Obama’s Iraq Plan

But that force will be significantly reduced by 2011. (I imagine that a certain number of U.S. troops will remain to guard the embassy and to continue to train the Iraqi armed forces.

under the status of forces agreement, all troops (including training troops) are to be out of the country by Dec. 31, 2011.
_
and while some “troops” may be needed to protect the embassy, that number should be vanishingly small…. and not even be “troops” technically. Instead, the military should make available to the State Department a small number of “troops” who are retrained specifically for “embassy security” work, are answerable not to the Pentagon, but to the state department

The next milepost will come in June when, according to the SOFA, U.S. combat forces will be withdrawn from Iraq’s cities.
_
this begs the question “why can’t we draw down troop levels to 50,000 by the end of June?”. What are the other 70,000 plus troops going to be doing for the next year, providing security in rural villages?

I think that we should take it. As a Dem, I want out quicker, but having everything go my way down to the last dotted i isn’t necessary.
.
Hopefully, we’ll get out of Afghanistan as well. That has every bit as much chance of becoming a quagmire, no matter what the admirers of the “surge” think of how we are now capable of fighting brushfire querilla wars. (DON’T give me “asymmetric”. That’s a euphemism!)

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

.
What part of ALL am I missing here?
.
Secondly what are you basing your calculations on about the troop levels next January? You might have some inside info but we aren’t privy to that and I didn’t see anywhere in his speech yesterday where President Obama announced the actual rate of withdrawal.
.
Third I know its not the fasionable thing to rely on what the man actually said but President Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops as a residual force. Thats a difference of 15,000 and could be, you know, a big deal. So why in the hell is every pundit relying solely on the high end number?
.
Fourth and final point, what happens if the Iraqis decide they aren’t happy about the 35k to 50k residual force and vote against the SOFA in the next couple of months? Lest we forget, they didn’t want to sign on to the SOFA in the first place because they wanted the withdrawal date moved up and they didn’t trust Bush/McCain to honor the SOFA anyway. It was only after President Obama was elected that they ended up saying yes. Its funny but most journalists aren’t even focusing on the fact its not just President Obama and the Democrats who want to leave Iraq, the frikking Iraqis want us to get the hell out of dodge too. So the truth is it doesn’t matter what Dennis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi think about the withdrawal plan, its DOES matter what the rank and file Iraqis think though.

If the Democrats had any balls we could have been out of Iraq years ago. Why am I not surprises they are cratering to the right once again, even though they now control the presidency.

Derek– I think it’s unfair go say that Dems are catering to the right when Obama is basically sticking with everything he said during the campaign. Perhaps your disappointment is your fault for not listening.

And Derek after looking at Obama’ budget priorities you can still question whether Obama has balls I’ve got to give your comment the sideways glance because I’m thinking Obama’s balls are made of steel and diamond studded.

…that force will be significantly reduced by 2011.
.
From Obama’s statement as reported by the New York Times:
.

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — President Obama declared the beginning of the end of one of the longest and most divisive wars in American history on Friday as he announced that he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011.
.
“Let me say this as plainly as I can,” Mr. Obama said. “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
.
He added: “I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”

.
Joe Klein:
.
How do you reconcile your equivocal terms (“significantly reduced by 2011“) with Obama’s unequivocal statement of intent (“all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011“)?
.
Are these not two completely different notions?

Giving the war criminals a free get out of jail pass demonstrates how tough he is doesn’t it?

sz and sgTw ask a very fair question. What do you base your assertion on Joe Klein?

To your point #4, I’m very interested to read the dead tree column. Pakistan has basically given the Swat Valley to the Taliban and the Taliban has thanked them by burning schools and bring the burka back into vogue. Mind boggling indeed. I have more questions on this but I’ll wait for the right thread.
.
Also, anybody have any opinion as to the odds of the Iraqis voting against the SOFA?
.
Plus, what Dee said.

…I’m thinking Obama’s balls are made of steel and diamond studded…
.
Let’s not descend into self-parody, OK?

Ha, minus the diamond studding…snuck that one in there Dee!

Never mind.
“will be significantly reduced by 2011.” = Jan 1 2011
“all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.”= December 31 2011

PNNTO:
.
If you’re correct, and Joe means to say “by the start of 2011″ –as opposed to Obama’s precise statement– why is Joe introducing ambiguity into the debate?

I take “By (x)” to be synonymous with “By the start of (x)”. I’ll be having my first beer by 5 today.
Not too ambiguous I don’t believe.
Thus concludes my first defense of JK. Ever.

I’m thinking Obama’s balls are made of steel and diamond studded
.
The reason we haven’t found bin Laden yet is because Obama single handedly tracked him down and killed him in a knife fight.
.
He once made a basket in a gym in Chicago while floating just outside the orbit of Saturn.
.
On his last trip to India he devoured an entire Brahma bull in a single sitting.

PNNTO
.
Lets say you are right, and maybe you are. Then what Joe Klein is saying is that for the rest of this year we will withdraw from Iraq only somewhere in the neightborhood of 17,000 troops since that is the amount we sent to Afghanistan and he says the level from this January in both wars will be the same next January for the most part. So its going to take us about 10 months to withdraw 17k but we are going to withdraw a significant amount of the 50k left in August of next year in the succeeding 4 months? How does that make sense? Even if we pulled out the same 17k that he is claiming now that it will take 10 mnths to do in 4 mnths you would still have 33k at the beginning of 2011. And lest we forget the low end number for next year is 35k. So if someone thinks 35k is too much to leave behind next August, why would they be any more happy with 33k in Jan 2011?

How dare Dee use hyperbole? On the internet of all places!

sg, I don’t disagree with your take. Maybe Joe Klein can answer your questions. I can’t.

Dee
.

If you want to piss Derek off just ask him what HIS plan would be to withdraw the troops. See he doesn’t give a damn about whether they get shot on the way out of town or if the military commanders advise President Obama to go slower, as long as the troops leave by a certain date is all he cares about. I had this argument with him awhile back and when I asked him back then about whether he cares if the troops are put in danger during a withdrawal he ran and hid and I expect he will do the same this time.

why is Joe introducing ambiguity into the debate?
.
Habit (and I’d say “incertitude”).
.
OT: Obama is done in by The Surge. That was the point of The (Still) Beltway-Approved, Maverick-Endorsed Surge (other than an easy option for Bush Co. to pass the buck onto the next prez). Once The Surge started, the US became fully committed, right to the end.
.
By spending all these resources, lives, and years, it would be ridiculous, if not cruel, now to just up and leave if Iraq had even a small chance within the foreseeable future with our help. We blow their country up with a massive force and then leave right when things could possibly work out?
.
Save your collective wrath for the scum that championed this war in the first place.

“Save your collective wrath for the scum that championed this war in the first place.”
.
Yeah, and we need to make sure that they are waiting in the wings for the moment the American people begin to take this criticism as failure!
.
BTW, knard composition:
.
316 S/S, heat treated.

Review is my freind:
.
Yeah, and we need to make sure that we don’t forget that they are waiting in the wings for the moment the American people begin to take this criticism as failure!

I also think we need to scale back that embassy complex, it is far beyond our needs as a country. The size of it was arrived at by the architects of this war, who obviously had a tweensy bit different outlook on our nations role here.
.
Keep the essentials for our embassy, and scale it to the size of other embassies in the region. Write off the cost as yet another example of GOP fiscal stupidity and let the Iraqis have it.

Since Thomas Ricks is everywhere on the teevee and radio pushing his new book and saying that we will be in Iraq for the forseeable future, I assume Joe just wants to keep a foot in the door with the very serious people.
.
I spoke to Ricks a couple of years ago and he said he couldn’t think of a time in the future when we wouldn’t need to still be there.

ivb
.
I find Ricks to be almost hostile on Tee Vee because Obama has ordered the withdrawal. Its like he doesn’t care about whether the troops are coming home, he just doesn’t want to be proven wrong. I know everybody says he is a “Very Serious” guy but he was off putting the last two days that I have seen him.

“If you want to piss Derek off just ask him what HIS plan would be to withdraw the troops. See he doesn’t give a damn about whether they get shot on the way out of town or if the military commanders advise President Obama to go slower, as long as the troops leave by a certain date is all he cares about. I had this argument with him awhile back and when I asked him back then about whether he cares if the troops are put in danger during a withdrawal he ran and hid and I expect he will do the same this time.”
.
Correct me if I’m wrong but even the government concedes that it is the presence of the “infidel armies”, in the holy lands, that is the number one recruitment tool for various Islamic fundamentalist groups and terrorist organizations. Supporting their stay is really like supporting more terrorism.
.
It is much cheaper, and safer, to support Iraq diplomatically, and economically, rather than always chosing the military option.
.
Obama is likely giving the Bush administrative a waiver on the rule of law, because he is now assuming many of their policies. To confuse the ignorant he flowers it up with a cobweb of analogies and lets you draw whatever conclusions you want.

Notice nothing that Derek just said deals with how to withdraw the troops. Nice try though.
.
Yawn

Prior to the election Obama claimed he was advised by military leaders that his time line was sufficient.

Was he lying then?

