Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see where the Senator has said anything different.
It's quite obvious the Iraqi Government favors a timetable for withdrawal, so the minority that still approves of this Administrations handling of the situation are once again way out in left field. Why would they favor a timetable if it's going to be bloody?
Indeed.
Obama called for a timetable and now the Iraqis themselves want a timetable - because they fear that an open-ended occupation is just that - an OCCUPATION, not a LIBERATION.
Obama was right all along about the war being a bad idea (and I was one who was in favor of the initial invasion - with the stipulation that there had BETTER be WMD's found there) - and Obama is right about setting a timetable for the withdrawl.
He's also right in that his initial timetable may need some minor adjustments - but the timeable MUST remain.
So, who would you rather have be our next commander-in-chief? The candidate who saw the same problem you did and supported an increase in troop strength, or the candidate who actually OPPOSED an increase in troop strength even as he acknowledged that the status quo was not working?
I would rather have the candidate who said all along the war was unnecessary and a mistake from day one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
And please stop telling me that his position has not changed when even his supporters have acknowledged that his position has changed. If you want to insult your own intelligence, that's your business. Don't ask me to insult my own.
His position has NOT changed - only the timing has changed. His hard-core anti-war backers are not happy with that because they really want an immediate withdrawl and ANY delay will anger them.
Personally I don't care what they want - or what they say.
What? You suddenly think they are so wise?
So, who would you rather have be our next commander-in-chief? The candidate who saw the same problem you did and supported an increase in troop strength, or the candidate who actually OPPOSED an increase in troop strength even as he acknowledged that the status quo was not working?
And please stop telling me that his position has not changed when even his supporters have acknowledged that his position has changed. If you want to insult your own intelligence, that's your business. Don't ask me to insult my own.
I'd prefer the one who would have us in the correct theater. I'd also prefer the candidate who can understand timetables, benchmarks and plans and not ignore the recommendations from the GAO.
I don't find it insulting to question how a candidates position has changed, only chagrin that one doesn't know, and cannot define the change when it within acceptable, reasonable norms that are in a better position and within the same context as the original statement. Elaboration is welcome, without it, simplicity tends to be called "inexperience".
It wasn't the supporters who clamored on this bandwagon but the MSM from what I've seen.
1) A goal
2) A target date
3) A plan on how to make it happen
Pretty fundimental rules of success no matter what it is you are trying to do.
How silly and naive. Planning and conducting a war is much more complicated than creating and implementing a business plan. You have a major factor of the other side resisting death and destruction, which can really foul up your "timetable".
And here's YOUR problem: believing that a war can be planned out like painting a house. No war has ever followed a "plan." Chaos and shifting conditions are the only constants in war. Setting a target date at the outset or trying to plan chaos is a fool's errand. Even goals shift during war. The Revolutionary War did not start as an exercise to establish a republic. The Civil War did not start as a war to end slavery. World War II did not start as a war to eliminate fascism/imperialism and establish quasi-pacifist democracies.
We have an end goal. We have benchmarks. Behind diplomatic closed doors, we probably even have target dates. To say "I will bring the troops out by X date" without any regard to how close we have come to that goal was a huge mistake by Obama. Except I firmly believe it wasn't a mistake, but a cynical political calculation of the very sort that Obama claims to be above. Even some of his backers in the media can smell the politics and are annoyed.
What are you winning? The GAO even assessed that you've met 8 0f 16 benchmarks from an outdated plan and need to reassess the situation and bring the status up to date. His position hasn't changed and if it has - prove it.
Are you referencing the LATEST report from May, which said 16 out of 18 benchmarks are satisfactory?
I prefer to listen to what the Generals on the ground are saying, in addition to the Iraqi government/military.
I know why you'd rather believe some pencil pusher or the dems/libs who are crying and wailing that "we have lost", "we have lost". Good news in Iraq is really bad news for the dems/libs who have invested in defeat.
All is not perfect there, probably won't be for a while. But they are moving in the right direction.
Are you happy things are going well? Violence is down? Oil is flowing? People starting businesses and children going to school?
Now that Al Qaeda is almost vanquished in Iraq (Good news, right?), of course the can start withdrawing and setting timelines for that. In fact, troops have already been coming home based on the conditions on the ground.
How silly and naive. Planning and conducting a war is much more complicated than creating and implementing a business plan. You have a major factor of the other side resisting death and destruction, which can really foul up your "timetable".
Classic liberal mentality.
Of course it is.
That doesn't mean you don't have a plan or a time table.
EVERY Battle plan needs a timetable.
If you knew ANYTHING about military operations, you would know that.
Classic ignorance.
Ken
PS - The truth of the matter is the administration had no timetable because they probably had no intention of leaving - ever. Now of course the Iraqi government is putting it's foot down and telling the US it MUST provide an exit date - something I've been saying here all along (you need a target date).
Do you really think the Iraqi government wants all US troops out?
DUH!!!!!
"Speaking to reporters in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie declined to provide specific dates, but said his government is "impatiently waiting" for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
