Obama backtracks on Iraq

[Mr-Money]

In his campaign for President, Obama said all troops would be gone after a 16-month phased withdrawal -- beginning from week one. That would mean all troops would leave by mid-2010.

Then, he said he was going to leave 50,000 "non-combat" troops in the country indefinitely.

Now, in a speech still going on as I write this message, Obama is saying all troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

Can I say: lying? Can I say: backtracking? Can I say: procrastinating?

And also, let's not forget that Obama's approval rating is sinking faster than Jimmy Carter's. It is currently also lower than Bush's was at this point in his Presidency. People are catching onto this empty rhetoric, and seeing Obama for the lying cult of personality fraud that he is.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just pointing out this irrefutable fact that he has now broken a campaign promise regarding the 16-month Iraq withdrawal.

[ReiperX]

Things do change. There has been progress in Iraq, but unfortunately I do have to agree with President Bush on this. You can't just set a deadline and move out of a country and leave it unstable. We went in, we toppled the government and now it is unfortunately our responsibility to fix it. We don't want Iraq turning into the next Somolia do we?

Now I don't think we should have been there in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that it is our responsibility to fix it.

[Mr-Money]

At 7/22/09 03:46 PM, ReiperX wrote: We went in, we toppled the government and now it is unfortunately our responsibility to fix it. We don't want Iraq turning into the next Somolia do we?

Now I don't think we should have been there in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that it is our responsibility to fix it.

Well, if you see videos of American soldiers tying hamburgers to a string, and driving their truck down the road as starving children chase after it....

... and if you see that 1,000,000 people have been killed as a result of the US invasion...

... then, maybe, just maybe, you'll see that this already is worse than Somalia, and by staying there, we will make it even worse still.

You cannot agree with President Bush. He has invaded a country, which has directly resulted in over a million deaths. At this point, you should leave.

Regardless, this is not a topic about Iraq. This is about how Obama has lied and changed his deadline again and again.. and he's changing it once more today. This is about how Obama just lies and says stuff to try and bolster his own popularity.

Like, take the Presidential campaign. He tried not to discuss his middle name, Hussein. Then, he goes over to the Middle East and boasts about his middle name being Hussein. He's just pure, two-faced, lying scum.

[Freedomblades]

You cant have a preset deadline for these sorta things. You cant say when troops will be widthdrawed.

Name me one war were the president had previously stated we will be done by "so and so" time and been correct. We cant see into the future, so that means even if we set a deadline for something it might not happen. Hes changing the date based on current situations and facts. Tell me if you can predict exactly when your going to have to get a new car (if you bought it) The sercumstances may change on the make, what its used for, what parts are damaged, etc. Also its not that easy just to pull out troops like that. You need the resources to and you must also make sure the countrys
stable. If you wanna go invade a country you better be ready for the downfall. Same thing happened in WW2. After you guys were done with killing off the reich you had to go and setup a new government and keep the country supplied. Much like now.

Plus if he doesnt want to talk to the US citizens about him middle name he doesnt have to. Dont forget all the dick weeds that called him a muslim and other things over that. Maybe he didn't want to spark that again.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/22/09 03:40 PM, Mr-Money wrote: Can I say: lying?

No, because you have to be able to prove that every statement he made up until today was made KNOWING he was being deceptive and that he never had any intent of doing what he said. Until you can, you can't say lying with any real degree of certainty. Though boy it sounds pretty doesn't it?

Can I say: backtracking?

Maybe, certainly a little of that may be going on here. But as other people have said, situations can change, and as much as I think we can basically all agree we want this adventure over and we want to be out, this is the mess we created. We owe it to the government we installed over there to support them, and not to be swallowed up by their enemies. We also don't want all the lost life and the issues to have all been for naught (Vietnam). So perhaps in the most literal sense he's back tracking on the statement yes, but perhaps there's a good reason for it, that being he got intel that would suggest the original plan needed to be changed.

Can I say: procrastinating?

Again, prove that is what he's actually doing and that he doesn't have a good reason for what he's doing. Sure it could be something like you're suggesting, but we don't know that for sure so why accuse the guy of it unless you have something concrete to suggest it?

And also, let's not forget that Obama's approval rating is sinking faster than Jimmy Carter's. It is currently also lower than Bush's was at this point in his Presidency. People are catching onto this empty rhetoric, and seeing Obama for the lying cult of personality fraud that he is.

Or maybe it's just that people had unrealistic expectations for this president and were hoping he'd come in and suddenly everything would be fixed by now (let's not forget the ridiculousness that is the "First 100 days" benchmark). The country is in a lot of shite right now. Perhaps this is people "seeing through him" as you've said. Or perhaps it's just people continuing to hold him up to an unrealistic standard. I still like a lot of what I hear from him, but it's pretty clear he's shown us he isn't perfect, and the cults that seem to have been built around him should be dissolved, but that should never have happened to me in the first place. He's the president, not Jesus. Stop worshiping him like he's a religious figure

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just pointing out this irrefutable fact that he has now broken a campaign promise regarding the 16-month Iraq withdrawal.

He did, but I think the WHY is critical here. Do you really want him rigidly sticking to the campaign promise even if it means that we lose the allies we've now created in Iraq and everything that's been done over there so far turns out to all be for nothing?

[Memorize]

At 7/22/09 05:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

He did, but I think the WHY is critical here. Do you really want him rigidly sticking to the campaign promise even if it means that we lose the allies we've now created in Iraq and everything that's been done over there so far turns out to all be for nothing?

Considering he was propelled to being the Democrat contender for the white house primarily on the Iraq issue all the way up til election day... shouldn't he be considered a liar?

Obviously things in Iraq didn't change THAT MUCH within this time frame. Bush already had a "withdrawl" signal'd (ie. hope to be out by end of 2011 based on ground conditions) WELL before Obama was even elected.

And it wasn't until after he was sworn in that he switched from a 16 month withdraw with an unspecified size of residual forces to a 19 month withdraw with 50,000 troops left behind (over 1/3 that are currently there).

He might not have been lying, but he certainly implied and played heavily to his base on the idea and condition he would be different than Bush.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/22/09 05:28 PM, Memorize wrote: Considering he was propelled to being the Democrat contender for the white house primarily on the Iraq issue all the way up til election day... shouldn't he be considered a liar?

Again, no, because to me you have to prove that he NEVER had any intention of keeping his promise. Can you prove that? You can try to call him a liar on that, but you don't know he never intended to keep that promise.

Obviously things in Iraq didn't change THAT MUCH within this time frame. Bush already had a "withdrawl" signal'd (ie. hope to be out by end of 2011 based on ground conditions) WELL before Obama was even elected.

Very true, and Obama more and more has moved into line with the Bush estimates, which is why it's so amazing to see Dick Cheney continuously attack Obama and his time tables when these are the same time tables that his president, the one he served under, quoted as well. But it seems ol Dick is hoping his supporters forget that aspect so he can whip them up against Obama.

But as I do believe my post pointed out, the possibility here is that Obama on the campaign trail thought he understood the situation well enough to say "this is when we'll be out" and then when he got in, and gained more access to information and such he said "ah shit...Bush was right..." and has changed his mind. Again, you can prove a campaign promise broken, but you can't prove it's a result of him lying and NEVER having any intent to do what he said he would.

And it wasn't until after he was sworn in that he switched from a 16 month withdraw with an unspecified size of residual forces to a 19 month withdraw with 50,000 troops left behind (over 1/3 that are currently there).

Which in the interest of fairness might lend credence to my point that perhaps he went into office without a clear understanding of the situation. That he thought things were A and then was given more to suggest that they were B and that maybe Bush and company's estimates weren't as ridiculous as we all might have thought.

He might not have been lying, but he certainly implied and played heavily to his base on the idea and condition he would be different than Bush.

Oh sure he did, which was the smart thing to do since his base wants that, and the prevailing mood of the country was that they wanted something different from Bush. I think that's a big reason John McCain lost, because he had to do this schizophrenic balancing act of convincing moderates that he wasn't Bush, but that he was enough like him for the hardcore neo-con base that seems to be the vocal section of the Republican party these days. But again, I don't think you've proven he's lying, and that's my biggest problem here. Did he change his story? Yes, yes he did. Clearly he did. But WHY did he change it? That's what I want to know, and in my mind lying is a big accusation to throw at somebody, and you need proof to back that label up. Otherwise don't fucking say it just because you hate the guy and it sounds good.

[adrshepard]

At 7/22/09 05:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So perhaps in the most literal sense he's back tracking on the statement yes, but perhaps there's a good reason for it, that being he got intel that would suggest the original plan needed to be changed.

Make no mistake; it is backtracking. Obama did not embrace the rational, circumstance-driven approach. He clearly announced a withdrawal plan and has since divested himself of it. Better that he publicly acknowledged this possibility from the beginning.

Perhaps this is people "seeing through him" as you've said. Or perhaps it's just people continuing to hold him up to an unrealistic standard.

A standard he did nothing to cultivate, right? He built himself a giant wooden pedestal to stand upon during the campaign, but months later it's starting to rot out from under him.

