If you can't have Obama's back on going forward with the withdrawal from Iraq...

[phleshdef]

...then I have to ask what the hell else you CAN have his back on?

So far today I've seen McCain, Romney and Bachmann all attack the President for going forward with this.

And I've seen various voices from the blogging left ridicule the notion that we should be the least bit happy about this. I've even seen it suggested that President McCain would've done the same thing (which McCain himself has debunked with his statements made today). Its painfully obvious that the Republicans do not want this withdrawal to happen. And President Obama is already being attacked by them over it.

The fact of the matter is, a lot of people my age (late 20s and early 30s) got interested in politics because of ultimately opposing the Iraq war. Once we found out how much bullshit George Bush blew up all our asses in order to start the Iraq war, for many of us, that was our political awakening. The Iraq war was the defining issue between the left and the right for most of the first decade of the 21st century. So it seems to me that when this President is willing to finally let it end, that we should have his back as the right attacks him for it. Instead I see a lot of skeptical nonsense trying to squash any notion that President Obama is doing anything good. That kind of BS is why we lose.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. I swear to you, I saw one of the usuals ask "how many private contractors are staying"?

Isn't that between the "private contractor" and the Iraqi government? WTF does Pres. Obama have to do with that? :shrug:

By the way, thanks for posting this, and I wholeheartedly agree. :hi:

[msongs]

2. depends on whether we are picking up the tab for these corporate parasites in any way mt

[defendandprotect]

9. There were 45,000 of them at one point ... have no idea of numbers now ... !!!

But private army is a rip off not only for taxpayers but for our regular troops!

[phleshdef]

12. According to wikipedia and the NYTimes, about 7,000 will be the post 2011 number.

Article as recent as August... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/world/middleeast/19withdrawal.html?_r=1&ref=private_military_companies&pagewanted=1

Also, keep in mind that contractors are no longer subject to immunity in Iraq. I'm not very upset about it. Its not combat operations. Iraq is running itself so its not an occupation. Its nothing remotely close to a war zone anymore. And we might just have a good ally in Iraq for years to come.

[TheWraith]

17. And most of those have nothing to do with security.

"Civilian contractors" also means the people who handle mail delivery, laundry, cooks, carpenters, etcetera, all the people who would work at the US embassy.

[defendandprotect]

30. True -- and the immunity issue seems to be why we are leaving ---

Whether 45,000 or 7,000 these are privatized troops and a fast and easy way

to rip off taxpayers. It's been a ten year "occupation" -- how would we be

reacting had Russia done something like that?

[karynnj]

143. August 2010

I agree with your point that on this, the left should be willing to stand behind Obama - and if there are any differences, express the agreement, then the disagreement - giving emphasis to the fact that this is a major step in the right direction.

Not to mention, the Republicans are kind of hemmed in as this was in line with the Bush agreement with Iraq. I still think that back in 2008, more Democrats should have made the point that Bush, in agreeing to a timeline was agreeing with the Democratic position - from Kerry/Feingold to the amendment to the 2007 funding bill that Bush vetoed. (The Bush people have spun that Iraq was "fixed" with the surge - and, as expected, it cut violence, but it did nothing to change the long term situation. Setting a timeline seemed to do that.)

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. And if we are? We'll still have high level officials living in Iraq, you know.

Like every other country we have relations with, don't we have an American Embassy there? And who protects those folks? :shrug: As usual, your useless one liners don't do a thing to further real debate.

[Marnie]

74. Yup. Where are we going to be spending the money we have

been spending over there? Who is going to pay for the mercenaries that are staying. How much is that huge embassy compound going to cost to keep up and protect, and why?

There are still lots and lots of questions.

[Number23]

99. Why are you bringing up the embassy?

What does that have to do with troop withdrawal? Are you attempting to imply that no troops should guard the embassy staff there?

[phleshdef]

3. I'm not even sure how many private contractors are going to be armed.

Private contractor can mean a lot of things besides mercenary. A lot of private contractors are truck drivers, maintenance people, construction people, etc.

Regardless, its not an occupation without the US military occupying it. No occupation, no big combat no operations = no war. Period.

[occupyeverywhere]

40. It's a good question.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. Then you should ask the Iraqi government which is a sovereign state.

Who they hire is their business, don't you think? The Embassy will have to be staffed, they all are, and the American taxpayer still pays for that, wherever we have an embassy.

[cui bono]

96. So the Iraqi's hired the private contractors? Links please. n/t

[cui bono]

139. So you don't have links to back your statement that Iraqi's hired the mercenaries we sent in? n/t

[cui bono]

95. Who brought the private contractors to Iraq? Who do you think has been paying for them?

Who will continue paying for them? Do you really not think that is a valid question?

Why did you preface your post with "I swear" as if it was something unbelievable to ask? Since when should we not question our government and make sure they are being straightforward and honest with us? Since when are they straightforward and honest with us? That is our right and duty as citizens.

Here is why I, for one, asked about private contractors.

Iraq contractors make billions on the front line
June 12, 2006|From Nic Robertson CNN

Members of the Blackwater private security company fly a helicopter over Baghdad during a 2004 patrol.

Private military contractors are earning billions of dollars in Iraq -- much of it from U.S. taxpayers.
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-06-12/world/iraq.contractors_1_iraq-contractors-private-contractors-face-danger?_s=PM:WORLD


Contractors outnumber troops in Iraq
The figure, higher than reported earlier, doesn't include security firms. Critics say the issue is accountability.
July 04, 2007|T. Christian Miller | Times Staff Writer

The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government's capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns.

More than 180,000 civilians -- including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis -- are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/04/nation/na-private4


Use of Iraq Contractors Costs Billions, Report Says

Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
Print
Reprints
Share

By JAMES RISEN
Published: August 11, 2008

WASHINGTON — The United States this year will have spent $100 billion on contractors in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, a milestone that reflects the Bush administration’s unprecedented level of dependence on private firms for help in the war, according to a government report to be released Tuesday.

The report, by the Congressional Budget Office, according to people with knowledge of its contents, will say that one out of every five dollars spent on the war in Iraq has gone to contractors for the United States military and other government agencies, in a war zone where employees of private contractors now outnumber American troops.

The Pentagon’s reliance on outside contractors in Iraq is proportionately far larger than in any previous conflict, and it has fueled charges that this outsourcing has led to overbilling, fraud and shoddy and unsafe work that has endangered and even killed American troops. The role of armed security contractors has also raised new legal and political questions about whether the United States has become too dependent on private armed forces on the 21st-century battlefield.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html


Obama Has 250,000 “Contractors” in Iraq and Afghan Wars, Increases Number of Mercenaries

Newly released Pentagon statistics show that in both Iraq and Afghanistan the number of armed contractors is rising. The DoD says it sees “similar dependence on contractors in future.”

By Jeremy Scahill

A couple of years ago, Blackwater executive Joseph Schmitz seemed to see a silver lining for mercenary companies with the prospect of US forces being withdrawn or reduced in Iraq. “There is a scenario where we could as a government, the United States, could pull back the military footprint,” Schmitz said. “And there would then be more of a need for private contractors to go in.”

When it comes to armed contractors, it seems that Schmitz was right.

According to new statistics released by the Pentagon, with Barack Obama as commander in chief, there has been a 23% increase in the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, which “correlates to the build up of forces” in the country. In Iraq, the Pentagon attributes the increase to better accounting. But, these numbers relate explicitly to DoD security contractors. Companies like Blackwater and its successor Triple Canopy work on State Department contracts and it is unclear if these contractors are included in the over-all statistics. This means, the number of individual “security” contractors could be quite higher, as could the scope of their expansion.
http://rebelreports.com/post/116277092/obama-has-250-000-contractors-in-iraq-and-afghan

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. How's this? I don't care.

The "troops" are coming home. What happens in Iraq after that, is no longer of concern to me. Let Iran have 'em. But as long as we have embassy staff there, we should pay to protect them, and I don't have a problem with that. :hi:

[cui bono]

130. So do you or do you not think that's a valid question? You skipped the point entirely.

So you're basically saying you're posting on a discussion board yet have no desire to discuss and wish others wouldn't discuss either?

:shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

134. The question has as much validity for me as you do.

;)

[cui bono]

135. Why is that? Because I'm disagreeing with you?

You have yet to answer any facts I have presented you, have yet to delve into a reasoned discussion of the topic at hand. I really don't understand why you would bother to post on a discussion board when you have stated that a. you "don't care" and b. others have no validity in your mind. Is that really the kind of human being you wish to be? One who has complete disregard of others?

Why do you post on a board such as this? Do you care about the state of this country at all? Do you understand the founding principles behind this country?

What a sad state things have gotten to when one is so unable to handle criticism of their idol that they have utter contempt for anyone who dares question their idol.

[Tarheel_Dem]

137. Look, I didn't even bother to read your post. Only the headline. That's how much I care...

what you have to say. I don't know how I can make it any plainer than that. I don't give a shit what you think about anything. :hi:

[cui bono]

138. What exactly do you intend to accomplish with your "don't give a shit what you think" attitude??

Again I ask you, why are you posting on a discussion board when you don't want to discuss anything?

[Tarheel_Dem]

144. I never said I don't want to discuss anything. I said "I don't give a shit what you think".

Not sure how much more concrete I can say it. I don't care what you have to say, and I don't care to discuss it any further. Got it? :shrug:

[cui bono]

147. LOL. You didn't have to say it, but then you did. "I don't care to discuss it..." Exactly my point.

You contradicted yourself in just a few sentences.

So why are you on a discussion board? Seriously. Why? What is your intention?

You post a disparaging remark about a question people asked, then when someone brings you facts as to why they would ask that you ignore the facts, refuse to delve into a discussion about it and resort to personal insults and flippant remarks. What is the point of posting on a discussion board then?

[Mimosa]

117. I hate those Obama haters.

They don't realize he is fighting for the American way of life.

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. I hate "Obama haters" for other reasons.

;)

[cui bono]

136. LOL.

[MineralMan]

4. While there are detractors saying those things, I notice that

the thread that was in LBN about this has a preponderance of recommendations. There are some people who cannot ever support President Obama and who will always find some way to turn a positive thing he has done into a negative. What the motivation for that is, I don't know, but it's a continuing phenomenon. Our troops will all be out of Iraq by January 1? Well, some will ignore that and ask, "What about the mercenaries?" even though that was not addressed at all by the President in his speech. It is as though he said nothing at all, nor did anything at all.

Again, I have no idea why this happens, but it does, and it does consistently and pervasively, no matter what the issue. If a liberal judge is appointed and confirmed, only another judge who doesn't meet the ideal is discussed, while the actual appointment of the liberal judge goes unmentioned, even though that was the point of the news story.

I've just learned to ignore such things and comment positively on positive accomplishments.

[eilen]

93. I see no reason to detract from the president

however, I also don't see this as a victory for him either. This was not what the State Dept. wanted. They wanted to remain in Iraq. Iraq said No. I think the credit goes to Iraq.

[tularetom]

5. With all the attacks on medical marijuana and the odd ambivalence re OWS

there isn't a lot these days I feel like I can really have his back on.

But I seriously question the sanity of anybody, right or left, who wouldn't think this was a great idea.

In fact my only comment is "WTF took him so long?"

[pinto]

6. McCain's comment : "“Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world."

:eyes:

[young but wise]

16. It's a good thing that old fool didn't win.

[Sheepshank]

35. He's still stuck on the "the surge is working" talking point n/t

[ellisonz]

82. Inexcusable.

[defendandprotect]

7. Looks more like we're being chased out -- !!! Wow!! Obama's kept these wars going 3 years ...plus.

the two years that Pelosi/Reid kept Bush's wars going --

So that's FIVE YEARS of Demcorats supporting these wars --

but what would be really productive is if we pretend not to notice any of that?

Wow!!

[phleshdef]

10. Obama pretty much ended the war on the schedule he ran on for President.

And the American people already answered the question as to whether or not that was acceptable. You lost that battle 3 years ago.

[defendandprotect]

31. Obama and Dems could have acknowedged that US was there based on LIES re 9/11....

and that this had more to do with controlling the region and its oil ---

80% of the public want an end to the WARS -- plural!!


What battle did I lose? This was was based on deception by the Bush administration --

am I to think that the Dem leadership and Obama didn't know that? Really?

[dionysus]

119. flailing... you are...

[frazzled]

11. He's withdrawn them steadily--

In 2006 there were 170,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. In 2009, as pledged, Obama withdrew combat troops down to the 41,000 today. ALL of these will be home in the next few months, by the end of the year.

Really, you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

Double WOW for nastiness and making up your own universe.

[defendandprotect]

32. Our attack on Iraq was an "illegal" war of aggression with 1 MILLION MUSLIMS dead!!

That's fact -- !!

[MadMaddie]

39. Yes it is a fact and the other fact is that President Obama

did not lead the Pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
He did not keep the $$ off of the books so the American people could not see the catastrophic costs...
He did not hide the cost of our military lives by not allowing photos of their returning caskets
He didn't build that monstrosity of a Embassy building there which apparently is as big as the Vatican..


He has fought for more money for the VA and the care for returning men and women
Jill Biden and Michelle Obama have taken on the task of pushing and promoting our military families...

He didn't get them out as fast as we wanted but they will be out.

Junior, Condi, Skeletor, Cheney, Rumsfeld should all be tried for crimes against humanity for the 1 MILLION MUSLIMS dead!! I would add all of the military personnel that have perished too.

