moron

Incorrect. That ammendment required pulling all COMBAT troops out of Iraq. Here is the press release:

Quote :

"*The redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. * Only U.S. troops essential to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities would remain."

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/06/06/20060619.html

Here is what Obama says he currently wants to do on his campaign website...

Quote :

"All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Troops would be removed from secure areas first, with troops remaining longer in more volatile areas. The drawdown would begin immediately with one to two combat brigades redeploying each month and all troops engaged in combat operations out by the end of next year. Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safehaven.""

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

Sounds strangely familiar doesn't it?

Redeploy all US combat troops leaving a residual force of troops to train Iraqi security forces, conduct targeted anti-terror operations, and to protect US personnel? HOW ODD!!

I wonder if Obama-2006 would vote against Obama-2007's legislation?

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 1:52 AM. Reason : ``]

4/7/2008 1:45:37 AM

I think the key difference is staggered withdrawal as opposed to taking all combat forces out at once! HOW ODD!!

4/7/2008 1:51:56 AM

^ Ummmm.....the Kerry ammendment was for a phased re-deployment. It's physically impossible to take out all troops at once. The Kerry ammendment also called for leaving a residual force in Iraq.

And I love how you guys are trying to re-write history. Obama-2006 said that time-tables set by congress were a bad idea. Obama-2007 disagreed. Obama-2006 said immediate withdrawal was a bad idea. Obama-2007 disagreed.

I am using HIS WORDS.

4/7/2008 1:55:45 AM

But I can't keep doing this. I've been fucking with you guys for a couple of hours now.
I have swatted down every single objection using Obama's own words to support my arguments.
And this is not just my interprutation of events. This is also how the New York Times described Obama's position on Iraq.

Quote :

"He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. Though he spoke in favor of a drawdown, he voted against the withdrawal of troops. He proposed legislation calling for a drawdown after he began running for president. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1205082031-3DGE8zwCeprL+OEot3vskQ

This was not an op-ed piece.

Yet it seems like none of you guys read anything besides Obama's website (and even then you seem to ignore the things that contradict each other).

I don't know what else to say.

Night folks.

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 2:02 AM. Reason : ``]

4/7/2008 2:00:46 AM

From the June 06 statement:

Quote :

" What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy. For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in fifty thousand troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional three or six months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy. It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry Amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal."

4/7/2008 2:45:45 AM

^ note none of those other ammendments called for immediate withdrawal or set time-tables for pulling all combat troops out of Iraq...like Obama's plan introduced a few months later.

In fact, only real difference I can see between the Kerry plan and the Obama plan as introduced in 2007 is that Obama's plan leaves open the possibility that we can postpone withdrawal indefinatley if the Iraqi government starts improving (as mentioned in the Washington Post). Of course, as I have said several times, he seems to have dropped this point in his stump speeches. Now he just talks about getting the troops out in 16 months.

Now, I think it's clear Obama wants to eventually withdraw from Iraq. But, like I said, when will that be? 10 months? 10 years? 100 years? Who knows.

[I lied. I can't go to bed until i finish writing a report and I can't write my report because I'm a procrastinating son of a bitch]

4/7/2008 3:01:01 AM

Maybe a straight forward time-line of Obama's positions will help:

2004: Obama says that he agrees with the President and that we must keep troops in Iraq to maintain security.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

2006: Obama supports eventual redeployment of troops, but says that immediate withdrawal could lead to chaos and that Congress setting an arbtitraty time table will make it harder to the military and diplomats to do their job.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

2007: Obama says that we must immediatley begin to remove our combat troops and introduces a time table for withdrawal. However, his legislation leaves open the possibility that redeployment could be postponed if the Iraqi government meets goals set by the Bush administration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

2008: Obama apparently forgets about the potential to postpone withdrawal and now simply claims he will have all our comabat troops out of Iraq within 16 months after he becomes President.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

2008: But Obama's former senior foreign policy adviser Samantha Powers says in an interview with BBC that the 16 month estimate is not a commitment at all and only a best case scenario. She says that Obama cannot be expected to make plans today for when things could change next year.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html

So based on all this information.....

When will we leave Iraq? 2010? 2020? 2110?

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 3:32 AM. Reason : I personally agree with Obama in 2006.]

4/7/2008 3:15:03 AM

Quote :

"Redeploy all US combat troops leaving a residual force of troops to train Iraqi security forces, conduct targeted anti-terror operations, and to protect US personnel? HOW ODD!! I wonder if Obama-2006 would vote against Obama-2007's legislation? "

Because if it was not right in 06 to pull the troops out, it's never right at anytime afterward, for the history of the Earth to pull them out

I'm glad though you're actually starting to understand Obama's plan, instead of pretend you don't know what it is.

4/7/2008 1:16:48 PM

Quote :

"2008: But Obama's former senior foreign policy adviser Samantha Powers says in an interview with BBC that the 16 month estimate is not a commitment at all and only a best case scenario. She says that Obama cannot be expected to make plans today for when things could change next year."

well maybe she was just projecting her own opinions on the campaign (and was thusly fired). but also, that is a pretty no-brainer statement. of course he's not going to make military commitments a full year before he could possibly do anything.

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2008 1:22:02 PM

The Iraq Study Group

They are back.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/06/iraq-study-group-advisers_n_95336.html

Prognosis:

4/7/2008 1:27:51 PM

Let's keep it real, though--he probably smokes Kools.

4/7/2008 1:32:17 PM

aha

funnay

4/7/2008 1:38:44 PM