Not impressed with Obama's Iraq announcement

[thewiseguy]

Bring all of the troops home Barack. Now, that is an announcement.

Did not he promise a complete troop withdrawal when he was running for office?

[Captain Hilts]

1. No. A lot of people seem to think he did though. nt

[rug]

41. I wonder why.

"Candidate's Plan To End War In 2009 Will Loom Large In General Election"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/opinion/main3856640.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_3856640

[tridim]

2. He's ending Bush's illegal war and you're not happy?

Whatever. :eyes:

[YvonneCa]

17. This speech begins to...

...end a war, while honoring the soldiers who were sent there. Doing so will prevent what happened after Viet Nam...a country divided for decades afterward. This speech was about a way forward that will do the right thing for the Iraqi people, and bring unity to our country. Today the healing begins.

GREAT speech, Mr. President! As an American who is tired of the divisiveness of the last several years, I applaud you.

[SpiralHawk]

29. The soldiers who were sent to Iraq went with honor

But the Republicon Chickenhawk "leadership' who lied to them, and to the rest of America, acted with no honor.

[YvonneCa]

53. Correct. It's important to focus dissent on the war...

...not the warrior. (Borrowed paraprhase from Senator John Kerry)

[Avalux]

3. Go back and revisit what he said during the campaign.

At no time did he claim to bring home ALL troops immediately. All troops will be withdrawn by 2011. I wish it could be faster too but he was unequivocal - OK with me.

[thewiseguy]

7. 50,000 soldiers is no residual force

[Avalux]

18. They will be out too by 2011. n/t

[avaistheone1]

59. This time line keeps moving out.

It's ridiculous. First by the republicans, and now by the democrats!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

74. Well, at least there IS a timeline

Lord knows that we NEVER got a timetable from Bush/Cheney/Gates/Petraeus during the past 5-6 years and lord knows that we could've never expected one from McCain/Palin!!! While I wish we could get out sooner it's not much further out than what he originally promised on the trail and I actually fully expected him to end up with a (slightly) different number once he got in office and had opportunities to get his administration up and running. At any rate, at least we have a timetable now and it's about time!

[ClassWarrior]

4. No, he didn't. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't push him for one.

That's the one thing that President O most represents to me: opportunity. The man listens and considers. So let's speak up. Loudly.

NGU.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. 35-50,000 U.S. troops. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The story of West-Middle East conflicts for the last 100 years.

[Thrill]

6. No if you listened throughout the campaign

He said combat troops out in 16 months. BUT would listen to recommendations on the ground.

Another example of people not listening to Obama. And Obama continuing to keep his word.

[ClarkUSA]

8. Combat mission done by August 2010 and all troops withdrawn in 2 yrs. is not impressive, eh?

Do you know anything about the logistics involved?

[monmouth]

9. POTUS did not have access to highly confidential military ops when

he was campaigning. All these "arm-chair generals" need to sit back and let the man listen to the professionals. He now has new information that we will probably never be privy to...

[vaberella]

19. FINALLY!! Why is this so hard for people to grasp?!

They act like what we know is what the President knows. That are not privy to that information and when the candidate becomes Prez knows, he's going to have make changes that fit the situation best. I've been saying that on so many issues and yet people keep giving the same lame-brained ideas that there is no such thing as asymmetric information in the government.

[LittleClarkie]

83. That's what I used to tell people when I was phonebanking

I was less interested in what he said he was going to do than with what kind of man he was, because I reckoned once he got into office, he'd have access to the full story, and would have to formulate a strategy from that knowledge.

[ecstatic]

98. It gets irritating at times. Especially when people like Pelosi

publicly express their disapproval. They say she might be just catering to her base, but then what will she tell her base in 2012 when its re-election time? She would have given them the signal that they shouldn't support him!

[BuyingThyme]

45. Bull fucking shit.

I don't want to live in that kind of country. Why don't you go start a country somewhere else?

[sampsonblk]

94. That's bullshit

Then he shouldn't have said that stuff. Duh.

If your reasoning is legit, that means that any candidate can make wild claims during the campaign. Then once they get into office, they can use that lame excuse to throw their promises in the trash.

No, thanks.

[Connie_Corleone]

10. How many damn times did Obama say that some troops would be left in Iraq?

He said consistently throughout the campaign that some troops would be left in Iraq for training and guarding Americans over there.

