BHO Iraq policy, 2 strikes and you're out?

[lupi]

CNN) ? A day after his Republican counterpart sat down with visiting Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, Barack Obama spoke with him by phone from Chicago Monday morning and told him that he looked forward to seeing him in Baghdad before November.

?I emphasized to him how encouraged I was by the reductions in violence in Iraq, but also insisted that it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing US troops, making clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq,? Obama told reporters upon landing in Michigan for a two-day swing through the state.

The Illinois senator misspoke when he argued that Zebari and ?President Maliki? are concerned about Iraq?s sovereignty and are not seeking a long-term occupation by the United States. Jalal al-Talabani is the president of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki is the prime minister.

?I gave [Zebari] an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously,? said Obama.

Obama said Zebari did not express concern about a withdrawal of American troops, saying, ?He did emphasize his belief that we've made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress.?

So, not only has he already decided that the Pentagon doesn't need or want any bases in Iraq, we have another statement that the great troop pullout of 2008 is a figment of the leftist loons imagination. With all these flip-flops it's getting hard to tell which side he's trying to pander to.

 

[jpeyton]

Text

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

 

[lupi]

For reading comprehension.

?I gave [Zebari] an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously,? said Obama.

 

[StageLeft]

Embittered Hillary supporter alert, be careful. Spam-shields on full!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

meanwhile leaving 50-60,000 'non-combat' troops in iraq.

it's his own whitepaper.

i think many obama supporters are going to be sorely disappointed about the 'withdrawal'

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: lupi
For reading comprehension.

?I gave [Zebari] an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously,? said Obama.

For reading comprehension purposes, lupi maybe needs to realize that Obama may not define all parts of the GWB agenda in Iraq as progress. And that may also apply to permanent US bases in Iraq.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: lupi

So, not only has he already decided that the Pentagon doesn't need or want any bases in Iraq, we have another statement that the great troop pullout of 2008 is a figment of the leftist loons imagination. With all these flip-flops it's getting hard to tell which side he's trying to pander to.

You realize that the idea that we would have no permanent bases in Iraq goes all the way back to before the invasion, right?

 

[UberNeuman]

I'm just wondering what the OP believes would have been the Hilary Clinton approach to handling Iraq.

What he thinks how his "Messiah" would deal with it.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I'm just wondering what the OP believes would have been the Hilary Clinton approach to handling Iraq.

what does Hillary have to do with this?

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I'm just wondering what the OP believes would have been the Hilary Clinton approach to handling Iraq.

what does Hillary have to do with this?

What the hell do you mean? lupi, like yourself, are Hillary Clinton supporters - so I ask him and you - How would she have handled Iraq?

Bet it would be much like Mr. Barack Hussein Obama has planned....

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I'm just wondering what the OP believes would have been the Hilary Clinton approach to handling Iraq.

what does Hillary have to do with this?

You know as well as we all do that he's a sour-grapes Hillary supporter who, as some coping mechanism is villifying the candidate closest to the one he liked. But really, reason is not applicable here.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: lupi
For reading comprehension.

?I gave [Zebari] an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously,? said Obama.

Only a fool would buy into the false pretense that progress can only be achieved in Iraq through sustained American military presence.

Chalk another one up for the Bush-McCain messaging team, I guess :thumbsup:

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I'm just wondering what the OP believes would have been the Hilary Clinton approach to handling Iraq.

what does Hillary have to do with this?

You know as well as we all do that he's a sour-grapes Hillary supporter who, as some coping mechanism is villifying the candidate closest to the one he liked. But really, reason is not applicable here.

I support Hillary and she is also for a phased withdrawal of troops.

I don't get what you're trying to suggest.

By the way, I hope you noticed in the title: His initials are BHO. That's Hussein. How on earth can he have credibility when talking about Iraq? You know -- like Saddam Hussein? How can we spell it out any clearer?

 

[b0mbrman]

Wow, way to parse, OP.

For everyone else, here's the video in its entirety:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid...ot.obama.iraq.trip.cnn

For those unable to click, here's more of this quote:

"I gave [Zebari] an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously," said Obama.

"...but we will move to end US combat forces in Iraq in a manner that is as careful as we were careless getting in."

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Wow, way to parse, OP.

For everyone else, here's the video in its entirety:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid...ot.obama.iraq.trip.cnn

For those unable to click, here's more of this quote:

"I gave [Zebari] an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously," said Obama.

"...but we will move to end US combat forces in Iraq in a manner that is as careful as we were careless getting in."

If by parsing you meant I copied the entire story as it was written on CNN, then yes. :roll:

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Wow, way to parse, OP.

