All U.S. Troops in Iraq are coming home. U.S. Troops are Army, Marines, etc. NOT paid civilians.

[Tx4obama]

During the 2008 presidential campaign Obama said he would end the war in Iraq and bring home Our TROOPS.

That is exactly what he is doing.

Remember that U.S. Troops = Army, Marines, etc. - NOT paid civilians.

Don't let anyone try to move the goalposts on this one!

Thank you President Obama :)


And to all the U.S. Troops that will be back in the USA for this year's holidays with their families: Welcome Home !!!

[RC]

1. Our military was told to leave by Iraq.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

[ClarkUSA]

3. President Obama could have agreed to Iraqi terms in order to extend troops' stay.

He chose not to. For you to stay that the President of the United States had nothing to do with this decision when he is Commander-In-Chief is ludicrous beyond belief.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. >>>>>

:rofl:

[vaberella]

78. As per usual. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

2. You nailed it. 10,000 Afghanistan troops will be coming home by the end of the year, too.

This will be truly a joyous holiday season for so many military families, thanks to President Obama keeping his promises and earning that Nobel Peace Prize! :patriot:

[LittleBlue]

4. Actually, Obama wanted US troops to stay, but al-Maliki told him to leave

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...

But he had already announced this earlier this year, and the real significance today was in the failure of Obama, in spite of the cost to the US in dollars and deaths, to persuade the Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki to allow one or more American bases to be kept in the country.

Obama was formally told of Maliki's final decision on Friday morning in a video conference.

Speaking later to reporters, Obama glossed over the rejection, describing it as Iraq shaping its own future.

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


Kind of disingenuous to claim that Obama kept his promise and brought the troop home when in fact he wanted them to stay.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Anti-Obama Guardian spin again. The decision to turn over bases and equipment was made last month.

"U.S. To Hand Over Iraq Bases, Equipment Worth Billions"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/iraq-withdrawal-us-bases-equipment_n_975463.html

[LittleBlue]

12. It's not spin. The Guardian is the most reputable paper in Britain. The WaPo and Reuters confirm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/all-us-troops-to-leave-iraq/2011/10/21/gIQAUyJi3L_story.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/22/us-iraq-usa-obama-idUSTRE79K4LR20111022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

It's not spin.

Furthermore, your link doesn't disprove this.

[ClarkUSA]

14. Sure it is. WaPo = RW owned and editorialized. They got it wrong on Biden just today.

As for Reuters, they're corporate MSM as well. As for Guardian, everything they write about the President has got a distinct anti-Obama flavor. A

As for the decision to pull out troops, it was always Iraq's to make. President Obama made that clear many times through Robert Gates and Pentagon spokesmen but he wasn't going to let America be accused of leaving Iraq high and dry and at the mercy of chaos. As little as a couple of months ago, there were reports that Maliki was wavering. He finally made a decision and that's a good thing. To spin it as a rejection of President Obama's dearest wishes is totally subjective and ridiculous.

If anything, President Obama is damned happy about bringing home all the troops. Remember, he was the ONLY major presidential candidate in 2008 who was always against IWR and the Iraq war.

[LittleBlue]

15. Guardian, Reuters, WaPo, NYT, ABC News, CNN all in a conspiracy against Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/president-obama-announces-end-of-war-in-iraq.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-speak-iraq-troop-levels-14787482
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/?hpt=hp_c1&imw=Y

They all acknowledge the same thing: months of negotiations to keep troops in Iraq in bases broke down.

Just stop.

[ClarkUSA]

18. lol! If anything, President Obama is damned happy about bringing home all the troops.

To spin it as a rejection of President Obama's dearest wishes is totally subjective and ridiculous. Reports have said it was the Pentagon brass who wanted to extend the troops' stay, not the CIC. Remember, Barack Obama was the ONLY major presidential candidate in 2008 who was always against IWR and the Iraq war.

Oh, and President Obama is bringing home 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, too. He doesn't really want them there, either.

[LittleBlue]

23. He negotiated for months to keep troops in Iraq

I don't know how he feels personally, maybe he's overjoyed or extremely angry, I don't really care. As president he tried to keep troops and US military bases in Iraq. So many reputable news sources cite these months of negotiations that it is beyond question.

He only brought them home after al-Maliki forced them out.

[ClarkUSA]

26. The Pentagon brass wanted to stay beyond this year. Maliki was wavering during the summer.

American military officials had wanted a “residual” force of as many as tens of thousands of soldiers to remain past 2011 as an insurance policy against future violence.

Those numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that 3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain. Some top American military officials were dismayed by the decision, saying Mr. Obama was putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

Pentagon lawyers insisted that the Iraqi Parliament grant soldiers immunity from legal prosecution. In recent weeks, American negotiators in Baghdad concluded that it would be impossible to obtain that protection, essentially scuttling any chance of a substantial troop presence there next year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/president-obama-announces-end-of-war-in-iraq.html

President Obama didn't want to be accused of leaving our new Middle East ally in the lurch, so he offered to stay but only if Iraq wanted it.

This is a win-win for both America and Iraq (and Iran) but the Pentagon must be unhappy.

[LittleBlue]

28. The president is commander-in-chief, he makes the decisions

He directed that negotiations be held to stay.

It's noteworthy that you've changed your argument from claiming this was a media lie and he didn't do it, to accepting that he did and explaining why. He did it, he tried to keep troops and bases in Iraq, so just stop.

Giving him credit for being thrown out of Iraq against his will is just the height of silliness. You're not doing yourself any favors.

[ClarkUSA]

31. I addressed that in my reply. Did you bother to read what I said? Obviously not.

Your reply is a laughable strawman argument. I never said those things. Forget it.

You just stick to your false narrative about President Obama. You always do.

[LittleBlue]

33. You told me that the numerous reports that Obama negotiated to stay were lies

of WaPo, et al. Now you've abandoned that attack and accuse me of a false narrative.

A quick reread of this thread shows that you're obviously struggling to spin this.

Give up, man, it's over.

[ClarkUSA]

35. I shouldn't have believed you. I find that it's your narrative that is false.

I am right. President Obama wasn't the one who wanted the troops to stay; it was the Pentagon brass who did.

American military officials had wanted a “residual” force of as many as tens of thousands of soldiers to remain past 2011 as an insurance policy against future violence.

Those numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that 3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain. Some top American military officials were dismayed by the decision, saying Mr. Obama was putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

Pentagon lawyers insisted that the Iraqi Parliament grant soldiers immunity from legal prosecution. In recent weeks, American negotiators in Baghdad concluded that it would be impossible to obtain that protection, essentially scuttling any chance of a substantial troop presence there next year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/president-obama-announces-end-of-war-in-iraq.html

Nowhere does it say President Obama was "thrown out". That's your simplistic and subjective take based on your clear and abiding dislike for all things Obama.

[LittleBlue]

37. The link that you keep posting proves what I said

That Obama's administration negotiated to keep troops in Iraq but was rebuffed.

I don't understand what your point is.

Obama directs his generals. They can't negotiate keeping troops in Iraq without his permission. They didn't defy him.

[ClarkUSA]

38. "keep posting"?? That's also a false statement. I just posted a link 2x in this entire subthread.

[LittleBlue]

40. You keep posting a link showing the Obama administration negotiating to keep soldiers in Iraq

which was my point.

Unless you're arguing that the Pentagon isn't Obama's Pentagon, which it is, him being president and commander-in-chief. No negotiations can happen without the president's approval.

[ClarkUSA]

44. You insisted that President Obama was "thrown out" when "he wanted them to stay"

That is baseless hyperbolic rhetoric coupled by false rhetoric; ergo, a false narrative.

President Obama was NOT "thrown out" nor was it he who "wanted to stay." The Pentagon brass wanted a residual force to stay beyond 2011, as per The New York Times.

That's what I have asserted and what my quotes from the NYT proved.

[LittleBlue]

47. That's not at all what your link says.

Your link doesn't say that Obama wanted them out but the Pentagon defied him. That can't even happen, it's unconstitutional. If Iraq had agreed to keep troops, the president would have kept troops in Iraq. Al-Maliki's decision had them out of Iraq, not Obama's. That's a fact.

You called this "Anti-Obama Guardian spin again" which obviously it is not, seeing as how you're admitting that it's true. Pathetic.

[ClarkUSA]

51. You're making a false statement again. All you have is empty rhetoric aka. strawman arguments.

:nopity:

[LittleBlue]

53. No, I'll quote you. Here:

Iraq rejects US request to maintain bases after troop withdrawal

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

Anti-Obama Guardian spin again.

This is you denying that the Obama administration negotiated to keep troops in Iraq.

Sure it is. WaPo = RW owned and editorialized. They got it wrong on Biden just today.
As for Reuters, they're corporate MSM as well. As for Guardian, everything they write about the President has got a distinct anti-Obama flavor.

This is you calling three news outlets anti-Obama for reporting this.

President Obama didn't want to be accused of leaving our new Middle East ally in the lurch, so he offered to stay but only if Iraq wanted it.

This is you acknowledging that the Obama administration did negotiate to keep troops in Iraq by citing an article that I used to disprove your claims of bias. I assume you also acknowledge that al-Maliki's rejection of Obama's offer is what sent the troops home, since that is what your article said:

The complete withdrawal, which his political critics decried and his military team had worked hard to avert, was propelled by an irreconcilable dispute between the United States and Iraq over the legal immunity of a small force of military trainers that the Pentagon had planned to leave in the country. Though the president left open the possibility that trainers might still advise Iraqi troops, military officials said the chance of putting any significant American force there was slim.

I'm going to accept your concession that Obama did try to keep troops in Iraq. You acknowledge this now. Good.

[ClarkUSA]

55. I repeat, "I shouldn't have believed you. I find that it's your narrative that is false."

Should have known better, given what I've seen of your rancid opinion of President Obama.

[LittleBlue]

58. You don't need to believe me, it's in the quote from the Guardian

Every single paper cited in this thread states that the Obama administration tried to keep troops in Iraq. The troops were forced out by the al-Maliki government's rejection of Obama's proposal to keep them there, not some noble campaign promise kept to pull them out.

The OP is wrong. Whether you accept the truth, that the Obama administration tried to keep troops there, is entirely up to you.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Again, you insisted that President Obama was "thrown out" when "he wanted them to stay"

That's false. Nothing in any of your news sources says that.

And I note that you're now backing off, by saying "the Obama administration" instead of just "Obama" now.

[LittleBlue]

62. Obama administration = Obama

I use them interchangeably so that I don't have to type the same thing repetitively, like I use "al Maliki" and "al Maliki government" interchangeably. What Obama's administration does, especially in military matters, are his sole decision. He is the CIC, and he decided to negotiate a stay of US troops in Iraq. All of the sources say that he negotiated to stay in Iraq. Now you're employing a ludicrous, flimsy argument that the Pentagon is somehow separate from Obama and not carrying out his orders, which they are.

The OP gives credit for a full withdrawal to Obama. That is obviously not true as Obama tried to stay, tried to keep troops in Iraq.

[ClarkUSA]

64. In this case, it was the Pentagon who wanted a residual force to stay beyond 2011.

Your false narrative is debunked by the very news sources whose words you are distorting.

[LittleBlue]

65. And if Obama didn't approve?

Would they still been able to negotiate for US troops staying?

[ClarkUSA]

66. Pres. Obama attached a big catch-all condition. Reread Reply #26. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Here, I'll even offer the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=803641&mesg_id=803685

Have fun going around in circles.

[LittleBlue]

68. You dodged my question. If Obama didn't want troops to stay

would negotiations for them to stay have happened? Simple question that you cannot answer. Saying that "Obama attached a catch-all" does not answer the question.

[ClarkUSA]

69. If you would stop making up clumsy "gotcha" hypotheticals and acknowledge the facts in the NYT...

... would we be having this meaningless dialogue now? I've debunked your false narrative and you're trying to move the goalpost into the Twilight Zone of :wtf:

[LittleBlue]

70. You can't answer

because you know the truth.

And you can't acknowledge that he tried to negotiate troops to stay there. And you've reversed your position that all these media sources were lying, and in fact you're spinning in a different direction.

It's fucking sad. The delusion, I mean. I hope you're getting paid for this because otherwise there's something wrong.

[ClarkUSA]

71. I did answer but you ignored the truth. Now you started a new OP to peddle your narrative.

P.T. Barnum was right: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x803775#803786

:rofl:

[LittleBlue]

72. One person thanked me for this link and it wasn't already posted here

so yeah, I posted it for people to see it.

Problem? Do you not want them to read it?

You still can't answer any questions. Could the Pentagon negotiate for troops to stay without Obama's approval? Yes or no should do. No? I thought you couldn't. :)

[boppers]

75. He negotiated for months about keeping troops in Iraq

A few words make a huge difference.

[vaberella]

80. Not true. Obama has actually always maintained this timeline.

I wouldn't put too much stock on journalism at times since this particular timeline has been sent for over 2 years now. Only Panetta had said in the past that he would like to keep military in Iraq if the government wanted them too. But Obama has given his people a wide girth to share their opinions and has continuously went against their choices. Panetta, Clinton, and even Gates had said they wanted over 90,000 troops and an extended stay. Obama had set this timeline. So I sincerely doubt the White Noise from the media. Because it's been proven that when Obama does follow through on a promise plenty of mis-information out there, which many people love to eat, on the contrary.

[bornskeptic]

85. The Washington Post story says something completely different than the Guardian spin.

It says they failed to reach an agreement for the U.S.to leave a number of troops in Iraq, because they couldn't agree on conditions. Obama was willing to leave a few thousand troops there if they were granted immunity, and Maliki wanted the troops to stay, but wouldn't grant them immunity.

[woo me with science]

10. Thank you. nt

[vaberella]

79. The Guardian is significantly right-wing in present day.

They are almost on the same level as The Sun.

[ProSense]

5. Special circumstances

It's interesting really: to be unhappy at the news that bin Laden and other terrorists have been killed, unhappy that Gaddafi is dead, unhappy that the war in Iraq is ending.

Some of the unhappiness is starting to seem like personal issues.

[woo me with science]

7. We pay those civilians.

Each draws a salary many multiples of what a comparable soldier earns.

Yes, we are drawing down non-mercenary troops in Iraq. That was to be predicted during an election year.

We will double the paid mercenaries.

But most importantly, right now the Super Committee is preparing to accept Obama's deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in order to preserve funding of the military industrial complex.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2161681

[ClarkUSA]

9. "That was to be predicted during an election year." By whom? All I heard for years is how...

... President Obama was lying, he was NEVER going to leave because he's a corporate shill, that we'd be there for decades sucking their oil dry with troops protecting the pipelines, blah, blah, blah. :tinfoilhat:

[woo me with science]

11. I notice you ignored the rest of the post. nt

[ClarkUSA]

13. I see you ignored my incredulous question. nt

[woo me with science]

19. SS and Medicare are being slashed in order to preserve the military industrial complex,

That was clearly the most important point of the post.

Of course you would rather talk about my opinion of Obama's election year tactics, than his actual policies.

[ClarkUSA]

20. Yawn. How many goalposts have you moved in this thread? You must be weary with the effort.

:nopity:

[woo me with science]

25. You still have not addressed the two main points in my original post.

1. Mercenary troops matter. They spill blood, and they cost the United States much, much more than comparable civilian troops.

and, more importantly,

2. While there is an attempt to direct everyone's attention to the drawdown of non-mercenary troops in Iraq, something much larger and more important is happening:

Obama's proposal to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is apparently becoming the "consensus" of the Super Committee, while massive funding of the military industrial complex under this administration will be preserved.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Your original post was a red herring to distract from the facts in the OP.