This is not a surprise to anyone who paid attention to his campaign.

[thewiseguy]

12. Sorry but I did not know by some he meant 50000 troops!

Thats bullshit.

[tonycinla]

69. Exactly!

Quite frankly we were misled and deceived.At no time did Obama even come close to indicating that some troops would be 50,000.We have been conned.

[Captain Hilts]

14. People had a tendency to project a lot of things onto Obama. Reading and listening takes time..

and effort.

He never said he would remove all troops immediately.

[hugo_from_TN]

16. On NPR yesterday that interviewed an army general

He said all they will do is to change the classification of some troops from 'combat' to some other classification. They'll still be fully armed and capable of performing combat.

He also said that the agreement with Iraq to remove all troops by a certain date can be gotten around if the troops are in a 'joint security facility' or something along those lines. That is, as long as there are some Iraqi Defense forces in the same base, that will satisfy the agreement with the Iraqi government.

[uponit7771]

23. Many people just don't listen, I remember explicitly him saying this and not a number either

[BuyingThyme]

52. 50K in Iraq. Maybe another 50K in Afghanistan. What's the objective again?

Over 100K fighting the war on terra indefinitely?

No thanks. Been there.

[Jennicut]

11. I am just happy that he end of the war is officially starting.

Its not his war but he will end it responsibly.

[firedupdem]

13. I doubt

he'd get any kicks out of keeping troops there for no reason. He must have some information that warrants that decision.

[napi21]

15. NO he didn't. He said he wanted to remove all combat troops within 16 months,

but would work closely with his military advisors. I understand why everyone would love it if he could make it happen in a month, and I'm ssure nobody wants that more than those troops,but that's just not physically possible! We have been moving equipment into Iraq for 7 years, and it's not possible to remove it all that quick.

I felt it was positive info yesterday when the military announced they were testing various different exit routes to find the safest & fastest way to remove equipment. They want to be ready to implement them as soon as the Prsident give the order.

[Beacool]

20. Campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on,

to quote Yogi.

It was understood that we would continue to have a presence in the area for years to come. McCain was not inaccurate when he stated as much during the primaries, though he got clobbered for saying it. After all these decades we still have troops in Japan and Korea.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

21. Combat mission done by August 2010 and all troops withdrawn in 2 yrs. is not good enough for you?

Figures that you'd agree with McCain. :eyes:

[thewiseguy]

22. You keep saying 2 years. It is actually 3 years.

He is saying that those residual "50000" strong force will withdraw by the end of 2011.

I am willing to bet they will push back the date on that too. :puke:

[uponit7771]

24. What? you thought he could do it from the time he said it?! COme on people, pay closer attention.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Um, it's 2009 at the moment. 2011 is 2 years from now. All troops will be withdrawn in 2 years.

Stop whining.

[thewiseguy]

30. End of 2011=2012...wow are you dense or what?

:crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

31. lol! Simple arithmetic eludes you. 2011-2009 = total withdrawal 2 years from now.

Your typically pissant anti-Obama attitude is really irrelevant. I am sure the vast majority of Americans are happy with his decision.

[thewiseguy]

32. You are very funny. NOT

[Beacool]

37. Two years???

See it to believe it. It's very easy to make promises, but events have a way to bite us in the ass. What happens between now and next year, let alone 2 years after that, will depend on what takes place on the ground.

I sincerely hope that we do leave by 2010 and have all troops out by 2012, but no one can predict the future. Not even Obama........

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

39. That's the present plan. It's better than McCain's 100 years.

Any deviation will be determined by events on the ground, but I can't imagine that the powers-that-be in Iraq
will try to get U.S. troops to hang around longer than that. If anything, I'd think that Shia forces will be on their
best behavior from now on while Sunnis will be planning their exile. :shrug:

[Beacool]

44. McCain was joking around with the 100 years part,

but he was not lying about the need to stay there for some time. If we withdraw too soon the country may fall into a civil war with various factions battling for power. We would then have a similar situation as we had in Afghanistan when we came to their aid while they fought the Russians but didn't stick around long enough to help rebuild the nation. After 5 years of a bloody civil war, the Afghanis welcomed the Taliban with a sense of relief. Turns out that they were worse than anything to have ever befallen Afghanistan before or after.

