Obama: Two wars, one promise: The Swamp
The Swamp
Chicago Tribune
Posted August 17, 2009 12:32 PM
The Swamp

by Mark Silva

President Barack Obama, who has pledged to bring the troops home from Iraq while the American deployment in Afghanistan grows, faced the Veterans of Foreign Wars today in Phoenix. The U.S. has placed more than 60,000 troops in Afghanistan, and is scaling back its onetime deployment of more than twice as many in Iraq.

He made a promise today:

"As President, my greatest responsibility is the security and safety of the American people. As I've said before, this is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night. And I will not hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests.

"But as we protect America, our men and women in uniform must always be treated as what they are: America's most precious resource. As Commander-in-Chief I have a solemn responsibility for their safety. And there is nothing more sobering than signing a letter of condolence to the family of serviceman or woman who has given their life for our country.

"That is why I have made this pledge to our armed forces: I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. When I do, it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. And I will give you a clear mission, defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done.''

This is the text of the president's address to the VFW:

Thank you, Commander Gardner, for your introduction and for your lifetime of service. I was proud to welcome Glen and your executive director, Bob Wallace, to the Oval Office just before the Fourth of July, and I look forwarding to working with your next commander--Tommy Tradewell.

Let me also salute Jean Gardner and Sharon Tradewell, as well as Dixie Hild, Jan Title and all the spouses and family of the Ladies Auxiliary. America honors your service as well.

Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I am honored and humbled to stand before you as Commander-in-Chief of the finest military the world has ever known. And we're joined by some of those who make it the finest force in world--from Luke Air Force Base, members of the 56th Fighter Wing.

Whether you wear the uniform today, or wore it decades ago, you remind us of a fundamental truth. It's not the powerful weapons that make our military the strongest in the world. It's not the sophisticated systems that make us the most advanced. No, the true strength of our military lies in the spirit and skill of our men and women in uniform.

You know this. It is the story of your lives. When fascism seemed unstoppable and our harbor was bombed, you battled across rocky Pacific islands and stormed the beaches of Europe, marching across a continent--my own grandfather and uncle among your ranks--liberating millions and turning enemies into allies.

When communism cast its shadow across so much of the globe, you stood vigilant in a long Cold War--from an airlift in Berlin to the mountains of Korea to the jungles of Vietnam. When that Cold War ended and old hatreds emerged anew, you turned back aggression from Kuwait to Kosovo.

And long after you took off the uniform, you've continued to serve: supporting our troops and their families when they go to war and welcoming them when they come home; working to give our veterans the care they deserve; and when America's heroes are laid to rest, giving every one that final fitting tribute of a grateful nation. We can never say it enough: for your service in war and in peace, thank you VFW.

Today, the story of your service is carried on by a new generation--dedicated, courageous men and women who I have the privilege to lead and meet every day.

They're the young sailors--the midshipmen at the Naval Academy who raised their right hand at graduation and committed themselves to a life of service.

They're the soldiers I met in Baghdad who have done their duty, year after year, on a second, third or fourth tour.

They're the Marines of Camp Lejeune, preparing to deploy and now serving in Afghanistan to protect Americans here at home.

They're the airmen, like those here today, who provide the close air support that saves the lives of our troops on the ground.

They're the wounded warriors--at Landstuhl and Walter Reed and Bethesda and across America--for whom the battle is not to fight, but simply to speak, to stand, to walk once more.

They're the families that my wife Michelle has met at bases across the country. The spouses back home doing the parenting of two. The children who wonder when mom or dad is coming home. The parents who watch their sons and daughters go off to war. The families who lay a loved one to rest--and the pain that lasts a lifetime.

To all those who have served America--our forces, your families, our veterans--you have done your duty. You have fulfilled your responsibilities. And now a grateful nation must fulfill ours. And that is what I want to talk about today.

First, we have a solemn responsibility to always lead our men and women in uniform wisely. This starts with a vision of American leadership that recognizes that military power alone cannot be the first or only answer to the threats facing our nation.