[defendandprotect]

58. Remember that Dems were supporting the war from '06 onward ....

and Obama since '08 --

What difference who pushed this illegal war of aggression -- when Obama came

up to bat, he should have changed things -- immediately.

Obama has increased the military budget --

And I believe there is another Taj Mahal of an Embassy being built --

He didn't get them out as fast as we wanted but they will be out.

Again -- we're leaving because we are being pushed out by lack of immunity for our troops.

[MadMaddie]

123. That increase also includes caring for our wounded soldiers

I suppose he should keep up the ignore them when they are of no use to the U.S. they spilled their blood...oh well...:sarcasm:

I love how people conveniently ignore the Blue Dogs that stonewalled all prior efforts to close Gitmo and get out of Iraq....

Don't you think that Obama knew it would come to this, to us getting pushed out? The bottom line is whether we withdrew for other purposes or we were pushed out our men and women are coming home.

He should have changed things immedietly, you mean like Junior did and basically destroyed the military by taking away their decisions. The military had Osama at Tora Bora but the civilian leadership over rode taking him out because Junior wanted to prolong the war.

Sadly, I think if he would have done it a year ago many would still complain it wasn't fast enough. Some will never be happy until they have a crazed Republican President and claim, "oh my how did this happen"?

[certainot]

128. unfortunately the 'left' allows the right to control media and define who supports the troops and

who is a traitor, to a large extent.

we need to remember that we got lied into the war by republicans and we the people allowed the bush crime family to steal those two elections without massive street action and we allowed them to lie us into iraq and then fill the military complex with even more profit motive and fundamentalist sycophants and i don't see how people could have expected obama to walk in there and pull the troops immediately- the right would have done another coup and the 'left' once again, including all the people who pledged to get his back, would have sat around their tv s and computers again while the same celebrity talking heads would have counseled patience until the facts ' proved ' that it was middle eastern terrorists from another country we need to attack in revenge.

maybe it could have happened sooner, but cheney and crew got us in, with out complacent approval. despite millions in the streets the republican politicians knew team limbaugh had their back and they didn't have to pay any attention to the people. there were a lot of dem reps working against going in and then getting us out and supporting the troops. but the real reason we're in there and then it took so long to get out and no one went to jail for all that unnecessary killing and maiming is that we the people let the right control all major messaging. OWS is the closest thing to messagig by the 'left' we've had in two decades, and if we don't fix media they'll define OWS eventually too.

[eilen]

94. Troops were shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. nt

[MjolnirTime]

64. It's over. Will you be able to stand it?

[defendandprotect]

75. It's not over ... and we're still in Afghanistan and flying killer drones over Pakistan and ...

warmongering vs Iran -- !!

In fact, VP Joe Biden has been calling for more than a year for Israel to attack

Iran. Biden says, "Israel would be justified in attacking Iran" --

Question is -- "Can you stand it?"



:puke:

[MjolnirTime]

83. I guess you can't.

[defendandprotect]

85. I can always stand PEACE and an end to warmongering -- !! Start with the drones--!!!

Bring it on --

[dionysus]

120. reduced to a punchline.

[JoePhilly]

8. The "Obama Bad" meme comes from both sides.

The right wing version is "Obama is BAD because he is a commie socialist, secret Muslim, who is weak on terror, and hates America".

The left wing version is "Obama is BAD because he is wall street corporatist, secret Republican, war monger, who hates America."

Both of these memes are pushed in the media, side by side. So what if they are total opposites.

The media does not care WHICH version of the "Obama Bad" meme one internalizes ... just so long as you accept ONE of these and conclude "Obama BAD".

The core "Obama BAD" message will help increase GOP turnout, and help decrease Democratic turnout, and THAT is the real intent.

[DCBob]

13. +1

just makes your head spin sometimes.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. +2

[TheWraith]

18. Precisely. Much of the "Obama bad!" from the left is encouraged by Republicans.

Their propaganda operation is second to none--and that includes targeting the left to demoralize and lie about Democrats, using shills and selective leaking.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. And likely paid for from the same sources. Lots of money being spread around.

;)

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marnie]

76. If it's the Republic's meme than it's not comming from the left.

Duh.

[robinlynne]

88. no. We don't read rightwing news. sorry.

[SidDithers]

24. +1...nt

Sid

[apocalypsehow]

26. Summed it up perfectly! n/t.

[loyalsister]

53. +3

[ecstatic]

146. +1000. nt

[slay]

14. We totally need to get out of Iraq - CONTRACTORS TOO - it's Obama's pro-corporate stance on things

i have issue with.

[phleshdef]

15. Anything short of banning corporations from existing is a pro-corporate stance to you people.

I just don't take you very seriously anymore as your positions are often silly hyperbole, such as what you just said.

We have private contractors all over the world and most of them have nothing to do with combat 90% of the time. As long as we aren't fighting a war there anymore, I'm fine with continuing to help Iraq rebuild by providing exertise via civilians. And thats pretty much all these contractors are as far as Iraq goes. They are no longer immune to prosecution, so the problems we had in the past should no longer be an issue.

[great white snark]

23. Now that is well said.

Thank you.

[slay]

28. no it wasn't

n/t

[Number23]

100. You have now resorted to telling people what is and is not "well said?"

That would be sad if it wasn't truly hilarious.

[slay]

115. I didn't think it was well said at all

which is what i put in my comment. if you don't like it - too bad.

[Number23]

118. You are absolutely precious. A joy to have here.

[dionysus]

121. you worshipping messaih cult rezko pretty speech DLC apologist bankster ect ect

;)

[Number23]

124. Yeah, that one's pretty obvious, ain't he??

:)

[occupyeverywhere]

43. I agree, no it wasn't.

[slay]

27. "you people"

you're fine with paying contractors $1000 a day from OUR TAX MONEY to be over there? i'm not. EOM.

[phleshdef]

47. Then you must be 100% against foreign aid otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Because anything we pay in terms of training Iraqi security forces via private contractors is really nothing more than foreign aid. Its not longer a military operation because these are civilians. And no one is forcing them to work in Iraq, they are choosing to. The only sticking point is that we might be paying some of the bill for Iraq, which is no different than giving them foreign aid. Its the same result. And I'm sorry, we charged in and ripped the hell out of the whole country. Maybe you think its ok to do that and take no responsibility after the fact. I happen to hold my country to higher moral standards.

[defendandprotect]

34. "You people" -- ? What people are you talking about -- ?

"Preservation of the private H/C industry" -- in back room deals with Big Pharma

and the private H/C industry -- later "crowed" about by Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel

was not only a pro-corporate decision, but complete betrayal of the American public!


Extending tax cuts for the rich is pro-corporate/elite -- $120 Billion we had to

turn around and borrow to cover -- at 1/2% more in interest because of the downgrading

due to the "debt crisis" -- !!!


Attacks on public education, teachers and their unions is pro-corporate/elite decision

making. On and on!


After ten years of these garbage wars of aggression -- 5 of them supported by Democrats --

we should be grateful? ROFL

[AngkorWot]

36. The people Rahm Emanuel was talking about.

[phleshdef]

45. Spare yourself the typing time. I can assure you, I don't read broken record talking points.

Which means I'm not reading your post. Save it for someone that gives a damn.

[defendandprotect]

57. It's not actually about you and what you may read or not read ....

It's about everyone reading the thread --


and it's even further helpful when you make clear that you deal with Obama's

pro-corporate decision making by ignoring it --

ROFL

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

68. You don't read your own posts?

That explains things.

[TheKentuckian]

41. "Most" "90% of the time" is gobbledygook. "pretty much" and "should no longer" aren't much better.

That just means that some percentage always has something to do with combat, 10% of the time (in your estimation) many of them are involved in or supporting military adventures and that mostly if all goes well, the problems in the past won't still be an issue.

[phleshdef]

48. I dont really care what they are doing there. They choose to be there and Iraq apparently wants them

I was against going to war on false pretenses and I was against setting ourselves up for a prolonged occupation. I was against forcing American soldiers to be in harms way over nothing.

I am not against foreign aid, especially if its foreign aid as a result of actions America actually committed. We turned their country upside down. Subsidizing more training for security forces using civilians is ok with me. We broke their country. We have an obligation. I wish we could have spent the past 6 or 7 years handling it that way in Iraq. That would have meant no occupation and no troops being forced into harms way for no good reason.

I am not against contractors voluntarily working in Iraq, for ANY reason, as long as the Iraqi government is ok with it.

[TheKentuckian]

81. That is what I thought. Works much better without all the spin, even I don't agree.

I say not on our dime. If Iraq wants them there then they can pay the tab our aid (if we are inclined to give it) should be to rebuild what we stupidly destroyed and make sure the poor folks have food and water not for putting down "insurgents" and providing security to the extraction industry.

[occupyeverywhere]

42. You people?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slay]

50. Wow really? Saying that about fellow DU members who happen to disagree with you? Not cool

not cool - and not helpful. i understand opinions get heated - i do - but it would be in everyone's best interest for you to remove that post calling DU people names.

[phleshdef]

110. Spare me the disingenious lecture.

You don't mean it and I don't care about it either way.

[slay]

114. I did mean it

sounded like you needed it - and if you don't care - why are you here? it's ok for people to disagree you know. i wasn't trying to attack you personally.

[dionysus]

122. what do you mean, "you people?"

[SwampG8r]

78. "you people"........where have i heard that before......

[Enthusiast]

141. Sounds like something Rumsfeld would say.

Or the evil Dick Cheney, "So."

[robinlynne]

90. I would prefer my tax dollars go to rebuilding the US.

[defendandprotect]

132. Exactly --- and keep your eye on the "peace dividend" resulting from folding Iraq War -- !!! ROFL

Great point ---


:)

[robinlynne]

106. Are you a republican by any chance?

[Enthusiast]

142. Only in spirit, lol.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. You've moved those goalposts so many times, they're all worn out.

:hi:

[great white snark]

22. Contractors will continue to train the Iraqi forces.

Do you speak for the Iraqi people?

[slay]

29. I see what's going on here

i didn't realize this was a GD:P thread. i usually avoid those like the plague.

[SwampG8r]

79. i finally started using ignore

there are only 9 on it and DU is a wonderfull cooperative place again for me
amazing
9 names and peace ensues

[Mass]

33. There are some people here who prefer having the RW governing so that they can yell fascism.

They are unhappy to have a government who makes some progress, even if the progress is not as big as we would like. No progress seems better than some progress, for them.

[cui bono]

97. Those people must be the Obama defenders because they loved to yell out criticisms when Bush

was doing the same things Obama continues to do.

[defendandprotect]

37. Obama needs to be covering our backs -- working for general welfare, and not welfare for rich--!!!

[slay]

67. +1

yeah i mean i want to like Obama but sometimes i wonder how much he really likes us - judging by his actions - wayyyy less than he led on back when i voted for him in 2008. sigh...

[LittleBlue]

38. It's good that we're out, but it's not due to Obama's choice

I support leaving, but it wasn't so much Obama as Iraq rejecting our continued presence there.

[phleshdef]

49. Even a continued presence would have been 5,000-10,000 soldiers....

Unlike the well over a hundred thousand that were in there when Obama took office. Obama 100% chose to draw forces down to those levels and even the big, hypothetical post 2011 occupation would have been virtually irrelevant. So based on that, it definately was his preference to decrease our involvement in Iraq.

[LittleBlue]

51. So what? We're being evicted, we're not choosing to leave

What does that have to do with drawing down troops we don't need there but need in our other war? That has nothing to do with my statement or this thread.

Oh I get it, it's an "accomplishment"

[treestar]

61. How could that be?

That could only be so if Iraq was militarily stronger than we are.

We couldn't be "evicted." If Iraq was strong enough for that, we couldn't have occupied their country.

Stupid talking point, worthy only of the right wing.

[seaglass]

69. Are you freaking serious? You think we could violate an agreement signed by our government

just on a whim? Wow. You don't see any political implications in reneging on the SOFA? No impact to our foreign policy? Put on your thinking cap, this is not about military might.

[treestar]

133. After the other things we are accused of

I would imagine "reneging on the SOFA" would be pretty easy.

And then we would have agreed to that and are pulling out earlier.

As usual we are to get no credit. We are being "evicted" is the OP's point. The idea is to give us no credit for leaving.

[MjolnirTime]

54. It was Obama's choice, even if you don't want to credit him.

[LittleBlue]

56. Not according to this

Iraq rejects US request to maintain bases after troop withdrawal

Obama announces the full withdrawal of troops from Iraq but fails to persuade Nouri al-Maliki to allow US to keep bases there

The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.

Barack Obama announced at a White House press conference that all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of December, a decision forced by the final collapse of lengthy talks between the US and the Iraqi government on the issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases

We left because they told us to leave. Obama wanted to maintain bases in Iraq and keep a US military presence.

[MjolnirTime]

63. If McCain was President that story would never have been printed.

Obama has given the Iraqis a chance to stand on their own and they have taken it.

Have no doubt that Barack Obama made the call on this.

[Dragonfli]

66. You are of course correct, but in GDP it's all about the hero myth, your truth will be ignored /nt

[ClarkUSA]

46. Lest we forget, Pres. O is on target to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the yr

The "Never Good Enough" crowd are always ready to piss on every bit of good news that comes from this Democratic President with strikingly similar "move the goalpost" or curtly dismissive talking points.

Such an uncannily predictable phenomena is very interesting, isn't it?

