John Adams Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What other promises will Obama break? I am anxiously awaiting his "line by line" slashing of the government budget. I'm sure that's coming any day now. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washingt...roops.html?_r=1 Leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq qhile at the same time increasing the presence in Afghanistan is not much of a withdrawal. Obama will succeed in spending more than Bush during his term--didn't almost think that would be possible. (I smell a 1 term president here so it probably doesn't matter as much.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What other promises will Obama break? I am anxiously awaiting his "line by line" slashing of the government budget. I'm sure that's coming any day now. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washingt...roops.html?_r=1 Leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq qhile at the same time increasing the presence in Afghanistan is not much of a withdrawal. Obama will succeed in spending more than Bush during his term--didn't almost think that would be possible. (I smell a 1 term president here so it probably doesn't matter as much.) So what you're saying is that when I take $5,000 from my checking and move it to my savings it's not a withdrawal? Fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckyFillUps Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 How many promises will he break? all of them. he's a democrat POS and thats what scumbags like him do. GET USED TO IT. You voted for him, now lie in the bed you made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 How many promises will he break? all of them. he's a democrat POS and thats what scumbags like him do. GET USED TO IT. You voted for him, now lie in the bed you made. Who are you talking to genius? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 So what you're saying is that when I take $5,000 from my checking and move it to my savings it's not a withdrawal? Fascinating. Yeah, when he said "I will remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months," he definitely meant he'd leave 50,000 behind. I like the grape Kool-Aid best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Actually, he did pretty much exactly as he said he would. No one, of course, really likes to actually listen to him. 16 months was the goal, but as soon as he got in office he was going to talk to commanders on the ground and he was always going to keep a significant amount of troops in the region to protect American interests, just not combat troops. He then asked the commanders on day one to come up with a couple plans, one of which was 16 months, and then he would review them all. They came back with the plans a few weeks later. He and his national security team decided that 16 months was too quick but it could be done in 19 months, and then all of the troops, including the 50,000 will be out by the end of 2011. He even called Bush to discuss it with him before the announcement. That's not going back on a promise that is keeping a promise. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...aP9hg-hCq68EQeA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Actually, he did pretty much exactly as he said he would. No one, of course, really likes to actually listen to him. 16 months was the goal, but as soon as he got in office he was going to talk to commanders on the ground and he was always going to keep a significant amount of troops in the region to protect American interests, just not combat troops. He then asked the commanders on day one to come up with a couple plans, one of which was 16 months, and then he would review them all. They came back with the plans a few weeks later. He and his national security team decided that 16 months was too quick but it could be done in 19 months, and then all of the troops, including the 50,000 will be out by the end of 2011. He even called Bush to discuss it with him before the announcement. That's not going back on a promise that is keeping a promise. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...aP9hg-hCq68EQeA Stop ruining the talking points please. Obama got us into that mess, so stop deflecting the blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Stop ruining the talking points please. Obama got us into that mess, so stop deflecting the blame. It cracks me up that people just don't listen to him. For example: • At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H., on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Tim Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." • At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the joint chiefs of staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed." • At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief." • On Meet the Press on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal — one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years." Taken in their entirety, Obama's comments reflect a philosophy of "about 16 months" for withdrawal. He also appears to be willing to take advice from commanders on the ground that might affect the general pace, but not the overall goal of withdrawal. Yet Obama has been artful in his rhetoric. His campaign has clearly emphasized "16 months" when speaking to antiwar audiences and "about 16 months" when answering questions from withdrawal skeptics. But Obama never urged a "precipitous" withdrawal; even a bill he offered in January 2007 that set a deadline for getting out of Iraq contained an exemption for national security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Technically, we've never withdrawn our troops from Europe after WWII either. I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 It cracks me up that people just don't listen to him. I'm okay with "about 16 months" if that means 19-20 months. Whatever. The point is that after 16 months, we'll still have 50K troops in Iraq! That's not what voters expected and you're a fool to argue otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What other promises will Obama break? I am anxiously awaiting his "line by line" slashing of the government budget. I'm sure that's coming any day now. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washingt...roops.html?_r=1 Leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq qhile at the same time increasing the presence in Afghanistan is not much of a withdrawal. Obama will succeed in spending more than Bush during his term--didn't almost think that would be possible. (I smell a 1 term president here so it probably doesn't matter as much.) So far he's doing just about everything I expected he would. Namely: break most of his campaign promises. Don't see how he couldn't, though...his promises were unrealistic to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I'm okay with "about 16 months" if that means 19-20 months. Whatever. The point is that after 16 months, we'll still have 50K troops in Iraq! That's not what voters expected and you're a fool to argue otherwise. If it's not what was expected why are all the leaders in his own party upset with this announcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Technically, we've never withdrawn our troops from Europe after WWII either. I guess. ....and Korea.......and Japan.......and Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 ....and Korea.......and Japan.......and ....Richmond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 If it's not what was expected why are all the leaders in his own party upset with this announcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 It cracks me up that people just don't listen to him. That's the point, it's all about being sensational. If you have to think about an argument for more that 30 seconds then you're just talking egghead crap, not what real America wants to know. If you have to explain your position, even more of the same - real America's not listening. If you dare to <gasp> change your position based on new evidence, well you're just a flip-flopper and should be ridiculed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I'm okay with "about 16 months" if that means 19-20 months. Whatever. The point is that after 16 months, we'll still have 50K troops in Iraq! That's not what voters expected and you're a fool to argue otherwise. A large portion of the people who like him and voted for him don't actually listen to him either. That's not his or my fault. The funny point to me, is that what he has always said he would do, and what he just did, was exactly what you would want a President to do. Have a plan and a strong opinion about that plan. Tell the people on the ground and your commanders and joint chiefs and security team to see how they can put that plan into action, but be reasonable and not too strict about it. Listen to them when they come back with their report, and then adjust your plan and wishes accordingly. The commanders thought 16 months was too quick, and the 30,000 or so troops that Obama wanted originally to keep there was too few. So he compromised, they agreed they could do this, and now they are instituting it. That's a leader in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What other promises will Obama break? I am anxiously awaiting his "line by line" slashing of the government budget. I'm sure that's coming any day now. Holding him to promises he made about the Iraq war when his intel could fit in a thimble is somewhat excusable. He honestly had no clue what he was talking about, no one pressed him on it, so it went to the wayside. Despite my political leanings, anything that came out of his mouth about Iraq was, to me, blather. However, there are some things he has promised that I completely expect him to hold up to. One was from his speech the other night: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values." That's very important to me, and I look forward to him keeping that promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 So far he's doing just about everything I expected he would. Namely: break most of his campaign promises. Don't see how he couldn't, though...his promises were unrealistic to begin with. http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts