scribo

As you said, this is what he has believed and said all along, before he spoke with Patreus, before he went to Iraq for the first time after starting his run. Colin Powell is not on the ground, has not been in "the loop" for some time now. I think this isn't so much a "willy-nilly" decision as it is a political one. One that he may very well add to the pile of campaign promises he won't be able to deliver on. Don't forget, the situation on the ground changes all the time. I think it is reckless to make such a promise so far out from when he is actually making the calls. As you said, this is what he has said all along. I know this is disrespectful, but I believe he is more of a politician than he is a leader. The military doesn't need that type making troop movement decisions. He was catering to the surrender-now groups that are the subject of the original post in this thread. Now that he got their vote, he needs to start figuring out what is actually best of the security of our troops and our nation.

Outrageous As a father of four, I do not think I am overreacting when I say this teacher should be removed from her position immediately. The after-interview just tells me this woman is worthless. She knows full well what she did and sits there, refusing to acknowledge it. The school should have never allowed her to wear the campaign button.

Ah yes, a very good reason why I think a president should have served in the military before he can be allowed to command it. If an immediate withdrawal was what military commanders thought was appropirate now, that's what would be happening. Why does he want to do that? Not because Gen. Patreus said that's what's needed. Was it because through his years of military experience, oh wait...cannot be that. It's because that's what the polls told him people wanted to hear. Because the war in Afghanistan is popular while the one in Iraq isn't. Again, I will reserve full judgment until he speaks with the commanders on the ground and then talks about early term plans.

Yes, I am sure Time magazine has it all wrong. They must be reading and watching something completely different than you. Look, the fact is Obama has said from the start that he would start an immediate withdrawal if elected. He updated his stance very shortly after winning the nomination during that wild week of flipping on several issues. Then he said, "We can follow a policy that doesn’t change whether violence is up or violence is down, whether the Iraqi government takes responsibility or not; or we can decide that it’s time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq." Obama was trying to use moderate rhetoric to mask his Iraq policy. I will be relieved and very supportive if Obama says in the coming weeks that he will keep the troops in Iraq until Iraq is legitimately capable of maintaining responsible security and sovereignty from terrorists and Iran. But until he says as much post-election, I have no real reason to believe he will do that.

A friend of mine with Vets4Victory just returned from Iraq with Brian Bennett from TIME. Brain just posted this great piece, which I think will force Obama to make some kind of statement on his intent in Iraq in the next few weeks: Will Obama Have to Adjust His Timetable on Iraq? Now that Obama has the mantle of leadership, reality may hit him square in the head. If he decides to side with senior U.S. military leaders and Iraqi officials, the rally I'm working on may have less traction. Of course, if he decides to go against them, then I think a rally might have some real momentum.

Chris Matthews use to be a fairly respectable guy. Someone I might actually refer to as a journalist. But he is off his rocker these days, and I would be willing to bet he leaves MSNBC, one way or another, within 18 months. He is no better than Rush or Franken.

Actually, McCain's platform admitted more spending was going to be needed first.

Isn't this the same Joe Liberman who was run out of the Democratic Party in the primaries a few years ago? But he fought back and won. Isn't this the same guy who gave the Dems the majority even after being stabbed in the back by the Dems? A complete lack of loyalty...

And this wasn't just discovered during yesterday's intelligence briefing.

But the Iraqis are saying they need the U.S. forces twice as long as Obama has said he will allow them to stay. I don't really think publishing a deadline is wise, but if the Iraqis need that to motivate their country to get ready to be independent, so be it.

I want to add one thing here, even though I understand it does my argument no good... I've stood in the mass graves in Iraq as women wailed next to me because in there they found their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers who had been missing for months or even years. I helped clear the jail cells that were obviously built and used as torture chambers. I have become friends with Iraqi families who suffered unspeakable atrocities at the hands of Saddam's regime. Regardless of why we were told we were going into Iraq, the millions of Iraqis who were liberated from Saddam needed help. I am very proud that our country extended that hand. I also walked through the streets of Kuwait City, seeing the scars of Saddam's ruthlessness, meeting those who lost loved one when Iraq invaded. I have no doubt the Saddam-led Iraq was a major threat to that entire region and much of the United States' interests there. But, alas, it is barely worth arguing anymore whether invading Iraq five years ago was just. All that matters now is that we leave the country a better place than how we found it. As long as we properly prepare the Iraqis to keep their country from being taken over by al-Qaeda, we will have done well.

You are arguing a point that is no longer relevant to the discussion started at the beginning of this thread. The fact is we are there now, as is al Qaeda, no matter why. Whether we and the terrorists were there six years ago or not doesn't mean a damn thing to our present-day national security. If we pull out of Iraq before Iraqi forces and government are ready to maintain security and independence from terrorists and Iran, we will be in much worse shape security-wise than we were 9/12/01. More than 4,000 U.S. heroes have given their lives combating those terrorists in Iraq, and their sacrifices will be wasted if we pull out now. And we will have to go back eventually, starting all over again. I am not against withdrawing in 2011 if Iraq is ready, but I do not want our forces to leave until the war is won.

I need to get going, so I don't have time to debate this tonight. But the short answer is no. Rather, from the takeover of Iraq by al-Qaeda.

Everyone has the right to their opinion. I love the freedoms I have, and I have no problem with others exercising the same freedoms. I've met Chiroux. I've talked to him several times. I respect his service in Afghanistan. I respect him for standing up for what he feels is right even though he is aware that he is illegally disobeying legal orders. But his arguements are not supported by facts. he claims his problems with the war in Iraq stem from "stories" he heard from soldiers who served in Iraq. The biggest problem there is that he cannot recant one story that can be corroborated by anyone or any evidence. I believe he is lying about or embellishing what he believes he heard. I do not respect that, at all. Why would he do that? Not just out of cowardice, but rather out of a desire for attention and to stay out of combat. The fact is that he took an oath, signed a contract and accepted payment and then didn't follow through with what he pledged to do. So he should have to repay the benefits he received. He likes to play up the fact he was a poor kid who did poorly in a southern school. I find it fascinating that liberals like to say military men and women are uneducated but then hold up people like Chiroux as examples of those intelligent enough to see the war as unconstitutional. I for one hope the "surrender in Iraq" movement keeps Chiroux and his ilk in front of the cameras. That will make it easier for those of us who know this mission is critical to get our points across.

I will respond to the full post in a moment, but I will say that any combat veteran comes home more an anti-war than anybody. I hate war. I've seen it up close and personal. It is terrible. But it is necessary to protect our way of life. So I believe it is worth enduring.

Likely. It is inflation, in a sense. The more money students have, the more the schools are going to charge.

Word on the street is that the girls are looking to adopt a rescue dog now instead of a puppy. Bleeding heart liberals... But the dog or puppy will have to be hypoallergenic, as one of the girls is allergic to canine dander. So a poodle is very viable.

Spitzer Won't Face Charges In Prostitution Scandal

I just spoke with Eric Herman of the assessor's office. This is in fact, BS. And he said the woman who wrote the blog knows it is BS.

Link? You got that info from where? The comment section on a blog?

I would love to hear who people here think was the last very good vice president. I cannot remember one.

How did that Carter administration work out? Oh, I think it set up the Republicans to occupy the White House the following 12 years.

Re-read post 21. You clearly said I am just "a guy on the politics sub-forum of a Buffalo Bills message board," inferring no one fitting that description could organize such a thing.

Much appreciated.

You have no idea who I am or what I do. To marginalize me because of where I like to post is a clear indication of how you see yourself.