[Remember Me]

55. "willing to finally let it end" -- well put

Perhaps your own words give a hint as to the lack of, um, enthusiasm some of us feel about the whole thing.

Here's how I feel about it:

* Hip hip hoo (yawn) ----- what the hell took so long?

* Too little too late. How many Americans died? How many maimed and disfigured and psychologically crippled for life? How many trillions of dollars? And oh -- how many contractors are STAYING, and at what cost?? What's happened to that gigantic permanent base?

* A Campaign promise kept just in the nick of time for the next campaign, and not a minute sooner. How conveeeeenient.


There's no way I can respect this guy. There's nothing he could do to win that respect and admiratoon back. Nothing. Vote for him again? Yeah, sure, since no one's going to primary him, apparently. But with less enthusiasm than ANY Democrat I've ever voted for (and at my age I've voted for a bunch), because I shudder to think how much damage he can do to us in a 2nd term. The term Pyrrhic victory doesn't even begin to cover it.

Blech.

So don't freakin' lecture me on having his back: he's on his own, just as he's left us on our own (and belittled and insulted us to boot).

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

70. Please...

Keep serving as a willing prop, proving the very point of the OP. Well played!

[Swede]

102. You're on the wrong fucking website.

Go away.

[Politicalboi]

62. The Repukes are pissed because

What are we going to do with all the money not spent on the Iraq war? Without the war, we should be able to afford medical coverage for everyone in the US.

[Major Hogwash]

65. Absolutely great thread, man. Thank you for saying this today.

Tonight one of the local teevee stations had a short interview with a young Iraq War veteran who was glad President Obama was taking our men and women soldiers out of Iraq this year.
He had lost his left hand in a battle in April 2005, and he said it best when he said, "We don't need any more members of our family killed over there now. The mission we were sent on was accomplished a long time ago."

Listening to that young veteran, and from you starting this thread here today, is the sum total of most of all of the work I have working so hard for over the last 8 long years.
I am so glad that our troops are finally coming home.

[JoePhilly]

71. Its been a bad week for the Obama haters.

[AtomicKitten]

77. It has indeed.

:cry:

[Swede]

86. Those magnificent bastards!

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

89. Did we get MEDICARE4ALL? Are we out of Afghanistan?

Has Obamas stopped attacking public education in favor of Charter schools?

Has Biden stopped calling for Israel to attack Iran?

No US drones being flown over Pakistan?

Has Obama finally fired his economic team -- ???


Time to respect and love democracy and general welfare more than Obama --

What's the saying? "He's not your boyfriend" -- ???

[Swede]

103. Awww,really really bad week.

:nopity:

[defendandprotect]

107. Where ... ?? We were forced out of Iraq ...!! He's not your boyfriend -- !!

ROFL --

[Doctor_J]

72. Ah, the DU purity test.

provided by the New Dems. Unrec'ing this flame bait

[defendandprotect]

91. kr

[Doctor_J]

126. Imagine, if you will, after the president proposed raising the Medicare age,

a liberal starting thread entitled, "OK, if you're not going to support a primary challenge now, the hell with you". It would have been locked within 20 minutes. But the new Dems insist that we're the problem, and maintain (upthread - this is for real), "they're so far left that they're really teabaggers".

:crazy:

[Marnie]

73. Sorry I can't have his "back." Because I have always been in front.

of him on not continuing or making wars.

He is after all only following Bush's decision on withdrawal.

So anyone of us who has Obama's back on this is protecting Bush's back on making the war in the first place.

[JNinWB]

84. Two questions to ponder....

1. Did the Bush Adm (Neocons) negotiate the SOFA so that Obama could not withdraw the troops from Iraq more quickly?
(Thus requiring Obama to disappoint his supporters and delay fulfilling his campaign promise of withdrawal?)

2. Did Obama engage in these last minute negotiations as insurance for his administration in case a bloody civil war breaks out?
(If a CW breaks out in Iraq, Obama can claim that he offered to maintain a token force to deal with such a possibility.)

[robinlynne]

87. Actually it wasn't Obama, accoridng to Al Jazeera nad BBC. It was Iraq who refused to renew

the contract for US force t stay there. the contract between the 2 countries, written by Bush had an expiration date end of this year. US army wanted to stay. Iraq said nope.

[defendandprotect]

92. +100% --- true ... the handwriting is on the wall some here don't want to read -- !!

[phleshdef]

108. The proposed security force was so small, that it would still not be anything resemling occupation.

Occupation means that you have to occupy and control and area. Thats the actual definition. Obama at most would have lent about 5000 for that effort whereas the warhawks in the Pentagon wanted 18000.

But if you think Obama isn't more than happy to have one war off his plate, you must be crazy.

[defendandprotect]

113. We've been "occupying" Iraq for more than 10 years ... and bombing them for almost 30 years!!

But we'll all stand and applaud now?

This was an "illegal" war of aggression which should be acknowledged --

based on the lies of 9/11.

Democrats have supported and funded these wars for 5 years now --


'06 - Pelosi on video -- "Dems were elected to end the war--!" ---

[Scurrilous]

98. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Arkana]

101. I love watching the right rend their garments over the withdrawal

of all troops from Iraq.

And I gotta say--why can't the left accept that it's happening?

[Tarheel_Dem]

105. "why can't the left accept that it's happening?"

Sadly, not much difference anymore. Some have moved the goalposts so far to the left that they've actually linked arms with the teanutters. No matter the circumstances, you'd think everyone would be celebrating the end to an unpopular war. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

109. It's happening only because troops lost immunity -- we've been forced out -- !!

The alarm clock went off -- you've got it on snooze!

[phleshdef]

111. No matter how hard you try to sell that bullshit, its not being well bought.

Spamming the board with the same shit isn't winning your any arguments. Its just making those of us that disagree with you disagree with you even more.

[defendandprotect]

112. Ignorning the pulling of troop immunity is your response? ROFL

[slay]

116. defendandprotect is right - if you choose to ignore the truth

then that's your choice, but don't blame him/her. and your "spamming the board with your same shit" comment could just as easily be said about you.

[dana_b]

140. it's true

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

and if you don't like Salon and Glenn Greenwald there is a CNN story that talks about it too

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/

[Arkana]

127. And you don't honestly believe that had McCain or any other Republican

been President that we'd be vigorously petitioning the Iraqi government to let us stay longer "to protect them"?

If so, I'm not the one who's overslept.

[defendandprotect]

131. Not clear on how you mean that -- McCain would like to bomb Iran -- and stay in Iraq for 100 years .

what does that have to do with what we expect from a Dem president re Bush wars?

[certainot]

129. well said. and naive to think blck dem pres could have contradicted joint chiefs advice on pulling

the troops.

millions protested but we let the media, with 1000 coordinated radio stations leading the way, enable the whole thing and keep us there and define who is and isn't supporting the troops. the notion that obama could have walked into the white house and pulled the troops while ignoring advice from the joint chiefs would have caused a coup and the 'left' again would have sat on their hands like they did when the bush crime family stole two elections.

and we the people let the bush crime family get us into this, increase privatization, and set it up for long term occupation.

[ecstatic]

145. I became interested in politics at a time when we had zero power

shortly after Bush took office.

This is the first time since my interest in politics that I've been able to see first hand how the far left behaves when we have a democratic president.

Can I just say, I'm disgusted and wondering how on Earth I'd be motivated to keep working with people who do everything possible to sabotage our progress once we win?

I never imagined that people could be so nasty towards a President who is doing his best to get things done! If it's not trolling, it must be some sort of defeatist/mental disease.

[Enrique]

148. it's a very popular decision, a lot of people have his back

someone brought it up at our company-wide staff meeting this morning, where politics is never discussed, and everyone cheered.

[zipplewrath]

149. The problem is that I agree with their "attacks"

I don't think he particularly wanted to extend the agreement.
I do think he made this decision in opposition to the DoD.
I do think the whole immunity deal is just some convienent cover for an outcome he wanted anyway.
I do think that the President was more concerned about keeping a campaign promise, than doing what the DoD wanted.
I do think he could have negotiated a deal if he had wanted to.

Even worse, Iraq will move closer to Iran, and we will have less influence, at least overtly and politically. Our influence will be predominately economic in nature, which will also tend to be a point of conflict between Iraq and Iran.

I agree with every one of those "criticism" and I see them as positions I can support. I think the president made the right choices here. I wish he had made them "sooner" so to speak. It was an unavoidable fact that "liberating" Iraq from the minority control, which was hostile to Iran, was going to make it a "closer" ally thereof. In 2005 I made that very observation in a political forum. The best case scenario in Iraq, for Bush, was that there would be a moderately stable government that was friendly to Iran, mildly hostile to Saudi Arabia, and presented a hostile posture to Turkey. NONE of that is Obama's fault and staying wasn't going to change that. If anything, staying was going to make it WORSE.

From this point on, the "best case scenario" is that a free and democratic Iraq becomes a close ally of Iran, and that this "friendship" causes the Iranians to wonder why they don't have it too. Economic activity THROUGH Iraq, FROM Iran could actually pull Iran into the international community and make them a LESS threatening state overall.