Obama finds 'consensus' in Iraq for U.S. troop withdrawal

Dungheap said:
What a bunch of horseshit.

McCain has not stated all along that once conditions improve troops can leave, instead he has repeatedly insisted that the once conditions improve the troops can stay indefinitely.

In fact, as recently as earlier this month McCain insisted that the troops had to stay because conditions improved and that Obama was wrong for pressign for withdrawal because it would undermine the security gains.

According to John McCain, the whole point of keeping troops in Iraq is to ensure that the security gains will not be lost, at which point we can keep troops in Iraq indefinitely so long as they aren't being killed, say for 100 years, maybe 10,000.

Superfreak is deep in the tank for McCain. You should be on the payroll.
Click to expand...


Actually you are quite wrong.

Once again you use the "100 years" mantra of bullshit from your lords and masters on the left. As he stated, there is nothing wrong with keeping troops in Iraq if the situation were like that of Germany or Japan. As he stated, people in the US would not care if they were there if that was the case.

He did NOT state that we should keep 150,000 troops in Iraq forever. That is simply more bullshit that you have parroted quite well. Now go get your cracker.
 
Dungheap said:
No, it's obvious you're a Republican because you are intellectual dishonest and completely full of shit.
Click to expand...

LMAO... right DUNGheap... your name is quite fitting for you. You brainwashed twits from the left are no better than those on the right. you think that anyone who opposes you on an issue must be from the other party. You idiots cannot fathom how someone could possibly share some positions with a party, but not like the party as a whole.

If ever you develop the ability to think for yourself, perhaps then we can discuss the errors of your brainwashed days as a Democrat apologist willing to suck up any talking point they feed you like a good little dem idiot.
 
Superfreak said:
Actually you are quite wrong.

Once again you use the "100 years" mantra of bullshit from your lords and masters on the left. As he stated, there is nothing wrong with keeping troops in Iraq if the situation were like that of Germany or Japan. As he stated, people in the US would not care if they were there if that was the case.

He did NOT state that we should keep 150,000 troops in Iraq forever. That is simply more bullshit that you have parroted quite well. Now go get your cracker.
Click to expand...


Sure, he never said that we should keep them there forever, he just never said when they should come home, just that they could stay forever and no one will care if they aren't dying, not that he was proposing that or anything. Right?

Oh, right, 2013 or something.


...adding, coming from the guy parroting McCain talking points the whole "cracker" thing is hilarious. I suppose this is you version of the old Rovian tactic of attacking your opponent on your position weakness.
 
Dungheap said:
Sure, he never said that we should keep them there forever, he just never said when they should come home, just that they could stay forever and no one will care if they aren't dying, not that he was proposing that or anything. Right?

Oh, right, 2013 or something.


...adding, coming from the guy parroting McCain talking points the whole "cracker" thing is hilarious. I suppose this is you version of the old Rovian tactic of attacking your opponent on your position weakness.
Click to expand...

You mean like....

"No, it's obvious you're a Republican because you are intellectual dishonest and completely full of shit. "

You could not argue with what I stated, so you resorted to the above quote.

As for McCain, yes, he never stated a specific time that they would depart. That is kind of the point of the "don't set a timetable" part of his position. But he did state that they would come home when commanders on the ground felt conditions were at the point that they could safely bring them out of Iraq.

Unlike your messiah who proclaimed the surge a failure before it began. Who proclaimed he would bring them home in the first sixteen months regardless of whether that would be prudent or not. (a position he now has wisely reversed )
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... funny how your party bowed down and kissed Bush every step of the way. What exactly have they done to stop the war? Oh yeah, nothing.

Bottom line, yes, Bush fucked us all by getting us into this war. But did that prompt the pelosi/reid twits to eliminating the war powers act? No.

Funny how the left continually trys to associate Bush and McCain anytime their precious Obama is caught in the wrong position. Diversion worked well for Bush and apparently the Obama camp is the new Bush.

Side note... it is not "my party" and never has been. My contempt for how both parties have screwed up this country should be apparent. But I know, since I am fiscally conservative that must mean I am a Rep. Just like BAC MUST be a Dem because of his views. One day the twits in both parties will realize that there are people who cannot stand either party, but that will vote in elections.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok. How many times have you voted for Bush? You've been one the biggest republican apologist for the last 5 years that I've known you. Don't play coy with me and pretend you may be some kind of 'independent'.
 
LadyT said:
Yeah, ok. How many times have you voted for Bush? You've been one the biggest republican apologist for the last 5 years that I've known you. Don't play coy with me and pretend you may be some kind of 'independent'.
Click to expand...

LMAO... right.

How many times did you vote for the idiots that lost to the worst President in history?

LMAO... it is funny how so many of you on the left try to paint people as apologists for Bush or the Reps. Having an opinion that opposes yours is not apologizing for Bush. Show me one example.... just one... where I apologized for Bush or the Reps.

Disagreeing with you is not apologizing for Bush or the Reps.
 
Dungheap said:
Sure, he never said that we should keep them there forever, he just never said when they should come home, just that they could stay forever and no one will care if they aren't dying, not that he was proposing that or anything. Right?

Oh, right, 2013 or something.


...adding, coming from the guy parroting McCain talking points the whole "cracker" thing is hilarious. I suppose this is you version of the old Rovian tactic of attacking your opponent on your position weakness.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, he gave specific examples that showed what he was speaking about. Bases in Germany are not a continued occupation.
 
Yeah the surge worked and Mission accompolished was declared too.
Might be a bit early to say for sure.
And every few weeks the end of the insurgency was near.

Another 6 months.
 
Superfreak said:
You mean like....

"No, it's obvious you're a Republican because you are intellectual dishonest and completely full of shit. "

You could not argue with what I stated, so you resorted to the above quote.

As for McCain, yes, he never stated a specific time that they would depart. That is kind of the point of the "don't set a timetable" part of his position. But he did state that they would come home when commanders on the ground felt conditions were at the point that they could safely bring them out of Iraq.

Unlike your messiah who proclaimed the surge a failure before it began. Who proclaimed he would bring them home in the first sixteen months regardless of whether that would be prudent or not. (a position he now has wisely reversed )
Click to expand...


Provide evidence for the bolded portion above, specifically, the Obama pledged to bring the troops home within 16 months regardless of whether that would be prudent or not. Perhaps Damo could help you with this once since he made a similar claim yet failed to back it up with any evidence. For ease of reference, I point you to this thread:


[ame="http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=12704"]The surge was successful - Just Plain Politics![/ame]
 
Dungheap said:
Provide evidence for the bolded portion above, specifically, the Obama pledged to bring the troops home within 16 months regardless of whether that would be prudent or not. Perhaps Damo could help you with this once since he made a similar claim yet failed to back it up with any evidence. For ease of reference, I point you to this thread:


http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=12704
Click to expand...

http://www.barackobama.com/media/2007/09/13/obama_time_to_bring_troops_hom.php

The Quad City Times * September 13, 2007

"There's no military solution in Iraq; there never was," Obama said. "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080718/pl_usnw/rnc__obama__the_democrats__and_the_surge

"On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." And in reaction to the president's January 23 State of the Union address, Obama said,

I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum--military and civilian, conservative and liberal--expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it's not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.

In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."
 
Superfreak just proved a point nobody was contending.

SF - he asked you to prove the assertion that he wanted to withdraw in 16 months regardless of conditions on the ground.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Superfreak just proved a point nobody was contending.

SF - he asked you to prove the assertion that he wanted to withdraw in 16 months regardless of conditions on the ground.
Click to expand...

"There's no military solution in Iraq; there never was," Obama said. "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."


are you truly incapable of comprehending that? He said that there is no military solution and that we should begin withdrawal immediately.

I am sure you will try to spin that, but how is that NOT supporting exactly what I said? That he would do so regardless of the conditions?
 
Every post you made is about the surge. I'm waiting for you to post evidence of his pledge to remove all troops in 16 months, not proof that he wanted to begin a scheduled draw-down (duh).
 
ib1yysguy said:
Every post you made is about the surge. I'm waiting for you to post evidence of his pledge to remove all troops in 16 months, not proof that he wanted to begin a scheduled draw-down (duh).
Click to expand...

are you really this retarded? or are you just being an ass? He has stated that at least three times this week alone. Not to mention he said the same damn thing back in early 2007 before the surge even began.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070130-floor_statement_8/

"This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq study group that the President has so assiduously ignored.

The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1st of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than two months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability. "

Note: this was given in January 2007 when Obama was bitching about how no military solution was possible. His timeframe at this point was withdrawal in 14 months. (January 2007-March 2008)
 
Superfreak said:
are you really this retarded? or are you just being an ass? He has stated that at least three times this week alone. Not to mention he said the same damn thing back in early 2007 before the surge even began.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070130-floor_statement_8/

"This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq study group that the President has so assiduously ignored.

The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1st of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than two months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability. "

Note: this was given in January 2007 when Obama was bitching about how no military solution was possible. His timeframe at this point was withdrawal in 14 months. (January 2007-March 2008)
Click to expand...
I'll note that the Generals on the ground had asked for the surge.
 
Damocles said:
I'll note that the Generals on the ground had asked for the surge.
Click to expand...

I think this is a situation quite similar to UScit calling for a recession. Obama calls for a timetable long enough that NOW it is actually possible to begin and he puffs his chest out and says "see I told you so". Even though when he first began parroting the position he was flat out wrong. We'll just ignore that part. Neeeeeeever happened.
 
He was right. It's not that hard to say.

And predicting recession as a consequence of Republican fiscal policy is hardly crystal-ball worthy. It was bound to happen, as it has every time since Nixon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top