OF course, but it should have been included in the budget and not a special spending bill. At least that is what we have been told the last few years...
OF course, but it should have been included in the budget and not a special spending bill. At least that is what we have been told the last few years...
Did you even bother to read the linked article?
So there's actually a REASON why it's being requested this way, unlike previous admins which did it off the books for no apparent reason whatsoever.
I don't recall Obama ever saying that when he took office Iraq and Afghanistan would suddenly cost us $0.
Article or not, Obama is doing exactly what he promised during the campaign. He said he'd withdraw responsibly from Iraq and try to finish the fight in Afghanistan.
Its funny how republicans see this increase in war spending and start saying to Democrats haha he's breaking his campaign promises. No he's following them to the T.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
How much longer for GOP hacks wake up and realize that they do little more than condemn policies from Obama that they would wholeheartedly (rabidly) support is he were a Republican?
Seriously. Your problem here is that it's transparent, which is why no one takes you seriously. You're an ideologue who's only real ideology is partisan affiliation. It's kind of a shame IMO. It's as though almost every Republican on the planet became a right-wing Dave McOwen.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
They were playing the same game during the campaign, claiming that Obama would pull out of Iraq irresponsibly and end the war on terror completely, even when the whole world knew what Obama's actual campaign promises were. And now, in perfect mindfuck, their game is to fault Obama for keeping this campaign promise because it differs from what they were led to believe during the campaign, even though what they were led to believe was a lie. And that's the scary part IMO. The GOP faithful don't see reality anymore, they just believe what Rush tells them. And it's transparent, which is why the moderates in this country might have plenty of reservations about Obama (and then some), but no way in hell are they going to give power to these wingnutjobs. The only thing the Dems have to fear at this point is that the Pubs wise up, stop listening to Limbaugh et al, and start thinking for themselves and act like the conservatives they're supposed to be (but aren't). I hope they do it soon, because I do not want to see the US become a 1 party state.
Aww come on aphex, you know better than that. Anything against the beloved Obama is trolling now? :roll:
No, not cut funding altogether but put out a specific timetable for withdrawal that include the funds specifically delegated to it.
What's really funny is the fact the people continue to believe and have faith/hope in both the Republicans and Democrats BWAHAHAHA!
The only difference between the 2 sides is how the lies are delivered.
I think its even simpler than that, like D/R, blue/red or donkey/elephant. Different people with the same lies.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Obama has set a timetable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/AR2009032900757.html
No doubt that's contingent on the situation in Iraq remaining stable. They seem to be doing a decent job of it for now so just hope they continue to do so and we can get the hell out of there.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Obama was against the war before he was for it.
I seriously cannot fathom how the Obamabots can justify or otherwise dismiss this change in tone from his Administration.
He is clearly taking the strategy that was already in place, tweaking it a bit and calling it his own.
Granted, I agree he is making the right decision...we need to keep an advisory force in Iraq, and surge in Afghanistan...the only distinction is timing and troop numbers.
The anti-war crowd will be the first to turn on him.
I seriously cannot fathom how the Obamabots can justify or otherwise dismiss this change in tone from his Administration.
He is clearly taking the strategy that was already in place, tweaking it a bit and calling it his own.
Granted, I agree he is making the right decision...we need to keep an advisory force in Iraq, and surge in Afghanistan...the only distinction is timing and troop numbers.
The anti-war crowd will be the first to turn on him.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Vic, we have at least one or two Democrats in this thread who are looking at this news and still believe that Obama is keeping his campaign promise to end the war when it is clear that Obama has thrown that promise away and modified it to one that fits reality.
You see it in nearly every Obama thread. Obama keeps the wiretap program and some liberal comes in and say "I am sure he has a good reason to do this."
People who complained about Bush's deficit could care less about Obama's deficits.
It's the ultimate version of kool-aid drinking. Every Obama flip-flop is excused because they want to believe in Obama as that guy from the campaign trail as opposed to the Obama we now have in office.
- Jul 19, 2001
- 38,572
- 2
- 91
During the campaign, Obama said 16 months. After the election this past February he said 18 months. The article itself notes "He said the measure is required to pay for the new strategy in Afghanistan and the drawdown of combat troops in Iraq." (which was left out of the OP)
My issue with the thread is that it is seemingly based on a faulty premise, that Obama is now backing away from his withdrawal of troops. Yes the timeline stretched out 2 months, but what then is the big issue here? Did anyone expect Obama to just pull ALL funding immediately and let the troops fend for themselves? I just don't get it.
theflyingpig
Banned
- Mar 9, 2008
- 5,616
- 18
- 0
Obama's strategy change is for the better. Secrecy is the new rule. They have learned from the mistakes of the Bush administration, that all of the things that are necessary for a victory must be kept from the public eye. That is why Obama is preaching his so-called transparent government. It is to pacify the public's need to know. The intent is to make us believe we are getting the whole truth, when in fact, we are getting far, far less. It's brilliant really, and it makes me proud to know that I voted for him.
It's called withdrawing responsibly. If there were zero troops on the ground after the main withdraw, civil war would erupt between the shiite and the sunni.
You should take Obama's advice: Know what your talking about before you speak.
As Thomas Ricks, Author of The Gamble put it:
"The bottom line is that President Obama has my sympathy. He has inherited the worst foreign policy situation that any new president has ever taken on. I do think this war was the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy. I think it's a tragedy. I think that George Bush's mistake is something we're going to pay for decades. We don't yet understand how big a mistake this is. "
1. Bush had no strategies, only strategeries.
2. Because they weren't in the white house yet... duh.
Look if you want to talk about doubt standards, yes there is one. Bush does something good and democrats don't care. Obama does the same thing and the democrats hoot and holler. Vice versa for republicans. It's just party politics. You might be mad about this, but as a democrat I could care less.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter