Wonder what the so called ``progressive establishment''-- likes of MoveOn, Nation, Kos etc saw in him. I hope that he is at least an able administrator.
mostly a "I'll give the military their orders, and they'll figure out how to get them done".
some flexibility != going back on his word.
it's flexibility, as much as common sense. If all his generals say that 16 months is too severe a pace, and dangerous (for whatever reason) is he really supposed to go "So?".
16, 18, 20, whatever. They need to come home as soon as is safely possible.
exactly.
WOw, who's repeating republican talking points now?
The Republican talking point is "stay the course until victory." Although, sometimes it's "100 years." There was also McCain's more recent "I will never surrender in Iraq."
In any case, the Republicans are much more concerned about staying than they are about our troops' safety.
No kid, the republican talkng point is that we should NOT have timelines for withdrawal. We've been fighting against that ridiculous notion for three years, we even elected a congress based on that very idea.
Here you come along and state that timelines don't matter, just as the rethugs have been saying. It is YOU who are parroting right wing talking points, sonny.
It reminds me of the story of the farmer with a wolf, chicken and grain that needs to cross the river in a boat but can only take two at a time. There has to be strategy involved in a withdrawal, because as the troops come out, there WILL be more attacks, and we need to be sure we don't remove so many so fast that more men die because of it.
yea but
my wolfish dog now eats grain. I don't think he likes it but he's jealous of the horses. If they get grain he sure as hell does.
Adaptation can really screw up planning
most dogfood is mostly corn
to Moveon.org
NO, that is not how it works.
The NCA issues the order to the JCS for a plan for a withdrawl. The JCS then come back with a plan. The NCA then approves or tweaks the plan according to his/her wishes AND the military command structure excecutes his/her orders.
That is how it happens. I agree it may be longer than 16 months. It may be 24 months, and we all know there will be a QRF left on station probably in the size of 15-20,000 soldiers not including support and C&C groups.
However, if the NCA says he wants out...guess what...the military gets out. Period. Full stop.
Oh boo hoo. Can you recall the last time -- heck, any time, a candidate took the complaints of the activist base, acknowledged them, explained his differences and didn't pander?
That's what Kos and the rest of us saw in him. A leader we'd not agree with 100% of the time, but one that would treat us, and the country, like grown ups.
Now it's our turn to act like grown ups. Keep fighting for what we believe in, but let's not whine like toddlers if it doesn't go our way.
I don't know how anyone can feel like they are being condescended to, either. This, to me, is a thousand times better than a candidate just making a speech, saying that his supporters have spoken and he is rethinking his position. He is LEADING, defending his position and trying to explain himself. While still accepting input from people and making his advisors watch, communicate and (presumably) take notes. Not staffers, either, his actual foreign policy advisors. The ones that could actually MAKE a difference.
When would you EVER think you'd be able to sit and chat with Paul Wolfowitz while he answered tough questions and talked about his position on the war?
While the American people are now strongly in favor of leaving Iraq ASAP, it is also with the understanding to do it as safely as possible. That is what he is stating.
If you actually think that HRC would have pulled all of our troops out in 120 days, you are a fool. This is not an 'I told you so' moment.
The last thing we need is for our candidates to be seen as wrecklessly endangering our troops. That alone would probably be enough to ensure a McCain victory. The fact that Obama is stating publically that the safety of the troops will come first is going to assure a lot of fence sitters that they can come to our side. He is also going to take away a major argument that the GOP was ready to make.
I do trust Obama to bring our troops home as fast as possible. I never expected that he would get it done by May 2009. I do anticipate that he will be doing everything he can to get as many home by the fall of 2010 as possible. This is very rapid, especially when you compare it to Mr. 100 years.
Think how wonderful that will be, going into the mid-term elections and the Democrats able to say they held their promise to bring our troops home, and bring them home safe, all while keeping Americans safe at home.
Well, bring some home. He wants to redeploy to Afghanistan. Honestly, though, I think that might be better for some soldiers anyway. The ones who intend on staying soldiers. Easier to fight when you know who you're fighting and why.
He'll still be trying to get them home by 2012 at your position, and he'll be running on that fact for re-election. Because he's the only one that can get them home! -BS!
If he wants them home, they come home. HE would be the National Command Authority! He issues the orders, the Generals carry them out.
OBAMA: Re-deploy out of Iraq in 18-36 months with a minimum QRF force staying in Iraq, starting in 180 days. Get it done.
CJCS: Yes sir!
Result: Forces are re-deployed, as the President ordered. It really is that simple.
Getting them home safe, and the people who supported us, can be done quickly and orderly. Not on a dime, granted, but it can be done quickly. If the Iraqi's can't after 5 years put up QRF's that can hold Baghdad, they won't do it in the next 4 years either. Their trained forces are roughly 75% of what we have on station right now. Are they combat ready? It's not really our problem. The Iraqi's won't do it unless they have to. If we tell 'em we will be 90% gone in 18-30 months you will see a dramatic improvement in their performances.
No, he is simply restating the position that got us all upset in the first place. His defense is weak and easily punctured. IF his people review the questions posted on the "live" blog and actually, substantively ANSWER them, I will be impressed. Maybe even convinced. But all that happened was that he penned a weak response to a passionate crowd, posted it, and had a couple of staffers hang around and answer NO actual questions about the specifics, merits and shortcomings of the bill. It LOOKED good but it was an empty exercise.
I agree. I hope those guys were there to do more than just try to smooth people down. I hope they took notes.
When contrasting grown ups and children on the road of life....C.K.Chesteron wrote:
>I was subconsciously certain as a child and I am consciously certain as an adult that there was the white and solid road and the worthy beginning of the life of a man who afterwards darkens it with dreams or goes astray in self-deception. It is only the grown man who lives a life of make beleve and pretending; and it is he who has his head in a cloud.<
So kudos to the children who can spot a phoney grown up a mile off.
they built him up to be something he's not and never claimed to be only because he wasn't Hillary Clinton.
If you honestly think Nader could manage jack shit, you're an idiot.
Nader isn't a liar. There's always that.