In recent years, our troops have succeeded in every mission America has given them, from toppling the Taliban to deposing a dictator in Iraq to battling brutal insurgencies. At the same time, forces trained for war have been called upon to perform a whole host of missions. Like mayors, they've run local governments and delivered water and electricity. Like aid workers, they've mentored farmers and built new schools. Like diplomats, they've negotiated agreements with tribal sheikhs and local leaders.

But let us never forget. We are a country of more than 300 million Americans. Less than one percent wears the uniform. And that one percent--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen--have borne the overwhelming burden of our security. In fact, perhaps never in American history have so few protected so many.

The responsibility for our security must not be theirs alone. That is why I have made it a priority to enlist all elements of our national power in defense of our national security--our diplomacy and development, our economic might and our moral example. Because one of the best ways to lead our troops wisely is prevent the conflicts that cost American blood and treasure tomorrow.

As President, my greatest responsibility is the security and safety of the American people. As I've said before, this is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night. And I will not hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests.

But as we protect America, our men and women in uniform must always be treated as what they are: America's most precious resource. As Commander-in-Chief I have a solemn responsibility for their safety. And there is nothing more sobering than signing a letter of condolence to the family of serviceman or woman who has given their life for our country.

That is why I have made this pledge to our armed forces: I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. When I do, it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. And I will give you a clear mission, defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done.

That is our second responsibility to our armed forces--giving them the resources and equipment and strategies to meet their missions. We need to keep our military the best trained, the best-led, the best-equipped fighting force in the world. That's why--even with our current economic challenges--my budget increases defense spending.

We will ensure that we have the force structure to meet today's missions. That is why we've increased the size of the Army and Marines Corps two years ahead of schedule and have approved another temporary increase in the Army. And we've halted personnel reductions in the Navy and Air Force. This will give our troops more time home between deployments, which means less stress on families and more training for the next mission. And it will help us put an end, once and for all, to stop-loss for those have done their duty.

We will equip our forces with the assets and technologies they need to fight and win. So my budget funds more of the Army helicopters, crews and pilots urgently needed in Afghanistan; the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that gives our troops the advantage; the special operations forces that can deploy on a moment's notice. And for all those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, including our National Guard and Reserve, more of the protective gear and armored vehicles that saves lives.

As we fight in two wars, we will plan responsibly, budget honestly and speak candidly about the costs and consequences of our actions. That is why I've made sure my budget includes the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq, after more than six years of war, we took an important step forward in June. We transferred control of all cities and towns to Iraq's security services. The transition to full Iraqi responsibility for their own security is now underway. This progress is a testament to all those who have served in Iraq, uniformed and civilian. And our nation owes these Americans--and all who have given their lives--a profound debt of gratitude.

As they take control of their destiny, Iraqis will be tested and targeted. Those who seek to sow sectarian division will attempt more senseless bombings, more killing of innocents. This we know.

But as we move forward, the Iraqi people must know that the United States will keep its commitments. And the American people must know that we will move forward with our strategy. We will begin removing our combat brigades from Iraq later this year. We will remove all our combat brigades by the end of next August. And we will remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. And for America, the Iraq war will end.

By moving forward in Iraq, we're able to refocus on the war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why I announced a new, comprehensive strategy in March. This strategy recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan. This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war--that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance. And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals--to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.

In the months since, we've begun to put this comprehensive strategy into action. And in recent weeks, we've seen our troops do their part. They've have gone into new areas--taking the fight to the Taliban in villages and towns where residents have been terrorized for years. They're adopting new tactics, knowing that it's not enough to kill extremists and terrorists; we also need to protect the Afghan people and improve their daily lives. And today, our troops are helping to secure polling places for this week's election so Afghans can choose the future they want.

These new efforts have not been without a price. The fighting has been fierce. More Americans have given their lives. And as always, the thoughts and prayers of every American are with those who make the ultimate sacrifice in our defense.

As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight. And we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick. This will not be easy.

But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.

Going forward, we will constantly adapt our tactics to stay ahead of the enemy and give our troops the tools and equipment they need to succeed. And at every step of the way, we will assess our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to help the Afghan and Pakistani people build the future they seek.

