I'm guessing this must come as a shock to his fans...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...-in-obama-plan/

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Several top Senate Democrats Thursday expressed concerns about news reports that as many as 50,000 U.S. troops could remain in Iraq after President Obama fulfills his campaign pledge to pull all combat forces from that country, something that is now expected to happen by August of next year.

 

"That's a little higher number than I expected," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, NV, the Senate's top Democrat.

 

"It has to be done responsibly, we all agree. But 50,000 is more than I would have thought" said Sen. Chuck Schumer, NY, the third-ranking Senate Democrat. "We await justification for why that many are needed."

 

Earlier this week, CNN reported that while the details of what shape U.S. forces will take in Iraq over the next many months remain unclear until a number of additional decisions are made?it's expected that the President's announcement Friday will call for the majority of combat forces to be withdrawn, leaving a residual force of as many as 50,000, largely in a training or advisory role.

 

 

The justification Reid is waiting for is likely to come at a White House meeting Thursday afternoon to which President Obama has summoned bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate to explain his plan for the reduction of forces in Iraq.

 

Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, (D-MI), who will attend the meeting, told CNN 50,000 is "somewhat larger" than what he expected even though he has always believed "a few tens of thousands" of troops would be needed for non-combat missions such as training and fighting terrorism.

 

Sen. Richard Durbin, the number two Democrat and a close Obama ally, said he's anxious to get troops home but defended the administration saying it is "trying to strike the right balance" between ending the war and maintaining stability in Iraq.

 

Another person who will attend the meeting is the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain, AZ, who when he ran against Mr. Obama for president criticized his opponent's plan to pull combat troops from Iraq.

 

"50,000 advisors is a lot of people and they will be in harm's way. The American people should know that," he told CNN. "That is not the campaign rhetoric that President Obama used, I'm happy to say."

 

In an interview that aired Wednesday on MSNBC, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Rachel Maddow ",,, I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, a presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq. I do think that there's a need for some. I don't know that all of them have to be in country. They can be platformed outside. I'll just be interested to see what the president has to say. But I do think that ? I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000.

I am okay with this.

Not a fan of BO. but this is the right thing to do. The situation is stable in Iraq, imaging pulling out too many trops in IRAQ and hell breaking lose again.

no problemo with this whatsoever

I am annoyed by the continual posts by some on here that "his fans must be disappointed" whenever Obama does something that is slightly moderate. I voted for the man, not for every single policy position he has ever held or purported to hold. I disagree with him on some issues, but I still support him.

no problemo with this whatsoever

 

 

I am annoyed by the continual posts by some on here that "his fans must be disappointed" whenever Obama does something that is slightly moderate. I voted for the man, not for every single policy position he has ever held or purported to hold. I disagree with him on some issues, but I still support him.

 

 

 

It's not a policy decision that should be bothering people (although if this was Bush or a republican, people like Jimmy would be crying the loudest about this right now) it's the fact that he is a liar, point blank.

I'm not one of his fans, but I suppose to the point of why someone would suggest they should be disappointed I would think is kind of obvious. Obama ran on the fact that he never supported invading Iraq and that he would "end the war" in Iraq and bring the troops home, or something to that effect if I remember correctly. Now I would personally argue that 50,000 US troops in Iraq in 50,000 too many, but the point is that even if it is a significant reduction, by over 50% of what is there now, 50,000 troops is a lot, and it can hardly be characterized as an end to US occupation in Iraq.

 

Although Dennis Kucinich still inexplicably supports Pres. Obama, even he was saying today on TV, that there's no reason to keep any US troops there. I suppose there is room for disagreement, but I don't think "democracy" in Iraq is worth another American life.

 

I suppose there's also the suggestion that Pres. Obama is somehow substantively different from Pres. Bush, which (IMHO) doesn't seem to be the case. A year or so ago it was Pres. Bush passing "economic stimulus" legislation to send us all welfare checks in the mail, this year it's Pres. Obama signing off on a big "economic stimulus" bill. Last fall it was Bush bailing out the banks with the TARP, and here comes Obama to prop the banks up further. Now we have another instance of Pres. Obama not really departing from the Bush course, keeping (IMO) very significant amount of troops in Iraq long term, and rather than bringing anyone home he seems more intent on just redirecting them to Afghanistan. To the larger question of change, we see less and less of it the longer Obama is in office. People can excuse it all they want, but keeping 50,000+ US troops occupying Iraq can hardly be characterized as "ending the war", even if you play the semantics game of calling them "support troops". And all the people who think that this is an acceptable step towards full withdrawl need to consider what will happen when then this diminished force takes on a large number of casualties - will our leaders respond by escalating the conflict there once again? Or will we just turn around and finally leave, having left those soldiers there to die for nothing?

If I were the GOP, I would praise him. I would have John McCain and George Bush out every day saying, "thank goodness that the President has resisted the imprudent demands of the lunatic left in his own party" and "this is exactly what I would do" and "I am glad to hear that he has surrendered his campaign promises in the face of reality" etc. etc.

If I were the GOP, I would praise him. I would have John McCain and George Bush out every day saying, "thank goodness that the President has resisted the imprudent demands of the lunatic left in his own party" and "this is exactly what I would do" and "I am glad to hear that he has surrendered his campaign promises in the face of reality" etc. etc.

If the neo-conservatives truly supported all of Bush's policies over the last eight years, they should be gushing over what Barack Obama has done so far.

 

In Iraq, you mean.

If I were the GOP, I would praise him. I would have John McCain and George Bush out every day saying, "thank goodness that the President has resisted the imprudent demands of the lunatic left in his own party" and "this is exactly what I would do" and "I am glad to hear that he has surrendered his campaign promises in the face of reality" etc. etc.

 

:lol That's actually a great idea and would be the easiest way for them to win in 2012. Note: Not that I care or want a Republicanism to win.

If I were the GOP, I would praise him. I would have John McCain and George Bush out every day saying, "thank goodness that the President has resisted the imprudent demands of the lunatic left in his own party" and "this is exactly what I would do" and "I am glad to hear that he has surrendered his campaign promises in the face of reality" etc. etc.

 

Barack Obama is the lunatic left

I'm not one of his fans, but I suppose to the point of why someone would suggest they should be disappointed I would think is kind of obvious. Obama ran on the fact that he never supported invading Iraq and that he would "end the war" in Iraq and bring the troops home, or something to that effect if I remember correctly. Now I would personally argue that 50,000 US troops in Iraq in 50,000 too many, but the point is that even if it is a significant reduction, by over 50% of what is there now, 50,000 troops is a lot, and it can hardly be characterized as an end to US occupation in Iraq.

 

Although Dennis Kucinich still inexplicably supports Pres. Obama, even he was saying today on TV, that there's no reason to keep any US troops there. I suppose there is room for disagreement, but I don't think "democracy" in Iraq is worth another American life.

 

I suppose there's also the suggestion that Pres. Obama is somehow substantively different from Pres. Bush, which (IMHO) doesn't seem to be the case. A year or so ago it was Pres. Bush passing "economic stimulus" legislation to send us all welfare checks in the mail, this year it's Pres. Obama signing off on a big "economic stimulus" bill. Last fall it was Bush bailing out the banks with the TARP, and here comes Obama to prop the banks up further. Now we have another instance of Pres. Obama not really departing from the Bush course, keeping (IMO) very significant amount of troops in Iraq long term, and rather than bringing anyone home he seems more intent on just redirecting them to Afghanistan. To the larger question of change, we see less and less of it the longer Obama is in office. People can excuse it all they want, but keeping 50,000+ US troops occupying Iraq can hardly be characterized as "ending the war", even if you play the semantics game of calling them "support troops". And all the people who think that this is an acceptable step towards full withdrawl need to consider what will happen when then this diminished force takes on a large number of casualties - will our leaders respond by escalating the conflict there once again? Or will we just turn around and finally leave, having left those soldiers there to die for nothing?

 

 

This is good work, and put in relatively simple terms. This is the reality, folks - own up to it, or continue to live your lives shrouded in ignorance.

In Obama's defense (I can't believe I'm saying that), this is exactly what I would want done. And "Ending the War" and "Withdrawing All Troops" can be mutually exclusive, for example after WWII we never comletely left Japan, set up Kadena Air Base in Okinawa where we still have 18.000 Americans stationed to this day. We will likely never leave Iraq for good.

If I were the GOP, I would praise him. I would have John McCain and George Bush out every day saying, "thank goodness that the President has resisted the imprudent demands of the lunatic left in his own party" and "this is exactly what I would do" and "I am glad to hear that he has surrendered his campaign promises in the face of reality" etc. etc.

 

Barack Obama is the lunatic left

 

Yes, but if GWB were to tell his base on the lunatic left that he approves / agrees, it would drive them batshit.

How many troops do we still have in Japan/Germany?

How many troops do we still have in Japan/Germany?

 

14k or so marines and 13 k or so air force, I don't know about the army but the navy command in Yokohama is just under 4000

On the other hand, the base in Okinawa served as a lookout on China and the Soviet Union moreso than a check on Japanese tensions. A base in Iraq may act as a lookout on Iran, but what good is that going to do when (not if, when) the Iraqi government cozies up to Iran? Japan was never going to do that with China or the Soviet Union.

no problemo with this whatsoever

 

 

I am annoyed by the continual posts by some on here that "his fans must be disappointed" whenever Obama does something that is slightly moderate. I voted for the man, not for every single policy position he has ever held or purported to hold. I disagree with him on some issues, but I still support him.

 

 

 

It's not a policy decision that should be bothering people (although if this was Bush or a republican, people like Jimmy would be crying the loudest about this right now) it's the fact that he is a liar, point blank.

 

 

 

He didn't lie. He always said his goal was withdrawal within 16 months, but that the pace of withdrawal would be driven by conditions on the ground. I don't want him to withdraw troops in 16 months just to keep guys like you (who would never support anything he does anyhow) from calling him a liar. He is being prudent, IMO.

He didn't lie. He always said his goal was withdrawal within 16 months, but that the pace of withdrawal would be driven by conditions on the ground. I don't want him to withdraw troops in 16 months just to keep guys like you (who would never support anything he does anyhow) from calling him a liar. He is being prudent, IMO.

Oh, please. He's only being prudent if you are placing priority on democracy in Iraq. Evidently this wasn't a concern for anyone until Obama took office and refused to bring us home.

 

Secondly, it is downright insulting for you to be accusing us of stubbornly criticizing Obama when everything we are objecting to clearly is at odds with our professed values and ideology. Perhaps if Obama did something that was actually compatible with what I thought was right for this country I would give him more support.

 

 

It would be easier to believe you if you found something positive to say about him once in awhile.

He didn't lie. He always said his goal was withdrawal within 16 months, but that the pace of withdrawal would be driven by conditions on the ground. I don't want him to withdraw troops in 16 months just to keep guys like you (who would never support anything he does anyhow) from calling him a liar. He is being prudent, IMO.

Oh, please. He's only being prudent if you are placing priority on democracy in Iraq. Evidently this wasn't a concern for anyone until Obama took office and refused to bring us home.

 

Secondly, it is downright insulting for you to be accusing us of stubbornly criticizing Obama when everything we are objecting to clearly is at odds with our professed values and ideology. Perhaps if Obama did something that was actually compatible with what I thought was right for this country I would give him more support.

 

 

It would be easier to believe you if you found something positive to say about him once in awhile.

I assume you have the slightest idea of what my ideology entails. You have accused me of being contrary for the sake of being contrary or something or other. This to me implies that I have some sort of irrational hatred of the man and will force my beliefs to shift in order to attack Obama.

 

Cite one thing he has actually done that I should be positive about that I have expressed disapproval of. Phony promises don't count. Obviously I would support cutting the deficit in half but he has supplied no reason to believe that this is a realistic goal.

 

If I am that closed minded you should be able to come up with several pieces of evidence. This is a polite request.

 

I'm being quite frank here - and I'm not trying to be an a-hole. I could find something, anything - I could post every single news article relating to Obama under the sun, and you'd still find something you completely object to. Yes, I have accused you of being contrary for the sake of being contrary and I stand by that - I think you partially do that. If you wish to take my words to heart, you'll give that some thought.

 

My request is more that you keep an eye on the news headlines online and (God willing) someday, you'll find something that Obama is doing or saying that you can agree with... if you will actually try to do that, I'll respect you a lot more. It just seems that you refuse to be synonymous with anybody on the planet with the exception of Ron Paul.

 

Just trying to be nice, penguino, telling you how I feel.

a wise man once said, "when arguing from the point of view of being right, your smugness kills your view"

I tried.

no problemo with this whatsoever

 

 

I am annoyed by the continual posts by some on here that "his fans must be disappointed" whenever Obama does something that is slightly moderate. I voted for the man, not for every single policy position he has ever held or purported to hold. I disagree with him on some issues, but I still support him.

 

 

 

It's not a policy decision that should be bothering people (although if this was Bush or a republican, people like Jimmy would be crying the loudest about this right now) it's the fact that he is a liar, point blank.

 

 

 

Really? he lied?

 

I can sit here and name all the presidents who lied to our face, but i don't have time right now to write fortysomething names.

It's not a personal vendetta against Obama, as much as it seems to be a personal need to have everyone hear your opinion on everything because of how revolutionary it is. We get it, you disagree with everyone in America except for Ron Paul.

I tried.

No.

 

You just can't fathom the possibility that there are people out there who disagree with nearly all of Obama's policies so you resort to making unsupported claims about people doing it just to get on other people's nerves or satisfy a personal vendetta against Barack.

 

That is smugness, my friend.

 

Fine, dude. Whatever you say.