Letters to the Editor
-
COME ON!
Are you serious? Okay. Well, now I want to take my vote back in the IL primary.
-
Grasping at straws
I guess for the mathematically challenged, this is a story.
-
Is this a Big Contradiction?
I've been under the impression that both Democratic candidates view the near-complete withdrawal of troops as taking the better part of 2 years. How does that happen before 2011? No one wants a total humanitarian disaster and that could easily occur without US troop support.
-
I Got A Newsflash
For the hope and change gang..........There's going to be 100,000 plus through the entire next term.
-
Finally,
Something of substance from the opposition.
-
Say it ain't so
What troops still there until 2010? But Obama's been saying about 16 months to withdraw, and if he becomes president in 2009, then 16 months is ... never mind.
-
Huh?
"No one wants a humanitarian disaster and that could occur without US troops."
Wow. I can't believe that comment.
Just what do you think has occurred in Iraq over the last 5 years? And I do believe that US troops were there all that time.
Pretty sure that they were.
-
I can't help but say...
...that I just heard Bob Barr will announce his intention to run on the Libertarian ticket. He would be an interesting candidate if he didn't happen to be an absolute scumbag.
I wonder if Barr is getting his ass chewed out by McCain yet?
This just gets funnier and more bizarre by the second!
I'm now more interested in the McCain/Barr battle than the Clinton/Obama snoozefest.
The laughs should be epic!
-
Where's the controversy?
Hasn't Obama been saying that, in a best-case scenario, he'd be drawing down one combat brigade per month? And as others have pointed out, taking 16 months to get most of the way through a withdrawal doesn't seem unreasonable or in violation of Obama's pledge to end the war during his first term.
-
And how is else is Obama or one of his supporters the Devil today?
So an Obama advisor agrees with what Obama's been saying.
Well, at least it's not more lies from the Clinton camp.
-
Interesting
Interesting that some people here are trying to make this story fit what Obama's people said in the past when Obama's people have already said this report has *nothing* to do with their previous promises in the campaign. It's okay, people - you don't need to jump to his defense. Politicians are always going to make promises and keep their explanations simpler than the truth really is. I'm sure Hillary has advisers telling her similar things. No big deal.
-
Interesting
Interesting that some people jump to misinterpret what they're reading if that's what it takes to make it fit their personal agenda.
-
Do the math
Obama has said repeatedly that he will transition forces out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal over 18 months . . . um, that puts the end of the time line at mid 2010 if he can get started immediately Jan 09.
That said, what is so INCREDIBLY AWESOME ABOUT OBAMA is that he has advisers that present him with lots of different viewpoints. He hears them out, weighs his options, and then makes a decision. Just because some John Doe suggests a plan does NOT MEAN THAT IT IS OBAMA'S FINAL PLAN, nor does it mean that it is the policy of the campaign or will be the policy of the administration.
Haven't we all seen the outcome of a President who has advisers that toe the line, that only give him the information he wants to hear??!! I, for one, am happy as punch to see that there are different viewpoints coming from Obama advisers. We should be looking at EVERY POSSIBLE OPTION, EVERY POSSIBLE OUTCOME to be the best prepared to handle what may come. This was the undoing of the Bush administration - a narrow view that allowed for only one potential outcome.
Also, I think it is ridiculous to expect our candidates to write promises in stone and not realize that events of the future will dictate how they must adapt and respond. Current intent is important. Obama intends to move the Iraq war towards a RESOLUTION. McCain does not. That is the critical difference.
-
Also interesting
mgummelt is a first-time poster. Wonder which handle s/he normally trolls under?
-
More proof of his savage lies
He too will be covered in Iraqi blood.
-
Eew
He too will be covered in Iraqi blood.
Is this like an anti-fur thing?
-
Does not compute
Gotta love watching the "Clintonian" revising/interpreting coming out of the "he speaks nothing but the truth with utter clarity" Obama people
First, if this is as so many of you say, mathematically in line with what Obama is saying, then why the immediate and utter disavowal of this by the campaign? Yes, this is exactly what we've been saying and just to make that clear, we want to emphasize "this has nothing to do with the campaign" and "we have a range of views" and Obama can't be "held accountable" for our "independent" views. Please, it's obvious for those statements this is not what Obama has been saying at all, painfully obvious, but nope, you need to twist it all so it fits not just somewhat with what he says but exactly with what he says, and then of course, add a dollop of condescension for the "math-challenged" who don't follow the twisting. Of course.
Second, love the description of how Obama has always said he'd have troops in Iraq "in" 2010, but of course, the paper makes it clear that the advisor is talking not the start of 2010, or the middle of 2010, but the "end" of 2010. Way to drop that important word.
And I don't recall Obama campaigning on vote for me and I'll cut the number of troops in Iraq by half in two years. Must have missed those talking points in his stump speech.
So please, skip the attempts to twist this to fit what Obama has been saying. It doesn't fit. It doesn't come close to fitting. Argue about whether this being the second of his major foreign policy advisors to imply a large "residual" force (something he complains about with Hillary) would be a good idea means anything for what he'd actually do. Argue the merits of keeping a force that size there. Argue whether this is any substantial difference from Hillary. But don't pretend this somehow aligns with Obama's talk on the subject. Even his campaign isn't making that patently deceptive argument.