an obama adviser is not obama. if that were the case, then every general that has mysteriously quit during the bush administration for disagreeing with him would still have their jobs and we'd be out of iraq like 4 years ago.

newsflash. sometimes military people tend to lean toward military solutions to problems. that's what they do.

/no, i wouldn't give a shiat if a hillary adviser had said this
//besides, mccain himself says this shiat all the time

Obama has advisors who don't always agree with him.




Approves.

burndtdan: an obama adviser is not obama. if that were the case, then every general that has mysteriously quit during the bush administration for disagreeing with him would still have their jobs and we'd be out of iraq like 4 years ago.

newsflash. sometimes military people tend to lean toward military solutions to problems. that's what they do.

/no, i wouldn't give a shiat if a hillary adviser had said this
//besides, mccain himself says this shiat all the time

DamnYankees: Obama has advisors who don't always agree with him.
Approves.

A little bit this, a little bit of that.

Christ submitter, you're a dumbass.

"Obama Adviser Calls for Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010"

Will he keep them there for 100 years?

Hey look! It's an inaccurate Obama bashing thread! Let's greenlight it!

I see the wingnut mod has to work late tonight.

A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

I don't see the word ALL in the highlighted text...shouldn't the word "all" appear somewhere between "withdraw" and "combat forces" for subby to make sense? And yet...I don't see it...

Lionel Mandrake: A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

I don't see the word ALL in the highlighted text...shouldn't the word "all" appear somewhere between "withdraw" and "combat forces" for subby to make sense? And yet...I don't see it...

his actual plan is to withdraw all combat brigades and keep troops to defend the embassy, while still providing humanitarian aid to the nation (you know, the kind that doesn't bring guns).

Actually, let's go with this.

If we're to use submitter's logic:

McCain is the only candidate to say "I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

right?

It's fun to attribute quotes made by other people to the candidates!

You know...many entertaining, flamey, and even informative threads are possible without some dipshiat subby blatantly making shiat up, and some dipshiat Admin giving it the green...but no, let's submit and greenlight blatant fkn bullshiat instead...stellar job, guys...really top notch.

burndtdan: his actual plan is to withdraw all combat brigades and keep troops to defend the embassy, while still providing humanitarian aid to the nation (you know, the kind that doesn't bring guns).

Troops defending the embassy bring guns...and will use them if needed.

And unlike George W Asshole, I believe Obama would actually say at some point, "This isn't working as well as I had hoped..." and gather smart people around him to discuss alternatives, and be willing to implement those alternatives...again, very much unlike George W. McCain

Lionel Mandrake: Troops defending the embassy bring guns...and will use them if needed.

yes. to defend the embassy. and that's it.

right now we have most of our humanitarian aid type things being supported by blackwater operatives and "two-bit security guard" troops, to use the parlance of a republican, when what we should be doing is working with the UN to provide humanitarian aid (to decrease the "death to america" vibe a little bit)

burndtdan: right now we have most of our humanitarian aid type things being supported by blackwater operatives and "two-bit security guard" troops, to use the parlance of a republican, when what we should be doing is working with the UN to provide humanitarian aid (to decrease the "death to america" vibe a little bit)

Blackwater needs to fired, yesterday. Also KBR and all the other Halliburton vampires. Go home, all of you. Except for those who should stay behind to be tried for crimes.

Yes, we should work with the UN to provide humanitarian aid...these would not be "combat troops." They'd be armed for defense, certainly, but still distinct from combat troops. Maybe we'd even see more YouTube videos of soldiers passing out food, instead tossing puppies into ditches.

GWB: rigid...dedicated to plans that fail all day every day. Fires people who don't tell him what he wants to hear.
JSM: more of the same...only even more eager to expand this highly successful war into Iran.
BHO: Has a plan, but would probably at some point say "This doesn't seem to be working, what are some other options?"

What is so bad about this... Doesn't Obama even say he will withdraw all combat troops by 2010?

Oh, sorry... He says 16 months after he takes office and subby and the article's author can't do math.

When you have "advisers" instead of "yes men" you're likely to get people with various views, including views different than your own.

*Gasp*

Ryan2065: What is so bad about this... Doesn't Obama even say he will withdraw all combat troops by 2010?

Oh, sorry... He says 16 months after he takes office and subby and the article's author can't do math.

Ah, I see now that they are saying "late 2010"... So the adviser and Obama differ by 2 or 3 months.

Also, from the article:

Mr. Obama's first foreign policy tutor, Samantha Power, told BBC that the senator's current Iraq plan would likely change based on the advice of military commanders in 2009.

How is it a bad thing that he might change his plans based on the information of military commanders?

this should be good
*grabs popcorn*

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: this should be good
*grabs popcorn*

yeah i'm waiting for the other shoe to drop (for someone to come in blasting with stupidity)

Ryan2065: How is it a bad thing that he might change his plans based on the information of military commanders?

It's not. But if that's the case maybe he shouldn't be making statements now about timeline for withdrawls?

Spanky_McFarksalot: Ryan2065: How is it a bad thing that he might change his plans based on the information of military commanders?