So, campaign promises are always to be taken with a grain of salt. They are mostly B.S. and Obama was a master at it. But, if he can manage to do it effectively, without bloodshed and leaving Iraq in a stable political situation, I will personally send the man the biggest bouquet of roses I can afford.

;)

[ClarkUSA]

55. WTF? "campaign promises...are mostly B.S. and Obama was a master at it." Bitter much?

No, he wasn't and that's why he won. Americans were tired of old warmongering bullshit characters from the past.
According to many unbiased sources, he is doing a better job in his nascent presidency than any other president
in modern history. Too bad so many so-called Democrats are still so bitter that they delight in refighting the
primaries.

:woohoo: Obama Is 44!! :party:

Move on.

[Beacool]

58. Physician heal thyself.

The only one bringing up the word "bitter" is you. Campaign promises have a way to dissolve once people are in office because circumstances change. If he can even keep half of his promises, he'll be doing better than most.

Try objectivity once in a while........

;-)

[ClarkUSA]

60. Nice try, but it's obvious you're not over the primary if you're still talking that way about Obama.

Move on.

[Beacool]

One comment:

:P

[ClarkUSA]

65. The primaries are over, Bitter Beacool, so enjoy the Obama Presidency. I know I am.

Of course, for those who defend McCain, it might be different.

[Beacool]

66. Bitter, my luscious ass!!!!!!!!!!!

Go hang out with your dragon and don't get burned.....

}(

[ClarkUSA]

68. Bitter, yes... I guess you're never going to move on. Sad.

[Seen the light]

72. How many US soldiers will be KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan in the next two years?

:shrug:

[Numba6]

89. Asked and answerd -- take notes if you can't keep up

[uponit7771]

26. Obama lights his self on fire and flys through air, DUer's response "I'm not impressed"...

...come on people, we've got to be a lil bit more objective than this.

Obama has done 80 - 90% of what he said he'd do up to this point...that's decent to me.

[eleny]

27. I'm against the 50k residual force

The good thing is that so is Pelosi against it. And Congress has to approve the $$$. I have hope that the number will be trimmed way back. I don't want to see Iraq be some central base of operations for us in the ME.

But I am pleased with the plan to withdraw as was detailed today. Now we have to hold them to it.

[demokatgurrl]

28. As much as he and we' d like to

we can't just pull out all at once. We created an effing mess over there, we need to clean it up just a bit.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I'm impressed.

He's not perfect, but he's pretty damn good. :patriot:

[TankLV]

34. Umm - he IS - LISTEN to ALL of what he said...

stop listening to repuke media whores...

[blindpig]

35. The occupation continues

with no end in sight.

He had to pull out the combat brigades in order to pursue his fantasies/ambitions in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

This is no retreat from imperialism, just reshuffling the deck.

[ClarkUSA]

36. Oh, spare us the Marxist poutrage.

:eyes:

[blindpig]

38. Aw geez, now my feelings are hurt.

Shoot the messenger, huh?

The substance of my post stands, attack that.

I'm afraid that your use of 'marxist' as an insult gives me and a growing body of people in this country the giggles. But I understand, it's all ya got.

[ClarkUSA]

42. So you're a socialist "messenger" warning us of President Obama's "imperialism"?

Gee, thanks. :eyes:

Now onto the real world...

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C., Feb 27 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama told Iraq on Friday that the United States pursues no claim on its territory, seeking to reassure Iraqis concerned about a lengthy U.S. military presence there.

Obama used part of a speech announcing his plan to reduce the U.S. military forces in Iraq to talk directly to Iraqis.

"The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the
security of your country," he said.

[blindpig]

57. How wonderful, the US isn't going to annex Iraq.

That says nothing about withdrawing all of the troops. Funny no mention has been made about dismantling those mega bases either.

[ClarkUSA]

67. Wrong and wrong. Try doing your due diligence before spouting off.

44 stated today there would be total withdrawal by 2011; he stated prior to today more than once that the U.S.
would not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

[blindpig]

86. Plenty of wiggle room there

In the report, obtained by The New Republic, McCaffrey writes, "We should assume that the Iraqi government will eventually ask us to stay beyond 2011 with a residual force of trainers, counterterrorist capabilities, logistics, and air power. (My estimate--perhaps a force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops)." This estimate of what a training and support mission would require was echoed in interviews with a State Department official and two military sources--who requested anonymity--when asked what kind of American presence they foresaw in Iraq following 2011.

McCaffrey's reasoning rests in part on his view of the Iraqi military, an institution he says has vastly improved yet still needs mentoring, equipment, and support from Americans on the ground. In his report, McCaffrey writes that Iraq's border-control service is "anemic" and that the army cannot currently conduct military operations without U.S. support and equipment. "The confidence of the Iraqi combat force is still dependant on US mentoring and backup," he writes. "Their officers are very explicit on this point--THE IRAQI SECURITY FORCES DO NOT WANT THE U.S. COMABT UNITS TO LEAVE--YET." The capital letters are McCaffrey's.

snip

There is other evidence that the United States may keep a significant force in Iraq for a while--and it's built right into the structure of the SOFA itself. In its current state, the SOFA appears to be firm on the withdrawal of troops. But, even now, the document does allow for individual basing agreements to be negotiated by a "Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee" (JMOCC). The JMOCC, according to American and Iraqi officials interviewed for this article, will give provincial authorities a major role in negotiating the leases of bases in their areas. The fact that the Iraq agreement does not establish the terms of these leases (unlike nearly every other SOFA America has signed with countries from Uzbekistan to Germany) strongly indicates that the agreement will be amended down the line.

What's more, both the Kurds and Sunni Arabs in western Iraq, where the Al Assad Airbase is located, are likely to facilitate a U.S. military presence for a long time. A Washington representative for the Kurdistan Regional Government, Qubad Talabani, whose father Jalal is president of Iraq, told me last week, "As Kurdish leaders have said in the past, American forces will always be welcome in the Kurdistan region, and we look forward to working with our American friends within the framework of this law to discuss America's long-term presence in our region." Far from booting U.S. forces out of the country, he believes that the SOFA "gives America the legal cover for expanding their already good relations with Iraqi security institutions." And the influential Sunni leader Sheik Ahmad Rishawi, head of the Anbar Awakening, told me in an interview in June that he had hoped a long-term treaty with America would be based on "mutual friendship" and compared the future SOFA to similar accords struck with postwar Japan and Germany, where American troops are garrisoned to this day. The committees established in the new agreement are expected to be the vehicles by which Sunni Arabs and Kurds negotiate longer-term leases for the U.S. bases in their respective areas.

There is even wiggle room on the question of the June 30, 2009, deadline for U.S. "combat forces" to return to their bases. Most of the nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq today are classified as combat troops, but, as the United States transitions to its new role in Iraq, the troops that stay on will likely remain embedded with Iraqi troops but be reclassified as "support troops," even though their function will remain the same. Three military officials told me this week that, already, the Military Transition Teams (MiTT)--the special units deployed to mentor Iraqi battalions for the surge--currently classified as "combat units" are being redesignated as "support units," as are the force-protection and quick-reaction forces, in order to skirt the language of the sofa. "It's a species of magic," one Pentagon official says. "After a period of time, the MiTT teams will all become support troops."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3692c736-406c-4ee1-9bb9-4ec6cc15531f&p=3

The only way there will be a real complete withdrawal from Iraq is if there is a rock solid client state in place, very unlikely imho.

[RIFF RAFF]

40. Some people don't listen.

Some people on the left are similar to people on the right. They hear code words like 'peace', for example, and then they start thinking "He's going to end the war! He's going bring ALL the troops home at once!" Some people don't listen. When he was running for president, he didn't have certain intellegence information, that he has now. Perhaps it's not that easy? Plus, he has intellegence information we don't know. Barack Obama is doing what he said he would do all along. It just might take a little longer than he had planned. The media is trying to turn his base against him.

[ClarkUSA]

47. True.

Well-said, although it's not so much the "left" -- I consider myself a pragmatic liberal leftie -- that are stirring the pot here.
There are known malcontents here who use any reason to attack Obama because they are still nursing bitter feelings left
over from the primaries. You'll see the same characters post the same kind of anti-Obama drivel time and again, although
most are more subtle than the OP. Overall though, the content of your reply is absolutely correct.