Derek
.
Again what would YOU do. Stop trying to change the subject. You want to complain then give an alternative. If you don’t have one, shut the phuck up. Its really that simple.

If you want to piss Derek off just ask him what HIS plan would be to withdraw the troops. See he doesn’t give a d–n about whether they get shot on the way out of town or if the military commanders advise President Obama to go slower, as long as the troops leave by a certain date is all he cares about. I had this argument with him awhile back and when I asked him back then about whether he cares if the troops are put in danger during a withdrawal he ran and hid and I expect he will do the same this time.
.
I’m busy so I don’t have time to go into details, but as the third participant in that discussion I have to point out that’s not the complete story of what happened.
.
I find this “you disagree with me so you don’t care about the troops” rhetoric infuriating…

rose83
.
You weren’t a participant, you were a cheerleader and as I recall after you tried so valiantly to speak for Derek he deserted you, just as he is likely to do again.

I always regret engaging trolls but my plan would be the one offered to get my vote.

Derek
.
So just to get you on the record for rose83 are you saying that if it put our troops in harms way to stick to a 16 month timetable you think President Obama should stick to it anyway?

Let me repeat, during the election Obama assured us that his plan was safe.
.
You start by assuming it is not, without proffering any evidence, and then accuse anyone disagreeing with you of being a traitor.
.
In other words, you start from unproven assumptions, and then resort to insult to defend them.
.

Derek
.
Are you going to answer the question?
.
Or are you going to sell rose83 out again?
.
Should President Obama stick to a timetable that might put the troops in harms way just to keep a campaign pledge?

I really don’t get the hand wringing…we’re moving in the right direction. BO has to play politics w/ the Pentagon, and they wanted a longer withdrawal. I’m much more worried about Afghanistan. Obama wouldn’t be the first Pres to get himself in trouble by running to the right of his opposition in an election and then having to live up to those promises once in office. We’re on our way out of Iraq and that’s enough for me right now.
.
SG, have I mentioned that I hate cops?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Raw_video_Deputy_shown_kicking_teen_0228.html

“Should President Obama stick to a timetable that might put the troops in harms way just to keep a campaign pledge?”
.
Do you have any evidence for your conjecture or are you just asking a rhetorical question, framed in such a way as to stir up feelings of patriotic emotion?

You weren’t a participant, you were a cheerleader and as I recall after you tried so valiantly to speak for Derek he deserted you, just as he is likely to do again.
.
I don’t share Derek’s concerns about Obama’s Iraq policy. Didn’t you notice that? This is what I was trying to explain: And we all support the troops and want what’s best for them. I’m sure that Derek is concerned that the “refine” comment was intended to allow Obama to later change his Iraq plans and keep the troops there longer. Which we believe is bad for the troops. Questioning people’s loyalty to the troops is way over the line. Don’t do that, don’t be like rusty
.
Explaining the destructive affects of rhetoric that commenters are using IS participating.
.
Or are you going to sell rose83 out again?
.
What are you talking about? It’s like you’re in a completely different conversation.
.
Here’s the link to the original thread in case anyone is having a really boring Saturday afternoon: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/07/team-of-rivals/?apage=1#comments

The point is we are not getting out.
.
Do we need 50,000 troops to defend an embassy?
.
Obama is trying to get out and stay there at the same time.
.
He is well on his way to being a proud member of the DC based centrist cult.

Derek
.
What you don’t seem to get is that the troops over there are human beings with moms dads wifes and kids who want to see them come home safely and healthy. They and I couldn’t give a damn if your feelings are hurt over a campaign pledge. You look like a phucking idiot right now advocating a withdrawal based on a campaign pledge. Trust me I didn’t engage for me, I just wanted everyone else to see exactly why you are upset and how you couldn’t care less about whether its safe or not. So keep complaining about the campaign pledge chump. Reasonable people aren’t pressed.

sg should you ever decide to use something other than appeals to emotion, and ad hominem, as argumentative forms, perhaps you an explain why the original plan has gone from being safe, to no longer safe, as you contend?

I’m with Cin at #38.
Having said that- any pressure the administration gets from the “left”, Maddow being a good example, is okay by me. There are more than enough outlets that will push any Democratic president to the right.

Any thanks to Bush and McCain for making this success possible?

Of course not.

I don’t mind pressure, we’re the left, it’s all we got. However, some of the protestations we’re hearing now sound a little PUMA-like to me.
.
More video of our brave bullies in blue beating children:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattle911/archives/163025.asp?from=blog_last3

Three Republican votes on a bill to save the country from a new depression is all Obama has to show for trying to make nice with the right. However, they seem to like his Iraq policy.
.
Maybe he will get their vote when it is time to spend another 100 billion on the war?

I meant that in a more general way, not directed at you Cin. Sorry, I didn’t put it well.

Best Moment Of The Week:

The near total lack of respect shown to the POTUS during his political stump speech in front of the USMC at Camp LJ.

You’d have thought it was James Dobson speaking at a NAMBLA rally, from the lack of response.

IN YOUR FACE.

“Any thanks to Bush and McCain for making this success possible?
Of course not.”
.
For once I agree with Vonda.

“Three Republican votes on a bill to save the country from a new depression…”

The New Deal did NOT work.

HITLER saved FDR from his own fiscal PHUCK UPS, genius.

Obama repeats the same protectionist mistakes, and we get the bill?

Some change, that one.

Move On indeed.

IN YOUR FACE. ????
.
Vonda you be the (wo)man!

…he doesn’t give a damn about whether they get shot on the way out of town…
.
SG:
.
That’s some pretty Bushist invective from you there.
.
Doesn’t it disturb you when you read your stuff, and it sounds like hulagate?
.
Do you really believe that your fellow American with whom you disagree politically could care less about our men and women in harm’s way?
.
Really?

A significant difference, for me, between Bush’s plan and Obama’s is that I know Obama wants them out as soon as possible, so I have some confidence that after listening to Petraeus and others this seems to him the soonest he can be confident he can pledge they’ll be out.
.
Doesn’t mean they won’t come out sooner if they can.
.
re over extended forces: The recession will increase recruitment.

The people of Iraq are free to vote today because of George W. Bush and the U.S. armed forces.

Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha would just as soon have left bad enough alone, terrorism training camps untouched, arms stockpiles unknown, ME neighbors nervous, oil supply in jeopardy, Iran unsanctioned, the Kurds laid naked for Saddam, the rape rooms, the kiddie jails, the wood chippers…

By the Time old CBS had “discovered” Abooboo Grape, the DOD was 6 MONTHS into the problems there. There was no coverup, there was no lack of responsibility, there was no conspiracy. There were some rednecks for the first Time out of the county, which was more a knock against splitting the Guard & Reserves from the regulars than anything more sinister.

The best thing we can do going forward, which Obama himself has signaled — but will he follow through? — is to expand the full time troops, and lessen the load on the weekend warriors (where a disproportionate number of the head cases come from, sadly — and that been true since George Washington’s regime change).

Beyond that, Iraq now has the best chance to live in their own world instead of Stalin’s, perhaps ever, because Bush would not let the unknowns determine our fate.

The mistakes of Iraq are known — too few troops not shooting enough looters, to lay down the law — but what might also have happened, that didn’t? Massive oil field fires, full blown Turk army across the border (a place for that yet, to Iran), spilling over into every neighboring state, continued dried up river beds under Saddam, more mass graves.

No mother will ever be totally placated that her son or daughter died well in any war, but the people now free to decide their own fate by BALLOT instead of bullets might get to be more appreciative, than the intellectually and morally stunted slavers that run the DNC as though the U.S. was mounted on some remote hemp island far from any real fray.

After 9-11, we have every right and every reason to project our power, where WE and not the EU deem appropriate, for the greater good.

To summarize Patton, all the individualism crap during a time of war IS for the scrap heap of non-history that only a Bill Ayers could enjoy.

“I have some confidence that after listening to Petraeus and others ”
.
This may be worth the read re/ the sainted Petraeus (not to suggest you feel that way about him Kathy)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-revolt-of-generals-by-dday-most.html

PNNTO, I took no offense, no the PUMA charge was directed at Derek. It’s interesting to hear the former supporters of Hillary’s Presidential bid calling BO out for being centrist. I think the word is ‘irony’.

PNNTO, I took no offense, no the PUMA charge was directed at Derek. It’s interesting to hear the former supporters of Hillary’s Presidential bid calling BO out for being centrist. I think the word is ‘irony’.
.
Well in my case, I’m sure I would have very similar criticisms of HRC if she had won. I’m way to the left of both of them.
.
You’d have to be pretty inconsistent and/or biased to have vastly different opinions of Obama’s and Clinton’s policies considering that they are virtually identical.

I hear you Cin.
But on this specific issue Olbermann and Maddow, two fairly strong BHO supporters (as I understate) think BHO may be moving too slowly, Olbermann, and not holding the previous administration accountable, Maddow.
Derek may be over the top (or not depending on one’s point of view) but he isn’t alone in his position.

If you are still around rose, thanks for the “slum love” link yesterday.

I actually think KO and RM going after BO as much as they have is as much about showing their willingness to go after their guy as it is about policy. As for me, I’m not necessarily against keeping large number of our troops stationed overseas, not because I harbor secret imperial leanings, I’m just not sure I want all those troops here in the coming years. We are entering into a strange time and I worry about things that others might never consider. The video I posted is a clue as to the things I’m worried about.

ThePres is going in the right direction: setting down markers and working to get the usual suspects in the Military and Commentariat on board. It was easy going in. It will be tough getting out. Slow and steady may be best. At home he will face opposition in the DOD and their spinners in the MSM. So look for all kinds of efforts to slow down the withdrawal process. The Camp Lejeune speech was about as clear as could be.

Suggestion: can we sell the embassy to some international organisation which can get people to live there while helping the Iraqis. Why do we need 500 diplomats and 2000 guards and an mini-army for a country of 25m people based in Baghdad right in the heart of the Iraqi government. In fact the diplomats are pretty reluctant to go serve in Das Bunker.

Joe: you have an operating style which puzzles: everytime you start you sound positive. You then pepper your stuff with exceptions, buts, and other devices. I know this is acomplex subject but it seems that at some level there is a constituency in Washington which seeks to slow down Obama’s moves by seeming to agree with him and then introducing one caveat after another. Death by a thousand deviations?

P-NNTO, you’re welcome. With Steele’s decision to run the RNC according to Micahel Scott’s management principles, and Jindal and Palin impersonating close associates of Lorne Michaels, the GOP is on track for a 1964-style election. Only funnier for the rest of us.

I predict the people who were right about Iraq in the first place will continue to be demonized as Bush’s former cheerleaders continue to bury the past and reinvent themselves.

“The Camp Lejeune speech was about as clear as could be.”

…

It was the worst received speech in front a military audience in American history.

Obama plans, come hemp or hail Hillary, to throw Iraq under the bus, never mind the sacrifices that have been made — because he’s got better things to do, like watch Russia kick us out of Whereizistan, the Pakis placate the Taliban and Osama, export abortion on demand to all parts 3rd world (instead of the ability for people to protect and feed themselves), break the bank of American ingenuity and innovation, lead us not into freedom but guaranteed tax oblivon…

Some change, that one.

Move On indeed.

PS: Mike Huckatax and the rest of the disloyalites at CPAC can go SCREW THEMSELVES.

As a retired Lt Col, with a husband currently deployed, don’t any of you realize how off the chart LUCKY we are to have a President talking SENSE and REAL SOLUTIONS? Do you think I give a good god D–n how many troops we have left on 1 January, or 31 December, or at the end of his (hopefully) second term??? Christ on a bike! He has taken an absolute clusterphuck of a situation and might be able to fashion it into something actually worth the 4k lives lost.

Wish in one hand, s–t in the other, see which one fills up first.
For 8 years, we had an Administration doing both. Now we have grownups. Everybody say Amen.

SZ
.
Like I said before I have been down this road with Derek and the proof is in the pudding. Its not Bush invective when its true. Ask him for yourself if you don’t believe me. I personally call them as I see them And Derek is a phucking chump who is just looking for something to criticize Obama about and doesn’t give a phuck about the safety of our troops getting out of Iraq. If he isn’t then his posting does a hell of a job of sounding like he is. But hey you can feel free to give him all the benefit of the doubt in the world if you want. Im fresh out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_lobbyists

…

Obama’s not totally off the reservation — we do need to attack waste and abuse in the medical trade — BUT his basic argument assumes that everyone deserves free medicine.

WHY do my kids have to pay for Bill Moyers’s kid’s multiple rehab bills?

Or any Kennedy’s?

Government’s responsibility?

NO, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

If the GOP can’t mount an adequate legislative destruction of this proposed MONSTROSITY they’ll deserve the 2010 fate earned.

I think the President’s troop withdrawal plan threads the needle. The Iraqis now have a firm timeline and can begin the transition process. I watched Oprah visit wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and cried like a baby. It’s long overdue.

“And Derek is a phucking chump who is just looking for something to criticize Obama about and doesn’t give a phuck about the safety of our troops getting out of Iraq.”
.
It must be the use of basic logic that throws you into tantrum mode. Once again, erecting a strong man, and then accusing anyone who points out the fallacy of it, a traitor, is not normally considered to be a rational argument. In other words, you are throwing yourself into a frenzy, over nonsense.

I should have said straw man.

Like I said before I have been down this road with Derek and the proof is in the pudding. Its not Bush invective when its true. Ask him for yourself if you don’t believe me. I personally call them as I see them And Derek is a phucking chump who is just looking for something to criticize Obama about and doesn’t give a phuck about the safety of our troops getting out of Iraq. If he isn’t then his posting does a hell of a job of sounding like he is. But hey you can feel free to give him all the benefit of the doubt in the world if you want. Im fresh out.
.
It’s not a matter of giving him the benefit of the doubt. It’s a matter of reading what he’s actually writing, and not imagining things that aren’t there. You still haven’t answered Derek’s question: Do you have any evidence for your conjecture or are you just asking a rhetorical question, framed in such a way as to stir up feelings of patriotic emotion?
.
You are making a completely unsupported assumption – the withdrawal plan Obama talked about in the campaign would endanger American troops – and then claiming that Derek’s support of Obama’s original plan essentially means he’s a traitor. I could make a similar unsupported assumption – federal ownership of banks will lead to ownership of other large industries outside the financial sector – and claim that anyone who supports bank nationalization (e.g. Paul Krugman) is a socialist. I could then accuse “the socialist” Paul Krugman of turning a blind eye to Stalin’s purges. I could write angry letters to the NY Times demanding they fire this radical advocate of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, telling them that his support of mass murderers like Mao and Stalin is shown by his columns.
.
After all, he supports bank nationalization.

SZ — interesting tone you take sometimes. You go pedal to the metal towards a Hillary Rosen because you disagree with everything she represents, including implying that if weren’t for her sexual orientation her support for marriage equality would be non-existent.
.
Now perhaps at that point I should have said (using my best finger wagging you’re too good for this tone of voice) “Stuart, perhaps you want to refrain from assigning motivations that you may believe but can”t possibly know — a tactic btw you despise when its done by the msm.”
.
But I didn’t finger wag because I recognized that you were taking dramatic license and I understood the larger point you were making and the anger you were venting. All I ask in return is that you give others, the same right to be slightly over the top that you clearly reserve for yourself.
.
Now as to Obama’s balls — I said they were made out of steel so you’d know I meant hard as opposed to the weak, Bush following, GOP caving squishiness some on the left accuse him of being every time he doesn’t follow their script.
.
I added diamond studded because its the hardest surface I could think of that would prevent little GOP and for that matter little swingnut knives from trying to cut them off.
.
Thanks PNNTO for defending the rights of the hyperbolic everywhere.
.
And SG thanks for the heads up on Derek, no use arguing with someone who rejects nuance and change as legitimate factors in the decision making process.

“You are making a completely unsupported assumption — withdrawal plan Obama talked about in the campaign would endanger American troops – and then claiming that Derek’s support of Obama’s original plan essentially means he’s a traitor.”
.
During the campaign Obama said he would bring home 1-2 brigades a month, for a total of 16 months. He always said he would leave behind a residual force, so you can argue about the amount but not that he did it.
.
He also always said, which was the premise of the “refinement battle royale” that his plan was sound based on the information he had at present. He would be setting the mission to bring the troops home. However, he would confer with his commanders on the ground and it may be necessary to refine how he brought those troops home based on new intel.
.
Of course, the swingnuts went off the rails insisting that refinement meant he was going to change his mind. Of course he responded to us and Petraeus when he went to Iraq on McCain’s dare, that he would set the mission: He did, he said we want all combat troops out by 2010.
.
He also said he would listen to his commanders on the ground about the best, safest way to conduct this new mission: He did, originally the plan was 16 mos. But his commanders presented him with three different options with varying degrees of risks, the options chosen was 19 mos.
.
Now, it’s true that we don’t know what the trade-offs were, so it is an assumption. But logic dictates that it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s more likely to have something to do with potential casualties/risks to the troops leaving or staying behind than it does adhering to some Bush edict or McCain barbecue schedule.
.
To suggest that by not keeping to the exact campaign schedule for reasons of new intel about risk is tantamount to lying about the level of safety of the plan during the campaign or lying now about the motives, sounds a bit swingnuttery to me.
.
The bottom line is that things change. What’s the old saying – “life is what happens while you’re busy making plans.” If Derek has access to a reliable crystal ball I’m all for him taking the lead on this thing. If not, I’ll go with the guy who so far has acted with honesty and integrity and save my figuring out the Machiavellian plots lines for my forays into Tom Clancy land.

Dee… there are two choices

1) when obama promised to get all us troops out of Iraq in 16 months, he was promising to endanger the troops

2) All troops can be withdrawn in 16 months without compromising their safety.

pick one.

The real point here is that Obama doesn’t want to withdrawal all the troops in 16 months, he wants to leave 35-50,000 of them in Iraq for another year plus. And while Obama may claim that these troops are not combat troops, when the mission of troops is to engage in combat (unless you think that the troops will be sweet talking Al Qaeda in Iraq into surrendering) are combat troops.
_
Basically, Obama has adopted the Bush policy toward Iraq, which (on paper)forces all US troops out if Iraq by the end of 2011. And since the “status of forces” agreement requires US troops to get out of all of Iraq’s cities, by the end of June 2009, by that date (and not a year later) we should be down to our “residual force.”

Off topic but is anyone watch Rush right now on Fx waiting for him to have a heart attack on stage?

So, at 5pm EST, I awake to quite the riot. I hereby align myself with Derek, Rose, Stu & P-luk, and I guess against Dee and SG, who apparently feel Obama is never to be questioned or criticized. Fair enough, but that’s the stuff of republican group-think orthodoxy in my book.
~
End of 2011 = 34 months, right? It’s f’ing b-s, period. Like his space-gimp-chimp predecessor, el presidente has bowed down to the MIC, pleasing the guy we were supposedly voting against last Nov. Am I surprised, hell no, I always knew he was the best we could get, but this notion that he’s unworthy of criticism or that his cajones are made of steel, is, well, ludicrous. Were you guys atwitter when W’s testes were bunched in his flight suit? Farcical. At what point would you not support your leader–if he shifts 50,000 into Afghan, a 100? If he cuts taxes on the wealthy?
~
Fine Sat. evening to you–it’s sunny and gorgeous here and I’m off to the mtns.

dfh I see it’s I mean he is on CNN too. “Kerry served in Viet Nam” gets a laugh? Man these people are effing insane.

Dee… there are two choices
Clearly pluk I disagree:
.
1) when Obama promised to get all us troops out of Iraq in 16 months, he was promising to endanger the troops

2) All troops can be withdrawn in 16 months without compromising their safety.

pick one.
.
First there is not a whole heck of lot of difference between 16 and 19. second, he always said the time frame was subject to review at the time and since he doesn’t have a crystal ball to see into the future, and the laws of physics dictate that change is an inevitable factor to consider, I’m thinking there’s a third option After review stretching it an additional two months make the success of the mission that much more likely.
.
BTW –Kill the revisionist history. Obama is not adhering to Bush — Bush came around to his time frame remember.

Attacking the mortgage help and praising the bankers going on junkets after getting their bailout money.
Atrios is right, they say this stuff because they want to get a rise out of liberals. I’m pleased this is on CNN-the more people see that the republicans are the party of Rush the happier I am.

Paul-nnto,
If Conservatives think this is a good message Obama needs to start looking for High schools in DC for his daughters because he’ll be there for eight years.

dfh-I turned the channel, there are some things my SO will not put up with. I don’t know if they think it is a good message but I do know it’s the only one they have.
Rose up thread mentioned 1964 and she may not be far off.

Basically, Obama has adopted the Bush policy toward Iraq, which (on paper)forces all US troops out if Iraq by the end of 2011.
.
But you have to remember that Bush only adapted that policy after Obama began canmapigning succussfully on it AND the SOFA negotiations suddenly gave him no choice.
.
Prior to that the plan was for Korea/Germany like occupations forevah.

To suggest that by not keeping to the exact campaign schedule for reasons of new intel about risk is tantamount to lying about the level of safety of the plan during the campaign or lying now about the motives, sounds a bit swingnuttery to me.
.
Of course I’m not suggesting that. Obama has not called people who still support a 16 month withdrawal plan traitors; that’s what SG is saying.
.
Just to clarify… I’M NOT CRITICIZING OBAMA’S NEW IRAQ POLICY. I’m talking about something else. I’m talking about the destructiveness and absurdity of this “you disagree with me, so you must be a traitor” rhetoric.
.
dfh-I turned the channel, there are some things my SO will not put up with. I don’t know if they think it is a good message but I do know it’s the only one they have.
.
P-NNTO, yeah I can’t watch him either.

” I’m talking about the destructiveness and absurdity of this “you disagree with me, so you must be a traitor” rhetoric”
.
Agreed Rose. Along with the flip side of that coin “you apparently feel Obama is never to be questioned or criticized.”
.
Both are silly.

Dee in Columbia MD Says:
Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm

SZ — interesting tone you take sometimes. You go pedal to the metal towards a Hillary Rosen because you disagree with everything she represents, including implying that if weren’t for her sexual orientation her support for marriage equality would be non-existent.
.
Now perhaps at that point I should have said (using my best finger wagging you’re too good for this tone of voice) “Stuart, perhaps you want to refrain from assigning motivations that you may believe but can”t possibly know — a tactic btw you despise when its done by the msm.”
.
But I didn’t finger wag because I recognized that you were taking dramatic license and I understood the larger point you were making and the anger you were venting. All I ask in return is that you give others, the same right to be slightly over the top that you clearly reserve for yourself.

.
All good points, Dee. Equal standards, “what’s good for the goose”, etc. Absolutely right on.
.
The only difference here might be this:
.
I guess that I’m asking people who sound like Bushists when they criticize fellow Democrats (because they’re using nearly identical rhetoric to “Democrats are demanding a time-table for withdrawal –Why do they hate the troops?“) to reflect on whether or not it’s truly necessary to do so in support of Obama, since the Republicans only succeeded in making people hate them by using that kind of argument.
.
Hillary Rosen is literally a famous corporate lobbyist for a really anti-people, anti-freedom, anti-progress industrial cartel. When I use terms like “mercenary” to describe her motives, it’s a little hyperbolic way of saying “corporate lobbyist”, but pretty accurately describes what public relations firms and lobbyists do.
Moreover, my value judgment isn’t just against her profession, I’m also decrying the malevolent interests at whose service Rosen has literally been.
.
It’s like impugning the motives of the tobacco company marketers who took on the despicable task of generating more sales volume from lower-income neighborhoods.
.
I think my criticism –however hyperbolic– of Rosen may be a little different than saying to another Democrat (who was also right all along about the Iraq war, and whose names were besmirched by the Republican machine for so many years) “You want Obama to keep the promise that earned him our votes? You must not care whether our troops live or die!“, don’t you, Dee?
.
Thanks so much for reading and considering this, Dee.

If Conservatives think this is a good message Obama needs to start looking for High schools in DC for his daughters because he’ll be there for eight years.
-
Minor point of order (and correct me if I’m wrong) but Sidwell Friends is a K-12 school.

Point taken

rose83
.
Let me school you for a minute. First of all I choose my words very carefully. If you saw me call Derek a traitor then paste it. If not then its YOU who are making sh*t up. Now you can keep taking up for that ass hole but here are the facts. There is no such thing as a hard and fast rule when it comes to withdrawing troops from ANY WHERE. And every single time then Senator Obama talked about a withdrawal timetable he did it with a caveat that it would still depend on conditions on the ground. Now Derek a few months back and again today makes no attempt at all to understand this and instead just wants a 16 month timetable come hell or high water. I asked him several times then and today to clarify himself and not once, I repeat not ONE SINGLE TIME did he say that the safety of the troops should make a difference. Instead he banked on a few idiots buying his bullsh*t about President Obama lying about the 16 month timetable being safe on the campain trail and surprise surprise look at who fell for it. President Obama hadn’t even had a single presidential briefing when he initially called for a 16 month withdrawal in the first damn place. So now Derek wants to make it into pass a fail proposition. Only problem is people’s lives are at stake here. Real people who have families who love them who aren’t at all concerned about a dumb ass like Derek getting his feelings hurt because he thinks Obama broke a campaign promise. This is not a pass/fail or a black and white issue. There is a lot of gray in between but Derek doesn’t care about all that.
.
As Dee pointed out it wasn’t until President Obama called for a timetable AND after months of both Bush and McCain calling him naive and dangerous for doing so, that they ended up coming around to the notion. And do you remember why? Its because the frikkin Iraqis, having heard Obama talk about a timetable, warmed up to it and proposed it to Bush and told him that under no circumstances would they sign a SOFA without one. And since we are walking down memory lane let me also point out that the Iraqis still didnt want to sign off on the SOFA until AFTER President Obama won the election and only because they felt HE would honor the agreement. If you think Derek is just having a difference of opinion then you don’t get it that this particular “difference of opinion” can cost lives. And he would rather President Obama not take into account anything other than a campaign promise. Well I proudly tell Derek that he can go phuck himself on behalf of every member of the military serving in Iraq right now and all of their family and friends and I hope he understands that I am saying that from the very bottom of my heart. Again its YOU who are going by what you THINK Derek is saying, probably because you are too much of a coward to ask him point blank like I did about what he believes. But having asked him back then and again today and seeing his none answer tells me all I need to know about Derek.
.
And if you want to quote me rose83, then phucking quote me instead of making up sh*t

sg you can insult me fifty more times and it won’t make you non-argument any more true. The only thing it exposes is your ignorance and the fact that it is you who is the real troll. You argue like a right-wing fanatic, which is likely what you are. I can always tell the pretend liberals by their lack of logic and near illiteracy.

Derek
.
You are a non issue for me. You don’t even exist in my world. Anybody who is so phucking stupid as to come crying on here like a b*tch every time he percieves that President Obama broke a promise isn’t even worth my time. I just wanted Dee to know who and what you were before she even tried to engage you in an attempt at rational thought. Go cry in your pillow some more and see how effective that is at moving up the withdrawal date.

” I’m talking about the destructiveness and absurdity of this “you disagree with me, so you must be a traitor” rhetoric”
.
Agreed Rose. Along with the flip side of that coin “you apparently feel Obama is never to be questioned or criticized.”
.
Both are silly.
.
P-NNTO, I was going to agree but then I realized that although both criticisms are unfair and problematic, they’re not really two sides of the same coin. “Traitor” is not the equivalent to “blind supporter.” Perhaps the “you just automatically disagree with everything that Obama says or does” is the true equivalent to “blind supporter.” I think SG ended up using both these attacks: Derek is a phucking chump who is just looking for something to criticize Obama about and doesn’t give a phuck about the safety of our troops getting out of Iraq.
.
The second part – the traitor part – is far worse. When you accuse someone of being determined to agree or disagree with a politician, you’re criticizing their politics. But when you start accusing people of not caring about the welfare of soldiers, that’s a personal attack. You’re saying they’re a bad person basically, not just politically biased and misguided.
.
I hope I don’t use either kind of attack, but I can’t see them as directly equivalent.
.
SG, IMO, this is equivalent to accusing someone of being a traitor: he doesn’t give a damn about whether they get shot on the way out of town. I can find more quotes if you’d like.

Your entire argument today consists of unsubstantiated assumptions and personal insults. I could care less if a right-wing troll like you is upset at being exposed for what it is.

rose83
.
Right so now we all live by what YOU think is equivalent. How about you find a quote where Derek says he cares about the safety of the troops? Other than that I don’t really care where you try to take it rose, I did what I wanted to do. As far as I am concerned you still haven’t given one reason why I shouldn’t have said EXACTLY what I said about Derek then or now.

Again its YOU who are going by what you THINK Derek is saying, probably because you are too much of a coward to ask him point blank like I did about what he believes.
.
No I don’t need to ask because I have basic reading comprehension and I’m not paranoid. I already understand what he’s saying.

LoL yeah Derek, thats why you avoided my questions right? You can call me right wing troll all want to dawg, you are only playing yourself right now.

How about you find a quote where Derek says he cares about the safety of the troops?
.
LOL. What is this, McCarthyism’s return? Are people now presumed to not support the troops’ welfare when they disagree with the President’s policies?

I’m avoiding questions. We are still waiting for any evidence to support your assertion that following Obama’s original plan is putting the troops at risk. The only empirical evidence you have offered is one more in a series of insults. I would have thought that things are easier now that the surge has been such a great success, not harder.

Rose I chose those two examples because they both dismiss the arguer rather than the argument.

It always pains me when I see people talking past each other and I’m confident that nothing I will say will help but I do have one observation to make.
.
The buildup of troops for the original invasion (amassing at the Kuwaiti border took significantly less than a year to accomplish, The actual invasion portion took a week. While there’s no doubt that we were more willing to take risks as an invasion force going in than we are as an occupying force leaving, there’s no doubt in my mind that anyone who suggests that 16 months isn’t eneough time is lying.
.
Don’t forget that all these arguments were taking place during the Presidential campaign and the level of dishonesty was at a fevered pitch.
.
There’s also little doubt in my mind that Obama is treading very carefully with the folks in the Pentagon because the last thing anybody wants to see is signs of disloyalty from within the military toward their CinC.
.
Does it seem to me like Obama is caving? Not to those of us who actually listened to what he was saying during the campaign rather than a:what we wanted to hear or b: the ridiculous cut-and-run caricature being drawn by McCain and the Republicans.
.
To my eyes, it appears that Obama is doing exactly everything he said he would during the campaign and any surprise that anybody may be experiencing is can be directly attributed to hearing loss.

If you saw me call Derek a traitor then paste it.
.
Come on, let’s be honest here.
.

sgwhiteinfla Says:
.
Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 12:19 pm
If you want to piss Derek off just ask him what HIS plan would be to withdraw the troops. See he doesn’t give a damn about whether they get shot on the way out of town or if the military commanders advise President Obama to go slower, as long as the troops leave by a certain date is all he cares about.

.
If that’s not calling somebody a traitor, then I guess it’s calling somebody a guy who doesn’t give a damn if fellow Americans die from enemy fire when in harm’s way.
.
In my mind at least, the word “traitor” isn’t terribly necessary.
.
It’s like saying “That guy broke into my house and stole all my stuff“, and then saying “I never called that guy a burglar! See if you can find the word ‘burglar’ somewhere! See, you can’t!“, know what I mean?
.
My point in criticizing this type of invective is not to take sides, or because I’m unhappy with commenters personally, it’s that it seems to me like unproductive talk amongst fellow liberal Democrats –you know, people who agree that we should get the f*ck out of Iraq ASAP?
.
Here’s hoping that you’ll understand why I’m butting in…

Not only is Obama not sticking to his campaign promise, he is hardly moving any troops out this year, and there will still be 50,000 there when he is done. This isn’t a refinement of what he promised those who voted for him, it is a sea change.

Rose I chose those two examples because they both dismiss the arguer rather than the argument.
.
P-NNTO, true. I’d just add that their similarity in that respect is contrasted by other differences that make the one example far worse than the other.

The plan seems to acknowledge that the previous administration did some things right. What a great opportunity to reach across the aisle. Any decent leader understands that by building consensus on areas of agreement, you create an opportunity to work together on areas of disagreement. This president doesn’t really seem interested in doing this. Doesn’t make him any worse that your average politician, but it doesn’t make him different either. Same old Washington – same old politics.

SZ
.
Lets go back to the original conversation at the link rose83 so conveniently provided. I will give you a quick rundown of why I absolutely stand by what I said about Derek
.
Here is what started the conversation back then.
.
Derek said
.

Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. That is what McCain kept saying. That is why he was elected. He owes the centrist cult nothing and it would be foolish of him to burn all his bridges with the Left, now that he has power. He will need their support in another 4 years. His choice for chief of staff is already a slap at the Left.

.
Now this just screamed of concern trolling to me so I said.
.

Derek,
.
Have any other positions been filled? This is why people always say that Democrats know how to screw things up. We are less than a week from a historic election getting the presidency back and here we are arguing about people being selected for the administration who havent even been selected for the administration. And I would remind everyone that we had a pretty good run with Clinton in office so if Obama picks up some of the people from that administration who were actually good at their jobs why is that a bad thing? Can we get behind our new president for at least 2 weeks and give him a chance to actually name his staff before we start criticizing it? At this rate the GOP won’t have to tear Obama down, his own supporters will beat them to it!

.
Seemed pretty reasonable to me at the time. So Derek moves on to.
.

Anyone notice Obama changing his tune on getting out of Iraq? I wonder if it has anything to do with keeping the Republican “Gates” in his position.
.
I wonder who will be put in charge of persecuting the war crimes conducted by the previous administration, Karl Rove.

.
To which I said
.

Derek
.
No I have not seen Obama changing his tune on Irac. In fact the Iraqis are now more inclined to sign on to the SOFA due to Obama’s election according to some reports because they believe that he will get our troops out of Iraq. There is also an article out that an army recruiter is using Obama’s victory as a tool to help bring in new recruits by telling them that by the time they are done with their deferment of 2 years Obama will have the military out of Iraq. But you are more than welcome to try to back that up with some links or quotes or something.

.
Still pretty reasonable if you ask me. Now here is where it started getting nutty.
.
First James LA posted from Obama’s website about his plan for Iraq
.
Then Derek says
.

Obama started backing off his 16 month Iraq withdrawal during the campaign. If he leaves the same people in charge that are there now we already know what their position is, it’s over when they say it’s over.

.
So of course I asked for links, he provided one and then I came back with this.
.

Derek
.
Here is the information from the link you provided. Definitely a concern troll
.
Obama told reporters in Fargo, N.D., that he is “going to do a thorough assessment.”
.

“When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies,” he said, according to CBS News. “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”
.

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.
.
At the second meeting with reporters, Obama said: “We’re going to try this again. Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. … I have said throughout this campaign that … I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.

.
Not deterred at all Derek says
.

Cherry pick much sgwhiteinfla? He said he was going to refine his plan, and then he said he wasn’t. Axelrod then went back to the position Obama held in the morning. Sounds like they will fit in nicely with the centrist cult in DC, the one that claimed the war would be ended back in 2,006.

.
Then this
.

sgwhiteinfla you are an ignorant joke. I’m done with you idiot.

.
So you know of course we went back and forth at that point. But PNNTO summed up my sentiments pretty nicely with this quote.
.

Nicely framed.
.
Someone makes a specious argument. Is asked for evidence for that position. Evidence shows just the opposite. It is pointed out that it did not support the @ssertion.
Conclusion – some people are becoming like Bush supporters because they can’t bear criticism.

.
Now here was a reply to rose83 that clarified the question of “refinement” very clearly and I meant exactly what I said in the post.
.

Definition of refinement.
.
“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”
.
It refers to the pace of the withdrawal not the withdrawal itself. But I guess some people would want our troops shipped home without considering the situation on the ground or how that might put the troops who arent the first ones out in harms way.

