McD Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Crazy that you expect to see this happen so soon. I deal with deployments/redeployments everyday. Don't hold your breath...it would take Executive moves of unprecendented magnitude to make this happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Crazy that you expect to see this happen so soon. I deal with deployments/redeployments everyday. Don't hold your breath...it would take Executive moves of unprecendented magnitude to make this happen. You're basing your experience off old school politics But now everything has changed (which you need to believe in) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Oh and by the way for those who deplore leaving behind 35-50k troops after exit...apparently this was an agreement that was entered into between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government. Perhaps President Obama deplores the agreement - and I don't know if he does - but he's going to honor it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 It's fun watching these libs trying to rationalize Obama's abandoning of what he said before the election. Nozzlenut is like a woman that is just realizing her husband is cheating on her, while Kelly is one that has no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 It's fun watching these libs trying to rationalize Obama's abandoning of what he said before the election. Nozzlenut is like a woman that is just realizing her husband is cheating on her, while Kelly is one that has no clue. The difference, of course, being that I provided links and direct quotes from him that show he actually did just what he said he was going to do, and you just spew garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Yeah, because you're supposed to address and complete, in one month, everything you possibly wanted to accomplish in 8 years. Especially if on day one you're entering the worst and most complex combination of crises any President has faced in 50 years. Good lord man, get a grip. It was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The difference, of course, being that I provided links and direct quotes from him that show he actually did just what he said he was going to do, and you just spew garbage. What would you expect them to do when the facts are not on their side? I suppose I will have to find and post the video of Bush signing the agreement to leave troops for a certain time period post-withdrawal. Had Obama decided that we weren't going to honor that treaty...well I can hear the howls from here. Get over it wingnuts. Your boy made a freaking mess and our guy is trying to clean it up as best he can. And all you have to offer is .... well, precisely nothing really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 What would you expect them to do when the facts are not on their side? I suppose I will have to find and post the video of Bush signing the agreement to leave troops for a certain time period post-withdrawal. Had Obama decided that we weren't going to honor that treaty...well I can hear the howls from here. Get over it wingnuts. Your boy made a freaking mess and our guy is trying to clean it up as best he can. And all you have to offer is .... well, precisely nothing really. Ummmm...I know how you love to keep calling this Bush's mistake, but it might help if you're reminded that our current Secretary of State was ALSO convinced we needed to go into Iraq. Is that you singing in the beginning of the video? It's hard to tell. But you look good in pink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Ummmm...I know how you love to keep calling this Bush's mistake, but it might help if you're reminded that our current Secretary of State was ALSO convinced we needed to go into Iraq. Is that you singing in the beginning of the video? It's hard to tell. But you look good in pink. Uh, first, I was never a Hillary supporter. And that's the main reason. I will admit that I would have held my nose and voted for her, but I would have required some anti-nausea meds first. Second I wasn't talking about the start of the war. It's a pretty done deal now and only an idiot would say it was worth it. Or a KBR employeed or shareholder. What I am talking about are the Security agreements that Bush signed in the fall. I realize LalaLand is sort of another world, but Bush signed two agreements with Iraq, and inclusive in the agreement was leaving behind a number of troops. So the furor over President Obama's leaving troops after our heroic retreat from Iraq is misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Ummmm...I know how you love to keep calling this Bush's mistake, but it might help if you're reminded that our current Secretary of State was ALSO convinced we needed to go into Iraq. Is that you singing in the beginning of the video? It's hard to tell. But you look good in pink. IMO, I don't ever think she did. Just my opinion, and the reason I don't like her a lot of the time. I don't think she thought it was a good idea at first but she calculated that it was a bad political move at the time to vote no. Which a lot of spineless democrats did at the time. The republicans did a great job at that time of demonizing anyone against the war as un-American. There were a ton of democratic senators and congressmen that were against the war but voted for it because they were scared not to. Then later, after it went bad, I thought Hilary just 1] couldn't admit she was wrong (in typical Clintonian fashion) and 2] again made a political calculation that she would benefit against Obama by sticking to her guns and appear tough on military issues. Although I think it was mostly the first point, that she just refused to admit she was wrong on such an important issue. Watching her, I never thought she was for the war even when she was saying it flat out. Again, just my opinion, but to me a lot of times you can tell when she is lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Uh, first, I was never a Hillary supporter. And that's the main reason. I will admit that I would have held my nose and voted for her, but I would have required some anti-nausea meds first. Second I wasn't talking about the start of the war. It's a pretty done deal now and only an idiot would say it was worth it. Or a KBR employeed or shareholder. What I am talking about are the Security agreements that Bush signed in the fall. I realize LalaLand is sort of another world, but Bush signed two agreements with Iraq, and inclusive in the agreement was leaving behind a number of troops. So the furor over President Obama's leaving troops after our heroic retreat from Iraq is misplaced. Actually the furor is less over that than... ...wait, what? He's only upholding the last administration's policies? Did you really just write that? Is that the "change we can believe in"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Actually the furor is less over that than... ...wait, what? He's only upholding the last administration's policies? Did you really just write that? Is that the "change we can believe in"? So you would have our President repudiate an agreement with a foreign country? I thought Bush's pullout from the Kyoto Treaty showed a total lack of class. The current President obviously has more integrity. Plus, he consults his military experts - this man acknowledges that others may actually know more than he does. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 We never ratified the Kyoto Treaty. It was turned down 97- or 98-0 during CLINTON'S TERM. Why let facts stand in your way? It punishes clean countries while letting China and India pollute all they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 So you would have our President repudiate an agreement with a foreign country? I thought Bush's pullout from the Kyoto Treaty showed a total lack of class. The current President obviously has more integrity. Plus, he consults his military experts - this man acknowledges that others may actually know more than he does. Nice try though. How do you pull out from a treaty you never signed? And you feel Bush never consulted with the military? What happened to total withdraw with Obama? Oh I see not campaigning to airheads anymore. I will "consult" experts and back off all my campaign slogans for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 How do you pull out from a treaty you never signed? And you feel Bush never consulted with the military? What happened to total withdraw with Obama? Oh I see not campaigning to airheads anymore. I will "consult" experts and back off all my campaign slogans for the time being. The 1997 Kyoto accord was a treaty signed by the United States and 54 other nations. It was never ratified by the Republican Congress although the intent in signing the treaty was obviously that the US would participate. Obama has always stated that he would exit Iraq responsibly and in consultation with military experts. No presidential candidate is in possession of 100% of the facts prior to election...JFK could bear THAT one out since after his inauguration he inherited what ended up being the "Bay of Pigs" invasion planned by Eisenhower and Nixon. Unlike Shrub, Obama is the first to admit that others know better about some things - like military operations - than he does. He's got many of the same people in place that Bush did. Perhaps at 12:01 EST on 1/21/09 they suddenly became incompetent? Because I sure didn't hear wingnuts complaining about them before. Now, go back to your cave. The sun won't be up for another few months and it's clear breaking your hibernation has left you fuzzier than usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Nozzlenut, I looked it up . The vote was 95 to ZERO. How could that be the fault of "the repblican congress" when EVERYONE PRESENT voted against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 So you would have our President repudiate an agreement with a foreign country? I thought Bush's pullout from the Kyoto Treaty showed a total lack of class. The current President obviously has more integrity. Plus, he consults his military experts - this man acknowledges that others may actually know more than he does. Nice try though. No, I wouldn't...but I thought that's why Obama was elected, with his "mandate" to overturn the policies of the previous administration. But with Obama now following them, could you actually be admitting now that the Bush administration was doing some things right? And if you're going to bring up Kyoto, at least have the good sense to know something about it. Congress under Clinton refused to ratify it. Bush had nothing to do with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts