Let's see if he does it. I doubt it.

Just 1,181 months short of the GOp's wet dream.

All troops to pakistan

"Let's see if he does it. I doubt it."

And if he does will you admit you are wrong and that he is not the man you think he is?

One this one point, yes.

We call Bullshit! -Iran

Please do, we need growing room - Nazi Germany err - Iran

Please do, we need growing room - Nazi Germany err - Iran

Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-02-24 07:53 PM | Reply

GODWIN'S LAW

Please do, we need growing room - Nazi Germany err - Iran

#7 | Posted by chickenrancher

Dubya should have thought of that before he installed the Iranian-backed shia government in Iraq, don't you think? Even his old man and the saudis helped saddam keep the shia down after Gulf 1. Then again, since the entire Iraq war was a hustle by the Iranian government (they controlled Chalabi and the INC and provided all the WMD "intel"), I'm sure they told Dubya, don't worry, be happy and you'll be greeted as a liberator.

The Iranians have had a great deal of support from the GOP since Reagan's treason. Makes you wonder, why do GOPpers hate America and love the mad ayatollahs?

If our economy continues to worsen our soldiers may prefer to stay where they are at.

Just 1,181 months short of the GOp's wet dream.

#2 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-02-24 07:36 PM

Gee, I wonder why Barry is being so careful to say "combat troops"...maybe because once the approx. 100,000 "combat troops" are gone, we will still have approx. 40,000 troops in a support role still there? The Obama Admin has been talking about "re-missioning" additional troops over and above the support troops, so that number could rise. Maliki sure doesn't want to see his patron pull out anytime soon, and there is convenient wording in the Status of Forces Agreement which allows Iraq to "ask" the US to stay indefinitely.

Get used to the fact that US troops will be in Iraq for as long as we have had troops in South Korea/Germany/Italy. We didn't build those bases to give them back.

Reagan's treason

#9 | Posted by northguy3

Please define, state laws that were violated how and when.

Barry means that after the 19th month pull out, the troops that are left will form the basis of a 100 year occupation. Barry has been informed about military matters by McCain.

What does McCain have to do with this?

Sounds like acorn is informing him on all matters. And Soros.

I see panic among the heathens.

Get used to the fact that US troops will be in Iraq for as long as we have had troops in South Korea/Germany/Italy. We didn't build those bases to give them back.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2009-02-24 08:30 PM | Reply

I just love how You folks on the Right think they can just squat whereever the fuck they want to and nobody giving a shit. Whaty right dop we have to stay there?? We illegally invaded the Country regardless on how You want to twist the justifications in the wind. What right do we have to stay there?? Don't give me that God damned Statusz of Forces bullshit because when the intitial act is illegal the whole shebang is too. WE DESEWRVE EVERYTHING WE GET ROC. You have lost all right to condemn the next attack on Americaq. You do realize this right ROC??

Larry

Please define, state laws that were violated how and when.

Violation of various arms trading laws, specifically selling missiles to the mad ayatollahs. Then there's the whole sending Marines to beirut to be killed so Ollie North could cement the business relationship. And, of course, offing two GOPper Senators (heinz and tower), but that may just have been Herbie acting out.

Use the Google and "Irangate" chickenplucker.

WOW that happens to coincide with Bushes 24 months 5 months ago. Amazing.

"clueless little black boy"

Obviously you don't want your posts considered by intelligent people, no, you seem satisfied with racial insults and insane accusations. Fortunately for America your kind is a dying breed. One thing we don't need in America is more bigots. Fortunately for America, our youth seems able to reject the prejudice of their parents.

WOW that happens to coincide with Bushes 24 months 5 months ago. Amazing.

#19 | Posted by KBM

Um, it's a year earlier than Bush's Peace with Honorable Mention II deal he cut with maliki. You know, the date specific thing that you righties said was so bad until Bush signed it?

And the key words here are,
"is likely to decide"

Throw the doggies a bone.

Save America, impeach clueless little black boy

#17 | Posted by rightnut at 2009-02-24 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Awwwww......poor you. You've become so bitter becuase your side lost.

Too bad, bitter little racist girl.

When you consider the hell that the worthless libs put GW through over these 2 wars, it amazes me that little clueless black boy gets a pass.
Where is cindy shithead and her ilk? did she make it to the senate? she was a useful tool for those that wanted to undermine the Bush administration.
clueless little black boy is going to get a pass on everything that George W.Bush put into motion that the whiners of the left tried to portray as destoying their constitution. Worthless bunch of shitheads.
Save America, impeach clueless little black boy

#17 | Posted by rightnut at 2009-02-24 10:25 PM | Reply |

Shouldn't you be happy then? I mean at least the shit you wanted is getting done and the liberals think they run the country?

I find it a just a bit gigglely. Ain't no way in hell. He just moved the mark on the wall to the right (remember the 2007 speech "all troops out by the end of 2009"? I think that in 2012 we will have at least a 35K-50K force in Iraq. And 100K in Afghanistan.

He has the same plan to end the war in Iraq that Nixon did in Viet Nam. Elect me again and I will tell you my plan. Not that I am cynical. Or jaded.

I am going back to Iraq this summer. Keep you all posted on what I see. The blue bus is calling us....

Yes, let's withdraw, then re-insert, then withdraw, then insert...etc. That way we fuck up everything! And isn't that the Dembastard way?

"it amazes me that little clueless black boy gets a pass."

Yeah, it probably does, see....the rest of America isn't all stupid bigots. Does that help you understand?

You cannot impeach someone because you don't like his policies. If so, GW Bush would likely have been impeached sometime during his terms in office. And even if you do impeach someone, it doesn't always result in people being tossed out of office.

I wish that people who want to talk politics would take the time to understand the processes that they are asking to be used. But hell, free speech means we get to say what we want whenever we want, and knowledge and understanding be damned. [fe]

A lot of gobbledygoop..

... has not made any final decision...If Obama says U.S. combat forces should be out ... that would give them a deadline of late August 2010.
Obama has also said that a residual force ...would remain ...

Troops to leave Iraq in 18 months, officials say

By ANNE GEARAN and PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writers Anne Gearan And Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writers 19 mins ago

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama is expected to order all U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by August of next year, administration officials said, closing the door on a war that has led to the deaths of at least 4,250 members of the U.S. military

Gee, I wonder why Barry is being so careful to say "combat troops"...maybe because once the approx. 100,000 "combat troops" are gone, we will still have approx. 40,000 troops in a support role still there? The Obama Admin has been talking about "re-missioning" additional troops over and above the support troops, so that number could rise. Maliki sure doesn't want to see his patron pull out anytime soon, and there is convenient wording in the Status of Forces Agreement which allows Iraq to "ask" the US to stay indefinitely.

Get used to the fact that US troops will be in Iraq for as long as we have had troops in South Korea/Germany/Italy. We didn't build those bases to give them back.

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2009-02-24 08:30 PM

psst, don't tell them that was essentially McCain's stance as well

"psst, don't tell them that was essentially McCain's stance as well"

Except that every time the issue came up in a debate that I saw, Sen. McCain told Sen. Obama he was wrong about Afghanistan and we needed to finish the job in Iraq. While both appeared to be serious about the War on Terror (stupid name), the approach was different. Obama always presented his belief that Afghanistan (you know, where Al Qaeda actually is) was the real center of the war, while McCain kept saying he was wrong and naive. So you'd have to 'splain more to show me that the two stances were the same. Neither is interested in cut and run, if that's what you mean. And then please tell Obama's critics that. : )

When they come back, they need to be deployed on our southern border.

#21 Northguy

No it isn't Northguy. Bush's deal with the Iraqi's called for US troops to be out around late 2010 to early 2011. It's been FACT for some time now, and here the left is trying to give Obama the credit. Figures.

Oops...

LONDON (Reuters) - Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees.

So you'd have to 'splain more to show me that the two stances were the same. Neither is interested in cut and run, if that's what you mean. And then please tell Obama's critics that. : )

#32 | Posted by pragmatist

McCain said he'd be fine with them staying there as long as they weren't getting hurt.

Obama said he'd bring home the troops but leave a "residual" force behind.

They both basically said they'd keep troops in Iraq in some non-combat role. The rhetoric was the main difference, designed to garner support from their respective bases.

We were going to stay in Iraq regardless of if it was McCain or Obama.

And his critics who said he was a cut'n'runner are just as stupid as his supporters who think Obama is some sort of anti-war president, or is doing anything drastically different than the repubs regarding pulling out of Iraq.

I guess I missed the point McCain had about non-combat role. Thanks for 'splaining your point. : )

Didn't he promise to pull them out sooner in his campaign? Something like 16 months?

Oh well, the ball-lickers will be fine with it, and that's all that matters.

I guess I missed the point McCain had about non-combat role.

#38 | Posted by pragmatist

Didn't he promise to pull them out sooner in his campaign? Something like 16 months?

#39 | Posted by JOE

He has settled on 18 months, which will put it at August of '10. He also promised to consult with commanders and do it responsibly. I'm not exactly sure why being OK with an extra 2 months, if that is what is necessary, makes anyone a "ball licker", other than that you just get all tingly saying the words.

Live or Die says: "Either you missed it or willingly ignored it." in response to my missing McCain's point. I'm tempted to say "Fuck you, jerkoff." But instead I'll more temperately point out that I was accepting the correction, or accepting that there could be a correction and I could have missed something. Please don't insinuate some sort of blindness or adherence to party politics where there is none.

Hey that's cool. Understood man.

But I am a jerkoff so the other response would have been appropriate as well.

"When you consider the hell that the worthless libs put GW through over these 2 wars, it amazes me that little clueless black boy gets a pass."

Bush sent young Americans to war for no reason and with no plan and you have the balls to say HE was put through hell?

What a drama queen you are.....

As long as all you dems are happy with this and cant see the fact that he said one thing and is doing another. He is following exacly what was laid out for him by the previous admin. Just helps to prove that its not what he does that matters its what he says that is important to you. Leaving 40k - 50K in Iraq is not what he said during the campaining but the sheeple dont like to understand what is being said they are fixed on the half truth that we are withdrawing from Iraq in 18 months.

This guy could give you $500 and you give him $50,000 of your money over the next 10 years and you would think its stimulating you. Oh wait he just sold that to you and you bougth it hook line and sinker. Some are so stupid they are asking and wanting him to do it again!!

"But I am a jerkoff so the other response would have been appropriate as well."

Hee hee. All good. Nice to know that sometimes rhetoric is just rhetoric.

Have a helluva day!

Leaving 40k - 50K in Iraq is not what he said during the campaining but the sheeple dont like to understand what is being said they are fixed on the half truth that we are withdrawing from Iraq in 18 months.

#45 | Posted by WI_Hunter

But his supporters who elected him to "end the war" in any manner drastically different from Bush's or McCain's plans are also dumbfucks, so you're not alone.

Have a helluva day!

#46 | Posted by pragmatist

You as well.

Yes, let's withdraw, then re-insert, then withdraw, then insert...etc. That way we fuck up everything!

Like reagan did in beirut! Or the Bushies in Iraq.

given the fact that Republicans haven't won a war since 1865, maybe they should outsource the C-in-C job to a Democrat should they ever lime their way back into the WH.

"That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

And if they did die? 4 died yesterday. Would Mctoast be cutting and running today like his mentor Reagan did in beirut? Like his super secret plan to capture Osama, if elected, this statement made no sense.

And if they did die? 4 died yesterday. Would Mctoast be cutting and running today like his mentor Reagan did in beirut? Like his super secret plan to capture Osama, if elected, this statement made no sense.

#49 | Posted by northguy3

Guess what, Northguy, out of the 30 or 40,000 left in Iraq some of them are going to die too. Their blood will be on Obama's hands since he clearly promised during his campaign to comletely withdraw from Iraq.

By the way, many American's died in foreign countries after Germany surrendered in WWII. This was with no fighting going on at all.

Their blood will be on Obama's hands since he clearly promised during his campaign to comletely withdraw from Iraq.

#51 | Posted by everlong

He's doing exactly what he said he'd do.

Their blood will be on Obama's hands since he clearly promised during his campaign to comletely withdraw from Iraq.

#51 | Posted by everlong

LoD's right. He never made that claim.

Obama said he was going to leave American soldiers in Iraq to protect his muslim brothers. He also wants them to protect his fake birth certificate.

I thought he was keeping troops in Iraq to find Bush's legacy.

I thought he was keeping troops in Iraq to find Bush's legacy.

#55 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-02-25 03:23 PM | Reply

The pretzel choking incident will be Bush's legacy.

I've been waiting all day to bust out a "Michele Obama's free weights" crack after seeing her guns yesterday, and have yet to get the opportunity.

Well, the impression I was always left with was that it was to be a complete withdrawal.

Well, the impression I was always left with was that it was to be a complete withdrawal.

#57 | Posted by everlong

The new Status of Forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration requires that U.S. troops be out of Iraqi cities by June and out of the country by 2012.

Live or Die-McToast clearly said he would stay as long as no Americans were injured. What exactly does that mean, if an American gets an ouchie? Would Mctoast have set a level of K/WIA that would trigger a not staying forever? According to his own words, that level is one cut or bruise. Then what?

McToast was positing a post-war Iraq setting. Clearly he had no idea of how to get to that post-war setting.

Their blood will be on Obama's hands

#51 | Posted by everlong

And I'm sure you will thank the C-in-C for every one of them, as you have done for the last 4,200...

Live or Die-McToast clearly said he would stay as long as no Americans were injured. What exactly does that mean, if an American gets an ouchie? Would Mctoast have set a level of K/WIA that would trigger a not staying forever? According to his own words, that level is one cut or bruise. Then what?

#59 | Posted by northguy3

McToast was positing a post-war Iraq setting. Clearly he had no idea of how to get to that post-war setting.

#59 | Posted by northguy3

No, Northguy, I will blame him for everyone just like you did with Bush. Where do you get the preposterous notion that someone would be thankful for a soldier dying? Is that how you think?

Once again, the rightards are trying to make political hay because the man who stomped their recent candidate and has to clean up their former candidates disasters may have to extend his troop withdrawal by THREE months.

Precious!

..extend his troop withdrawal by THREE months

I think Bush's first 'extension' was for three months too, wasn't it?

No, Northguy, I will blame him for everyone just like you did with Bush

well, Obama did fabricate a reason to invade Iraq and totally mis-manage the war for almost 6 years, so that's fair. And I'm pretty sure he's the guy who told Bush to ignore all those security briefings pre 9-11 AND let bin laden escape from Tora Bora, too.

You Bushies could take lessons in personal responsibility from bart Simpson.

And you Obamamaniacs could take a few lessons in reason and logic if you want to put the blame for 9/11 and Bin Laden's escape on Bush. If you recall, we bombed the living shit out of Tora Bora. It just so happened that we were also working with the Northern Alliance who happened to be for the highest bidder, and many of whom wanted bin Laden to escape.

Ever-what did bombing Tora Bora have to do with Bush ignoring 50 security warnings before 9-11? and as for the Northern Alliance-with the biggest and best military in the world, why did Bush decide to outsource the capture to a group with a spotty record?

Other than he being an idiot, I mean.

And that's not even questioning Bush's premature removal of special forces from afghanistan....

..extend his troop withdrawal by THREE months

I think Bush's first 'extension' was for three months too, wasn't it?

#64 | Posted by goatman at 2009-02-25 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

True, but it was also Bush who decided two years ago this month that the next president would have to be the one to clean up Iraq.

Regarding the birth certificate canard, since the Obama campaign put up a record of a kind, and given that there was a _birth announcement_ in Hawaii contemporaneously, rather than Obama and his group having to defend, maybe those on the other side should be asked to provide similar documentation showing that he was born in Kenya, as they claim. All I've heard is hearsay.

It just so happened that we were also working with the Northern Alliance who happened to be for the highest bidder, and many of whom wanted bin Laden to escape.

#66 | Posted by everlong

Which was probably why we should have gone in after bin Ladin ourselves when we had him cornered, instead of letting the Afghanis do it, doncha think?