over the holiday weekend they were making way too much of his statement that he will “refine” his Iraq policy.

After he makes his upcoming trip to Iraq and takes a look at conditions there, he said on July 3, “I'm sure I'll have more information and (will) continue to refine my policy."

He said his intent was still to “begin withdrawing troops and having our combat troops out in 16 months.”

But “I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account," he noted.

Two days later, Obama was still complaining about the press coverage. “I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off with what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement.”

When is the next Democratic primary so that disgruntled anti-war voters can express any unhappiness they might feel about Obama’s “refining” his stand?

Too late to switch
Of course, that moment has passed. Now the Democrats have their nominee. It is improbable Sen. Hillary Clinton would allow her name to be placed into nomination at the Democratic convention next month as the out-of-Iraq-now challenger to Obama.

Obama may have had a good case that the media had gone into an unreasonable tizzy over his remarks last Wednesday. He has always been committed to less than total withdrawal, despite what some of his supporters might have thought.

Video Obama: 'I have not equivocated' July 3: Despite the headlines, Sen. Barack Obama says he hasn't budged one iota from his original goal in Iraq. NBC's Lee Cowan reports. Nightly News

For one thing, close readers will not overlook Obama’s use of the phrase “combat troops.” That implies that other troops — trainers, observers, etc. — he calls them “residual troops” — would remain in Iraq, since training the Iraq army and police would remain a mission under would-be President Obama.

“What kinds of troop presences will we need in order for that (training) to occur?” Obama wondered last week. “What kind of troop presence do we need to have a counterterrorism strike force in Iraq that assures that al Qaida does not regain a foothold there?”

Very good questions, both of them — and ones Obama has not answered.

'Facts on the ground' will decide policy
His comment: “Those are all issues that obviously are going to be determined by the facts on the ground.”

But well before last week’s hubbub, there was plenty in Obama’s record to give comfort to both the out-of-Iraq-now voters and the “we can’t withdraw precipitously” voters.

In fact Obama has voted both against the withdrawal of troops from Iraq (on June 22, 2006) and for forcing the withdrawal of troops by cutting off funding for military operations in Iraq (on May 24, 2007 and Nov. 16, 2007).

His first detailed Iraq plan back on Nov. 20, 2006 told voters much of what we know today: if he were president, he would keep some troops in Iraq, and certainly keep more troops close by Iraq.

MORE FROM

Section Front

Obama campaign head gets big book deal Officials turn down Franken request Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent Franken lead at 49 with absentees left to count Minn. Senate winner won't be known in 2008 First Read: 'Twas the seventh week of recount... Franken opens first lead in Minn. Senate race Mom of Palin daughter's boyfriend arrested Minn. court weighs rejected absentee ballots Minnesota panel reviews disputed ballots Section Front   Add headlines to your news reader: