INTERNATIONAL

Reality on the Ground

Despite Obama's announcement of a plan to withdraw U.S. soldiers from Iraq, troops are likely to remain in the country for years.

By John Barry | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 26, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 02/27/2009 12:29:58 PM

    another anti -obama article by the obama haters -and bush lovers
    seems they are bent upon sabotaging everything he tries to do
    good luck

    • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/27/2009 1:17:49 PM

      Using common sense does not equate to sabotaging, hating, or wanting to see Obama fail. Along with the great sacrifice that our soldiers have made, we and our allied nations have a great investment in the people and country of Iraq. None of us want to see it all go for naught because of an ill-conceived exit strategy.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/28/2009 4:06:32 PM

        Hi Shanshayla,

        Who is saying it's an ill-conceived exit strategy? The only criticisms I've heard are from those who want it done faster, which Obama ignored. Isn't it very similar to what Bush agreed to with the Iraqis? Do you think Obama is ignoring his military advisers?

        • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/28/2009 5:56:51 PM

          Hi 40!

          My post up above was a reply to someone who said the article was written by Obama haters and Bush lovers that wanted to see him fail, which I didn't see. But no, I don't think he's ignoring advisers, though I am impressed he's ignoring Pelosi and Reid, who are pressuring him to do everything faster. No matter his views on Iraq before the war or the troop surge, I think Obama is smart enough to listen to his military advisers, rather than Pelosi, who relatively speaking doesn' t know jack! Obama wants success there, and the writer of this article mentions there's a good chance for for it. The President doesn't want the legacy of bungling the tail end of this thing, so I think he'll continue to make the right moves. If he can pull off a successful exit and get us out of there, it will boost his credibility and image world wide. I hope he does.

          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/28/2009 6:40:30 PM

            Hi Shanshayla, We agree on all of this, ESPECIALLY about that dolt Pelosi.

            A theory: I think Obama handed the the first draft of the stimulus bill to those dopes so they would see that he wasn't trying to autocratically steamroll them out of their Congressional role. Gave them enough rope... Now he can say on the next one that they had their shot and blew it (especially from and appearance standpoint; I guess I have to confess that although there were some bad choices in that first draft, I think the 'pork' slogan, especially at the end, was mainly smokescreen for politics), so now they're going to have to let him call the important shots. They'll struggle for their turf, and he needs their support, but he's way smarter than they are...

            I just think Obama is just too smart to let his presidency be ruined by it being painted (justifiably) with the Pelosi brush. Just a thought...

            I also think Obama really wants the best ideas; that's a healthy ego. I think he'll try hard to get the Rs actually involved in the next stimulus bill. If the Rs are smart, they'll actually participate rather than try to window dress and be obstructionists or overreach. Both Obama and the Rs will have to genuinely want that.

            I really do think that Obama is a pragmatist, not the ideologue he was painted as. I think he's both too patriotic, and smart, for that. We'll have to see and listen (filtering out the noise). Sure would be good for all of us to be right on this one...

            • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/28/2009 7:01:19 PM

              P.S. Check out this article http://www.newsweek.com/id/186961

              • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 03/01/2009 11:21:14 AM

                Hey 40!

                Well written article that appears to be dead on. Not listening to Pelosi regarding Iraq was an obvious choice for Obama. Dent would have been a crucial key for Obama had it not been for her shenanigans. I really believe he wants at least some sort of bi-partisanship, where she'll have none of it. My way or the highway. For instance, she wanted to repeal Bush's tax cuts immediately, but Obama was wise to let them expire on their own.

                Here's a quote from the article: "Though Pelosi's office denies it, an administration official tells NEWSWEEK that the Speaker asked to be informed whenever the White House contacts a Democratic House member. She also wants to know what the conversation was about. So far the administration is complying. "It's perfectly reasonable," the official says. "She wants to be in the loop."

                Wants to be "in the loop?" Lol! I think that's a stretch. Pelosi loves power, and is the tail that wants to wag the dog. In the end, I hope Obama remains steadfast in reaching across the aisle, (the pubs are responsible too) as this is the only way I feel we can move ahead and solve the problems we have.

                Thanks again for the link!

                Gremlin? Lol! So that's what's going on! little devil...

                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/01/2009 5:14:17 PM

                  Hi Shanshayla,

                  Yes, the tail that wants to wag the dog. I think and hope Obama is too smart for her, just as he was with Hillary, who I think is a whole lot smarter and more cunning than Pelosi ever dreamed of being.

                  They say it's hard to herd cats. The problem is on both sides of Congress. I hope that all citizens, at least enough, realize the destructiveness of partisanship in times like these.

                  And bummer about that gremlin. Like everything I say is sooo "important"! LOL!

                  • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 03/01/2009 6:26:06 PM

                    I think Obama has proved himself not to be stupid. Reading that article, she carries a big stick, which is a good thing when you've got a good and reasonable head on your shoulders. With this one, he'll have to watch his "six."

                    I solved the gremlin thing by copying everything I write. It only took a dozen or so times of doing it over before I started doing that!

                    See, it happened again!

                  • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 03/01/2009 6:24:44 PM

                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 03/01/2009 5:11:11 PM

                • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 03/01/2009 11:25:35 AM

                  40... Oppps... correction: "Dent would have been a crucial key for Obama regarding the stimulus package had it not been for her shenanigans."

            • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/28/2009 9:27:16 PM

              40, you make some good points. Likewise, I'm glad Obama is not letting Pelosi ruin this for him. It's frightening that she's second in line for the presidency next to Biden. God forbid anything every happens to him.

              Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/28/2009 10:31:37 PM

                Yeah, it gives me the Palin-shivers! LOL!

                Never been a Biden fan, but thank goodness for good ol' Joe!

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/28/2009 10:28:10 PM

                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/28/2009 10:29:51 PM

                  Sheesh. What's up with this new login gremlin?

            • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/28/2009 9:21:42 PM

        • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/28/2009 5:53:25 PM

      • Posted By: christopherkidwell1 @ 02/27/2009 1:50:15 PM

        You have to ask yourself if that investment is worth the cost... I don't think it is, considering that we are STILL just delaying the inevitable (get that word!) collapse of Iraq. It is GOING TO COLLAPSE, sooner or latter the Shiites, Sunni's and Kurds are going to get so ANGRY over something..... that it's going to be a two or three way civil war.
        Bluntly: THEY DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER! (saying this as slowly as I can so people realize this is the truth) They are only acting like they are 'playing nice' until the United States leaves or looks away.... then, all *** is going to break loose.

        • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/27/2009 6:08:58 PM

          Quote: "considering that we are STILL just delaying the inevitable (get that word!) collapse of Iraq."

          Assuming you have no crystal ball, please us how you know this?

          • Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 02/28/2009 2:59:40 PM

            Because it is a CIVIL WAR we simply took the guns from one group and gave them to another....how long do you think that will stand...and WHAT THE HELL does it have to do with us.....? shan fox...

      • Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 02/28/2009 2:48:44 PM

        Oh, now there's an exit strategy...what a concept, maybe if bush had thought of one before going into a country that has NEVER attacked the US, under falsified intelligence, maybe we would have been out already or never gone thereto begin with..since there was NO CREDIBLE THREAT TO THE US there....oh well, hind sight I guess, right fortunate shan....

    • Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 02/28/2009 2:48:22 PM

      Oh, now there's an exit strategy...what a concept, maybe if bush had thought of one before going into a country that has NEVER attacked the US, under falsified intelligence, maybe we would have been out already or never gone thereto begin with..since there was NO CREDIBLE THREAT TO THE US there....oh well, hind sight I guess, right fortunate shan....

      They only expose themselves for the CHICEKNHAWK cowards they are...pay no mind, 2010 should put an end to the "resistance" when the repub-klans lose a few more seats and we truly have a DEM MAJORITY....if the republiklans don't realize their predicament and start to redefine their party, at least TRY to act like they care about our country and NOT just politics...they will continue to shrink away into history as the party that once was...

    • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/27/2009 1:13:00 PM

  • Posted By: vstillwell @ 02/27/2009 3:22:11 PM

    So far, it looks like Bush has gotten lucky on Iraq. He lied us into the war and had no exit strategy before declaring war on Iraq. He needs to personally go to every GI that helped Petreaus draw up the surge Iraq strategy and kiss their asses. Bush also owes a huge debt of gratitude to the Sunni awakening (which is short talk for they got sick of Al Queda.) If they ever start seeing US troops as the enemy again, all bets are off.

    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 02/27/2009 3:58:47 PM

      Didn't Obama disagree with General Petreaus on the surge. Yet the General's plan was sound. Hopefully, Obama has learned something from this. I would hate to see good advice given to him by our military leaders only to have it rejected by someone who has no military expertise.

      • Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 02/28/2009 3:22:16 PM

        Well what Obama said was...If bush had listened to the Generals in the BEGINNING of the invasion of the country that NEVER ATTACKED the US, there would have been no need for a "surge". he also said that mcbush was like a kid who spilled his milk, made a horrible mess, then got a sponge to clean it with and just wants credit for the sponge..LMAO!

        Also there is this:

        The problem for McBush was his "Judgment", if he really had superior military insight, he would have never agreed to go to Iraq until Afghanistan was "mission accomplished". If mcbush would have wanted to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where they make base and train, if he would have wanted to actually bring BIN LADEN to justice, if MCCAIN has TRUE judgment, he would have stood on the floor of the Senate and said "WRONG WAR WRONG TIME!" We would have "WON" in Afghanistan, instead of "cutting" our ability to supply more troops and "running" to Iraq, for a "WAR FOR OIL" and for the bush ego.

        If McBush had done that, there would not have been a "SURGE" required, AT ALL. thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans would have been saved...but NOPE! McCain and BUSH wanted to go to a country that NEVER ATTACKED THE US, and star another war, and then MCCAIN AND BUSH wanted to go "bomb Iran, bomb bomb Iran". before Afghanistan or Iraq are clear...and you call that a "military mentality", you call that "Judgment"?


        enjoy....please by all means try to debate it...with out distraction if you can....tyr to just DIRECTLY respond ;)

  • Posted By: chibueve2008 @ 02/27/2009 3:14:02 AM

    It sure sucks and hurts to be a GOP member these days - they look like stung by african bees, and mutant spiders. I estimate the OP will be in the wilderness for a decade or more, and God help them if they come back in 2012 with Sara Palin or Bobby Jindal, they will lose all the remaining states including Alaska and Lousiana. A tone deaf party is a party undergoing rigormortis. With the guy biting a big cigar as their spokesman, this party has lost direction indeed and is rushing in all directions..pity..pity...and lots of pity. Not an enviable place to be. Lesson learned is: do not be a hypocrite, because heaven will expose you. democrats as well must learn from the GOP failures.

    • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/27/2009 1:22:16 PM

      I could see nothing in your diatribe that had anything to do with bringing our soldiers home from Iraq. That said, your a sad representative of your party.

      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 02/27/2009 1:47:23 PM

        It is so funny that they speak this way to others then hold themselves up as superior. Give me a break.

        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/27/2009 3:18:35 PM

          I'm curious, paproudmom. In this post of yours, does "they" refer to the post by chibueve2008 or to the post by notsoquietmajority?

          You know why I'm asking. I've pointed this out before.

          • Posted By: paproudmom @ 02/27/2009 3:28:34 PM

            They mean anyone who criticizes someone yet does not hold their side to the same standards. Which could apply to many. If your questioning means I can never have an opinion that is critical of a person on the left. - that is absurd. Some people hold both sides accountable other do not. I never ever said that never under any circumstance will I disagree with another. You may keep trying to paint me with an unfair brush. I do not and will not be drawn in. It is not true or fair.

            • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/27/2009 4:07:25 PM

              Here's what I mean paproudmom. First, please. I have engaged in polite discourse with you, rather than paint you with an 'unfair' brush.

              You keep complaining about the style of Obama supporters, only, and you suggest they, only, are hypocritical. I see you regularly criticizing their style. It is a regular theme of yours. You don't criticize the same type of rude or abusive postings by rightwingers.

              No, I no longer agree with you that you mean 'any'rude posters, although that is what you keep saying. If you did, you would just as frequently criticize the rude, abusive, antagonistic rightwingers. You don't.

              I have tried to get this point across to you several times. You keep saying that you don't notice the belligerent, abusive rightwingers. Notsoquietmajority is one. I say there are more of them. It doesn't really matter if there are more of them. You can't find any. You criticize none. But you say the Obama supporters are hypocritical.

              Go ahead and criticize whomever you want. But don't present yourself as being evenhanded about who merits your criticism because of how they post. You're not. And don't suggest that Obama supporters are harsh or hypocritical, when you say you can't find any rightwingers who are. That is hypocritical.

              • Posted By: paproudmom @ 02/27/2009 4:30:27 PM

                You for the most part have been polite. Although a couple of times I feel you were not fair. But over all yes your tone is not out of line to me. Some of your postings to others have been at times. I am a republican maybe somehow you missed this. I have some republican ideas. That does not mean I condone people on the right being nasty. Part of my comments to others about their tone was when they were responding to me in a nasty manner. It is not my intent to go around responding to each and every post and tell them how to speak. I am not the blog monitor. That would be really rude of me. Usually my comments were made because of what was said to me. Not always but usually. If I were going around posting to every democrat saying how they should communicate that would be one thing. I've only addressed a few in this manner. Yes I do believe that some Obama supporters want him treated with respect, and given time to try to change things without criticism when they did not give Bush anywhere near the same courtesy. Then these types, not all democrats, as you see I have said some above, expect others to act with much higher standards. I say if you want others to act differently should you (I'm not addressing you personally here) act in a manner that would encourage others to do the same. I promise if any republican addresses me in a rude, hypocritical, nasty or any otherwise hateful manner I will give them the riot act. I don't remember this happening yet, but since our party has it's share of idiots it will be only a matter of time. I am not really here to cause problems. I have actually, for the most part, enjoy our chats. But you need to cut me some slack!

                • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/27/2009 6:24:19 PM

                  Very good post, paproud! It's nice to see people here that are intelligent and can take a stand at the same time, especially against the bullys - regardless of what side they're on. I appreciate what you said on the other article when you mentioned my name the other day. I did read it. Thank you so much for stepping in.

                  Btw, for what it's worth, I have posted with 40YearR many times, and though we disagree politically on some things, he's never said a harsh or foul word or belittled me. He is polite, and seems to treat others the way he is treated.

                  Just a thought for you, and thanks again! -S

                  BTW, I thought this was an excellent article by Newsweek.

                  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 02/27/2009 7:58:16 PM

                    Thanks for your comments Shan they were really appreciated. 40yr is usually pretty cool - I agree.

                    • Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 02/28/2009 3:12:35 PM

                      Awe group hug, now how about your pres bush?

                      how about our troops being left in Iraq for 6 years under equipped while bush sent 10 billion a month to whom in Iraq? care to touch on anything of substance...or just going to stick to nit picking and Obama bashing?

                      Have a great weekend too ;)

                  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 02/27/2009 7:56:22 PM

              • Posted By: paproudmom @ 02/27/2009 4:38:55 PM

                Also if you can find me any right wing person who has called me a liar, a hypocrit, and adulterer, rascist, greedy, selfish, stupid etc. I am sure I am missing some, I'll be sure to give them heck as well. But sorry I can't think of any that said those things to me on the right.

                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 02/27/2009 5:03:31 PM

                  Well, I've noticed that those types don't cross party lines with that kind of stuff.

                  But we were talking generally, weren't we? Surely, neither your post here nor your comments generally, refer only to those who pick on you, do they? I didn't take that from your posts to me on that topic.

                  I know you know what I meant.

                  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 02/27/2009 8:01:04 PM

                    I feel that I am on firm ground with my points but we can agree to disagree. Have a great weekend.

                    • Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 02/28/2009 3:10:05 PM

                      Typical repub-klansmen..."I feel that I am on firm ground"..."we believe that Sadam has WMD and intends to use them"...and it goes on and on...LMAO!

                      Yeah that's some firm ground your party stands on...

  • Posted By: Concerned Canadian @ 02/28/2009 9:25:30 AM

    OBAMA IS NOT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF MATERIAL....HE'S A "CELEBRITY-IN-CHIEF" ...AND HE DOES NOT PRAISE
    US SOLDIERS OR ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR VICTORY .....OBAMA IS A WEAKLING AND A COWARD.

    • Posted By: HDavidsonNeverDies @ 02/28/2009 3:04:02 PM

      Hey kanuk, show me one GENERAL calling Iraq a victory....give it a try...we'll be waiting. until then stick to hockey, beer, and mooseknuckles....ya know ay, things you're good at...

  • Posted By: DrewCAENG @ 02/28/2009 2:19:51 PM

    Maybe you gentlemen would prefer a 1975 style evacuation? .

  • Posted By: dtjump @ 02/26/2009 8:06:08 PM

    It is quite reasonable that roughly the same number of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq as were stationed in Korea since the end of the Korean war. Eventually, South Korea became stable and is now an international player. The same can happen with Iraq. Any reference to Bush mismanaging Iraq or other snide comments by the press are just that - snide comments. Going to the Korean analogy - I guess the Chinese invasion was Truman's mismanagement.

    We have got to leave Iraq in a stable state, where its not a threat to its neighbors or even to its own citizens. When the Soviet Union imploded, in 1991, it took them nearly ten years to get their act together. Iraq has done it in 6 - with our help. But the Iraqis deserve a lot of the credit for changing their mindset - from a mindless mob to a functioning democracy.

    Obama's call on this is right. Further it reinfoces much of the Bush Administration's thinking at the time. The surge worked and now the draw-down can begin following their national elections. Nancy Pelosi has no business setting policy in this area - an area that she knows absolutely nothing about.

    Look for a Republican resurgence in 2010.

    • Posted By: Irratical @ 02/28/2009 11:30:31 AM

      The American public long ago concluded the Iraq war was a horrible mistake and fixed the blame firmly where it belonged: on Bush in particular and the Republican party in general. Now their overwhelming concern is the economy, and it appears that Obama made a fundamentally political decision to keep the lid on Iraq so he can focus almost exclusively on implementing his economic recovery plan.

      When American troops leave, sooner or later Iraq will revert back to what it was before the war, a corrupt and non-democratic Middle Eastern state run by gangsters. It looks like Obama has opted to delay that inevitable outcome for a couple years so that Iraq won't distract him while he works to lift the US out of this recession. He knows an imploding Iraq will expose him to rightwing attacks come 2010, while at the same time maintaining the same number of troops will antagonize his base, so he calculated the politics of the situation and choose a middle approach that both defangs the Republicans while simulataneously placates Democrats, albeit less than they had hoped. Is this somewhat cynical? Sure it is, but it's also smart. After all, Obama's biggest challenge is fixing the economy Bush broke, not the Iraq Bush broke.