Even as we lead and equip our troops for the missions of today, we have a third responsibility to fulfill. We must prepare our forces for the missions of tomorrow.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen adapt to new challenges everyday. But as we all know, much of our defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the post-Cold War world, with doctrine and weapons better suited to fight the Soviets on the plains of Europe than insurgents in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan. Twenty years after the Cold War ended, this is not simply unacceptable. It is irresponsible. And our troops and taxpayers deserve better.

That is why our defense review is taking a top-to-bottom look at our priorities and posture, questioning conventional wisdom, rethinking old dogmas and challenging the status quo. We're asking hard questions about the forces we need and the weapons we buy. And when we're finished, we'll have a new blueprint for the 21st century military we need. In fact, we're already on our way.

We're adopting new concepts--because the full spectrum of challenges demands a full range of military capabilities--the conventional and the unconventional, the ablilty to defeat both the armored division and the lone suicide bomber; the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and the Improvised Explosive Device; 18th-century-style piracy and 21st century cyber threats. No matter the mission, we must maintain America's military dominance.

So even as we modernize our conventional forces, we're investing in the capabilities that will reorient our force of the future: an Army that is more mobile and expeditionary and missile defenses that protect our troops in the field; a Navy that not only projects power across the oceans but operates nimbly in shallow, coastal waters; an Air Force that dominates the airspace with next-generation aircraft--manned and unmanned; a Marine Corps that can move ashore more rapidly in more places. And across the force, we're investing in new skills and specialties. Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages they speak and the cultures they understand.

But here's the simple truth. We can't build the 21st century military we need--and maintain the fiscal responsibility that Americans demand--unless we fundamentally reform the way our defense establishment does business. It's a simple fact. Every dollar wasted in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to care for our troops, protect America or prepare for the future.

You know the story. The indefensible no-bid contracts that cost taxpayers billions and make contractors rich. The special interests and their exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget. The entrenched lobbyists pushing weapons that even our military says it doesn't want. The impulse in Washington to protect jobs back home building things we don't need at a cost we can't afford.

This waste would be unacceptable at any time. But at a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, it's inexcusable. It's unconscionable. It's an affront to the American people and to our troops. And it's time for it to stop.

This isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It's about giving our troops the support they need. And that's something on which all Americans can agree. So I'm glad that I have a partner in this effort in a great veteran, a great Arizonan, and a great American who has shown the courage to stand and fight this waste--Senator John McCain. And I'm proud to have Secretary of Defense Robert Gates--who has served under eight presidents of both parties--leading this fight at the Pentagon.

Already, I've put an end to unnecessary no-bid contracts. I signed bipartisan legislation to reform defense procurement so weapons systems don't spin out of control. And even as we increase spending on the equipment and weapons our troops do need, we have proposed cutting tens of billions of dollars in waste we don't need.

Think about it. Hundreds of millions of dollars for an alternate second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter--when one reliable engine will do just fine. Nearly two billion dollars to buy more F-22 fighter jets when we can move ahead with a fleet of newer, more affordable aircraft. Tens of billions of dollars to put an anti-missile laser on a fleet of vulnerable 747s.

And billions of dollars for a new presidential helicopter. Maybe you heard about this. Among other capabilities, it would let me cook a meal while under nuclear attack. I'll tell you something. If the United States of America is under nuclear attack, the last thing on my mind will be whipping up a snack.

It's simple enough. Cut the waste. Save taxpayer dollars. Support the troops. But we all know how Washington works. The special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists are invested in the status quo. And they're putting up a fight.

But make no mistake, so are we. If a project doesn't support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system doesn't perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of waste, I will veto it. We will do right by our troops and taxpayers. We will build the 21st century military we need.

Finally, we will fulfill our responsibility to those who serve by keeping our promises to our people.

We will fulfill our responsibility to our forces and families. That is why we're increasing military pay, building better family housing and funding more childcare and counseling to help families cope with the stresses of war. And we've changed the rules so military spouses can better compete for federal jobs and pursue their careers.

We will fulfill our responsibility to our wounded warriors. For those still in uniform, we're investing billions of dollars for more treatment centers, more case managers and better medical care so our troops can recover and return to where they want to be--with their units.

But for so many veterans the war rages on--the flashbacks that won't go away, the loved ones who now seem like strangers, the heavy darkness of depression that has led too many of our troops to take their own lives. Post-Traumatic Stress and Traumatic Brain Injury are the defining injuries of today's wars. So caring for those affected by them is a defining purpose of my budget--billions of dollars for more treatment and mental health screening to reach our troops on the frontlines and more mobile and rural clinics to reach veterans back home. We will not abandon these American heroes.

We will fulfill our responsibility to our veterans as they return to civilian life. I was proud to co-sponsor the Post-9/11 GI Bill as a senator. Thanks to VFW members across the country--and leaders like Arizona's Harry Mitchell in Congress--it's now the law of the land. And as President, I'm committed to seeing that it is successfully implemented.

For so many of you, like my grandfather, the original GI Bill changed your life--helping you to realize your dreams. And it transformed America--helping to build the largest middle class in history. We're saying the same thing to today's Post-9/11 veterans--you pick the school, we'll help pick up the bill.

And as these veterans start showing up on campuses, I'm proud that we're making this opportunity available to all those who have sacrificed, including reservists and National Guard members and spouses and children, including kids who've lost their mom or dad. In an era when so many people and institutions have acted irresponsibly, we chose to reward the responsibility and service of our forces and their families.

Whether you left the service in 2009 or 1949, we will fulfill our responsibility to deliver the benefits and care that you earned. That's why I've pledged to build nothing less than a 21st-century VA. And I picked a lifelong soldier and a wounded warrior from Vietnam to lead this fight--General Ric Shinseki.

We're dramatically increasing funding for veterans health care. This includes hundreds of millions of dollars to serve veterans in rural areas as well as the unique needs of our growing number of women veterans. We're restoring access to VA health care for a half-million veterans who lost their eligibility in recent years--our Priority 8 veterans.

And since there's been so much misinformation out there about health insurance reform, let me say this. One thing that reform won't change is veterans health care. No one is going to take away your benefits. That's the truth.

We're keeping our promise on concurrent receipt. My budget ensures that our severely disabled veterans will receive both their military retired pay and their VA disability benefits. And I look forward to signing legislation on advanced appropriations for the VA so that the medical care you need is never held up by budget delays.

I've also directed Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority--reducing homelessness among veterans. Because after serving their country, no veteran should be sleeping on the streets.

And we're keeping our promise to fulfill another top priority at the VA--cutting the red tape and inefficiencies that cause backlogs and delays in the claims process. This spring, I directed the departments of defense and veterans affairs to create one unified lifetime electronic health record for members of the armed forces--a single electronic record, with privacy guaranteed, that will stay with them forever. Because after fighting for America, you shouldn't have to fight over paperwork to receive the benefits you earned.

Today, I can announce that we're taking another step. I have directed my Chief Performance Officer, my Chief Technology Officer and my Chief Information Officer to join with Secretary Shinseki in a new reform effort. We're launching a new competition to capture the very best ideas of our VA employees who work with you every day.

We're going to challenge each of our 57 regional VA offices to come up with the best ways of doing business, harnessing the best information technologies, breaking through the bureaucracy.

And then we're going to fund the best ideas and put them into action. All with a simple mission--cut those backlogs, slash those wait times and deliver your benefits sooner. I know, you've heard this for years. But with the leadership and resources we're providing, I know we can do this. And that is our mission.

Taken together, these investments represent an historic increase in our commitment to America's veterans--a 15 percent increase over last year's funding levels and the largest increase in the VA budget in more than 30 years. And over the next five years we'll invest another $25 billion more.

These are major investments, and these are difficult times. Fiscal discipline demands that we make hard decisions--sacrificing certain things we cannot afford. But let me be clear. America's commitments to its veterans are not just lines in a budget. They are bonds that are sacrosanct--a sacred trust we are honor bound to uphold. And we will.

These are the commitments we make to the patriots who serve--from the day they enlist to the day they are laid to rest. Patriots like you. Patriots like Jim Norene.

His story is his own, but in it we see the larger story of all who serve. A child of the Depression who grew up to join that greatest generation. A paratrooper in the 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne. Jumping in a daring daylight raid into Holland to liberate a captive people. Rushing to Bastogne at the Battle of the Bulge where his commanding general--surrounded by the Germans and asked to surrender--declared, famously, "Nuts."

For his bravery, Jim was awarded the Bronze Star. But like so many others, he rarely spoke of what he did or what he saw--reminding us that true love of country is not boisterous or loud but, rather, the "tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

He returned home and built a life. Went to school on the GI Bill. Got married. Raised a family in his small Oregon farming town. And every Veterans Day, year after year, he visited schoolchildren to speak about the meaning of service. And he did it all as a proud member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Then, this spring, Jim made a decision. He would return to Europe once more. Eighty-five years old, frail and gravely ill, he knew he might not make it back home. But like the paratrooper he always was, he was determined.

Near Bastogne, he returned to the places he knew so well. At a Dutch town liberated by our GIs, schoolchildren lined the sidewalks and sang The Star-Spangled Banner. And in the quiet clearing of an American cemetery, he walked among those perfect lines of white crosses of fellow soldiers who had fallen long ago, their names forever etched in stone.

Then--back where he had served 65 years before--Jim Norene passed away. At night. In his sleep. Quietly. Peacefully. The "tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

The next day, I was privileged to join the commemoration at Normandy to mark that day when the beaches were stormed and a continent was freed. There were presidents and prime ministers and veterans from the far corners of the earth. But long after the bands stopped playing and the crowds stopped cheering, it was the story of a departed VFW member that echoed in our hearts.

Veterans of Foreign Wars, you have done your duty--to your fallen comrades, to your communities, to your country. You've always fulfilled your responsibilities to America. And so long as I am President, America will always fulfill its responsibilities to you.

God bless you. God bless all our veterans. And God bless the United States of America.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

Breaking embargo aren't we?


Wow. Obama "pledges" to send the troops in only when "necessary."

And he defines what is "necessary."

The so-called "pledge" is devoid of content. Similar to some of the pledges President Bush, and other politicians, have made.

And given Obama's long track record of breaking his "pledges" (remember Closing Gitmo? Transparent government? No lobbyists? Middle class tax cut?) why should anyone pay any attention to what he "pledges?"


We would probably be finished in Afganistan by now if the BushCo Republican warmongers hadn't decided that it would be a great idea to invade Iraq for no reason in 2003 instead of continuing to go after Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afganistan.



Obama points out that troops have been removed from Iraq cities as of 6/2009, and that all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Obama definitely deserves credit for following the Status of Forces Agreement the Bush Administration signed with Iraq in November of 2008. Here's a link, and Article 24 contains these provisions:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/CGs_Messages/security_agreement.pdf


It took courage/integrity for Obama to implicitly admit that the Bush plan for Iraq withdrawal as outlined in the SOF is the right one, and that his own rhetoric/campaign promise was a complete joke. According to his website during the campaign, "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month . . . ." (laugh track) That would have been what? Seven to fourteen brigades home by now from Iraq? The question is will liberals hold him accountable for reneging on his campaign promises and (gasp) following George W. Bush's plan instead? That despite his lofty rhetoric, he has actually changed nothing in Iraq? I won't hold my breath. In the eyes of his adorers, since Obama can do nothing wrong, when he makes a stupid/naive campaign promise that he can't possibly keep, he is being intelligent and pragmatic when he reneges on it. In the eyes of the left, when he breaks a promise, it is actually a sign of strength, and when he breaks wind, it smells good.


It took courage/integrity for Obama to implicitly admit that the Bush plan for Iraq withdrawal as outlined in the SOF is the right one, and that his own rhetoric/campaign promise was a complete joke. According to his website during the campaign
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 17, 2009 2:46 PM
**********************************
.


Iraq never should have happened in the first place, tens of thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqi's were killed so that Bush, Cheney and their pals in the Military Industial Complex (Halliburton, Blackwater KBR etc) could profit off it.


Our economy might not be so crappy right now if we hadn't wasted so much money on Bush and Dick's excellent adventure in Iraq.


In the eyes of the right, when Bush lied, it was actually a sign of strength, and when he broke wind, it smelled good.



And given Obama's long track record of breaking his "pledges" (remember Closing Gitmo? Transparent government? No lobbyists? Middle class tax cut?) why should anyone pay any attention to what he "pledges?"

Posted by: Community Organizer | August 17, 2009 2:27 PM
------------------------------------
.


Teresa,
You're going to have to come up with a new phony post name, 'community organizer' is to easy for us to pick out.


The middle-class already got a tax cut, and Obama said Gitmo will be closed within a year, not today, you moron. This is all part of the massive cleaning up of the messes that the Bush/Cheney Republicans (whom you cheerleaded for) made the last eight years. It's only members of the dumber than a bag of rocks GOPer base (you) who can't understand this, everyone else gets it.



Notice Obama never said "Win" or "Victory"
That's OK Obama, you voted against the Iraq war and your buddy Reid said we lost...
Give credit where credit is do, for sticking to his pledge of victory... GW Bush


Uhh, Herbie, you have it backwards. Bush is the one that owes Obama an apology. Obama was promoting that timeline long before Bush approved the SOF. Bush, and the Republican drones like you were crying that any timeline for withdrawal was "cutting and running" when Obama first made his call for an 18 month withdrawal timeline. Thankfully Bush eventually realized that Obama, and others, were right, and approved that same timeline, unfortunately starting much later than Obama initially called for.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/obama-slams-cli.html\

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-sticks-to-his-iraq-plan/

Nice try at re-writing history.


Give credit where credit is do, for sticking to his pledge of victory... GW Bush

Posted by: MAJMark | August 17, 2009 4:52 PM
*********************************
.


"Victory" of what? That under Bush and Cheney the Military Industrial Complex made a "killing" off of a trumped up war?


Get lost, Slick...



Give credit where credit is do, for sticking to his pledge of victory... GW Bush


Posted by: MAJMark | August 17, 2009 4:52 PM

I give Bush full credit. I give him credit for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians., I give him credit for or
ordering the terroristic "Shock and Awe" bombings, designed to kill civilians and to terrorize the Iraqi populace. I give Bush credit for launching a war of agression. I give Bush credit for being a war criminal.


“Reality", I think you miss a crucial distinction. I know that BO supported a timeline, and even voted against funding on one occasion as a Senator in support of that position. However, he was taking that position regardless of consequences. When BO was first advocating a timeline, Iraq was in utter chaos. BO was supporting withdrawal regardless of consequences and Bush would have none of it. Bush was fairly consistent in saying that when Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. When the violence came under control following the so-called "surge" the Bush Administration began plans for a withdrawal. They also had a more practical problem in that the UN mandate authorizing US presence there expired in December of 2008. A new agreement was needed directly with Iraq, and it was negotiated by the Bush Administration and included timelines, which Iraqis were demanding. For you to suggest that the Bush Administration acted in this manner because they finally saw the wisdom of BO’s position, as opposed to those factors, is taking a pretty big inferential leap and I don’t think the facts support you. BO’s position on withdrawal was like a stopped clock; it will eventually be right because we know that there will be an eventual withdrawal, but it was not right when he first advocated the position.

Additionally, I followed your links and couldn’t find where BO came up with the idea of pulling troops out of major cities by June of 2009, or all troops out by December of 2011. Those were the timelines I cited above, and thought you were responding to. The 16-18 month thing for combat brigades is not in the SOF Agreement, and may very well be BO’s idea. We’ll see if he can keep that promise given that he has not even begun withdrawing troops and we are seven months in.