It's not. But if that's the case maybe he shouldn't be making statements now about timeline for withdrawls?

no. he's just stating his goal, laying out his current strategy. i wish our current president had anything that could be considered a strategy.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Ryan2065: How is it a bad thing that he might change his plans based on the information of military commanders?

It's not. But if that's the case maybe he shouldn't be making statements now about timeline for withdrawls?

What would you like him to say about Iraq, then? Just say "I have no plan - I can't say anything until I get in office"?

Spanky_McFarksalot: It's not. But if that's the case maybe he shouldn't be making statements now about timeline for withdrawls?

And if he said nothing, you'd criticize him for that, too.

DamnYankees: Obama has advisors who don't always agree with him.
Approves.

Did you just Goodwin the thread?

DamnYankees: What would you like him to say about Iraq, then?

Don't get pissy with me. He the one who's giving time lines.

But now it seems it would be ok if later he decide to not keep those time lines as long as military advisers said not to?

OK, I'd want him to say that he's gone to keep troops there if he's open to keeping troops there and not saying something to get elected.

Of course, he hasn't said that and I was responding to Ryan2065s question.

Lionel Mandrake: And if he said nothing, you'd criticize him for that, too.

Of course I would. A candidate should damn well have something in mind for Iraq by this point i the game.

Bloody William: DamnYankees: Obama has advisors who don't always agree with him.
Approves.

Did you just Goodwin the thread?

Spanky_McFarksalot: But now it seems it would be ok if later he decide to not keep those time lines as long as military advisers said not to?

no, it would be ok if he adjusted his tactics in order to meet his strategy within the framework of the reality on the ground, with the help of his advisers.

Ooo, ooo, and Hillary Clinton said "If Barack isn't a muslim, why did he go to Iraq to meet with whats-his-name, the Lama?"

/This is fun!

burndtdan: Hung Like A Tic-Tac: this should be good
*grabs popcorn*

yeah i'm waiting for the other shoe to drop (for someone to come in blasting with stupidity)

LOL its like you Obamanations just ignore reality whenever it disagrees with your savior.

This just goes to sho that OBama is just as duplisitous and manipulative as any other politician.

Wake up people he's not going to just say "Oh, Iraqis, you all have to get along now because we out" and then everything will be great. I mean, I admire him for recognizing that we'll have troops in Iraq for the forseeable future, but I just think it's shady to lie about it to your supporters.

Also, when you follow the Bushian tactic of calling whoever who doesn't agree with you "Stupid" you're not exactly imbodying Obama's "hope and change" schtick.
It's a good thing this came out now before the American people made a big mistake in november...

What I've seen about what Obama and McCain are looking to do in Iraq reveals less difference down in the details than you would think from the posturing.

To me, McCain seems somewhat more likely to have Americans in harm's way for little gain, and Obama seems somewhat more likely to allow harm to be done that America could have prevented. Either one could get lucky or unlucky trying to follow their plan amid that chaos.

I like the general approach ^ Obama is reportedly taking to foreign policy, especially since I'm not really hearing a coherent story from McCain yet. (Of course, McCain doesn't have to put a story out at this point.)

(And I'm sure Hillary would say something about a plan, but I can't be bothered to keep up with her story of the week anymore.)

Jubeebee: burndtdan: Hung Like A Tic-Tac: this should be good
*grabs popcorn*

yeah i'm waiting for the other shoe to drop (for someone to come in blasting with stupidity)

LOL its like you Obamanations just ignore reality whenever it disagrees with your savior.

This just goes to sho that OBama is just as duplisitous and manipulative as any other politician.

Wake up people he's not going to just say "Oh, Iraqis, you all have to get along now because we out" and then everything will be great. I mean, I admire him for recognizing that we'll have troops in Iraq for the forseeable future, but I just think it's shady to lie about it to your supporters.

Also, when you follow the Bushian tactic of calling whoever who doesn't agree with you "Stupid" you're not exactly imbodying Obama's "hope and change" schtick.
It's a good thing this came out now before the American people made a big mistake in november...

I'm not sure if you didn't go far enough for satire, or if the other side has gone so far that satire has lost all meaning.

The whole "Obama is just as bad as the rest!" argument is wonderful. It's like "Come on, we all know our candidate is utter dogshiat, you should have the civility to despise the person you are supporting!"

He's also the only candidate who didn't show up for the easy photo-op in Memphis today. He was to busy working.

i'm fully against the war and have been all along. i hate to say this as it breaks my ideological purity of my stance. can america really pull out of iraq. if America leaves, will someone say 'thank you' and everyone sits down in good faith and has a good solid meeting on the subject of what's next. won't it be little waring state-lets supported by outside powers? you know. instead of us just saudi arabia and iran. and what if iran literally just decides its time to take over. we'll have to go back in and fight iran.

who was it that thought taking over the middle east would be a good idea?

what a mess. i'm glad i'm a guy on the internet and not a general. i'm sorry for us all. it was just a collasal mistake. people haven't settled in and really asked the question "what's next." what the fark is american grand strategy now?

Spanky_McFarksalot: Of course I would. A candidate should damn well have something in mind for Iraq by this point i the game.

So he should have a plan, and state absolute refusal to change the plan later?

Dude...write in W, he's your man.

goodbomb: i'm fully against the war and have been all along. i hate to say this as it breaks my ideological purity of my stance. can america really pull out of iraq. if America leaves, will someone say 'thank you' and everyone sits down in good faith and has a good solid meeting on the subject of what's next. won't it be little waring state-lets supported by outside powers? you know. instead of us just saudi arabia and iran. and what if iran literally just decides its time to take over. we'll have to go back in and fight iran.

Right now, America is standing between two warring factions that have one thing in common: they hate us.

Do we minimize the horror by standing between them? If so, for how long? One more year? 10? 100?

Do you think that the nation/culture that both sides despise (that'd be America) will be able to make things hunky-dory between the factions ever? How long are you willing to stand between them? A year? 10? 100?

How many Americans would die? How many trillions of $ would disappear?

I am optimistic about many things, but I give a 0% chance of mollifying the hatred between these factions by standing between them for another day, year, decade, century...

Out.

Now.

Lionel Mandrake: So he should have a plan, and state absolute refusal to change the plan later?

He's made the statement about withdrawing troops in the first 18 months of his term.

I didn't notice an * next to it saying *"plan may change in the future depending on advice of my advisors". Maybe he said it in a speech somewhere?

Dude...write in W, he's your man

Sorry, but I don't drink the kool-aid for any politician. Unlike some in here.

So if Obama pledges to withdraw all the troops, he's a naive fool who will give Iraq to our enemies. However, if he doesn't withdraw all our troops, he's a disingenuous liar.

Got it.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Sorry, but I don't drink the kool-aid for any politician. Unlike some in here.

Yeah, me either...those people are annoying, aren't they?

Anti-war crowd" "out now!! out now. out now out now!!
Obama: The troops will be out if you elect me
Anti-war crowd: O-ba-ma O-ba-ma O-ba-ma
Obama (advisor): maybe we should stay longer
Antiwar crowd: Hey Obama is open to keeping them there longer if his advisers say so, good for him!

Sooooo now it's ok for the troops to stay in Iraq after Obama is elected if his advisers say he should?

Maybe for a hundred years?

burndtdan: Spanky_McFarksalot: But now it seems it would be ok if later he decide to not keep those time lines as long as military advisers said not to?

no, it would be ok if he adjusted his tactics in order to meet his strategy within the framework of the reality on the ground, with the help of his advisers.

Maybe like he adjusts his rhetoric.


"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective." (statements of Barack Obama), The Boston Globe, July 2004

"I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. It is a policy which has already been tried and a policy which has failed. Just this morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops, we will not in any imaginable way be able to accomplish any new progress." - Barack Obama, U.S. Senate Floor, January 19, 2007

You people are aware that the US still has troops in Germany, right?

And in Japan.

And in Italy.

And in Cuba.

And in South Korea.

We tend to keep a small number of troops in former combat zones indefinitely.

/Yes, I know who else had troops in Germany.

Spanky_McFarksalot: strawman strawman strawman

Spanky_McFarksalot: Anti-war crowd" "out now!! out now. out now out now!!
Obama: The troops will be out if you elect me
Anti-war crowd: O-ba-ma O-ba-ma O-ba-ma
Obama (advisor): maybe we should stay longer
Antiwar crowd: Hey Obama is open to keeping them there longer if his advisers say so, good for him!

Sooooo now it's ok for the troops to stay in Iraq after Obama is elected if his advisers say he should?

Maybe for a hundred years?

Can you stop with the over the top obtuseness?

Obama has shown time and time again to have principles but also be pragmatic (unlike Bush, who even if you didn't (hard to believe), 95% of those who hold similar positions to you).

Again, which would you rather have:

-A president who surrounds himself with a bunch of yes-men and political geniuses

OR

-A president (like Lincoln) who had a cabinet of diverse opinions, to keep the discussion honest and real?

Obama has never been 'the peace' candidate. He wants to put most of the troops into Afghanistan, not going home, he just knows that this war; THIS RECKLESS, BULLSHIAT, UNECESSARY, COSTLY, UNPRODUCTIVE foreign policy disaster has to be concluded, and soon.

Jesus Christ, start being intellectually honest or you'll be blocked by most people as a troll.

... that is if you aren't one.

andrewagill: You people are aware that the US still has troops in Germany, right?

And in Japan.

And in Italy.

And in Cuba.

And in South Korea.

We tend to keep a small number of troops in former combat zones indefinitely.

/Yes, I know who else had troops in Germany.

How many troops do we have in Vietnam?

*95% of you fellated.

DamnYankees: Obama has advisors who don't always agree with him.
Approves.

She has got to be my favorite historian.

and it begins

by the way, hillary's plan was to withdraw all the troops. but not to end the war. she plans to finish it, alone.

andrewagill: You people are aware that the US still has troops in Germany, right?

And in Japan.

And in Italy.

And in Cuba.

And in South Korea.

We tend to keep a small number of troops in former combat zones indefinitely.

You are aware that Iraq is not analogous to any of those places, right?

How come every time a "top Obama adviser" hits the news, it's someone I haven't heard of? How many top advisers does he have?