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 think it's fair to say that Obama was taking some liberties with the statement on Iraq. There are plenty of Americans still in Iraq, though technically speaking, none are fighting. Combat has ended.
Obama left Iraq in accordance with his predecessor's agreed upon schedule with Iraq. If there is an argument to be made to extend our stay there...by all means, make it. But to any that expected anything less than civil war when we left, whether that was 12/31/2011 or 12/31/2025, they are just being naive. We traded out one group in power for another group in power. Those two groups have been at odds with each other for a long time. If we were going to stay there until they shook hands and agreed to be peaceful, we'd be committed to staying there forever.
Cry us a river Roy, you started the thread talking about checking the Facts, but didn't like it when someone provided all of them. There there, it will be alright, simply do what you normally do, ignore them.
As a non-reader of links you have no idea how far out in left field you are standing now. As I told your boy/girl, not one of the things in Annenberg was included in the WAPO article.
Do you think that you three non-readers have about covered up my topic link? Of not, keep on going.
You are totally off topic with this link. Get your own thread to play games on and I will gladly play with you. Not one of your items seems to be included in my link so maybe, just maybe, the Annenberg bunch is as bad as I have always wondered about them for.
You have an issue with checking facts following the SOTU address in this thread you created for the purpose?
Perhaps you should create threads with a demand that only like-headed folks should respond... all others unwelcome.
Your link just happens to be called Factcheck. It is not the only one that does factchecking. I have also heard that Factcheck.org has a liberal lean to it, and just the bit I read in your second link, I saw lots of spinning.
Wow, so your only reply is to say you heard there is a lean to it...not know, but heard.
Awwwww, that's actually kind of cute anyone would take what you might have heard and not know or prove seriously.
Not one of the facts in the Annenberg pile of Pelosi was about those in the WAPO article. If you would take the trouble of reading links you would know things like this. When will you begin to be truthful in that duty of posters?
Thanks for posting. I was at work but the clips I did catch on the news today just seemed off to me. I'm glad someone has gone through and picked it apart to pinpoint the falsehoods. Lots of spin, as usual.
Not one of these prog posters has talked one bit, either out of his own brain, or the Annenberg article about anything the WAPO talked about. So much could be learned by reading links and then discussing but when you are so bent on deflecting as these people are it is hard to take a chance about knowing what is going on. Just lie, deflect and pile on. Good old Saul and his students.
i think it's fair to say that Obama was taking some liberties with the statement on Iraq. There are plenty of Americans still in Iraq, though technically speaking, none are fighting. Combat has ended.
Obama left Iraq in accordance with his predecessor's agreed upon schedule with Iraq. If there is an argument to be made to extend our stay there...by all means, make it. But to any that expected anything less than civil war when we left, whether that was 12/31/2011 or 12/31/2025, they are just being naive. We traded out one group in power for another group in power. Those two groups have been at odds with each other for a long time. If we were going to stay there until they shook hands and agreed to be peaceful, we'd be committed to staying there forever.
But - his statements weren't false.
If you read the WAPO article completely you would have seen that getting out of Iraq at that time was mostly based on the lack of our administration and al Maliki's to agree on a number of things. It did work out to say that they are all out but it was too much based on that disagreement.
How about Afghanistan? The article states that he ignored the fact that the Taliban is fighting largely out of Pakistan. He took some real liberties there and I maybe didn't quote the article in what I provided.
If you read the WAPO article completely you would have seen that getting out of Iraq at that time was mostly based on the lack of our administration and al Maliki's to agree on a number of things. It did work out to say that they are all out but it was too much based on that disagreement.
How about Afghanistan? The article states that he ignored the fact that the Taliban is fighting largely out of Pakistan. He took some real liberties there and I maybe didn't quote the article in what I provided.
i read the article, and am also fairly well-informed on the topic as i've followed it far before the SOU address.
the part bolded isn't really a fact. Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq long before he actually did. We can debate for days on why we should or should not have remained longer than the previously agreed-upon date. But the FACT is that the date we withdrew was set up prior to Obama taking office. If you would like to argue why we should have extended beyond that date, feel free.
Afghanistan, again, he took some liberties. The statement in your article says it's a "highly debateable claim". it doesn't say that the Taliban is "fighting largely out of Pakistan". It says:
"Meanwhile, the president’s claim that the Taliban’s “momentum has been broken” is a highly debatable claim. U.S. intelligence agencies, for instance, recently concluded in a secret assessment that the war in Afghanistan “is mired in stalemate” and that security gains from an increase in American troops “have been undercut by pervasive corruption, incompetent governance and Taliban fighters operating from neighboring Pakistan,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Other U.S. officials have dissented from the report’s conclusions, but the dispute is an indication of how fragile any momentum may be."
so, the Washington Post is using a report from the Los Angeles Times to evidence that stating "The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home." is a debateable statement.
It's not saying it's not factual. It's saying it's debateable currently, as evidenced by the LAT report.
Please get YOUR own facts straight before criticizing others for not reading the link that you apparantly can't accurately reference.
“Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”
As the WAPO article points out, we are borrowing all that money, so Obama is essentially saying we are going to pay down our debt by borrowing and also borrow some more to "nation build" (i.e., start more social programs) here. In other words, he has no intention of reducing the debt so he can burden our children and grandchildren to pay for his pandering to his base.
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.
I have also heard that Factcheck.org has a liberal lean to it, and just the bit I read in your second link, I saw lots of spinning. 