.
Now is let there be no doubt that Derek was arguing against any “refinement” Also notice that I didn’t refer to Derek specifically and in point of fact I was replying to rose83. Here is what came next
.
Derek says
.

“But I guess some people would want our troops shipped home without considering the situation on the ground or how that might put the troops who arent the first ones out in harms way.”
.
So no you are accusing me of wanting to get the troops killed? I think I know who the real right-wing troll is here now.

.
Now I guess he had a guilty conscious, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked this question.

.

“But I guess some people would want our troops shipped home without considering the situation on the ground or how that might put the troops who arent the first ones out in harms way.”

So no you are accusing me of wanting to get the troops killed? I think I know who the real right-wing troll is here now.
.
But Derek previously said
.
“There’s no evidence that he was actually changing his plans, and the news organizations who interpreted it that way were being especially… inventive.”

What does “refining” the plan mean? That was Obama’s word not the media’s.
.
And then Derek said this
.
Last Wednesday Ryan Crocker said there would be no change in Iraq policy, once Obama was elected, and an Iraqi politician said Obama had to say he was pulling troops out, just to get elected. Anyone want to bet the troops will be out in 16 months?
.
So Derek if you are saying you DO care about the lives of the soldiers then why are you opposed to Obama as you put it “refining” his plan according to conditions on the ground? Now if you can answer that question in a way that makes sense I would love to hear it. Otherwise I think the REAL troll will truly be exposed.

.
To which I got crickets as a response. Now sometimes the truth just is the truth and not a smear. And honestly I feel about Derek exactly like Carville felt about Richardson.
.

.
Now you are welcome to go back and look at the original exchange. Either way I meant it and I still do.

For the record Jcapan I find myself in good company so you feel free to continue to align yourself with whomever you’d like. However, I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say or Suggest that my fellow liberals shouldn’t or couldn’t question Obama, nor did I imply that by doing so they were bad people. What I said was that it was it was wrong to say Democrats were weak and catering to the right simply because they did not adhere to some arbitrary strict interpretation of some liberal policy.
.
For SZ — I rarely make exceptions for the source unless it’s clearly a delusional wingnut I’ve chosen to ignore. I consistently call out hypocrisy, even if it is from fellow liberals. Derek drew my ire because his statements left no room for reasonable changes in the environment. The absence of nuance is something I usually find among the wingnuts but lately I see the swingnuts engaging in these somewhat less logical arguments as well. Derek and his supporters implies that Obama is either lying now or lying then and leaves no room for any other circumstances. This is not questioning Obama this is accusing him.
.
As SG states — by denying even the possibility that changes to Obama’s original 16 mo. plan was born out of security concerns says that security concerns do not rise to a level of importance to warrant their inclusion into the equation, otherwise how could you assume with any degree of certainty that this is not the case?
.
The trouble with some of my critics is that you want to engage in semantic exercises, make assumptions about the motivations of others, and hold yourselves up as the ultimate
intelligence — yet when the shoe is on the other foot you protest.
.
Not too long ago Rose you bristled at my assertion that your argument was stupid and jcapan you joined in her offendedness, yet tonight she called SG stupid, albeit using slightly more euphemistic phrasing, but she nevertheless was asserting she was intellectual superior. I’d say pot meet kettle except I was far more direct and was focused on the stupidity of the argument not the intelligence of the debater.

Not too long ago Rose you bristled at my assertion that your argument was stupid and jcapan you joined in her offendedness, yet tonight she called SG stupid, albeit using slightly more euphemistic phrasing, but she nevertheless was asserting she was intellectual superior.
.
No, I don’t think SG is stupid. On the contrary he seems very intelligent. I was responding to this: “Again its YOU who are going by what you THINK Derek is saying, probably because you are too much of a coward to ask him point blank like I did about what he believes.” As I explained, because I have basic reading comprehension and I’m not paranoid I don’t need to ask Derek to clarify his thinking on that point.
.
The implication is that SG is being paranoid, not that he’s stupid or lacks basic reading comprehension (that’s obviously not his problem). I have no reason to think that I’m SG’s “intellectual superior.” I’m just a little calmer and less ready to imagine the worst about people.

“And honestly I feel about Derek exactly like Carville felt about Richardson.”
.
This is after spending the day claiming he never implied anyone was a traitor. Besides the fact that you use the same fallacious arguments as right-wing trolls, you do not tolerate any disagreement. That is a clear sign that you are no Democrat because disagreeing with each other is what Democrats do. If you want a party of ignorant, single minded automatons stay in the party you are likely already a member of troll.

(pointing and laughing)
.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

‘m just a little calmer and less ready to imagine the worst about people.’
.
Rose do you not get that this is a statement asserting your superiority?

Dee
.
Don’t worry about it sweetie. Remember rose83 is the one who has repeatedly accused people of making sexist statements on these threads but in her world I am the one who imagines the worst about people. She took up for Derek before, its not surprising she is doing so again. But notice she can’t use any of his words to take up for him and she really hasn’t disproven anything I said. I am cool with it, like I said before I accomplished EXACTLY what I set out to.

Yes you did and saved me countless wasted keystrokes.

It interests me when I see what looks like blind faith in Obama:
.
kathy Says:
Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 2:08 pm
A significant difference, for me, between Bush’s plan and Obama’s is that I know Obama wants them out as soon as possible, so I have some confidence that after listening to Petraeus and others this seems to him the soonest he can be confident he can pledge they’ll be out.
.
(Sorry, kathy, it was the best example I could find on the thread.)
I’ve seen similar from other posters here.
.
It seems to me that we have pretty clear evidence that (a) he’s not thinking what we think he’s thinking and (b) we should be at least a little suspicious and critical (see Geithner, see reluctance to investigate Bush, see defense of the usage of “state secrets”).

SG:
.
Doubtlessly I’m sure that everyone will be bored to death by my response, but I think it’s just due diligence at this point to tell you that you’re not being intellectually honest with yourself about this particular dispute.
.
The recount of commentary you’ve helpfully pasted here makes it perfectly clear that you were the participant who brought others’ state of mind or intentions regarding the safety of American troops into the argument. It’s clear as day:
.
I guess some people would want our troops shipped home without considering the situation on the ground or how that might put the troops who arent the first ones out in harms way.
.
I think that honesty should compel you to accept that it’s not the decent thing to do to put words like that in somebody’s mouth, and then demand that your opponent admit that what you said they thought isn’t true. That type of rhetorical tactic is Cheney-esque, actually.
.
Please consider that it is not an inescapable conclusion that opposition to “refinement” must necessarily mean a lack of concern for the troops’ safety. You’re taking Obama word at face value. Others may not trust Obama’s intentions when he “refines” his stated goals, however obvious it seems to you that his word is gold.
.
When you asked
.
if you are saying you DO care about the lives of the soldiers then why are you opposed to Obama as you put it “refining” his plan according to conditions on the ground?
.
, you are assuming that Obama is, in fact “refining” his plan solely according to the safety requirements of our forces, but Obama could be simply saying that this is the rationale.
.
You are supplying the trust in Obama that allows you to assume without hesitation that Obama must be doing whatever he’s doing for the reasons he claims.
.
Others may not share that trust, and it’s not honest or productive to accuse them of “not caring about the lives of our soldiers” if they don’t take Obama at his word.
.
It’s a really sh*tty rhetorical technique, because intelligent people can see through it pretty easily if they’re being honest, so I don’t think that you’re doing this consciously.
.
Please reflect on it, SG. Stand by your disagreement, stand by your trust in Obama, stand by your right to express yourself –all of those are obviously valid. But telling another liberal Democrat to effectively sign a loyalty oath to the troops when they question Obama’s word is wrong, and I think that you know it, but your fighting instinct is leading you slightly astray.
.
Thanks for reading this, SG. I mean the best.

COLONEL QUARK’S FIRM BREACHES MARINE ONE HELICOPTER SECURITY:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29447088

= SANDY BURGLAR ACCOMPLISHED =

In other news, CLINT EASTWOOD FOR PRESIDENT…

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090227/906/ten-eastwood-thinks-political-correctnes.html

What IS is.

“Not only is Obama not sticking to his campaign promise, he is hardly moving any troops out this year, and there will still be 50,000 there when he is done. This isn’t a refinement of what he promised those who voted for him, it is a sea change.”
…
Can I get an AMEN for The One, for once?

Not that flip-flops are anything new for Skippy, eh FISA fans?

Not that flip-flops are anything new for Skippy, eh FISA fans?
.
LOL
.
Good one, QH.
.
That was truly funny this time.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2196472/posts

…

Can you say COPTER-GATE?

SZ–you do injustice. It’s one thing to not trust Obama and question his motives, that falls within the realm of healthy skepticism. And despite claims to the contrary, I consider it due diligence. But that’s not what’s at stake here. Yes obviously, you can focus on some of the the words of SG out of context and make it look like Derek and Rose were unfairly attacked. This is a tactic the msm use all the time and I’m pretty confident if one of the villagers had tried this you’d be right there calling them on it.
.
The truth is Derek wasn’t questioning Obama’s actions or his motives. He was stating with certainty that Obama was lying and his motives were nefarious. Now unless they have some secret pipeline into the white house or can read minds then they are left concluding that security would never be a concern because it either does not exist or it is universally accepted that security is unimportant that no leader would take that into consideration when making a decision.
.
Now I doubt that anyone here would buy a universal lack of concern about soldier safety. However, humans tend to project so I’m left with concluding that safety is unimportant to Derek. And since it would not be on Derek’s mind in this situation, he assumes its not on Obama’s mind either. It’s called logical reasoning. And if Derek or you for that matter feel comfortable about assigning motives to others then you should accept it when its done to you.
.
With the exception of fisa, Obama has done everything he said he would do. Now he gave his staff hell for positioning him too far to the left, but you are absolutely within your rights to accuse in this instance because it doesn’t matter what he meant he didn’t do what he said. But on this other stuff either Derek et al were not reading or listening to his positions or thought it was all a ruse to get elected and he would turn out to be a rabid lefty once he took office.
.
Obama said he wasn’t against all wars just dumb wars and Iraq was a dumb war. He also said Afghanistan was the right war. If you’re against war for any reason and you voted for Obama he didn’t lie to you, you lied to yourself.
.
Obama said we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. He said combat troops would be out in 16 months (he also always said there would be a residual force and contractors, but that was before black water got kicked out of the country), but that was dependent on circumstances on the ground. He said his first concern was the safety of the soldiers. SG– didn’t bring security into the discussion, the post of Obama’s own words introduced the issue. Derek chose to dismiss Obama’s concerns giving the impression that he was not concerned about security issues. It was Derek who claimed that the only factor that should be considered is the campaign promise — to me that means security should not be a factor in setting the time table.
.
Frankly, I’m tired of so called liberals charging other liberal with Bushian and Cheneyesque behavior. It’s as if we’ve forgotten how bad the Bush folks were, this is not an adjective to be used lightly.
.
And Rose what can I say, you clearly have an ability the rest of us lack, that allows you and only you to know what everyone means, regardless of what they say. You should take that act to Vegas.
.
SZ — another thing, I agree with a lot of what you say most of the time. In fact, the only real problem I have with your comments regardless of whether or not I agree with your analysis, is your propensity to use in tactics you condem when used by those you philosophically oppose. And no, purity of motives is not an excuse. You have heard that the road to h3ll is paved with good intentions
.
Lastly, as a native new yorker I know we can sometimes suffer from a sense of superiority that comes from being born in a certain geographical location. However, your politeness or reasonableness does not always mask your arrogance — just a tip.

“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate,” a symbolic one at that. The players are inconsequential. It’s fundamentally about how one identifies him or herself (i.e. democrat vs. progressive). Democrats or “Obama democrats” feel loyalty to a party or personality, someone who’s trustworthy, perhaps a statesman and not merely a politician. And there are progressives who to varying degrees hold their noses when forced to vote for any candidate, given two rather sh!tty and reductive choices. I am proud to say I’m liberal, a progressive, even a socialist–a democrat, sorry.
~
But remember, those of you fine with 34 mo’s, you can now say “I agree with John McCain about Iraq”

“Obama said he wasn’t against all wars just dumb wars and Iraq was a dumb war. He also said Afghanistan was the right war. If you’re against war for any reason and you voted for Obama he didn’t lie to you, you lied to yourself.”
~
Progressives voted for Obama b/c the alternative was Damien. Or not voting or throwing away a vote on a 3rd party that the system ult. disallows. We knew exactly what Obama was for, this # or that # of mo’s notw/standing regarding Iraq, but his foolhardy commitment to Afghan was never veiled. And if we weren’t completely sure election night we found out quickly when Hawkish Hill was selected.
~
The respons. of those of us on the real left is to apply as much pressure as possible to shape O’s policies for the better. In the event folks aren’t clear about progressives, they’re the dovish types that think, well, like, war is asinine, or that America shouldn’t be an empire. Naive/non-serious types, you know. Folks who support Obama on an issue like this, or his Afghan buildup (hopefully temporary) are Joe Klein “liberals” i.e. centrists.

I thought John McCain was going to stay for a hundred years? My bad.

Jcapan–now you sound positively palinesque. The real progressives?
.
You don’t get to decide who is a progressive and who is not. You can advocate for any policy you choose but you don’t get to say I’m less progressive because I don’t measure up to some criteria in your mind. You don’t get to decide that the war is the litmus test and in any event you are not the litmus tester.
.
How arrogant do you have to be or drunk to think this would be okay. Perhaps you should sleep it off now before continue to show people your inner troll or as I like to make a distinction between their crazies and ours your inner swingnut.

Thanks for your response, Dee.
.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about this relatively minor point for now.

Really, Dee, in your experience you’d say that Obama’s foreign policy is “progressive”? B/C he’s not Bush, he’s suddenly a lefty!? Spare me. Was Bill Clinton a progressive? LOL. It’s only 3:20pm but now I need that drink.
~
Have you ever read Chomsky or Zinn or Hightower or listened to Democracy Now? Did politics ever come up with your professors? You must occasionally read Greenwald. Hint: these are progressives. You may want to stretch the definition to include yourself, but that doesn’t make it so. I may want to claim the attribute of handsomeness, but … And unlike the far more gracious SZ or Rose, I can say without doubt that you’re an abrasive, tunnel-visioned Obamabot villager. Thoroughly incapable of seeing through the miasmic forest of your limited reasoning. I’m sure this goes both ways, but typically I skim right by your name b/c you contribute nothing of substance here. You’re a talking pt. We all have our limitations, Dee–know yours.

Oregon JC:
.
This is just for you; go ahead and read this Centrist Wanker, and smile at his institution’s painful decline.

Utterly tone-deaf, aren’t they Stu? Blindness of epic, no, GOP proportions. It’s too late for them–they’re Blockbuster or the n-hood record store. What’s always fascinating to observe with dying institutions, including marriages, is that like many sinking ships, lifeboats are available (i.e. survival). But you don’t have all day to decide if you want to board a lifeboat. Fleeting opp’s must be quickly recognized, reality accessed/understood, even after years of separation, and sweeping changes made.
~
When I watch someone like KT getting snarky, it’s almost tragic. Reminds me of a docu. I watched about Japanese men in their 50s or 60s who are taking seminars to learn how to express affection to their wives, hoping to avoid divorce. These men who hadn’t uttered a kind word to their partners since their courting days were chanting sweet nothings in unison. But at least KT notes the changing landscape. The “wanker” you link to is so in the bubble that he’s ceased to recognize the reality that you and I take for granted.
~
Ah, I could find that docu. link:
~
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/interactives/tokyostories/tokyostories.swf
~
Priceless: “Won’t win, can’t win/don’t wanna win”–if chauvinistic J-husbands can change, anything is poss.

“He was stating with certainty that Obama was lying and his motives were nefarious. ”
.
I checked SG’s obsessive audit of the past and didn’t find any place where I said Obama was lying. What is the evidence for your accusation? In fact, it looks like I was exactly correct on the matter. The Republicans Obama left in control at the pentagon are obviously still dictating Iraq policy, as I feared they would. That is why so many Republicans are happy with his new policy. We also know now that Obama has no intention of holding the war criminals and torturers who preceded him accountable before the law. They will get a waiver on the rule of law, unlike the rest of us, who now have to deal with the economic disaster they left behind, in addition to their two wars.
.
If you want to join SG in calling progressives who disagree with Obama traitors go ahead. Given the last 8 years it seems only appropriate that the tradition continue.

But you have to remember that Bush only adapted that policy after Obama began canmapigning succussfully on it AND the SOFA negotiations suddenly gave him no choice.
_
sorry, but Bush’s hand wasn’t forced by Obama, but by Maliki. You keep forgetting that the Iraqi people want us out of there, and that Maliki knew his goose was cooked in the upcoming elections unless he got a commitment to withdraw US troops.
_
In terms of its importance, the “all US troops out of cities by June 2009″ is far more crucial to the status of forces agreement — the premise behind that part of the agreement is that only the “residual force” would remain in Iraq after June 2009. (While more than the residual force might remain in Iraq longer, they would have no “mission”, and their rate of withdrawal was a logistics question.)
_
Obama is doing precisely what Bush would have done — garrison more troops than necessary in Iraq for as long as possible, and redefining “combat troops” out of existence despite the fact that their mission would be that of combat troops.

First there is not a whole heck of lot of difference between 16 and 19. second, he always said the time frame was subject to review at the time
_
first off, its not 16 and 19 months, its 16 and 34 months.
_
Secondly, you’re either completely ignorant of history, or lying, because Obama initially said “out in 16 months” period (he’d “consulted” with military experts who said that all troops could be withdrawn safely in that period), and only started equivocating when challenged in debates with questions like “but what if they can’t be withdrawn safely in that timeframe?”
_
Bottom line here is that Obama is playing re-election politics with the lives of our troops (not to mention taxpayer dollars.) The likelihood is strong that an Iraqi government under the control of the Shiite majority that and allied with Iran will be the “endgame” in Iraq — and Obama wants to delay the “who lost Iraq” question until after his re-election campaign in 2012.

Rose do you not get that this is a statement asserting your superiority?
.
I was responding to your claim that I was calling SG stupid, and explaining how you misunderstood my comment. You were not asking about “superiority” in any given area. The truth of course is that everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. For example stuart is clearer about his definitions and generally more precise than I am. But I tend to be funnier (I hope you’re not offended stuart!). SG certainly has more persistence than I have in an argument, and perhaps in other areas of life also, and OTOH I think it’s quite apparent that at least here on Swampland I am calmer and less quick to imagine the worst of people.
.
As for saying SG was being paranoid… sure it’s harsh. But I can’t say I was wrong. I don’t believe he is intellectually dishonest – his comments radiate sincerity – and since he clearly does have basic reading comprehension I don’t believe he is incapable of understanding Derek’s thinking. I think he’s merely a little paranoid about other people’s motives. BTW, that’s actually the most charitable interpretation of his comments that I can think of.
.
And Rose what can I say, you clearly have an ability the rest of us lack, that allows you and only you to know what everyone means, regardless of what they say. You should take that act to Vegas.
.
You and SG are the ones who are claiming to see Derek’s heartless attitudes towards soldiers in his comments, and now YOU are claiming that I’m the psychic. That’s hilarious.
.
Remember rose83 is the one who has repeatedly accused people of making sexist statements on these threads but in her world I am the one who imagines the worst about people.
.
SG, Links? Quotes? I’ve never even accused you of sexism. I’ve only suggested that you’re selectively blind to sexism and uncomfortable with feminism (after you made several comments which left me with no choice but to conclude that), which is really not the same thing at all.
.
But this might be a good time to mention that I sincerely appreciate that you’ve stopped attacking me for making absurd accusations of sexism that you think I will make, but haven’t in fact made. Seriously, thank you.

I saw 129 comments, and regretted having missed a conversation because of a busy Saturday. But, no, I see that my friends are carping at each other.
.
On topic:
.
This isn’t a refinement of what he promised those who voted for him, it is a sea change.
.
Derek, this is exactly what Obama said he would do. This has been the Serious People’s policy on Iraq from the gitgo, a permanent occupation force of 50,000 soldiers. Obama is one of the Serious People. He ALWAYS said that he would withdraw “combat” troops, and that he would leave a residual force labeled anti-terrorist and training. That force of 50,000 was first mentioned by Cheney about three months into the occupation, has been planned for in the building of the permanent bases (which are designed to house that number) and will be what happens unless the foreign policy establishment in Washington is completely overthrown.
.
Note that this means elections will be rigged, and puppets installed, because there is no way that a majority of Iraqi citizens supports the US, and its position wrt to Israel and Palestine.
.
I’ve been saying this for 5 years now. It has bothered me that none of the Serious People, like Joe Klein, has not explicated it.

jayackroyd are you joining SG in the use of insult as your major form of argument? Anyone who doesn’t agree with the Iraq plan is both a “traitor” and “stupid.”

The reasoning skill of liberals has almost reached the same level as the right-wing nuts at this point.
.
My argument is the true one because I’m serious and you are not. Great argument Sherlock.

Derek, this is exactly what Obama said he would do.
_
Its not what Obama campaigned on in the primaries, however — especially in the early months. Obama’s equivocations began when he was asked hypothetical (and absurd) questions about “troop safety” and “al Qaeda taking over in Iraq”. When confronted with those kinds of questions, he gave the “serious people” answers.
_
Those necessary equivocations in response to hypothetical situations are now being used by Obama apologists to suggest that his campaign’s Iraq policy was not based on getting the troops out in 16 months. Obama did eventually drop the “16 months” rhetoric in the face of the status of forces agreement, but that was late in the campaign.
_
This kind of shift is why I’m so skeptical of Obama — and why its so crucial to parse every pronouncement of his. It started with the “telecom immunity” debacle — he went out of his way to give the impression that he was strongly opposed to telecom immunity, but never actually said he would strongly oppose a bill with telecom immunity.

<I. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the Iraq plan is both a “traitor” and “stupid.”
.
Where did THAT come from? The little quote marks usually refer to things somebody actually said. In any case, I strongly oppose Obama’s Iraq plans. I think the US should not occupy other countries.

pluk–
.
Then I accuse you of not paying attention. The “combat troops” fig leaf was a clear indication that other kinds of troops would stay. He never said “no residual force.” He never indicated that the occupation would end. I mean, he ran to the left of Clinton on Iraq, but just barely, and mostly based on what he said before the invasion.
.
I’ve been saying, for years, that the plan is 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. Was and is the plan.

My mistake, I thought you were arguing that anyone who does not embrace Bush’s Iraq policy, like Obama has, is not serious.

Derek,
.
The Serious People reference comes from Glenn Greenwald’s posts, where he notes that the only people permitted to have an opinion are the Serious People who believe the US has an unlimited right to invade and occupy other countries. In Jay Rosen’s terms, suggesting the US should respect sovereignty is in the sphere of deviance, not permissible material to discuss.

Then I accuse you of not paying attention. The “combat troops” fig leaf was a clear indication that other kinds of troops would stay.
_
jay, Obama wasn’t using the “combat troops ‘fig leaf’” during the primary campaign (certainly not often, and definitely not during the early stages.)
_
I mean, I was paying attention — the shift from “all troops out in sixteen months” was gradual… when challenged (what if al qaeda takes over iraq?!?!), he’d hedge slightly, and once the status of forces thing started getting headlines, he dropped sixteen months entirely.
_
But if you had suggested to the Oborg last march that Obama was going to keep 35-50,000 troops in Iraq for up to three years, they would have called you a liar.

jay, Obama wasn’t using the “combat troops ‘fig leaf’” during the primary campaign (certainly not often, and definitely not during the early stages.)
_
I mean, I was paying attention — the shift from “all troops out in sixteen months” was gradual… when challenged (what if al qaeda takes over iraq?!?!), he’d hedge slightly, and once the status of forces thing started getting headlines, he dropped sixteen months entirely.
_
But if you had suggested to the Oborg last march that Obama was going to keep 35-50,000 troops in Iraq for up to three years, they would have called you a liar.
.
pluk, that’s an interesting timeline. I don’t remember it that way at all. If you have time, I’d be interested in reading a blog post or something in which you showed that timeline with quotes and statements from Obama and his advisors.
.
I honestly have no recollection of Obama ever promising to get all troops out. I believe Edwards was the major candidate who came closest to making that promise.

Rose…here’s a quote from mid-2008
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/07/03/obama_might_refine_iraq_timeli/
_
“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”
_
let me parse this for you…
“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, (and ignore the times I called for a 16 month withdrawal without conditions) was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely,(in other words, I consulted with the military, and they told me that 16 months could be safely accomplished, so the 16 month deadline was as firm as it could be from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and (now I’m adding another condition here) that Iraq is stable.”

Obama’s statement was rightfully perceived as a “walkback” of his sixteen month commitment. In response to the controvery, he first said…
_
Mr. Obama said at his first news conference that he planned a “thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy when he visits the country later this summer. “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability,” he said. “That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
_
note that his original timeline was based on what ‘commanders’ had told him…but now he has to go back and talk to the commanders some more — despite the fact that things were getting better in Iraq.
_
later that same day, he “clarified” his position further…
I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/politics/03cnd-policy.html?_r=1&hp
_
note that here he starts talking about “combat troops”, but the original timeline wasn’t about getting our “combat troops” out of Iraq. (Remember the fuss he made about McCain wanting to keep troops there indefinitely?) And note how this isn’t about getting our troops out anymore, but about “ending the war“.
_
Finally, Obama introduced legislation to remove all combat troops in Iraq by March 31, 2008… on Jan. 30, 2007. In other words, at a point where we had more combat troops in Iraq, Obama had a “combat troops” timetable that would be less than 14 months.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/us/politics/26obama.html

I actually think that this is an important conversation for liberal Democrats to have, but only if it takes place in good faith, and with the full use of supporting evidence.

It’s true that there is a projection effect, and that neither Obama nor Clinton were clear about their intentions. But I never had any doubt that they both intended to follow through with the Washington Consensus that a permanent occupation would be required. Obama did indeed run against the wsr, but in his discussion of what he would do, given the war, was entirely in the mainstream fopo.

plukasiak, sorry for not responding earlier. I wasn’t expecting such a quick and detailed response.
.
I mostly agree with your interpretation of Obama’s later statements on Iraq. I just don’t remember him suggesting anything substantively different in the primaries. I could be mistaken, but I don’t believe he ever talked about pulling out all troops. As for his criticism of McCain’s comment about keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, I thought that was based on depicting McCain as planning indefinite war, not indefinite occupation. Obama – as far as I know – never really ruled out indefinite occupation.
.
And to clarify my earlier statement that I wasn’t criticizing Obama’s Iraq policy, that was referring to the subject of my posts. In fact I’m quite critical of Obama’s Iraq policy. I was just talking about something else.
.
jayackroyd, that was my thinking exactly.