Such semantic fallacies bore me and so does the predictable MO:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=803335&mesg_id=803559

[woo me with science]

29. You have it backwards, my friend.

Asking Americans to celebrate this partial drawdown is an excellent distraction from what the Super Committee is doing right now with Obama's support: slashing the safety nets and futures of millions of Americans in order to preserve the war machine.

[ClarkUSA]

32. Sorry, conspiracy theories bore me as much as red herrings.

:boring:

[msongs]

22. let the iraqis start paying "those civilians" nt

[teddy51]

16. I give serious kudos to President Obama if this happens! n/t

[Tx4obama]

17. Anyone have a link to the chart that shows the troop numbers that have ALREADY come home from Iraq

since President Obama has been in office.

I seen a chart here on DU a while back.

[ProSense]

21. Here's some information

U.S. Forces in Iraq Prepare for Transition

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2011 – The military is using an old camping adage as U.S. Forces Iraq continues to move service members out of Iraq and transfer control to the Iraqi government: “Leave the site in better shape than you found it.”

“Eight years of continuous conflict has resulted in a substantial amount of equipment, supplies, property and personnel still in Iraq, and we'll withdraw with the constant threat of enemy attack and the potential for bad weather, and we're doing so in a deliberate, measured manner, ensuring we protect service members, civilians, contractors, equipment and property, and we intended turnover bases, and we have been, better than we found them,” Army Maj. Gen. Thomas W. Spoehr said during an Oct. 13 “DODLive” bloggers roundtable.

Spoehr – deputy commanding general of U.S. Forces Iraq -- said the transition is of unparalleled magnitude. In 2008, U.S. forces numbered 165,000, residing on 505 bases, he said. Today, U.S. forces are 41,000 strong, living on 22 bases. On average, his mission still requires him to withdraw 520 people each day, he added.

The general said plans under the 2008 bilateral security agreement -- which states that all U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 31 -- are on track. U.S. Forces Iraq is making the withdrawal with budgets in mind, Spoehr said, selling a large amount of equipment, infrastructure and recyclable waste to the Iraqi military and government agencies.

“We sold 6.8 million pounds of scrap just (this month), and since Sept. 1, 2010, we have sold more than 142 million pounds of unserviceable material through scrap sales,” he said. He added that the sale of equipment has saved American taxpayers $600 million in shipping and transport costs alone.

<...>

It's ending. Yay!

[Tx4obama]

39. Thanks. And here's the chart I was thinking about

[YvonneCa]

42. Yes, finally. I think I may have to wear my...

...setadeadline.com t-shirt all weekend in celebration! ;)

[Tx4obama]

24. Obama: ‘We have brought home more than 90,000 troops since I took office’

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Obama: ‘We have brought home more than 90,000 troops since I took office’

SNIP

“As a candidate for this office, I pledged I would end this war,” Obama recalled in the address. “As president, that is what I am doing. We have brought home more than 90,000 troops since I took office.”

SNIP

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/28/obama-we-brought-home-90000-troops-iraq/


For the folks that say 'to tell what someone will do in the future look at the past' - well there ya go :)

[ClarkUSA]

30. I just heard how it's so predictable he's removing troops now. Was 2009-2010 an election year too?

;)

[Tx4obama]

34. Here's an OLD chart - he's been bringing them home every year that he has been in office

So, who ever said that is wrong :)

[Tx4obama]

36. Here's a newer CHART

[ClarkUSA]

41. Wow. He's drawn down that many troops since becoming CIC? No wonder...

... President Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. The committee knows an ultimate peacemaker when they see one.

[Tx4obama]

48. Part of why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was for efforts on nuclear disarmament/non-proliferation

AND, Part of why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was for efforts on nuclear disarmament/non-proliferation
---

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

[ClarkUSA]

52. Thanks again for educating everyone who would deny that Pres. Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize.

;)

[Tx4obama]

54. And Obama's efforts on nuclear disarmament/non-proliferation

began while he was still a U.S. Senator.

They looked at his whole career/accomplishments when considering him for the honor of the prize, not only what he did as president.

[ClarkUSA]

56. Democrats, America in general, and the world are so lucky he's the leader of the free world.

He is justifying the Nobel Peace Prize's faith in him. I read what some of them said after they handed out the Prize and it was quite touching. They said they saw potential in him to change the world for the better through his actions (I am paraphrasing, of course).

And he has. And he will, if people like us have anything to do with it. :patriot:

[Tx4obama]

59. Yea buddie :)

:patriot:

I do believe I will never in my lifetime ever see an American president as great as President Obama.
I was four years old when Kennedy was killed.
This is the first time in my adult life that I've ever seen 'greatness' in a U.S. president.

[ClarkUSA]

63. I feel the same way.

I am younger than you, but am on the same page with the way I view President Obama. What I also admire and respect about him is outside of being POTUS, he's got to be the most loving husband and father to grace the WH in a long time. That's important in this day and age where he is a role model for so many boys and young men of all colors.

Did you know that sociologists have noted crime levels have mysteriously dropped since he's become POTUS? The NYT reported recently that they came to the inescapable conclusion that it's because of what the sociologists called "the Obama effect" on a whole generation of young men where they have subconsciously or consciously moderated heretofore negative behaviors into more positive ones for a better outcome. Isn't that amazing?

[Tx4obama]

67. I had not heard that, thanks for posting. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

43. Thanks for pointing out that he's leaving toxic contractors there. K&R...

NGU.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

49. I'm not moving anything. I'm just remarking on the title of the thread.

:shrug:

I thought it was an excellent public service.

NGU.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Are you trying to move the goalpost? Sure sounds like it.

[Tx4obama]

46. Here's a White House TROOP Chart

p.s. Sorry about the size, but at least it is readable :)

[ClarkUSA]

50. Thanks! So President Obama has been withdrawing troops from Iraq since Jan. 2009.

And he never looked back, from the facts on your big-ass WH chart which I hope everyone can see so they can see why the Nobel Peace Prize Committee chose him. ;)

[MjolnirTime]

61. Obama is a winner on this one. And the haters cannot stand it.

How sweet it is!

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. So the refusal by al-Maliki to extend immunity to US troops had nothing to do with the decision?

Too cool.

[Tx4obama]

76. Nope,

Because the story that Obama was bringing our U.S. Troops home by December 31st broke SEVERAL DAYS AGO (it was leaked) And Al-Maliki didn't call Obama until Friday morning. So, this was President Obama's decision and he did exactly what he said he'd do, this was his plan/schedule all along :)

[totodeinhere]

83. Al-Maliki's decision to refuse immunity to US troops was made a long time ago.

Your analysis fails.

[Arkana]

82. Tell me you don't honestly believe

that had McCain been President he'd have tried to keep us there by any means necessary in the interest of "staying the course".

His reactions to the pullout should be proof of that. I'm sure yanking the immunity for US troops factored heavily in the decision, but basically it came down to this: the President of the United States was presented with a golden opportunity to end a long, unpopular war. He seized it. I can tell you that President McCain would not have, and President Palin DEFINITELY would not have.

The war's over. He's keeping his promise, regardless of the circumstances.

[totodeinhere]

84. You are setting up a straw man. It's impossible to argue against a hypothetical that didn't happen.

Since neither McCain nor Palin became president there is no way that we can be sure what they would have done. You are merely engaging in conjecture that happens to support your agenda.

[BklnDem75]

74. K&R Thank you President Obama

It's hilarious that some don't want to give the President credit for a decision only he has the power to make. Let your haters be your motivators, Mr. President.

[Scuba]

77. Ah, those pesky facts...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1891617



"According to DOD, in Iraq, as of March 2011, there were 64,253 DOD contractor personnel in
Iraq compared to 45,660 uniformed personnel in-country. Contractors made up 58% of DOD’s
workforce in Iraq."



So, will the American People still get stuck funding the war, but paying corporations to wage it instead of our military?

[Arkana]

81. They've already been moved.

See, because we're keeping an embassy in a country that we have diplomatic relations with, that means we're secretly planning to reinvade at ANY MOMENT.