Obama Responds To Permanent Bases Story -- Falls Short Of Full Opposition

Comments (52)

Dan wrote on November 27, 2007 1:10 PM:

Yawn. Does this level of minutiae make any difference at this stage in the game?

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 1:17 PM:

You kids at TPm work extra hard at finding controversy where there is none.

Greg wrote on November 27, 2007 1:17 PM:

yes, it does. permanent bases in iraq is a big deal. if a presidential contender won't rule it out, as dodd has, that's important information. whichever side of the argument you come down on.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 1:18 PM:

Does this level of minutiae make any difference at this stage in the game?

Obama will not rule out the possibility of permanent military bases in Iraq. Is that less "minutiae"? I'd say so...

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 1:26 PM:

Greg:

Have you passed along Ackerman's "interpretation" to the Obama campaign? I'm curious if this isn't another one of those situations where pundits are reading far too much into the words used by the candidates campaign.

Gnopple wrote on November 27, 2007 1:26 PM:

Unbelievable.

"Barack Obama will make it clear from his first day in office to the American people, the people of Iraq, and to the world that the United States will not seek permanent bases in Iraq."

You guys parse words worse than Clinton I. On one hand you made fun of Kerry for putting TOO MUCH into his statements, then you strain to imply meaning in other candidates when they put out shorter one-liners.

This is like when you guys went overboard trying to show that Edwards wouldn't support the Dem nominee because he said he would be the Dem nominee. It's getting difficult to trust your headlines.

kjoe wrote on November 27, 2007 1:27 PM:

What are Dodd, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Obama doing right now to stop Bush from making committments like this----which are apparently unconstituional in iraq?

Seth H. wrote on November 27, 2007 1:27 PM:

Um... Did you read it?

"Barack Obama will make it clear from his first day in office to the American people, the people of Iraq, and to the world that the United States will not seek permanent bases in Iraq."

Will not seek permanent bases. That sounds pretty clear. Frankly, I don't think there's any way that Bush will have been able to establish permanent bases before he's out of time. He'll meet resistance from Congress and from the public and that will slow down the process. I think y'all don't give Congress enough credit for what they've been doing. Anyway, I believe that was the assumption under which the statement was issued and that if that notion's proven wrong, Obama will revise his sentiment on the issue. Only time will tell, though, I suppose.

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 1:31 PM:

Do the good folks here at TPM not know about Google?

Obama:

"This war will be over; there will be no permanent bases."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/page/3/

"The main principle is not having permanent bases in Iraq . . . ."

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=FB93F06B-E6E6-A1F9-78CF18C5F19E71D6

"I've been very clear we should not have permanent bases in Iraq."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-17-obama-interview_N.htm

"I've said no permanent bases in Iraq . . . ."

http://www.nvtoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=49

Gnopple wrote on November 27, 2007 1:33 PM:

DTM -- excellent work. Maybe you should be a TPM Intern and take over for Greg and Spencer.

Coonsey wrote on November 27, 2007 1:33 PM:

Oh give me a break. You seem to jump on every word a person says. Seek means to resort to OR ask for OR request OR try to acquire or gain OR make an attempt to get.

Look at the definition of SEEK:

1: to resort to : go to
2 a: to go in search of : look for b: to try to discover
3: to ask for : request
4: to try to acquire or gain

This tells me he does NOT want Permanent Bases in Iraq.

Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 1:34 PM:

That sounds pretty clear

It doesn't, in comparison to this:

In a Dodd Administration, there will be no permanent bases in Iraq

Obama's statement leaves him wiggle room, not necessarily a bad thing, but his statement falls pretty short of Dodd's statement, I think. So if not having permament military bases in Iraq is a priority for voters, Obama is being a bit vague. Dodd isn't.

Dave wrote on November 27, 2007 1:39 PM:

That's because the vow not to "seek" permanent bases doesn't foreclose the possibility of accepting them should the Iraqi government offer them.

So then maybe you should ask the campaign if they would accept bases should the Iraqi government offer them. No?

This would seem to be a logical follow-up, especially given Obama's previous direct statements against permanent bases (as DTM has dug up).

votenic wrote on November 27, 2007 1:40 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 1:42 PM:

In the link above by DTM at nvtoday.com Obama was pressed for a more clear answer...and he dodged. Here's the exchange:

Obama: So look, there was a terrorist attack in Kenya. We had an embassy there. We're not going to pull our embassy simply because we're on Kenyan soil. But there's a big difference between us having an embassy or engaging in joint operations with the Kenyan military along the coast of Kenya and us invading Kenya. I think that's a distinction that most people understand.

NVToday: At the risk of being obtuse, which people accuse me of from time to time, let me go at this another way. Bill Richardson for instance has said that he would leave no troops behind, no residual forces. React to that.

Obama: Look I think that is just not true. Look, Bill Richardson from my understanding has been a UN representative. Is he suggesting that somehow the U.S. embassy in Baghdad is not...

NVToday: No, he's made that distinction, that we'll have an embassy, so you'll have the marine contingent. But apart from that, he is drawing the distinction between no troops versus the troops in Reid-Feingold.

Obama: You know, I think I've answered your question. I've made clear what my position is.

I think it's clear he doesn't want to be stuck with an absolute answer. It's smart politically. But it is a "political" answer. He doesn't want to say..."No residual forces."

Rooktoven wrote on November 27, 2007 1:42 PM:

Weasel words. Why not rule it out with a "No"?

Some things are as predictable as humidity in the south:

Obama will vacillate and his supporters will defend that vacillation vociferously.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 1:43 PM:

Q. And the (military) bases.

A. I've been very clear we should not have permanent bases in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-17-obama-interview_N.htm

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—yeah, but we have 165,000 there now. Are we talking 150,000?

SEN. OBAMA: There, there—here’s what I’ll say, Tim. We will have the vast majority of the troops who are there gone. This war will be over; there will be no permanent bases. So when I hear, for example, others say, “I will have all troops out,” well, the fact of the matter is who’s going to protect our embassy? Who’s going to protect our civilian forces? Are these folks suggesting that we’re just going to leave them to wander around the streets and rely on the Iraqi military to do that? Obviously not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/page/3/

I love Google.

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 1:44 PM:

Damn! Sorry about the poor html use. Here it is properly...I hope!

Obama: So look, there was a terrorist attack in Kenya. We had an embassy there. We're not going to pull our embassy simply because we're on Kenyan soil. But there's a big difference between us having an embassy or engaging in joint operations with the Kenyan military along the coast of Kenya and us invading Kenya. I think that's a distinction that most people understand.

NVToday: At the risk of being obtuse, which people accuse me of from time to time, let me go at this another way. Bill Richardson for instance has said that he would leave no troops behind, no residual forces. React to that.

Obama: Look I think that is just not true. Look, Bill Richardson from my understanding has been a UN representative. Is he suggesting that somehow the U.S. embassy in Baghdad is not...

NVToday: No, he's made that distinction, that we'll have an embassy, so you'll have the marine contingent. But apart from that, he is drawing the distinction between no troops versus the troops in Reid-Feingold.

Obama: You know, I think I've answered your question. I've made clear what my position is.

bg wrote on November 27, 2007 1:45 PM:

Nice underhanded effort at equating Obama's statements with the chronic mendacity of the Bush administration, it's about as clever and objective as your earlier whingeing over polling methods.

Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 1:47 PM:

His statement seems pretty clear to me. The headline seems kind of bogus. What, is clinton II coming out with a press release using different language so that TPM can claim a victory for her?

kjoe wrote on November 27, 2007 1:48 PM:

I think DTM should seek federal funding to see if it is feasible to print out his post of the links to what Obama said and make them into low-cost suppositories.

And test them on Greg.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 1:50 PM:

At the same time, we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people. To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Obama told a crowd at Ashford University in Clinton that it's time to begin a steady withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, with the goal of completing that withdrawal by the end of 2008. "Some" troops would remain to protect the U.S. Embassy and U.S. citizens who remain behind if Obama's plan were followed.

"The main principle is not having permanent bases in Iraq and make sure that we have a presence in the region that sends a message to other super powers that we are not going away," Obama told Radio Iowa.

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=FB93F06B-E6E6-A1F9-78CF18C5F19E71D6

More fun with Google.

DRinOH wrote on November 27, 2007 1:52 PM:

That's it, the hypocrisy of this site is just ridiculous. You poke fun at other journalists all day then do this...

WTF does he have to say? This site is so god damn Hillary biased it's outrageous.

This after the polls fiasco yesterday. If you've got a problem with the methodology of the poll, then post it, and in a caveat explain your problem with the methodology of the poll. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist or hide it because you don't like it. That's called censorship.

You could have done the same thing with this post, but instead of using a caveat, you wanted soooo bad to put "falls short of full opposition" in that headline link.

You have officially lost your license to criticize Fox, MSNBC, and CNN until you pull your own heads out of your asses.

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 1:53 PM:

loki,

No one can say "no residual forces" because it wouldn't be true as long as we at least have an embassy in Iraq.

But it is also true Obama has suggested we could have troops in Iraq conducting training missions, and also could have an "over-the-horizon" force in Kuwait or other places in the region. He draws the line, however, at both permanent military bases in Iraq and "U.S. troops trying to police a civil war, and functioning as an occupying army or day-to-day combatants."

I don't know if you like that answer or not, but to me it is pretty clear.

Greg wrote on November 27, 2007 1:58 PM:

All I did is report what the guy said. I'm unclear as to why you all can't see that his answer is different from Dodd's. It's pretty obvious. If the obama people wanna give me something firmer, I'll be the first to post it.

Thanks to Keith and DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 2:01 PM:

Maybe someday we can expect such diligent reporting from TPM...

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 2:01 PM:

DTM,

As the interviewer mentioned, Richardson made that distiction. Embassy with Marine contingent..yes. But no residual forces. (So actually yes, someone can say that.)

And speaking of no bases...where exactly would those "troops in Iraq conducting training missions" lay their heads at night?

Gnopple wrote on November 27, 2007 2:02 PM:

All I did is report what the guy said.

Posting the Obama camp's statement is different from this bit of editorializing:

According to Spencer Ackerman, TPM's resident expert on such matters, this stops short of firm opposition to future permanent bases. That's because the vow not to "seek" permanent bases doesn't foreclose the possibility of accepting them should the Iraqi government offer them. Indeed, in 2005 the Bush administration's own Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, also used a similar formulation, saying that the administration does not "seek" such bases.

So for now it appears that the Obama campaign has left themselves some wiggle room on this question.

I would update the post with the numerous google references that the commenters have cited.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 2:03 PM:

Obama: You know, I'm not going to get into precise numbers because I think so much of this has to be done in consultation with the military on the ground. We know that we're going to have to have some troops to protect the green zone. I've said no permanent bases in Iraq but we're still going to have an embassy there, and we're still going to have some presence there. I think there's also a difference between who's still in Iraq proper and who is part of a over-the-horizon force in Kuwait or in other parts of the region to make sure that we are available for humanitarian interventions for example, or provide logistical and training support. But, again, my basic principle is that we can not have combat troops in Iraq, engaging in day-to-day skirmishes resulting in these enormous casualties.

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=31

"(h) No Permanent Bases- Congress hereby reaffirms section 1519 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2444), and related provisions of law, that prohibit the establishment of military installations or bases for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq."

http://www.barackobama.com/iraqact/

He's pretty much on record opposing permanent bases in Iraq; and it certainly makes sense if he's proposed removing all combat troops from Iraq (who would be on those bases if all of the combat troops are gone?.

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 2:03 PM:

Yes, Greg. You should know by now that anything even remotely critical of the "Mr. Perfect Candidate" is a huge no-no in these forums. So please! Please now say something nice about Obama! ;^}

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 2:05 PM:

Greg,

Don't insult our intelligence. You reported what Obama said, but also proceeded to interpret his statement for us, citing Spencer as your source. But apparently you did not bother to do any elementary fact-checking.

So if you want to defend your process and standards, go ahead. But don't play the innocent.

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 2:07 PM:

For the record, I also don't think Clinton is going to be so hard and fast on the whole "no permanent bases"/"no residual forces" bit. I suspect she will as well leave wiggle room. It is the politically smart thing to do.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 2:09 PM:

Obama says "no permament bases" at different campaign stops.

Dodd says "In a Dodd Administration, there will be no permament bases".

Obama's campaign says "...seek no permament bases".

Obama is pretty straightforward at some points, but the most recent statement seems less so. Why is there so much acrimony in response to Election Central pointing this out when this issue has not become nationally discussed?

Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld get lambasted as being Obama supporters, Edwards supporters, and Clinton supporters. It's hilarious at times. Keep it up, guys.

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 2:12 PM:

In a Dodd, (excuse me, I mean in an Obama) Adminsitration, there will be no permanent bases in Iraq.

Greg's take:

There might be the first month, or the first year, but eventually, "In a Dodd, (excuse me, in an Obama) Administration, there will be no permanent bases in Iraq."

Obama could have said the exact same words as Dodd before Dodd said them, and you guys would have used the headline "Obama fails to make clear what year there will be no permanent bases in Iraq"

This is how it's done TPM... wrote on November 27, 2007 2:13 PM:

His statement only says: In a Dodd administration, there will be no permanent bases.

What he doesn't say is that he opposes such bases. Perhaps what his statement means is that we will not have the resources to sustain a permanent base, or that the Iraqi government wont allow one. Based on this statement from Chris Dodd, if those circumstances should change, Spencer Ackerman says we don't know what his position might be...Clearly, he's left the door open.

Geek, Esq. wrote on November 27, 2007 2:13 PM:

Okay Greg, you've gotten a ton of firmer statements in the comments (and probably a few by email as well).

Correction, please.

Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 2:13 PM:

Darn loki, and I was really expecting clinton II to take a position on this. She is so decisive and clear in her stands on issues. I would expect no more than a clear press release renouncing permanent bases in iraq or due to the fact that, as far as we know, there aren't any there yet, that she would not "seek" permanent bases in iraq. Darn, darn, I may have to vote for mitt the flip now.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 2:15 PM:

CT Voter:

I put the additional statments out there to give CONTEXT. If Ackerman and Sargent want to conclude that his statement is leaving wiggle room, I wanted to make sure that this statement was viewed against the body of his opposition to permanent bases in Iraq, especially when this wasn't a gotcha issue in the campaign.

If Ackerman has further evidence that Obama will accept a permanent base in Iraq or continue to fund one after all combat troops have been withdrawn, then I'd be interested in seeing it. As it stands, we have his interpretation and Obama's statements in opposition. Draw your own conclusions.

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 2:15 PM:

loki,

Right, so even Richardson had to qualify his "no residual forces" claim when pressed.

As for where training forces would sleep at night: I don't really know enough about military procedure to answer that question, but the obvious possibilities include Iraqi bases, temporary encampments, maybe even hotels if you are not talking about a lot of people. I am pretty confident that you do not need permanent bases just to support training missions, however, particularly considering that the whole point is to have them working with the Iraqi forces.

Again, though, if you categorically object to U.S. troops fulfilling a training mission in Iraq, then you do in fact have a difference of opinion with Obama. That difference of opinion just isn't about permanent bases.

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 2:17 PM:

Residual forces is a VERY different issue from permanent bases. Some of the comments cut and pasted from other news sites using google seem to conflate the two issues.

Dave wrote on November 27, 2007 2:21 PM:

Obama is pretty straightforward at some points, but the most recent statement seems less so. Why is there so much acrimony in response to Election Central pointing this out when this issue has not become nationally discussed?

The real problem is TPM didn't contextualize this most recent comment into Obama's previous statements on permanent bases.

They also failed to ask a pretty obvious follow-up, given Ackerman's interpretation of the apparent wiggle room. If a journalist wants to know whether or not Obama would accept permanent bases should they be offered directly by the Iraqi government, then they should ask. I'm hoping this specific question has already been sent out to the campaign.

The problems isn't TPM being biased, it's TPM not fully doing its job.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 2:23 PM:

Keith:

The links are helpful. My point is that in comparison to Dodd, Obama leaves wiggle room. I happen to think that's not a bad strategy (and I'll wait for the hail of anti-Hillary responses calling me a Hillary lover for approviong of wiggle room)..when Obama's statement is viewed in the context of Dodd's, Obama's is definitely less definitive. Again, I don't think that's bad thing...