He did, but I think the WHY is critical here. Do you really want him rigidly sticking to the campaign promise even if it means that we lose the allies we've now created in Iraq and everything that's been done over there so far turns out to all be for nothing?

No, we want to expose his demagoguery and incompetence. He was elected on shaky promises and untenable pledges and yet most people seem to forget this at the very moment he changes his position. He is not a leader.

[Dawnslayer]

I'll say this much: promising to withdraw in a certain timeframe was a bad mistake on Obama's part.

Now, if he had promised to have a GOAL for withdrawal in a certain timeframe, which he would adjust as needed, that would make more sense than promising the actual date, and makes a thousand times more sense than not having a goal for withdrawal at all (which was most of Bush's second term). This is that thing we used to call the timetable - a set of objectives with target dates that can be adjusted depending on the progress made. Unfortunately neither party presented the timetable this way, and instead treated it like a cinderblock - solid and immovable.

So I agree, promising a one-year withdrawal was a bad idea. But I didn't vote for Obama on his Iraq policy. If that had been the only factor, I could have picked McCain.

[BillyShakes]

I'm trying to understand the problem hear.
When he was campaigning, i.e. before he was president and privy to all the presidents information he believed it would be feasible to withdraw ALL troops next year.

Afterward the said there would remain SOME non-combatant troops indefinitely. this could be backtracking. However, he later said that ALL troops would be gone in 2011. This doesn't seem like lying or backtracking to me. Its just adjusting his time line when he was an incumbent to when he became president.

[dySWN]

Looks to me like Obama is starting to get really good at writing himself into a corner when it comes to stated policy. Iraq isn't the only issue where he's had to move the goalposts; economic stimulus and health care come to mind.

[D2Kvirus]

Can I say: suprise, surprise?

[Proteas]

At 7/22/09 03:52 PM, Mr-Money wrote: You cannot agree with President Bush.

Yes he can, and he did; you cannot set a finite date on something like this, as there is no way to ensure that everything will be fine and ready before that date comes up. If your claim Iraq IS worse than Somalia (which I highly doubt you can back up with any credible evidence), then we are doing them no favor by leaving before the situation is rectified.

So in essence, you're arguing a Catch-22 situation; they're fucked if we stay and they're fucked if we leave.

[Evark]

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item _id=3484&issue_id=35 explains the issues at hand with the agreement between the US government and the Iraqi government regarding troop withdrawal.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
promises/promise/126/begin-removing-comb at-brigades-from-iraq/ is from a site that apparently tracks over 500 promises made by Obama during his campaign, this particular link being his "remove troops from Iraq" promise.

He stated right from the beginning that he had in mind a 16 month timetable for withdrawing the troops from Iraq. However, as the first link explains, while he may make such agreements relating to military action in other countries without Congress, the Legislative branch is entitled to vote to ratify treaties with other nations. I'm willing to bet there're a couple factors at work here in his inability to keep that promise, one being his military advisers advising against an expedient total withdrawal from Iraq, and the other being that Congress is also not necessarily in favor of an expedient total withdrawal from Iraq.

Personally, I don't care that Obama keeps every promise he made to the letter. I didn't and DON'T vote for a presidential candidate as if I consider my vote a binding contract with the guy to keep every promise made. Circumstances change, things happen, and America cannot afford another president who is so resolute with 'staying the course' that new information is ignored. That's the reason why we had such a troop draw-up in the first place under the previous administration.

[adrshepard]

At 7/24/09 03:59 PM, Evark wrote: Personally, I don't care that Obama keeps every promise he made to the letter. I didn't and DON'T vote for a presidential candidate as if I consider my vote a binding contract with the guy to keep every promise made. Circumstances change, things happen, and America cannot afford another president who is so resolute with 'staying the course' that new information is ignored. That's the reason why we had such a troop draw-up in the first place under the previous administration.

Presumably you would vote for someone because of his good judgment, right? Does someone who makes promises that he knows he may have to break show good judgment?

You speak of "new information" as if there were some sudden outside event. There weren't any. Obama became President and his teleprompter failed to convince the commanders and analysts that an immediate withdrawal was feasible or prudent.

[xKore]

It'll all be over by christmas.

[Evark]

At 7/24/09 05:00 PM, adrshepard wrote: Presumably you would vote for someone because of his good judgment, right?

Presumably.

Does someone who makes promises that he knows he may have to break show good judgment?

No. However, that is not the case here. A president elect has never been president previously. Thusly, any promises made within the scope of his expected position are limited only to their [then] current understanding of their ability to carry out said promise. Circumstances aren't extenuating until you've reached them in the first place.