When he was running for president, he didn't have certain intellegence information, that he has now. Perhaps it's not that
easy? Plus, he has intellegence information we don't know. Barack Obama is doing what he said he would do all along. It
just might take a little longer than he had planned.

Please get ready to repeat yourself often in the next two years.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[blindpig]

50. You mistake me.

I've been well aware of President Obama's program for quite a while, his aggressive militarism was quite apparent well before he was nominated.

Yes, he is doing what he said he would do, though others may not have understood it at the time, mesmerized by speechifying and deluded by wishful thinking. It is nonetheless imperialism, supposedly smarter.

[ClarkUSA]

56. You attribute "aggressive militarism" and "imperialism" to a man who stood against the Iraq war?

It takes all kinds. Oy! :eyes:

[Numba6]

87. Once again you missed the acorn while rutting around in the rubbish

blindpigs usually do miss out on reality

[blindpig]

92. Now there was a post with substance.

Wanna throw in some gratuitous red-baiting for bonus points?

[Numba6]

93. I'll leave the mind reading to you, since you are so familiar w/ Obama's "true" policies

You're very quick to attribute motives to other's whom you've never even met. i guess it gives you points to your "victim badge of honor", ehhh?

ya shoulda gone to CPAC, you're reasoning would be welcomed w/ open arms.

blind pigs are only right by accident, you'd prove that old adage if you could just be right ONCE

[Better Believe It]

43. So how many more GI's do you think should lose their lives in Iraq?

In a war and occupation that was based on a mountain of lies, how many more wounded and dead soldiers is acceptable to you?

For me the answer is none. All of our dead soldiers have lost their lives in vane in Iraq. All of them.

They did not and are not fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq. Do you think they are?

[damonm]

48. Tell that to their families...

I'll pray for your safety...

:hide:

[Better Believe It]

63. I do. I won't lie to them. Tell them the truth. And whenever I see any soldiers in uniform ....

which is often, I discuss Iraq and Afghanistan with them in a friendly tone. Many of them agree with me when I say "just bring all of them home now" and those that don't are civil and respectful.

Your suggestion that military families are all right-wingnuts who just love the Iraq war and want to keep their loves ones over there is pure fantasy. Don't stereotype GI's and their loved ones.

[damonm]

71. Amazing.

Where did I say ANYONE was a "right-wingnut who just love(s) the Iraq war"?
Nowhere. That's you reading your fantasies in again.
I implied families of the dead would not care to hear that their loved ones died in vain, whether it's true or not. If you were to tell me such about my son/brother/nephew/cousin, I would hope for your sake that your reflexes are fast - and I was against the war from the get-go.

And I BITTERLY resent your condescending accusation about stereotyping GIs and their families - I WAS one, and know several, a couple of whom have lost boys there. Not a "right-wingnut" among them. But if you're gonna tell THEM their loved ones died in vain - duck. Fast.

[Better Believe It]

78. The GI's who lost their lives in Iraq have died in vain. Period!

" implied families of the dead would not care to hear that their loved ones died in vain, whether it's true or not. If you were to tell me such about my son/brother/nephew/cousin, I would hope for your sake that your reflexes are fast"
" I WAS one, and know several, a couple of whom have lost boys there. Not a "right-wingnut" among them. But if you're gonna tell THEM their loved ones died in vain - duck. Fast."

Perhaps they aren't right-wingnuts but you certainly haven't tried to educate them about the war which you claim you're against.

From your comments, I'm not so sure about that.

Are you afraid to tell them the truth .... worried about getting punched out? A little whimpy perhaps and you claim to be an ex-soldier!!! Perhaps you think the soldiers died for some noble cause. Is that it? If so, you're the one who needs to be educated on the Iraq war.

Listen up boy! The GI's in Iraq died in vain! Get it?

They have won nothing. They have not accomplished anything positive. Just ask most Iraqi's if they want U.S. troops occupying their nation. The soldiers have been used, abused and lied to by the military brass.

They did not lose their lives and thousands did not lose their limbs for a just and noble cause.

The GI's who were sent Iraq are not fighting for me or this nation. They are not freedom fighting "hero's". Period!

CASE CLOSED

Still don't get or can't accept that fact or are you just afraid to tell GI's families the truth about their dead and wounded loves ones?

[damonm]

84. Fine - you're entitled to your arrogance.

I just have this little thing called MANNERS and CLASS, both of which you sadly lack,
and you demonstrate this further with every worthless post with which you pollute this board.

These people know all about this damn war - they know what a waste it was. I don't need to tell them.

And servicemen and women who've died doing their duty, even in a worthless cause, are more heroic than YOU will ever be! But you will never understand that - you lack the capacity to understand duty and honorable service.
CASE CLOSED on YOUR arrogant assholery. Go fuck yourself, and welcome to ignore.

[Better Believe It]

99. " duty and honorable service" ????

You've been fricken brainwashed by the military! They died "doing their duty"????

And what exactly do you think that duty was?

It sure wasn't protecting me, my family or this nation from Sadam or WMD's, much less helping the Iraqi people.

[ClarkUSA]

51. What a ridiculous question. President Obama is ending the combat mission in 18 months...

Two months off of his campaign pledge, yes, but that's splitting hairs considering he didn't have access to Top Secret
military reports at the time. Total withdrawal by 2011 sounds good to me. If you don't like it, too bad. I'm guessing
that most soldiers and their families are pretty damned happy right now.

[Better Believe It]

100. So how many wounded and dead GI's are acceptable to you over the next 3 years

"I'm guessing
that most soldiers and their families are pretty damned happy right now."

Including the hundreds and perhaps thousands of families who will lose their loved ones over the next three years .... or more?

Bring our troops home now. Not one more GI should lose their life in vain.

[Numba6]

90. unfortunately, as many as it takes to RESPONSIBLY withdraw from this mess -- or do you like

to simply trade 10 or moer Iraqi lives for every American life lost while the Prez fulfills his responsibilities?

Your claim to the moral high ground is suspect, because you desire an outcome that would mean a flood of blood bathing Iraq that puts the current killing to shame.

Many, many more people would die if we followed the most extreme calls for w/drawal now.

The Prez always said he'd w/ draw in an orderly way, taking into account troop safety & security concerns.

Bush broke it (Iraq), but we can't just walk away from it tomorrow. Pulling out in a precipitous and dangerous way would just open the door for retaliation and blood in the streets.

No one remembers Saigon? & what happened to our "collaborators" who were left to fend for themselves?



Regardless of what anyone thinks of the war, there are Iraqi people who worked w/ US forces, and were given NO PROTECTION from our military (outside the embassy green zone) under Bush, because the chickenhawks didn't give a damn about people there who were actually helping them (unless they could prop them up as neoconservative stooges/"leaders")

& there were NO PLANS developed to help them when we pull out.

I don't know if Prez Obama's plans are better than Pelosi, Kucinich, or whomever, to be frank -- I only know Obama knows far more about it than me, & has greater responsibilities than Pelosi, Kucinich, or any other member of Congress who want something faster.

The uber-progressives (or those who have never come to terms with the outcome of the Democratic primaries) will claim the Prez is somehow dissing the base or "breaking" a campaign promise by continuing to follow the principles he laid out over the last 2 years, because it's in their own interests to invent controversy.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuyingThyme]

54. Yep.

[Mass]

49. It's far from perfect, but it is a lot better than what was existing. There is a plan

and every body can see if it is followed or not. Sure, this may not be an ideal option, but compare to what was proposed by others (Kucinich did not win this election).

[BeyondGeography]

61. He promised to end the war responsibly

Promise kept.

[dcindian]

62. It seems things could go at a faster pace.

I do not see the advantage to stringing this out for nearly three more years.

[politicasista]

64. We all want them home, but PO said during the campaign

that he wanted to end the war responsibly. And he is listening to all opinions from people on the ground and people with expertise on foreign policy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. Maybe Obama knows something u don't. Just sayin'.

[Generator]

73. He seems to know exactly what Bush did

Let's call it a withdrawal-maybe-if conditions warrant in a year or two. Let's leave a small (yeah that's small!) force-say 50k there. Obama is full of shit on this. But I knew he was going to have this position for a long time. He kept all of Bush's guys-what did he expect-them to have a different story to tell him? Petraeus, Gates-same ole same ole. I don't trust Obama on this because he is not ending the Iraq war he is maybe counting on us not to notice and people like you to give him a pass because he's a Democrat.

His position is very little different than McCain would have been on this. That's why McCain approves.

[EraOfResponsibility]

75. Impossible!!!!!! With all of these smart intelligent people here at DU?

why he couldn't POSSIBLY know more than them!!!

:sarcasm:

[Generator]

76. No it's a sham

His plan-his exactly what the Republicans wanted. If there is any upsurge in violence say in 15 months-no one is coming home. You end a war by ending it. Not by continuing to be held hostage to a violent faction that will never-I repeat-never give up on getting us out there if they can. Which we take as a sign to stay longer. It's like some kind of endless horrible game.

[Vattel]

77. well, Obama didn't break any promises

He said during the campaign that the 16 month plan would need to be somewhat flexible; and he also spoke of the need for a residual force. Before the election one of his advisors suggested that the residual force might be as large as 55,000 troops. So where is the broken campaign promise?

[rug]

79. See post 41.

[Vattel]

81. Fair enough,

but at the risk of sounding like a hair-splitting apologist for Obama, you are equating "ending the war" with the completion of the withdrawal of combat troops. Given that Obama continued to endorse the 16-month withdrawal plan after the speech in Texas, I wonder if he was drawing a distinction between the two.

[SpartanDem]

80. thanks you

some were not paying attention he also said in a July 2008 press conference

as Commander-in-Chief I would always reserve the right to do what's best in America's national interest and if it turned out for example that we had to in certain months slow the pace because of the safety of American troops in terms of getting combat troops out. Of course, we would take that into account. I would be a poor Commander-in-Chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account.

Wasn't simply going by the gut what we disliked about GWB? Ignoring empirical evidence to justify a predetermined conclusion under the guise of resolute. Yet you have people here who would like Obama to do the very exact same thing.

[ClarkUSA]

97. Exactly. Thank you for inserting FACTS not that the fingerpointers will acknowledge them.

[geek tragedy]

82. Scotty, beam them out!

Yeah, that's an intelligent policy proposal.

[phleshdef]

85. We have a date set and an actual plan in place to end this costly BS.

Its good enough for me.

[quickesst]

88. I'm not impressed....

...with people who think those commercials are real, and the president has his own "easy" button. I find that the majority of "dissent" is from those who failed to actually listen to what Obama said during his campaign. I was a die-hard Hillary fan, but at least I listened to the man, hence, my enthusiasm for him once HRC was out. Being progressive is a great thing to be, but once you let it take precedence over logic, it has a tendency to turn around and bite you in the ass. Thanks.
quickesst

[DevonRex]

91. I'm impressed with how good this thread was in attracting the naysayers.

One stop shopping for me. And *poof* they have magically disappeared.

[Numba6]

95. i just hope the "ignore" function don't max out

every trolling post brings out a few more of the most extreme obscene obstructionists who have no problem linking arms w/ Rush Limbaugh & company -- while they claim the moral high ground to escape the flood of blood their policies would invite.

I admit to being quick on the trigger to ignore any so-called Democrat who equates Obama with Bush, or any so-called Democrat who still can't get over the 2008 primary election race.

[ecstatic]

96. I don't know all the background info that went into the decision

It could be that Gates is tipping the balance towards the warmongering side, but I'm going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I think he wants our troops home, but I'd much rather him act based on reality than on rigid ideology. I've always been for a *responsible* withdrawal despite hating the fact that we're there in the first place.

[noamnety]

101. He promised NOT to withdraw all troops

and the ones staying are going to be staying under pretty much the same mission as Bush had them there for "fighting terrism."

But those of us who brought that up during elections were generally accused of mentioning that inconvenient truth because we were bitter about Clinton's loss - even though many of the same people spoke out against her as well, for similar reasons.

DU had some exceptional blinders on for a while.

"What's a positive way to note that someone is publicly saying they are going to "start" withdrawing troops ASAP, while quietly planning to leave 50,000 troops in a country we have no right to occupy?" - Dec 2008 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8045166#8045200

""the tiniest flaws - I'm sorry, I can't tell from that vague phrase if you are referring to the FISA vote, keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq after "withdrawing" our troops, promoting the antigay bigot, or escalating the idiotic occupation of Afghanistan." Jan 2009 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8070113

[peoli]

102. I was so impressed, I got the chills and teared up