      So I'll look for A Republican resurgenece in 2010

  • Posted By: oldgeek @ 02/28/2009 9:07:47 AM

    The mark on the wall has been set. Moving the troops home the stated objective intent. How best and fast to do that is now the focus. It is naive to believe that moving 150,000 troops and equipment out of Iraq can be done in short order, that is not possible. Think about moving your own household and belongings and children and you have to recognize the size of that undertaking. Superimpose on that the political and national security issues and the time frame laid out by the President is highly ambitious, with the ability to adjust as need be.

  • Posted By: vstillwell @ 02/27/2009 4:16:42 PM

    notsoquietmajority: shut up! jesh, man. you're unapoligetically a republican. we get it. they're always right and everyone else is wrong. blah blah blah blah blah.

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 02/27/2009 3:50:54 PM

    "majority" -

    I'm sorry you're too selfish to admit the Iraq War was a mistake, or to admit that the rest of the country wants us GONE from that mercenary, profiteering conflict. The next few years are not going to be kind to your philosophies.

  • Posted By: mursh @ 02/27/2009 3:03:19 PM

    notsoquietmajority: your every post further reveals your blatant stupidity and ignorance.

  • Posted By: mursh @ 02/27/2009 12:32:29 PM

    I think Obama's choice is a good one. I certainly support pulling out of Iraq completely, after all, we can't stay there forever, but I think the withdrawal needs to be measured and smart. So far, that seems to be the approach Obama is taking. Kudos to the new pres!

  • Posted By: sieg6529 @ 02/27/2009 11:58:46 AM

    We never should have gone over to Iraq, but now that we have, I guess we have to clean up the mess. Even if Iraq does become the brilliant beacon of Middle East democracy, it was still an illegal war that sets a dangerous precedent. Is the USA now going to topple all petty dictators around the globe and install democracy (protip: yes, but only if they have oil!)?

  • Posted By: clikdawg @ 02/27/2009 3:10:33 AM

    Most Likely Scenario For The Next Half-Decade In Our Twin Whack-A-Mole Adventures: A.) We transfer enough troops from Iraq to make life chancy enough for the Taliban & Friends that they fade up into the mountains like they've been doing for thousands of years and leave us with the impression (once again) that we've pacified Afghanistan. They will bide their time like the more unruly elements in Iraq have been doing ever since the surge, waiting for the heat to die down. B.) Meanwhile, with the lessening of military pressure in Iraq, those unruly elements therein go back on the warpath, leading to exactly the kind of deterioration in our security posture there that we have recently experienced vis-a-vis the "resurgent Taliban" in Afghanistan. C.) Republicans (among others) will then note that since Afghanistan has become as pacified as Iraq was at the height of the original surge there, and that Iraq has meanwhile gotten back out of hand, will insist that Iraq (and NOT Afghanistan) always WAS the central front on the WOT, and will demand that we then pull troops out of the newly surge-pacified Afghanistan and ship them back to Iraq to shore things up back there. D.) Thus re-threatened, the unruly elements in Iraq will go back to biding their time in hiding, and we will once again claim that we have made Iraq safe for Democracy. E.) But with the lessening of military pressure in Afghanistan, the Taliban & Co. will come back down out of the mountains like they've been doing for thousands of yers, and the security situation in Afghanistan will re-deteriorate once again, requiring yet another shift of our forces from the newly-pacified Iraq to the newly-unpacified Afghanistan.

    Repeat the formula as necessary to provide an endless gravy-train for the military/industrial elements in our society.

    It's lucrative little series of wars -- for some -- and those who are profiting thereby aim to keep it going as long as humanly possible; in fact, the formula is fool-proof as long as Americans agree to keep footing the bill.

    Can't make it any plainer than that, y'all -- anybody out there wanna bet me it won't go down just that way (with, perhaps, the addition of Pakistan as a third Whack-A-Mole contestant)? Be sure and include in your answer just exactly why, specifically, it won't ...