For everyone else, here's the video in its entirety:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid...ot.obama.iraq.trip.cnn

For those unable to click, here's more of this quote:

"I gave [Zebari] an assurance that should we be elected, an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq, that we won't act precipitously," said Obama.

"...but we will move to end US combat forces in Iraq in a manner that is as careful as we were careless getting in."

If by parsing you meant I copied the entire story as it was written on CNN, then yes. :roll:

Would you mind answering what you believe Hillary would have done concerning Iraq?

 

[lupi]

Hillary has nothing to do with this thread or the condition in Iraq so I'll keep it on topic. Something the Husseinbots can't seem to do.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: lupi
Hillary has nothing to do with this thread or the condition in Iraq so I'll keep it on topic. Something the Husseinbots can't seem to do.

It's very much on topic as you has presented yourself as a Hillary supporter that's bitter about her not winning.

So again, sir. I ask you - what would her policies concerning Iraq have been.

 

[Lemon law]

Lupi may have a minor point, the metric of what would Hillary do is now irrelevant, the metric of what would GWB do will become totally irrelevant on 1/20/2009, and even before he posted it, lupi's read of what Obama would really do is totally lost in somewhat vague language of what progress is and unknowable future conditions.

The last time I checked, lupi has no ability to speak for Obama in any way.

Yet Lupi sets himself as some sort of unassailable baseball umpire with the supernatural ability to define " two strikes and you are out."

Lupi is truly a legend in his own mind and is best ignored. Its simply mind over matter, if we pay him no mind he will not matter. And for that matter, lupi can't even speak for Hillary either.

 

[palehorse]

Well, Lupi can speak for Lupi... so perhaps the best way to find out the answer is to ask the question this way:

Lupi, concerning future troop-levels in Iraq, what would YOU like to see the next President do?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Well, Lupi can speak for Lupi... so perhaps the best way to find out the answer is to ask the question this way:

Lupi, concerning future troop-levels in Iraq, what would YOU like to see the next President do?

Considering he is not a "bot," he surely has his own opinion?


As for Obama... its pretty much what he's been saying for a long time now.

 

[Jhhnn]

From lupi-

So, not only has he already decided that the Pentagon doesn't need or want any bases in Iraq, we have another statement that the great troop pullout of 2008 is a figment of the leftist loons imagination. With all these flip-flops it's getting hard to tell which side he's trying to pander to.

Our military has huge bases in Kuwait and Qatar already, lupi, where they're welcome by both the population and the govt. As for needs or wants, they want the world if they can have it, but need only what's required to do the job assigned by their civilian superiors. If the occupation of Iraq is not part of their mission, they won't need bases there, obviously.

Looking past the end of your nose, the surge troops are set for withdrawal prior to our election, bringing total troop strength down to ~130K prior to Obama taking office. At the rate of withdrawal suggested, all the troops other than a few thousand at most will be out in about a year's time. that's obviously not precipitous, and will satisfy all but the most ardent anti-occupation sentiments.

From ElFenix-

meanwhile leaving 50-60,000 'non-combat' troops in iraq.

it's his own whitepaper.

I've read the whitepaper, and didn't find that. Quote and link, Please.

 

[lupi]

I do enjoy these politics of change. Isn't that the new phrase for blind obedience while different position statements are said depending on whom the audience is. I see virtually no way the in country political structure will be sound enough after the election to reduce troop levels much before the pre surge levels. Now we have BHO stating he won't take any action that would result in a precipitous change in the country while some of you still believe he's going to be pulling a division out every 2 months. Look at afghan; they've got a relatively stable political structure yet due to the instability of their neighbors they still require foreign troop commitments to battle rebels fighters. Hell, even the south vietnamese managed to fight off the NVA for several years once US troops were pulled back, they didn't start to crumble until monetary and military supply assistance was also pulled away.

It's all smoke and mirrors, and those expecting to be able to head to the airport on the day he swears in and see troops start to unload without a more stable civic system in place or a total collapse of the region are just hiding from the truth as learned from centuries of history.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: lupi
So, not only has he already decided that the Pentagon doesn't need or want any bases in Iraq, we have another statement that the great troop pullout of 2008 is a figment of the leftist loons imagination. With all these flip-flops it's getting hard to tell which side he's trying to pander to.

Yeah we don't want or need bases, in fact neither do the Iraqi's.

Pretty simple even for the dimmest bulbs.

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I'm just wondering what the OP believes would have been the Hilary Clinton approach to handling Iraq.

what does Hillary have to do with this?

Well he was vehemently supporting her, and her policies are near-identical to Obama's. If he's suddenly found a distaste for Obama's positions, does it mean he doesn't like hers as well?