Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

A pattern seems to be emerging. Senator Obama promises one thing on the campaign trail, then key advisers say something completely off message. Or are they actually revealing something we should all worry about? At least when Clinton talks about Iraq it’s not directly contradicted by her chief foreign policy advisers.

Everyone remembers the above video, when Samantha Power let slip that Senator
Obama wouldn’t be held to what he says about Iraq on the campaign trail, or
as a senator, once he gets in the oval office. Not exactly confidence inspiring if you’re trying to figure out what an inexperienced person with no record will do once on the job.

But now Obama’s working group coordinator on Iraq blows Obama’s campaign rhetoric
out of the water.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000–80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).” Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center’s Web site as a policy brief. Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position. … .. Obama Adviser Calls for Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010

A “sustainable over-watch posture” is what John McCain is talking about. Is Korea dancing in the back of Barack’s mind?

Being in Iraq until 2010, with “conditions on the ground” being the guide, is also not what Obama has been campaigning on, while hitting Clinton on her plan, which actually is quite reasonable and not even as conservative as what Kahl writes about. It’s also obvious from the report above that the Obama campaign acknowledged the existence of the “paper,” though they tried to ignore its relevancy.

One adviser going off message is one thing. But two senior advisers is unacceptable and hints at something larger.
So excuse me if I also think it matters, especially since we’re talking about
Iraq and Senator Obama has absolutely no record other than one speech in 2002
that was barely noticed back then on which we’re supposed to place our trust.