  • Posted By: chibueve2008 @ 02/27/2009 3:04:11 AM

    Quite frankly, I see not the claims of abandoned campaign promises some of the writers claim. Obama promised to end the IRAQ war responsibly: he is doing just that. His position with Hilary's was close as I recall, but VERY different from Mr. McCain's. He wanted 16 months to draw down the troops in IRAQ leaving behind a residual non-combatant force. He wound up with 18 months (19 if you count from Jan 20). That's pretty close to me. Detractors may quibble over the time line difference of 2 months, but these same people will still complain even if Obama recalled every soldier from IRAQ today. They are sore losers in my opinion who will never see anything good in the President. Some of these chronic grumblers are the same cast of characters still day dreaming about his birth certificate. The nerw Sherrif is wisely and deftly implementing his campaign platform as best he can, given our politics. He promised closure of Gitmo, he delivered on Day 1 (or started delivering), he promised expanding SCHIP, he has done that, he promised to end oil dependence, he has kicked that off with the stimulus pack, he promised a reformed and accessible healthcare for all, he has put that as #1 priority, he promised tax cuts for most middle class, and a tax increase for the rich, he is just doing so. His detractors who do not like these policies are the ones grumbling. I say to you: sorry fellas: This guy was elected to do exactly the things he is doing. If you do not like it, come back in 4 years and try your luck at winning back the WH. Frankly I do not wish to be in your shoes now or ever. As things are shaping up, many of you will grow gray in your present shoes or lose the shoes you are wearing.

  • Posted By: MDH SacramentoCA @ 02/27/2009 1:45:46 AM

    The words "I told you so" just dont seem to cover it. The Messiah's lies and about-faces continue. Yet another broken campaign promise from the Chosen One. He promised "U.S. out of Iraq" -oh wait, not just yet -a few more YEARS! A $3 trillion dollar budget? That's fiscal repsonsibility?! Those of us on the right tried to tell the rest of you what a two-faced empty suit he was, but as usual, you voted with your feelings and not with your brains! Do you see now? Of course not, you just want to blame everything on Rush Limbaugh and those mean-spirited Republicans! Well, you lefites are in charge now, Rush can't hurt you, and you have all three branches under your control and 'ol Barry just isn't delivering! It must suck to be a liberal. You've gotten what you deserved, a slick-talking scheister who is not only attempting to appease the right (not working, we're not buying any of it!) while at the same time, pissing off the lunatic left who put him there in the first place! Enjoy the next 2 years, for in 2010, there won't be just a comeback, there will be a tidal wave of Republicans voted into office -just like in '93!

  • Posted By: ENVI @ 02/27/2009 1:25:25 AM

    He's adopted both Hilliary strategy on health care and Iraq, but criticize both plan on the trail. She was right on Barrack being naive thinking he could just look up at the sky, part clouds, and make the sun shine and that partisanship would just dissapear. Plenty of promises, short of execution.

  • Posted By: ENVI @ 02/27/2009 1:23:01 AM

    Funny, he attacked Hilliary on her healthcare plan and Iraq strategy during the campaign, but now adopting both. I guess Hilliary was right after all. She was right on Barrack delusion of thinking that we can look up at the sky, part the clouds, the shine will shine, and the birds will sing and partisanship would disappear.

  • Posted By: fishoutofwater @ 02/26/2009 10:05:31 PM

    Boy...this thread ought to be a hoot to follow!

  • Posted By: life2go @ 02/26/2009 7:05:19 PM

    It really is no big surprise. Just goes to show that Obama really is human and a politician. Campaign promises are just that. They sound good and they offer the opposite of the other guy. Following through when in office is a whole different story. It is easy making judgement calls from the outside...but doing the job of the President (I'm sure) is completely different.

    My biggest problem is it would be nice for them (all of them) to just be upfront and honest from the getgo.. But then again most people really don't want the truth, and the truth probably wouldn't get any of them elected. Lie to me and tell me what I want to hear......

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse