Obama on the campaign trail, "Ill end the war"

[AAjax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007>

What a flagrant liar. Apologists, you may now commence your work.

 

[Elias824]

This is one promise im glad that he has not followed through on.

 

[alchemize]

He had clearly firmed up his position after that. Nobody with any brains voted for him thinking he was doing anything terribly different than McCain, an orderly, slow withdrawal.

 

[Fern]

He had clearly firmed up his position after that. Nobody with any brains voted for him thinking he was doing anything terribly different than McCain, an orderly, slow withdrawal.

Or Bush for that matter.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007>

What a flagrant liar. Apologists, you may now commence your work.

He immediately changed the troop withdrawal date from a nebulous one dictated by the Iraqi government saying that was the last day they would allow them, to one a year and a half sooner, ramping up troop withdrawals. I think he followed through on his promise perfectly well.

What did you think he meant? That on the day he was inagurated he would buy everyone over there a plane ticket and leave? Only a moron (or someone looking to deliberately misconstrue statements due to extreme partisan bias) would think that. Obama has taken concrete steps to end the war in Iraq and he appears to be following through on them.

 

[fskimospy]

Or Bush for that matter.

Fern

That's not at all correct. Bush agreed to a date for withdrawal only after extreme pressure by the Iraqi government and he left plenty of wiggle room for an indefinite US military operative presence there. McCain endorsed this same timeline. Obama's timeline is an awful lot shorter than theirs, and it is self imposed. If a year and a half (or so) isn't 'much different' to you, I suggest you ask people over there how long a year feels like.

 

[Lemon law]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007>

What a flagrant liar. Apologists, you may now commence your work.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To start out, we have to ask which war? I believe Obama was referring to Iraq and not Afghanistan. In Iraq we are already committed to an exit plan, which the UN had already imposed on GWB. So no lie there in a Iraq war Obama opposed before it began.

The Obama pledge in Afghanistan was quite different, and only after Obama presidency had committed more ground troops to Afghanistan did we learn how FUBARed the GWB&co strategy had left Afghanistan. As we learned that 85% of Afghanistan was under Taliban control while GWB was clueless about what a fuckup he was.

In short, its going to be far harder to win in Afghanistan now than when we initially invaded in 2002. And now Obama is wrestling about how to fix Afghanistan, and unhappy with any options given to him by his staff of Generals. But he will soon have to get off the pot or shit, and take his plan to the American people.

After that, we have to learn to take campaign promises with a grain of salt.

Eisenhower promised to win in Korea and at best got an uneasy Mexican standoff that still exists today. No win by any stretch of the imagination.

Nixon promised us a Vietnamese victory by the end of his first term. He did not deliver.
In his second term he adopted the McGovern peace plan, relabeled it peace with honor,
so we could pretend we won after losing.

And who can ever forget, "read my lips, no new taxes."

Reality is a bitch.

 

[werepossum]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To start out, we have to ask which war? I believe Obama was referring to Iraq and not Afghanistan. In Iraq we are already committed to an exit plan, which the UN had already imposed on GWB. So no lie there in a Iraq war Obama opposed before it began.

The Obama pledge in Afghanistan was quite different, and only after Obama presidency had committed more ground troops to Afghanistan did we learn how FUBARed the GWB&co strategy had left Afghanistan. As we learned that 85% of Afghanistan was under Taliban control while GWB was clueless about what a fuckup he was.

In short, its going to be far harder to win in Afghanistan now than when we initially invaded in 2002. And now Obama is wrestling about how to fix Afghanistan, and unhappy with any options given to him by his staff of Generals. But he will soon have to get off the pot or shit, and take his plan to the American people.

After that, we have to learn to take campaign promises with a grain of salt.

Eisenhower promised to win in Korea and at best got an uneasy Mexican standoff that still exists today. No win by any stretch of the imagination.

Nixon promised us a Vietnamese victory by the end of his first term. He did not deliver.
In his second term he adopted the McGovern peace plan, relabeled it peace with honor,
so we could pretend we won after losing.

And who can ever forget, "read my lips, no new taxes."

Reality is a bitch.

Dude, Nixon campaigned on getting us OUT of Viet Nam, not winning it. Vietnamization, making the Vietnamese fight their own war, while Ho Chi Min jerked us around for months arguing about the size and shape of the freakin' conference table. It was after all February '68, before Nixon was elected, when Walter Cronkite (a prototype for Harry Reid) said the war in Viet Nam was lost. The draw down began in '69 (as did our moral and discipline problems when the soldiers realized we had lost) and accelerated in '70, we reached sub-'66 troop levels in '71, and we were chased out, people clinging to helicopter skids for their lives, in '73, when Nixon was just starting his second term. This was due to the Case-Church Amendment, which ended the president's constitutional right to fight in Viet Nam as the president's authority is subject to Congressional authority. Honestly, no one with a computer should ever be this fucking stupid.

You may not like the results in Korea, but for the South Koreans, enjoying one of the world's most successful and dynamic civilizations whilst their countrymen across the DMZ regularly drop dead on the streets of starvation, you can bet your pinko commie ass it looks like a victory. Still, it's nice to see you support your country except when we're fighting, um, anyone.

Withdraw your cranial region from the DNC's collective ass sometime and visit reality. You'll be amazed at the changes since your last visit.

 

[Darwin333]

That's not at all correct. Bush agreed to a date for withdrawal only after extreme pressure by the Iraqi government and he left plenty of wiggle room for an indefinite US military operative presence there. McCain endorsed this same timeline. Obama's timeline is an awful lot shorter than theirs, and it is self imposed. If a year and a half (or so) isn't 'much different' to you, I suggest you ask people over there how long a year feels like.

How much you want to bet that there are still significant US forces in Iraq at the end of Obama's presidency?

 

[JEDIYoda]

To start out, we have to ask which war? I believe Obama was referring to Iraq and not Afghanistan. In Iraq we are already committed to an exit plan, which the UN....UN blah blah blah..a paper tiger the UN does not nor did it have the power to impose jack shit ]on GWB...get over it lemon..the Un is a paper tiger. had already imposed on GWB. So no lie there in a Iraq war Obama opposed before it began.

The Obama pledge in Afghanistan was quite different, and only after Obama presidency had committed more ground troops to Afghanistan did we learn how FUBARed the GWB&co strategy had left Afghanistan. As we learned that 85% of Afghanistan was under Taliban control while GWB was clueless about what a fuckup he was.

In short, its going to be far harder to win in Afghanistan now than when we initially invaded in 2002. And now Obama is wrestling about how to fix Afghanistan, and unhappy with any options given to him by his staff of Generals. But he will soon have to get off the pot or shit, and take his plan to the American people.

After that, we have to learn to take campaign promises with a grain of salt.

Eisenhower promised to win in Korea and at best got an uneasy Mexican standoff that still exists today. No win by any stretch of the imagination.

Nixon promised us a Vietnamese victory by the end of his first term. He did not deliver.
In his second term he adopted the McGovern peace plan, relabeled it peace with honor,
so we could pretend we won after losing.

And who can ever forget, "read my lips, no new taxes."

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007>

What a flagrant liar. Apologists, you may now commence your work.

rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

 

[Fern]

That's not at all correct. Bush agreed to a date for withdrawal only after extreme pressure by the Iraqi government and he left plenty of wiggle room for an indefinite US military operative presence there. McCain endorsed this same timeline. Obama's timeline is an awful lot shorter than theirs, and it is self imposed. If a year and a half (or so) isn't 'much different' to you, I suggest you ask people over there how long a year feels like.

How much you want to bet that there are still significant US forces in Iraq at the end of Obama's presidency?

Yeah, that's likely. But hacks will be spinning the meaning of "significant".

We were no longer in the 'driver's seat' by the end of Bush's term. What's gonna happen as far as withdrawl is unlikely to be effected by who's in office. I think it more likely a matter of what happens on the ground over there, and what the Iraqi gov wants.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, that's likely. But hacks will be spinning the meaning of "significant".

We were no longer in the 'driver's seat' by the end of Bush's term. What's gonna happen as far as withdrawl is unlikely to be effected by who's in office. I think it more likely a matter of what happens on the ground over there, and what the Iraqi gov wants.

Fern

Which is as it should be. If they can take care of themselves and protect their democracy, then it's time for us to move on.

 

[werepossum]

rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

LOL SouthPark reference FTW.

 

[Robor]

He immediately changed the troop withdrawal date from a nebulous one dictated by the Iraqi government saying that was the last day they would allow them, to one a year and a half sooner, ramping up troop withdrawals. I think he followed through on his promise perfectly well.

What did you think he meant? That on the day he was inagurated he would buy everyone over there a plane ticket and leave? Only a moron (or someone looking to deliberately misconstrue statements due to extreme partisan bias) would think that. Obama has taken concrete steps to end the war in Iraq and he appears to be following through on them.

The OP is both.

 

[AAjax]

The OP is both.

Awww, I luv u 2

 

[Robor]

Awww, I luv u 2

Nice trool thread.

 

[Darwin333]

Yeah, that's likely. But hacks will be spinning the meaning of "significant".

We were no longer in the 'driver's seat' by the end of Bush's term. What's gonna happen as far as withdrawl is unlikely to be effected by who's in office. I think it more likely a matter of what happens on the ground over there, and what the Iraqi gov wants.

Fern

While I do think you are correct, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. We will continue to have significant military forces in Iraq for quite a while to protect our nations vital interests. A good argument can be made that its not worth going over there for that but once we are there we damn sure ain't gonna give it up.

I am willing to take bets that we will continue to maintain significant forces in Iraq, including multiple "bases". We still have bases in friggen Germany, does anyone really think we are gonna give up a military staging area in a region that we desperately need to remain stable but have very few other places to stage our military should it be needed (or should we say its needed)?

I am not agreeing with it but it is what it is.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, that's likely. But hacks will be spinning the meaning of "significant".

We were no longer in the 'driver's seat' by the end of Bush's term. What's gonna happen as far as withdrawl is unlikely to be effected by who's in office. I think it more likely a matter of what happens on the ground over there, and what the Iraqi gov wants.

Fern

I think if US troops are no longer engaged in any sort of combat in Iraq by the end of Obama's term, people will call that good enough, and I think that's probably a reasonable measure.

While there might be strategic and political reasons to have/not have troops in Iraq, I imagine the average American cares more about if we're spending a truckload of cash on operations there or if their sons or daughters are going to get killed.

 

[Lemon law]

I am not sure if we can all agree with the Eskimospy point of, "I think if US troops are no longer engaged in any sort of combat in Iraq by the end of Obama's term, people will call that good enough, and I think that's probably a reasonable measure.

While there might be strategic and political reasons to have/not have troops in Iraq, I imagine the average American cares more about if we're spending a truckload of cash on operations there or if their sons or daughters are going to get killed."

Face the facts, the American people don't care how much money is wasted in foreign quagmires, we don't give a shit about how many innocent foreign people we kill or inconvenience with our brainfarts, we do not care that we are sowing the seeds of future instability, and we no longer care about the few American troops that pay the forfeit, because we have an all volunteer army.

But in Vietnam it was the draft, and Nixon fixed that by buying off the parents of the middle class who no longer had to worry about their sons too stupid to get a college deferment becoming involuntary canon fodder.

And now, yea horrah, we can mis use voluntary US elistees with absolute political impunity. And send them off into any number of senseless and bungled quagmires without risking an domestic anti war movement backlash.

 

[Patranus]

"Unemployment wont go above 8%"

 

[Harvey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

What a flagrant liar. Apologists, you may now commence your work.

What makes you think it's possible to suddenly turn off a war and safely remove tens or hundreds of thousands of our troops and civilians from a war your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents?

Why don't right wingnuts like you want to remember who fucked up the war they should have and COULD have won in Afghanistan and squandered the lives of thousands of American troops and trillions of dollars in their ILLEGAL war of LIES in Iraq?

If you deny any of that, YOU are the flagrant liar and apologist.

 

[Ozoned]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007>

What a flagrant liar. Apologists, you may now commence your work.

Heh. We bailed out the "Bank".

Obama said he wasn't comfortable in doing what it takes to maintain an electable image. I am sure that the lies he had/has to tell keep him from sleeping at night.

 

[bbdub333]

What makes you think it's possible to suddenly turn off a war and safely remove tens or hundreds of thousands of our troops and civilians from a war

I donno... what made Obama think it's possible?

 

[blackangst1]

I donno... what made Obama think it's possible?

Because, as the apologists have already stated, his comment was taken out of context.

I will get our troops home.

(just not all of them)

We will bring an end to this war.

(in the form it is today)

You can take that to the bank.

(if its still around)


His words arent meant to be taken literally.