You speak of "new information" as if there were some sudden outside event.

No, I speak of 'new information' in the sense that as a senator Obama is not privy to the same information he would be as president. Thusly, as an outsider looking in, it seems to him that the best course of action is to remove all troops as quickly as possible. However, once he is in the position whereby he is attempting to do just that, there is a different decision presented to him. He's as well-informed as well-informed can be at that point, and so I don't blame him should the circumstances be different than expected.

It's the difference between reality and the ideal. Campaigning is not to set in stone a candidate's iron-clad doctrine for their presidency, but rather an opportunity for a potential candidate to give his beliefs, opinions, and suggestions on CURRENT EVENTS or other important issues. The idea is not to judge the man on his suggested courses of action in any case, but rather to decide whether the ideals he is espousing are suitable for one with the ACTUAL ABILITY and ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE necessary for the REAL DECISION.

There weren't any. Obama became President and his teleprompter failed to convince the commanders and analysts that an immediate withdrawal was feasible or prudent.

So how is this HIS broken promise? The president has the last say in the Executive branch of government, but Congress often has just as much say as the president does.

Anyway, it appears as if you've ignored the links I provided. Obama's campaign promise was for a 16 month time-line for withdrawal, which, when met with reality has become an 18 month draw-down. Reality will meet his attempt AGAIN at the 18 month timeline, at which point we'll know whether or not all the troops are out.

Furthermore: you've reciting common themes of negativity associated with someone who opposes Obama himself. Are you in favor of troop withdrawal from Iraq? Did you vote for Obama? Do you feel he was disingenuous with his opinion regarding a withdrawal timeline for Iraq? For my part, I think he's doing the best he can, but it's not exactly a cake-walk to get all the stuff done that he wants to. I don't EVER expect a president to deliver 100% on what's been said during the campaign. It's not even related to dishonesty, it's just that some things are outside of the president's control. If you seriously voted for Obama (which I highly doubt, btw) because you were entirely convinced that everything he said would happen exactly as he said it, you're a fool.

[MultiCanimefan]

I voted for Obama, but this is surprising? If a candidate told nothing but the truth, he/she would never be elected. Do you know why? It's because people need definitive answers, even if they can't be backed up. People need reassurance and rigidity. No one likes a pragmatist, because he/she is honest, and to be really honest in any situation is to admit "I don't know," and that's what people dislike.

[Achilles2]

At 7/22/09 03:40 PM, Mr-Money wrote: In his campaign for President, Obama said all troops would be gone after a 16-month phased withdrawal -- beginning from week one. That would mean all troops would leave by mid-2010.

He said all combat troops would be gone, and that he would leave non-combat troops in afterwards to help the Iraqi government.

Then, he said he was going to leave 50,000 "non-combat" troops in the country indefinitely.

Still consistent with his campaign promise (see what I said above)

Now, in a speech still going on as I write this message, Obama is saying all troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

And now he's saying that the non-combat troops will be gone by 2011. Still consistent with his campaign promise.

[Korriken]

At 7/22/09 03:52 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

Well, if you see videos of American soldiers tying hamburgers to a string, and driving their truck down the road as starving children chase after it....

That's a pretty brazen claim, not only that, but a hamburger being dragged down the road would fall off the string. Got a link to this video?

... and if you see that 1,000,000 people have been killed as a result of the US invasion...

That's war, people die.

... then, maybe, just maybe, you'll see that this already is worse than Somalia, and by staying there, we will make it even worse still.

Only if you believe the crap you're being fed on a daily basis. From what I've observed, things got out of hand, but steady progress is being made and US forces have handed over control of many cities of the Iraqi army. Perhaps if you did some of your own research instead of listening to the left wing propaganda zombies you see on TV, you would know this.

You cannot agree with President Bush. He has invaded a country, which has directly resulted in over a million deaths. At this point, you should leave.

and let the entire country fall into the hands of those who wish to do us harm. good job. now not only have you turned Iraq into a smoldering rathole of poverty and death, you also created a cesspool that is a perfect breeding ground for jihadists.

Regardless, this is not a topic about Iraq. This is about how Obama has lied and changed his deadline again and again.. and he's changing it once more today. This is about how Obama just lies and says stuff to try and bolster his own popularity.

yeah pretty much.

Like, take the Presidential campaign. He tried not to discuss his middle name, Hussein. Then, he goes over to the Middle East and boasts about his middle name being Hussein. He's just pure, two-faced, lying scum.

Obama is a politician. Did you REALLY expect otherwise? seriously. When a politician speaks, you can at best, believe about 1/6th of what comes out of their mouth, the rest is rhetoric, lies, and half truths.