BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
EASILY the best quote of the year so far, and perhaps of the entire Obama Administration:
The last of the U.S. troops will be in Iraq no later than Dec. 31, 2011. That’s the deadline set under an agreement the two countries sealed during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Yes, President Barack Obama has decided that (now that he’s got power and responsibility) the Bush plan is the best plan for Iraq. How’s that sit with Democratic Party leaders?
Nancy Pelosi isn’t the only Democrat unhappy with President Barack Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan. Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer said Thursday that — like Pelosi — they were surprised to hear that Obama apparently plans to leave more than 50,000 U.S. troops in the country.
“I have long been for a significant drawback of troops in Iraq,” Reid, the Senate majority leader, told reporters in a news conference. “Fifty-thousand is a higher number than I anticipated.”
Added Schumer: “Fifty-thousand is more than I would have thought.”
No doubt Democrats like President Obama would like Americans and the world to support the war in Iraq now that they’re commanding it, but opponents of the war remain silent. Why? Why not oppose the Bush/Obama policy the way they did when it was just the Bush policy?
Make no bones about it, if you opposed the Bush Iraq policy post 2006, then you just got completely and deliberately misled by President Obama. You’ve been had. Just as you were had on the idea of closing Gitmo (which remains open), ending torture (which is still as permitted as it was under Bush), on listening in on phone calls (which Obama supports now that he’s President), or on the Executive Privilege that protected Karl Rove from indictment now that Obama needs the same right to protect his various “Czars.” Same thing with rendition now that Panetta’s in charge of the CIA.
No more earmarks (except the 9000 in this current budget)
No more hidden text of bills (except that $780bn bill that no one could read before voting on)
No more cronyism (except at CIA)
No more partisanship (except in the WH Chief of Staff and Press Sec, but who notices those guys?)
Obama voters….you have been had
See author page
Not exactly. The Bush Adminstration was opposed to any deadlines up until July 2008, when Al Maliki forced Bush into this agreement.
Obama always used the line about being as “careful getting out as we were careless getting in”, telegraphing his intent for a pragmatic withdrawal to anyone paying attention.
Convenient exaggeration of the truth into some delusional distortion, Fit. Bush was opposed to any *firm* deadlines that did not take into consideration ground events. He was not “forced” into the SOFA. The SOFA was necessary by the end of the year to replace the expiring UN agreement fo US presence. It was inevitable it would happen, and they had been working on it for over 11 months before signed.
And, if you’ll notice, they came to a deadline that indeed can morph with events on the ground… including no withdrawal of troops for the first 12 months without the approval of the Iraqis.
It’s really hard for liberals to understand, the deadline opposition from Bushwas before the Iraq war was won. YOu did know, we won the war didn’t you?
It’s common knowledge that you can’t be liberal and rational at the same time.
It’s really odd how cruel, mean and hate filled liberals are.
Scott,
The sad fact is that most of the Obamatrons do not feel “had”, even when they are aware of the inconsistencies you pointed out. It falls under the same category as “you can’t rape the willing”. Most of them will not care one whit what Obama does, as long as it is Obama/Democrats doing it. I may be underestimating the number of Obama voters who actually have scruples, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
I think that will be the line of the century Scott! Now if they would only realize it in time to stand up and revolt before Obama and crooks undo all that has made America great. If there was every a time to “swallow one’s pride”, this would be it.
I can’t wait to see how the Obama giddy NYT’s covers the “Obama” war.
Completely false
Bush had a timetable in 2004, revised in 2005, revised again in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The SOFA is the fourth date given for the end of US occupation in Iraq. Even the UN has had several timetables for the US (post-invasion mandates for the occupation to continue until Xdate). The SOFA goes beyond the UN agreements and the Bush Admin agreements, and in the end, make no mistake, President Obama is continuing President Bush’s policy and timetable. You can cite Obama’s rhetoric about being careful getting out, but I can find quotes going back to 2003 of Bush saying the same thing. Spin all you want, Obama is embracing Bush’s war plan.
Bush is the de facto scapegoat (Satan), and Obama is the defacto Savior. The former could do nothing right, and the latter can do no wrong.
A lumped of gold-colored dog crap smells like sh-t when Bush points to it, but it’s a sign of prosperity if Obama breathes on it.
Perceived helplessness in the public is the Liberal’s enabler, whereas the will to pull oneself out of the mud is the Republican’s best friend. It’s a shame that politics and the media enforce the view of hopelessnes and despair.
Jeff V
I disagree. If you reach back to the points following 9/11 Bush was looked at as the savior. The problem is the many missteps. Iraq war, Katrina and Economic meltdown… if they happen on your watch many people will place the responsibility on you, thus George Bush will be blamed because many believe he was responsible. The buck stops at the President.
Just ’cause the buck stops at the President doesn’t mean we shouldn’t find fault w the lookouts on the Titanic. This is especially true w the economic crisis where the lookouts doing oversight were a major part of the problem from 06-08, AND with the deficits where those same lookouts and other Democrats in Congress (since Congress held the power from 06-08) caused those deficits (not a lame duck President). And who was in Congress during that time-doing oversight, pushing budgets, etc.?
SENATOR Barack Obama
If you wanna go w the “It happened on his watch” crap, then I point to the Democrats’ Congress which held power during a lame duck Presidency. They had the watch. Moreover, this logic points even more fingers at Obama because the spending and economic downturn has been far greater since Obama took office than before he took office. SO, the economic downturn is his fault as a member of Congress during a lame duck session, AND it’s his fault for not addressing it correctly; ie in a way that reduces the deficit he helped create AND reduced the economic collapse. Both are double or more than what they were pre 1/21.
And it remains….there is no way to ignore the reality that Obama is now pursuing the exact same Iraq policy (SOFA) as Bush.
First, you have your years wrong Scott. Republicans controlled the 109th Congress which ran from Jan 3th 2005 to Jan 3rd 2007.
From Dec 2005 Heritage foundation speaking of the Republican fiscal problems (this is of course before the near totally collapse of the economy)
I tend to think we had already hit the iceberg in the 2005/6 time frame and the sinking began in 2007.
Do I hold Democrats responsible, yes, do I hold Republicans and President Bush, EVEN more responsible, yes. Of all groups… how the hell did the Republican Party get to the point of those disastrous deficits and poor fiscal management of our nation (that includes trade deficits as well as national deficit).
Blast, Democrats took Congress on 11/06. Sworn in in Jan 07, but the point is that the collapse didn’t happen until Sept 08…a time when President Bush was a lame duck, Democrats’ Congress held the power, and the deficits-while large, were increasing still via Democrats’ Congress. Since Obama’s taken office, the deficit has more than doubled. By the time TARP II is done (est 2TRILLION), Obama and dems will have put the US more in debt in the first 3 months of absolute power than Bush did in 8years (only 4 of which did he have comparable power). Most of all, let’s be superduper clear that the housing crisis is the core, and that started in 1999….
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/1999-nyt-clinton-pressured-fannie-mae
Bush and Republicans saw this and tried to counter it, but it was blocked by Democrats for years. As late as 2008-8months before the Sept crash-Bush called upon Democrats’ Congress to correct their mistakes.
Did Senator Obama work w the President in a bi-partisan manner? Nope. Did Democrats listen? Nope. Did Senator Obama see the writing on the wall on his own and try to prevent disaster? Nope. Now? Well, now it’s Bush’s fault.
Why are Pelosi/Reid/Schumer surprised at the 50,000 to 60,000 number? Obama’s been saying that since at least last June (for 60,000). In Nov, he was saying it could be as many as 50,000.
Guess these Dome heads and the faithful only hear what they want to hear….
@MataHarley:
I see the Pelosi/Reid/Schumer feigned outrage as nothing more than kabuki theatrics.
They’re all on board the ObamaTrain.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
PLANNED OR JUST HAPPENSTANCE: YOU DECIDE
When I first started researching Obama and his associates two years ago. I thought He was just a puppet for the Socialist who wanted to gain control of this country.
The more I researched and connected daily events the more I became convinced that it is a plan by Communists for world domination.
My back ground for research: I spent nine years in Navy Intelligence, the last six of which was spent in studying past actions, current actions by the Socialists and using the best intelligence available predicting what the future actions and outcomes would be.
Mata Note: Marion, I snipped this since it has absolutely nothing to do with the original post, nor has the thread even drifted slightly in the direction of a George Soros mastermind plan to take over the US…. er… the world. However I am providing the link to your article so those interested can read it.
We often morph naturally into other subjects in our thread cyber conversations, but this one is an unrelated bolt from the blue. Please try to keep it somewhat related… okay?
