"Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog Intermittently."
13 November 2009
"You can take that to the bank"
Quote: "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, October 27, 2007
Bush really started the pullout (wisely), and Obama is continuing that plan (wisely). Nothing has changed in terms of strategy - we're leaving Iraq in a fairly timely manner. Now that might change, but there isn't any indication at this moment of that.
In fairness, one of the first things Obama did after being elected was set up timelines for the gradual withdrawal. It would be dangerous and ill advised to withdraw all troops at once.
As of the end of September, 2009, there were 129,000 troops in Iraq.
President Bush made the decision and started to draw down the number of troops in Iraq. President Obama based a HUGE amount of his campaign on how "stupid" the war in Iraq is and how the draw down would be "the first thing" he'd do as President.
Fine.
So what has happened? Nothing. In fact, after being assured by absolutely everyone that Bush was the most inept leader ever in the history of the universe, Obama has largely continued to follow the plan Bush had established.
Seabass - I'm glad you now acknowledge that it would be "dangerous and ill advised to withdraw all troops at once."
Where were you 5 years ago, 3 years ago, hell - right before the election when all we heard at Obama rallies (besides the incessant "yes we can") is "Bring the troops home now!"? I don't remember hearing too many Obama supporters saying "Maybe we ought to slow down and devote some thought to this . . ."
Deana, if there are only 129,000 troops in Iraq, then we are down twenty percent from the bush-years peak of 160,000. That's not enough, but it is a start.
Obama didn't act fast enough? On February 27, 2009 he laid out the withdrawal plan to have all troops out of Iraq by August, 2010.
Also, its not as if you can just immediately withdrawal 20,000 or so troops. Its just not tenable, and one of THE major problems of any war occupation. If anyone truly thought Obama was going to be able to immediately withdraw tens of thousands of troops, then you deserve to be disappointed.
What I find eerie is how little Afghanistan is mentioned, by anyone! What did Obama call it? The right war or the necessary war. Where’s the peace movement I wonder? Is everyone just worried about their vaccine?
Of course we need those xtra 40,000 troops now that the shrink has shot up Ft. Hood. Heh.
He was right about it being "stupid" at least. Just like Bush, Obama has too many oligarchs to answer to, too many people who profit from such wars. Another reason why you shouldn't vote for Democrats or Republicans.
Bush really started the pullout (wisely), and Obama is continuing that plan (wisely). Nothing has changed in terms of strategy - we're leaving Iraq in a fairly timely manner. Now that might change, but there isn't any indication at this moment of that.
ReplyDeleteNot sure your point really hits home.
In fairness, one of the first things Obama did after being elected was set up timelines for the gradual withdrawal. It would be dangerous and ill advised to withdraw all troops at once.
ReplyDelete@Seabass he absolutely did not.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the state of banks currently it is probably exactly where you can take that promise.
As of the end of September, 2009, there were 129,000 troops in Iraq.
ReplyDeletePresident Bush made the decision and started to draw down the number of troops in Iraq. President Obama based a HUGE amount of his campaign on how "stupid" the war in Iraq is and how the draw down would be "the first thing" he'd do as President.
Fine.
So what has happened? Nothing. In fact, after being assured by absolutely everyone that Bush was the most inept leader ever in the history of the universe, Obama has largely continued to follow the plan Bush had established.
Seabass - I'm glad you now acknowledge that it would be "dangerous and ill advised to withdraw all troops at once."
Where were you 5 years ago, 3 years ago, hell - right before the election when all we heard at Obama rallies (besides the incessant "yes we can") is "Bring the troops home now!"? I don't remember hearing too many Obama supporters saying "Maybe we ought to slow down and devote some thought to this . . ."
And here is the cite for the number of troops in Iraq:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/30/us.iraq.troops/index.html
Deana, if there are only 129,000 troops in Iraq, then we are down twenty percent from the bush-years peak of 160,000. That's not enough, but it is a start.
ReplyDeleteObama didn't act fast enough? On February 27, 2009 he laid out the withdrawal plan to have all troops out of Iraq by August, 2010.
What's your point?
Also, its not as if you can just immediately withdrawal 20,000 or so troops. Its just not tenable, and one of THE major problems of any war occupation. If anyone truly thought Obama was going to be able to immediately withdraw tens of thousands of troops, then you deserve to be disappointed.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find eerie is how little Afghanistan is mentioned, by anyone! What did Obama call it? The right war or the necessary war. Where’s the peace movement I wonder? Is everyone just worried about their vaccine?
ReplyDeleteOf course we need those xtra 40,000 troops now that the shrink has shot up Ft. Hood. Heh.
I promise you the Moon if you vote for me!
ReplyDeleteand you can take that to the bank.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? their lips are moving.
"how "stupid" the war in Iraq"
ReplyDeleteHe was right about it being "stupid" at least. Just like Bush, Obama has too many oligarchs to answer to, too many people who profit from such wars. Another reason why you shouldn't vote for Democrats or Republicans.