And claims of bias in Election Central pieces have been rattling around for months now...

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 2:29 PM:

CT Voter,

The problem with the "wiggle room" theory is that many of Obama's prior statements left no such "wiggle room".

Now, perhaps you are suggesting that Obama's latest statement somehow overrides all his prior statements. But if that is true, the idea of "wiggle room" is pretty meaningless. For example, it seems like Dodd could suddenly open up "wiggle room" for himself next week just by slightly changing his statement.

But in the end I agree with Dave: this is not so much an indication of bias as just some pretty suspect journalism.

Greg wrote on November 27, 2007 2:31 PM:

obama people have followed up with another statement:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/obama_absolutely_positively_and_completely_rules_out_permanent_bases_in_iraq.php

loki wrote on November 27, 2007 2:33 PM:

DTM,

Do you think Obama's most recent statement is in any way leaving "wiggle room?"

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 2:33 PM:

Another nontroversy bites the dust.

Allen wrote on November 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

Hi Greg,

First, let me say that I am a fan of the site and I love the reporting that you do.

Having said all that, I think there is a very clear bias on your site regarding Hillary and against Obama.

Maybe I'm wrong. I would be interested to see you put out something on your site calling all readers to investigate TPM to see if this is true.

Biases can sometimes be unconscious and perhaps you may be affected by one. I also didn't like your comment that the obama people should come to you if they want a correction.

Isn't that the reason why people have turned to your site? Because we're tired of lazy reporters who don't get off their ass and go after the facts. We don't need more reporters waiting for the facts to come to them.

Disappointed, but still a fan

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 3:03 PM:

loki,

I'm not sure which statement you mean, but the bottomline is that for a long time now Obama has ruled out permanent bases, and he hasn't changed his answer.

bp wrote on November 27, 2007 3:11 PM:

You getting some heat from the Obamistas, Greg. You know, the farther you are from winning the easier it is to take clear cut positions. But when it comes to bases the second Obama answer is the best: no bases, Period.

r€nato wrote on November 27, 2007 4:42 PM:

We're not leaving Iraq.

I don't care what Hillary says, I don't care what Obama says, I don't even care what Dodd says and I like him.

Once in the White House, things look very different than they do when you're campaigning and the weight of the office isn't on your shoulders. There will be tremendous institutional pushback against any attempt to militarily and politically disentangle ourselves.

We're not leaving Iraq.

anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 5:01 PM:

Yep, as I suspected, Obama supporters play down an Obama waffle that would be grist for the Hillary Haters mill if Clinton had said the same thing, proffering up excuses and rationalizations for his failure to immediately state his opposition in no uncertain terms, excuses and rationalizations they would promptly reject if coming from Clinton supporters.

Double. Standards.

Evadt wrote on November 27, 2007 8:38 PM:

Base discussion: for the most part, the bases are now installed, and operational.

Contradictions: Both Obama and Clinton publish presidential war-on moron credentials in Foreign Affairs, and have badgered each other over “experience”…. Neither served their country other than in respective elected political offices; apparently, both have been misinformed regarding long-term national strategy; the anti-base comments are not received well by military people who have been sacrificing blood and life to stabilize US Iraq/Caspian interests.

This summer, we attended funeral services for a Viet Nam Marine neighbor who finally checked-out from Agent Orange complications; his son (USMC) was home from Iraq on emergency leave, I asked him what the hell was going on, over there. Ivan replied, “If we leave, we’ll just have to go back in.”

There are reasons to retain bases in Iraq, and we don’t need another blundering administration. Clinton and Obama bytes have been off topic, off message, and provide examples of two pup candidates with questionable qualification to serve as CinC. Any presidential candidate not predisposed to authentic military bearing should bow-out, now. It may not be the way we like it, but it is the way it is... we need professionals, not pretenders.

Barack/Hillary (Edwards if you’re listening) – got news for ya: Bases in Iraq shall remain.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)