Incidentally, do you think BO is keeping his promise of bringing home one to two brigades a month? Wasn’t that his last campaign position? How many have come home?

H. Hancock aka John E. aka HulkSmash aka etc., etc,


I know how you feel about Bush. You have made your opinions on him quite clear. But do you think Obama is sticking with his campaign promises regarding Iraq, specifically in bringing home brigades? (hint – more talk about Bush will probably not be responsive to the question)


Earth to Obama;
1. Bush's 'vanity war'.
We aren't going to be able to get out of Iraq. Now the Kurdish regions are about to explode because our 'allies', the Shia, are going to start a fight in the North. The only way to leave it to... LEAVE. We are NOT winning in Iraq. (BTW, neither was Bush)

2. The fight in Afghanistan is not going well. We could easily lose this one. These people have fought the most aggressive enemies to a standstill and defeat in the past, and our silly little efforts there will not produce a victory. Every time we launch a missile and kill a bunch of 'anybody', we lose and create more enemies. BHO, you are losing in Afg. (BTW, so was Bush)


"That is why I have made this pledge to our armed forces: I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. When I do, it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. And I will give you a clear mission, defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done.''

Then tell me Mr. Obama if you made this pledge then why are the Marines from 2/8 having to eat out of the farm fields and drink dirty water from their wells. Great support there Chief


But do you think Obama is sticking with his campaign promises regarding Iraq, specifically in bringing home brigades? (hint – more talk about Bush will probably not be responsive to the question)
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 17, 2009 7:04 PM
**********************************
.


The BushCo warmongers mess in Iraq (the ones that you have cheerleaded for for the last eight years) is their mess, and it always will be. Pres Obama has said all along that withdrawal from Iraq may pick up or slow down depending on the situation on the ground.


Go concern troll somewhere else Herbie Nutbag.



Herb H,
Unlike the delusional Wingnut clowns that you hang out with, the rest of America isn't going to forget about all of the things the Repug party and Bush/Cheney trashed the last eight years after only seven months of the Pres Obama's administration.



Obama. Voted for the guy, however getting a bit fatigued on his promises. You know, the promises that he will gladly give up now--after the campaigning--all in the name of bi-partisanship. No matter how he sells his soul--and sells us down the river--the Pugs will always vote against him--and against common sense. Stupid is as Stupid does.


Herbie, And for you to pretend that Obama merely adopted the Bush position and that it in any way conflicted with his longstanding position is nonsense at best, a lie at worst. Obama is doing exactly what he's always plegded to do: Withdraw the troops in a carefully planned, carefully thought out way, over a period of roughly 18 months. As he always said, he was going to withdraw the troops with all the care that Bush negelected in committing the troops. Your feable, transparent attempt to spin his actions as anything other than that has as much connection to reality as the Bush Administrations justifications for the war. Did you ever question his honesty on that? Did you ever question anything Bush said, did, or failed to do on Iraq?


He made a many promises. how many success.


I don't think Obama will make good on his promises.


"Reality", so far BO has followed the SOF agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration, such as withdrawing troops from major cities by 6/2009. Are you claiming that was an Obama plan? I don’t think so. You cite that 16-18 month thing again, which is not in the SOF Agreement, and just another promise BO has made and it is yet to be seen whether he will keep. As far as things he has actually done in Iraq, is there anything different from the framework Bush left him? Please be specific. What I remember is BO promising “change”, and an end to the war by starting an immediate withdrawal to the tune of one to two brigades a month. Do you disagree with me that he hasn't kept that promise, particularly with the one to two brigades language? I've asked twice already and you refuse to answer. Consider this the third. Is this really a hard question for you to answer? It seems to me BO has either kept this promise or he hasn’t. You also didn't respond to the distinction I made about the "consistency" of Obama's withdrawal position.

After avoiding my questions, which you claim to be responding to, you make a weird segue into justifications by Bush for the Iraq War. I guess if an issue such as BO’s handling of Iraq makes you uncomfortable, the best thing to do is change the subject. As for your questions, I'll answer them the best I can, even though I think they are off the topic of Obama’s handling of the wars. As for justifications for the Iraq War, I think Bush exaggerated the threat of Iraq. Even if Iraq had chemical or biological weapons, so what? That was not an imminent threat to the US, in my view. I’m not ready to jump to the conclusion of Bush intentionally lying about chemical/biological weapons in Iraq, as he was relying on the CIA and “slam dunk” Tenet. As was Congress. If you are privy to a “smoking gun” proving what Bush subjectively knew and when, and thus proving an intentional lie, I would be very interested in seeing it. As for questioning “anything” Bush did in Iraq, the answer is absolutely, starting with exaggerating the threat of Iraq as noted above and having an incompetent SOD (Rumsfeld).

H. Hancock/BigCheese/John E., withdrawal may “pick up or slow down”? Has it started at all? If not, is that consistent with BO's campaign promise of an "immediate" withdrawal? Is the word "immediate" somehow ambiguous? Can it mean a delay of at least seven months?


Herbie, Yes Obama has kept his promise. You are also incorrect in saying that Obama is following the timetable outlined in the SOF. The SOF sets a target date of December 2011 for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Obama has approved an accelerated schedule that would have the majority of US troops and all US combat operations end by August 2010, something Bush never agreed to. In addition, the Obama has stated their willingness to accept an Iraqi vote that would have all US forces out of Iraq prior to December 2010, a year earlier to when Bush agreed to.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/obama.troops/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/29/world/main5195310.shtml


I'm sure you won't let the facts get in the way of your attacks on Obama and your praise for Bush.


"Reality",

- As to your statement that "Obama has stated their (sic) willingness to accept an Iraqi vote that would have all US forces out of Iraq prior to December 2010, a year earlier to when Bush agreed to":

That's not an accurate statement with regard to what Bush agreed to. The SOF Agreement says that December of 2011 is the deadline to have troops out of Iraq. It does not say that they cannot leave sooner. In fact, Article 24, para.4 states that Iraqis can request US troops to leave at any time. They don't have to wait until December of 2010 or 2011. They can do it tomorrow. If BO wanted to, he could start removing one to two brigades a month as he promised.

- You really think BO kept his promise of immediately bringing home troops to the tune of one to two brigades a month? So there are, what? Seven to fourteen brigades home now from Iraq? I think you may want to double check that.

- To this point, BO has absolutely followed the SOF Agreement, and I should have told you this before; he doesn't have a lot of discretion. Theoretically, he could breach the Agreement, but it would not look good. His promise to pull troops out within 16 months would be perfectly acceptable under the SOF Agreement. I just question whether he can keep that promise, especially considering he hasn't really started a withdrawal yet. He did send a few brigades to Afghanistan, but nothing resembling his promise of one to two brigades being pulled out per month. At that pace, I think it would take around 16 months – once he started withdrawing troops.

- I don't think I am praising Bush. Re-read my last post. That's the problem with using flippant, canned rhetoric - it doesn't always fit within the discussion you are having.


- I don't like to think of myself as "attacking" Obama. I am just skeptical. I am skeptical of the way he promised drastic "change" in foreign policy, and I'm not seeing it. I see him reneging on his one to two brigade promise, and you expect me to believe his 16 (now 19) month promise? When he starts walking the walk, and I see any change whatsoever in the handling of Iraq, I will believe him. Until then, it’s all hot air.


Free resource for women veterans to support their need to connect with each other
and share yet remain anonymous. These women can reach out to others who have experienced the same concerns of re-entry, alcoholism, drug addiction or prescription addiction due to chronic pain, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), incidents of service time rape, depression, unwarranted anger, or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) due to war time trauma.


good information. thanks


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "z" in the field below:

Barack Obama
Want to see more photos? Click here

Play "Budget Hero"

Play Budget Hero

Latest polls

News, but funnier

Cartoon

Walt Handelsman

Cartoon

The Lowe- Down

Cartoon

Joe Fournier

Cartoon

Editorial cartoons

Quizzes

Rahm Emanuel

Know the real Rahm?

McCain

Presidential trivia