~Snooper~

This won't set well with the far-left communist anti-Americanist groups such as Code pink and World Can't Wait crowds. Ed Morrissey reports the following:

Barack Obama's adviser on Iraq has written a confidential paper arguing that the US needs to remain robustly engaged in Iraq in order to build on the successes of the past year. The New York Sun's Eli Lake reports on the confidential paper by Colin Kahl, the coordinator for Obama's advisory group on Iraq, which foresees the same kind of long-term presence that John McCain has advocated. It calls for a gradual reduction through 2010 to a baseline presence of as many as 80,000 American troops: [...]

And this supports what we have been saying for years...pandering and catering for votes will eventually bite you in your hinder parts. Obama has stated many things about the troops in Iraq from bringing them home immediately on day one and keeping a strike force near by. I really do wish he would make a stand and stay with it.

Captain Ed ends with this:

[...] Obama has two choices. He can either get rid of Kahl and apologize to the anti-war activists that form his base, or he has to explain why Kahl isn't calling for "100 years of war". In doing so, he will have to acknowledge that he has lied about McCain's position for weeks and exposed his own ignorance of war, peace, and strategic long-term military planning. I suspect Kahl will find other work in the days ahead. [END]

No doubt. Barack Hussein Obama - as Hillary - is a consummate liar and a fellow enabler of the enemies we face of other drones of ignorance that packs the Dishonorable Halls of CONgress.

I and my fellow BTR hosts from the American Truth Warriors have stated many times that neither Barack or Hillary are capable to be CIC in a time of peace, let alone a time of war. We aren't all that happy with McCain but anyone but McCain a this time is unthinkable. McCain has his faults as we all do but at least he has a smidgen of an idea what the enemy's intents and capabilities are.

It will be easier to fight McCain on the issues than it will be to fight either Hillary or Obama.

From the NY Sun:

A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. [...]

[...] This is not the first time the opinion of an adviser to the Obama campaign has differed with the candidate's stated Iraq policy. In February, Mr. Obama's first foreign policy tutor, Samantha Power, told BBC that the senator's current Iraq plan would likely change based on the advice of military commanders in 2009. She has since resigned her position as a formal adviser. [...]

[...] Mr. Kahl's approach would call on the remaining troops in Iraq to play an "over-watch role." The term is used by Multinational Forces Iraq to describe the long term goal of the coalition force presence in the country, Mr. Kahl said in an interview.

"It refers to the U.S. being out of the lead, largely in a support role. It doesn't mean the U.S. does not do things like targeted counter-terrorism missions or continue to train and advise the Iraqis," he said. "It would not be 150,000 Americans taking the lead in counterinsurgency." [...]

And these thoughts and procedures are nothing new at all. MNF-Iraq and President Bush have so outlined this exact policy upon many occasions which begs a question. Why is it OK for a Leftinistra to come up with this "policy" when it is a historical fact that it has already been planned as such?

This also begs an observation: the Leftinistra cannot come up with an original thought. They offer absolutely no Plan for anything they yack about. What they do is muddy the waters and restate something that has already been planned and implemented in different terminology to make it appear that they came up with the idea.

We call these types copy-cats and unoriginal fools.

Flopping Aces says: Obama to Keep 80,000 Troops in Iraq for 100 years

Dean 2004 reporting: Obama will not withdraw from Iraq. He sounds disappointed in the post. [UPDATE] I have heard from Aziz and he used verbiage that I took the wrong way. In the comments section of this post, he says that he is NOT disappointed. My bad and I apologize to Aziz

Wake Up Americans reporting: Obama Adviser Calls for 60,000 to 80,000 Troops To Stay In Iraq Through 2010

Catch the wave at Memeorandum...

The Weekly Standard chimes in with :Obama's 80,000 Man Strike-Force for Iraq

[...] On the other hand, this is evidence of stunning hypocrisy and misdirection by Obama on the central issue of the 2008 election. If his policies on the war will not be all that different from McCain's, he should stop ridiculing McCain for saying openly what his own people are saying behind closed doors. To some extent this is the result of a drawn out primary. Once the general election begins, the press will no longer give Obama a free pass on his vague statements about Iraq (the free ride may already be over). Perhaps Obama will take the opportunity to make his long-awaited pivot to the center--but that will strip the Democrats of their favored line of attack against McCain: that he would continue the war indefinitely while they would end it. Not so, apparently. [END]

Sister Toldjah has some more choice words on the Fraud Obama (or is he just another liar?)

[...] So how many combat brigades is he going to withdraw, and in what time frame? Does he even have a clue? Yeah, I know the answer to that: It's "hell no." [...]

.