Are you pleased or disappointed that Obama has kept his promise of troop withdrawal from Iraq?

:thumbsup:

When I heard the news, I was surprised at how pleased I was at this news.

americans got conned by the bush admin and the republican propaganda machine into attacking iraq based on lies.

getting out of it after all those 'pieces' had been put into place and the bush crime family had infused the entire govt security apparatus with even more privatizing and profit motive and religious sycophants - how the fuck can anyone blame obama for not doing it as soon as he got in. sooner or later or the cost of getting out is all debatable and for the historians but we're in there because of the fuckign republicans and all their chickenhawks, especially on radio, who dominated media with their lies. and in respect to radio, which did the groundwork repetition for that propaganda operation, there was NO challenge from the left.

If you heard that Dennis Kucinich was a secret Bush supporter, would you vote to re-elect him
Yes
No


If you found out that President Obama had fathered a child out of wedlock would you vote to re-elect him
Yes
No

------------------------------------------------
Push polling involves putting forth a false and extremely prejudicial piece of information and then asking if this affects perception of the person.

The intent is not to get a true poll response, but to affect perception of the pollee.

And yes, it is push polling.

Even though Obama pushed hard to renege on that promise, I'm pleased that the Iraqi government forced the US to stand by the agreement.

Ha. Got it. :crazy:

DU - where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others...

probably has something to do with post count. and quantity trumps quality where ad revenue is concerned.

And that the Iraq government refused to give President Obama the deal he wanted to keep U.S. troops and military bases in that country.

All right then. Got it.

Obama want immunity for the troops for any illegal activities. The Iraqi's said no, they will be held accountable for breaking the law. The discussion fell apart and Iraq said they wanted the US troops gone by the end of the year.
Obama did not win this one.

More like Iraq wanted US troops to stay, the US gave a condition, they refused and the US said good luck. Don't get too sick trying to spin it any other way.

Who's really getting dizzy here?

In order to hurt a guy who's doing what we've been demanding for years. Why is that?

only in the wrong direction.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then what's this?

http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/


Interesting...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the99percentdeclaration-is-not-a-real-ows-working-/

Do you mean the men and women of the US military?

and that he was not calling the soldiers in Iraq "warriors for the working class". They soldiers in Iraq are just plain old military "warriors" fighting for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

WTF does that even mean? :rofl:

at least the Iraqi's are kicking us out - probably the only way we ever would have truly left.

Restore services and close the deficit that the former president created with a war we shouldn't have initiated in the first place.

:headbang:
rocktivity

see occupy marines on the web

Virtual consensus on DU. :)

don't settle for virtual consensus on anything Obama. Need 100% pure Obama love.

I'm happy. The troops are definitely happy also!

Neocon teapublicans are pissed but FUCK THEM! :evilgrin:

Is that not the way it went down? It was my understanding that it was signed by both nations on 11/17/2008. Is that wrong?

And if it did go down that way, isn't it a little disingenuous to claim that bringing the troops home by the end of 2011 is in keeping with an "Obama Promise"?

meant taking all the credit if he gets us out. That's unfortunate for some, but them's the breaks.

Iraq forced the issue.

I think our good friend & DU'er "JoePhilly" breaks down the syndrome with such accuracy, I feel compelled to share it here. Hope Joe doesn't mind. :hi:



:rofl:

:hi:

I know what you mean, but the reality is that most of the criticisms in this particular case are true. He didn't meet his own campaign promise for starting the draw down. He basically executed the SOFA and made virtually no changes to it at all. What activity did occur was mostly in the area of trying to get it extended.

That said, I also think that many of his right wing critics are also correct, and Obama can't take any credit for the decisions he DID make. The whole "immunity for the troops" schtick is mostly just that, a bit of rhetorical cover for the fact that really, he didn't want to extend the presence. Yes, there were those inside the Pentagon that did, but in the end he put no "weight" behind any effort to accomplish it and it all died. And now we are out.

He kept on Gates, which has alot to do with why he executed the SOFA. But in the end, the consequence of this choice means he had about as much to do with keeping a promise, as promising that the sun will rise tomorrow. What he DID do, and what he did accomplish, was to prevent the agreement from being modified and/or extended. For that, I give him full credit and am glad that the consequence of that is that the money will stop flowing, the soldiers will stop dying, and we are out of there.

It's not a bit of both. It is absolutely as JoePhilly described it, and you know it. :eyes:

He didn't stick to his plan. A promise not kept. The troops are coming home, for good. A promise kept. It was the same plan that Bush had in place, but he made no promises to do anything else. Flip side is he didn't exactly campaign on doing it "just like Bush".

He didn't lift a figure to make it happen sooner, and he didn't lift a finger to make it last longer. Take that for whatever kind of accomplishment you wish.

Have fun twisting in the wind. :hi:

Basically he's one for two. Kept one, broke one. Sad part really is that in both cases, it is because he chose do in essence "do nothing". He took the SOFA with no modifications. Not exactly "change", more like "status quo". Not sure if that can be listed under promises broken however.

It's over. :hi:

kinda the mark of a closed mind.

by ridiculous, and irrelevant arguments, and who isn't fueled by hatred of this president. Third party advocates and teabaggers hate folks like me. I'm a "Democrat", who supports the "Democratic" Party, and this "Democratic" President, on what purports to be a "democratic" discussion board. Oh, the horror.
:wow:

"Obama Bad" is not an argument, it's a mere symptom of something much deeper, and I'm not interested. :hi:

No where. Quite the opposite, it was a fairly well balanced reflection of the history of his actions. He did take longer than he promised to start the draw down and he did execute the SOFA. Where in that you find "Obama bad" probably says more about you than anything.

I don't support a person as much as I support the actions. The dominant "action" here was to do nothing. He didn't change the SOFA, either shortening or lengthening it. The down side was that it meant we had to wait this long. The up side is that it really did end.

One can make the case that by doing nothing, he also prevented it from becoming a major issue over which he could have some how "lost". After his experience with GITMO, he might make that case himself. Letting things from the Bush era just end "naturally" avoids having to actually confront them. Goodness knows he's avoided confronting many issues from that era such as torture. He kept on Gates. Heck, he kept on Patreaus. He's keeping Bernake. He's made an entire strategy of trying to avoid direct confrontation with the GOP, trying to find common ground instead.

If you don't support that approach, I'm not sure how you can claim to support him. If you can't even acknowledge it, you definitely can't claim to support him.

..."Are you pleased or disappointed that Obama has kept his promise of troop withdrawal from Iraq?" Not, "Are you pleased or disappointed that Obama sorta kept his promise of troop withdrawal from Iraq - but non-date specific?"

Geez, let the poster answer the damn question that was asked.

NGU.

I just came out of GD where any three of the items on his list are going on, sometimes in the same damn thread.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in his rendition of "War" that features Obama claiming that if the troops are not withdrawn when he takes office that it will be the FIRST thing he does?

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Except Obama now has us in half a dozen wars in the Mid East and Africa. Even Bush didn't do that.

Just say what you really mean.

From Politifact.com

Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq (Promise Kept)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/125/direct-military-leaders-to-end-war-in-iraq/

Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq (Promise Kept)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

No permanent bases in Iraq (Promise Kept)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/132/no-permanent-bases-in-iraq/

End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war (Promise Kept)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/161/end-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

Yes I'm happy whenever Obama keeps his promises! I wish Obama had kept his promises about a lot of other things, like enforcing anti-trust laws...and ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. He seems to have remembered these promises recently as he is now in re-election mode. Anyway, this whole issue seems a little disingenuous to crow about considering we are only removing our troops because Iraq wouldn't provide immunity to the troops.

don't expect anything other than complete and total 110% total blind Obama worship and propaganda from the usual GD:P crew.