Here’s Marion’s full article
And on that same note, I say this to everyone… must we again hijack a military thread back into the same worn out “who’s to blame” economic battle? Let’s continue that fight on an economy related thread, please. There’s plenty of them. And Marion, feel free to repost your article on one of those threads. But excerpts and a link would be preferred…
Mata… temporary acting Thread Nanny
Haha… come on man! They won election on 11/06 and were not seated until Jan 07. They were not “in power in 06. There were many signs that the economy was starting to crumble in 2006 and that process picked up pace in 2007. By that point we all watched the credit default swaps and bundled mortgages unravel and housing values plunge. The decrease in housing values and defaults on mortgages was significant enough for Ben Bernanke to make a speech on May 17, 2007 about the “The Subprime Mortgage Market”
As to your point that the collapse did not happen until Sept 08… that is totally wrong. The collapse began much earlier, Jan 08 BofA began process to buy Countrywide Financial, March 08 Bear Stearn received an emergency loan from the Fed, and then taken over by JP Morgan, IndyMac collapsed in July of 08. These collapses did not begin from what was going on in 2008, but what came prior.
blast, since the SOFA and plan for withdrawal happened on Bush’s watch, will you also be fooled with the rest of the media in giving Obama credit for the Bush/Iraq SOFA plans for withdrawal?
Marion has just uncovered the truth on project RED PHOENIX! RED PHOENIX was devised years ago by Ted Truner and Saul Alinsky working out of Turner’s secret superfortress on Skull Island. The worst part is Turner never realized Alinsky was working as a pawn for the Grey’s (Reticulians), who are trying to set up a Socialist World Order to faciltate their takeover of the entire planet! It’s all happening right in front of our faces man!
Mata Harley: just responding to Curt’s ok to post as a comment, since i had already posted it on my site, and he could not, because of that post it as a readers article here.
That’s kewl, Marion. But why not pick Mike’s $1.75 tril deficit thread instead of an Iraq thread? At least it’s somewhat related… That’s why I said repost it elsewhere.
Ok, so if it’s BAD, and it starts to happen under GWBs years, then it’s GWB’s fault (economy),
but if it’s GOOD, and it starts to happen under GWBs years, then GWB doesn’t get the credit (SOFA)
Nope. Do duality there.
Fitfit….you doubt the omnipotence of the socialist greys?! Time to put on your tinfoil hat before they notice your mental insurgency.
Scott… I believe you missed Fit’s invisible sarcasm button being pressed. Unless I’m wrong, it was pure satire.
Mata Harley..Sorry was off subject…I don’t see what Obama says today, who he appoints to what, the stimulus package, ect as anything but small pieces in the overall picture, therefore don’t focus my thoughts so much on the individual pieces.
@blast,
You missed my point. Yes, Bush *was* the hero/go-to-guy after 9/11/2001, though was never hailed as a Messiah/Savior.
As soon as it was apparent that his War on Terror (poor definition of the enemy there), he was villified by the left. During the presidential campaign, and especially as the economy started to tank, he took arrows from all directions. Partially because of his (poor decision to) rush to save Wall Street before (or instead of) Main Street, the left – with its implicit, explicit, and complicit media – absolutely mad sure he was the scapegoat.
The same people and the “I can’t think for myself” luddite part of the American citizenry elevated Obama to Almighty status. The glow of his aura will blind people for a while, but if Obama screws the economy or the people beyond the breaking point, a lot of his present followers will turn on him.
No matter what happens, the next few years will be history in the making (at least that’s what MY crystal ball is telling me.)
Jeff V
i don’t think we are being duped. going from 16 months to 18 months to withdraw troops is not that bad. then at the end of 2011, all troops will be out of iraq. the problem with bush is that until iraq pressed a timeline, they weren’t willing to put any date in place.
i think debating the financial collapse is crazy because there are so many moving parts and so many things that caused it that anything we state will be such as to only convince ourselves that we know what we’re talking about when we actually don’t.
i’m just going to blame everyone in power for the last 25 years and leave it at that.
Marion, any theatre of operation still requires individual battle fronts. If it all blends, you cannot thwart the individual steps.
i.e., here is Obama attempting to fool the world that he has negotiated a withdrawal for Iraq… getting resounding cheers. Another attempt to elevate himself on someone else’s deeds. He continually passes blame to others, and takes credit where none is due. It’s all part of keeping the Obama brand alive and strong.
To boot, Pelosi/Reid/Schumer seem to be surprised Obama is following the Bush path. He has no choice. He can issue a written notice to the Iraqis to dissolve the agreement… it requires a year’s notice. He also has the choice to completely pull the troops out (no residual forces) at any time, and the Iraqis can as the US to completely remove all forces at any time.
Otherwise, all withdrawals and positioning of remaining troops in Iraq is a mutually agreed task.
Part of your “overall” battle is to expose those you believe are major players for their flaws. And that often takes reminding people of the truth on each specific issue… not blending them into some large master plan that reads like a sci fi novel to most.
James Manning, the withdrawal plan has nothing to do with Obama. The withdrawal was preplanned after 11 months of negotiations between Bush and the Iraqs once the surge and awakening started Iraq on a more secure path. Prior to that, no withdrawal was possible.
It is the SOFA, signed between the US and Iraq prior to Obama taking office that dictates the terms, *with* some flexibility. I don’t feel duped either… because I knew it prior to “that one” taking office. He wasn’t in on it. He’s just carrying it out per agreement, and in the way the military advisors and generals suggest.
But I can agree absolutely with this statement of yours:
I am not precisely sure about this, but I do believe President Bush had approval ratings near 90 percent, Obama has come nowhere close to that. I never have seen Obama or anyone other than Jesus as my Messiah/Savior. I just believe Bush blew it. Yep, so do many others, but I do look at him and think he tanked the Republican Party for many years to come.
Ok, here goes. President Bush gets credit for SOFA – President Bush gets blame for the economic crisis.
I disagree with many of Obama’s policies but agree heartily with this one. I’m glad that he’s following through with what he feels is right for the country. This shows that he isn’t being fully partisan and can break with his party leadership, which is a great thing.
Ryan
Mata Harley. You’re right of course, for most people the need to dissect each event to prevent that event from having an effect, is in most cases futile. Each event though important in itself, is not so important as understanding what the connection of many events lead to. If connecting current events predicts future events. It is the future events that need to be combated
Well, gee, who didn’t see Obama outright lying coming a mile away? I mean, besides the people that voted for him on the assumption he would do what he campaigned on.
While I’m sure some will complain about Obama’s decision (and already have been doing so), I’m also sure that so many others that wouldn’t shut up about Iraq during the Bush years will act like they never said a bad thing about it.
Per Ben Feller at the AP, Obama called both Dubya and Maliki before making his speech today at Camp Lejuene.
Gibbs said the call to Bush as “a courtesy”. Right… Now why would that be? What “courtesy” has Obama ever shown the POTUS while in office, or after leaving office, on Iraq? And why would he feel it necessary to do now?
What a crock…. Obama probably had to ask whether his plans and speech was in anyway contradictory to the SOFA agreement! LOL If not that, there must be a story behind the story we don’t know.
Do the American people listen to the Hummingbird brained O’Dumbo? He’s going to pull out all combat troops by Aug 2010. That means he has to pull all military personnel out. There are no ‘non-combat’ troops in the U.S. Military, other than the democrats who have deserted and haven’t been caught, yet. Will he replace the troops with cub scouts and/or brownie scouts?
Then when (2011) he thinks he is gone or has a chance of winning another term he will surrender Iraq to the terrorist. Evidently he doesn’t want to politic with the blood of millions on his hands like Hanoi John and Fat Ted have. Then I look at democrats who have the blood of 50+ million babies on they’re hands and are now asking for more. and see there is nothing so low a democrat won’t do it.
If you put a deadline in place and MAKE IT PUBLIC during a war, then the enemy automatically wins. They know that time is then on their side, and time ALWAYS wins.
Just ask any empire, mountain range or star.
Why don’t Dems get the concept that announcing an easy way to beat you is a sure road to defeat?
Scrapiron,
Your logic makes no sense about democrats as usual. At least you got the date correct of the pull out..
Somehow when Scott wrote this nonsense article he got the date screwed up… August 2010…. that’s the pull out date..
Fit Fit… you got it Correct..
18 months is not far away. Lets see him do it.
Complain to ABC News-not me. I just copy/pasted their date. Could it be that you’re thinking the combat troops not all the troops?
Ya know what’s kinda funny? When Bush flew to Baghdad to talk about this 2 days after it was originally agreed to…Iraq’s threw shoes at him. This time, when it’s repeated by Barack Obama…he goes before the US Marines instead of the Iraqis.
Had to laugh when the Marines barely applauded his decision, but they cheered for higher pay (rightfully so). They definitely didn’t seem to hot to have Barack announce the best time to attack American forces.
Had Obama traveled to Baghdad to make this same speech, it’s entirely likely shoes again could be thrown… altho I’m sure they are ready for that now.
Doesn’t matter who the current “satan” is to the Islamic jihadist. Clinton, Bush, Obama… they are all the same “great satan” to them just by being the western POTUS. Eventually Obama will figure this out. Hopefully at not too great a price for the US citizen.
huh? to what do you refer, Scott. Here’s the transcript.
Let’s see, …Who is to blame for our current financial situation?
The real truth is that for various and complex reasons the blame rests squarely on:
Both George Bush(s) (Senior for not going all the way to Baghdad and taking out Saddam H. the first time, making it eventually necessary to go to the trouble and expense of marching back in to finish the job. Junior for being financially irresponsible, for not having the banking regulators crack down, for going along with TARP, and for not firing Paulson immediately)
Bill Clinton (The conditions for the housing situation started under his administration)
The Democrats (For their dubious protection of Freddy & Fanny, for out of control pork spending, and for pushing for TARP, and Especially Barney Frank and the others on his committee.)
Obama (For his own pork, for not showing up for Senatorial duties, TARP I, TARP II, and the latest pork engorged spending bill, for appointing the Geithner)
The Republicans (For banking deregulation, their own pork spending & for not talking Bush out of the bail-out)
The Main Street Media (For dropping the ball and not reporting on the things they should, ffor sensationalizing and fear mongering, for biased reporting, for not doing their duty to hold ALL politicians feet to the fire, for not even mentioning the involvement of those Democratic congress-people who got us in this housing/financial crisis, for turning mountains into mole-hills and visa versa.)
The Banking Industry under Freddy & Fanny Mac (Obvious reasons)
The Federal Feserve & Regulators (Obvious reasons)
Wall Street & it’s investors (the Exchange for not down grading stocks it should have sooner, and all those investors in it who panicked and thereby insured the market would crash following 9-11)
Al-Qaeda (Obvious reasons)
The “free trade” lobby (For their involvement in creating this staggering trade & job deficit.)
Unions & the corporations (for not being sensible in negotiations and in tough times)
Speculators (Who invested their money into real estate when the stock market crashed, and as a result for their involvement in driving-up home values until their markets became overpriced)
Those home buyers who bought overvalued homes they couldn’t afford (Whether they knew they could or not.)
Voters (Those who keep voting for pork loving candidates)
Non-Voters (For dereliction of duty: i.e. not voting against pork loving candidates)
Illegal Immigrants (Some for adding to social spending burdens, others for For keeping wages too low in some markets and taking jobs that could have been filled by US citizens.)
The medical industry and legal profession (Both for making health care too damn expensive, and the legal profession for giving us the legalese which often makes it so hard for people to understand contracts and contractual laws)
The IRS & FDR (If it wasn’t for the agency’s existence, Congress would have had to come up with a simpler tax code)
There! Did I leave anyone out?
lol – nice one Ditto. But surely you can’t be balanced on this – it’s has to be all the fault of Bush and the Right or all the fault of Obama and the Left…
@GaffaUK
I don’t play partisan games. I place all blame where it is properly due, regardless of political affiliation. You can’t get to the root cause and solution of a problem without examination of all the pertinent causes. Personal political favor or disfavor for “who did what” while ignoring their responsibility will not lead to honest assessment of the situation and will foil any ability to learn from history’s mistakes. You can not fix a problem without recognizing it’s causes and effect. I take a balanced position because it is the sensible thing to do.
(Note: I don’t go by “Ditto” as in Limbaugh’s “Ditto-heads.” It was a nickname bestowed decades before Rush, due to my being a twin.)
If a corporation is “too big to allow to fail” then that company has far too much influence on society and could become a danger. It is the old “don’t place all your eggs in one basket” syndrome, more commonly applied to some of the dangers of Monopolies. Competition in business insures better Services and Products. It also helps internally so that officers are less likely to be complacent. The financial giants should never been allowed to merger and grow as big as they have. Fanny and Freddy were simply mismanaged. It’s leadership should be replaced. GM & Chrysler banked on continued popularity of the SUV’s and big trucks, and ignored the growing number of people who wanted more energy efficient vehicles. Which has placed them behind in the Hybrid and Hydrogen wave. They should have diversified their products sooner and farther to be on top of the demand.