Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem

Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush's troop "surge" has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

In a speech Tuesday, he argued that since the surge began, the strain on the military has increased, the United States has spent another $200 billion in Iraq, Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Taliban and al-Qaida have rebuilt and Iraqis have not made political progress. "That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war," Obama said.

McCain said Obama is failing to acknowledge success. "Today, we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the surge, McCain said.

As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama's campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of "The Problem" section on the part of his Web site devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq.

The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions. She provided the full text of the old site and the updated version, which includes a new section on the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and another on this year's negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq.

The changes stress that Obama's plan to end the war is responsible and designed to improve national security. They include:

_ An updated Obama quote at the top of the page. The previous quote stressed how Obama had the judgment to oppose the "rash war" from the start. This was a popular message among Democratic voters and was meant to draw distinctions with primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who initially supported the war. The new quote focuses on how ending the war will make Americans safer â?? a message aimed at general election voters who are more likely to trust McCain on issues of national security, according to polling.

_ A description of Obama's plan as "a responsible, phased withdrawal" that will be directed by military commanders and done in consultation with the Iraqis. Previously, the site had a sentence that has since been removed that flatly said, "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." Morigi said that his plan hasn't changed, but they wanted to expand the description. "There's not an intent to shift language," she said.

_ A new sentence that says Obama "would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

Only one of his plan's subheads remains unchanged, the first one â?? "Judgment You Can Trust." That's a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.
The Associated Press: Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem

LMAO! Now he's all about having a "surge" for Afghanistan; I guess that plan wasn't bad after all.

I think this dude has displayed the total lack of experience needed to be a President. He obviously knows little to nothing about military affairs and his views on drilling for oil and nuclear power are way to far left for most of the U.S......that's unless you can afford it. :wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:

Obama has been waffling to much on this Iraq issue. But it still beats McCains 100 year war.lol

You know what? If y'all aren't perceptive enough to be aware that war circumstances change practically daily, then this isn't a debatable or even discussable subject till you are. Afghanistan is an increasingly complicated problem that is blowing up in front of us with each increasing week. Iraq has throttled back somewhat for now but is probably just going through a lull. If there's one thing I want, it's a leader with enough awareness to realize that positions will have to change as circumstances do. That's what military strategy is all about. You've tolerated this ability under the right-leaning leadership of Bush and in the circumstantially affected positions of McCain, which haven't been static, either, yet you read sinister import into it when Obama reacts in similar fashion. That is the classic definition of short-sighted partisan cluelessness in you, not anything lacking in the candidate himself. To have a completely static, flat approach in the face of developing, changing war circumstances would be folly indeed.

Oh, my. Where to begin?

Here, then: The left, as a whole, since early 2006, has argued that Iraq is a lost cause, and they've been proven wrong.

The war in Iraq is over. We won. "We," being the USA and the Iraqi people. It's only a "lull" if we pull out.

You say you want a leader who can adjust to changed circumstances. I agree. Bush, after unforgiveable deference to Rumsfeld and some incompetent generals, finally figured that out.

How, exactly, has Obama adjusted? His Rx is exactly the same today as it was before we won -- run away. Things look bad; we've made terrible mistakes -- run away. The surge works just as its advocates said it would -- run away. We're winning -- run away.

Regardless of what you think of how and why we entered this war, do you really think Obama has demonstrated good judgement? He said that we'd lost, that the surge was folly. He's been proven wrong on that. We've won, essentially, so long as our commitment remains. And that victory, so long as we defend it, has come only because of the surge that Obama and other Dems so adamantly condemned and opposed.

Folly, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

You know what? If y'all aren't perceptive enough to be aware that war circumstances change practically daily, then this isn't a debatable or even discussable subject till you are.

---

LMAO! I'm perceptive enough to know when a person isn't fit to be a commander in the military. In your view, if things are going bad you run like hell and if their going well THEN give a pat on the back. DAMN glad he wasn't in charge during WW2!

If this ASSCLOWN is elected he'll take the credit for the withdrawl of U.S. troops even though it was the evil republicans that held the course until the Iraqi's could do it on their own. His campaign slogan should be "Run Forest Run"!

"Short-sighted partisan cluelessness"...look in a mirror for that crap. I'm not one for kissing any politicians ass....pucker up and have a good time with the "partisan" smoochies.

Have a good one!:s4:

I've stayed off the boards up until recently due to events here on canna dot com that just left a bad taste in my mouth. Now that I've had time to lick my wounds and think the situation over I think I'm ready to actively participate again.

Here we go:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

You know what? If y'all aren't perceptive enough to be aware that war circumstances change practically daily, then this isn't a debatable or even discussable subject till you are."

---

This was kind of a harsh statement I thought. You are right war circumstances do change practically every day. What does not change is your ability to have the foresight needed to successfully put a plan into action and even moreso the ability to see your plan to fruition. Obama's lack of foresight on the surge has left him backpeddling and insisting that he was still right; while at the same time now trying to adopt this for his own.

While the adoption of a practice that's proven to work is really something that should be praised.. his political experience and ability to properly assess a situation/plan have given us a picture of a Presidential Candidate who is obviously lacking the most essential of leadership skills. That is debatable and that is discussable. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Afghanistan is an increasingly complicated problem that is blowing up in front of us with each increasing week. Iraq has throttled back somewhat for now but is probably just going through a lull. If there's one thing I want, it's a leader with enough awareness to realize that positions will have to change as circumstances do. That's what military strategy is all about.

---

you're right again, Afghanistan is a complicated problem and to be honest we should have finished there before we went into Iraq. However what has happened, what should of happened and what will happen are all different things so it's pointless to even discuss that. What is important now is that we're in Iraq... and what's important now is that we don't lose focus again like we did in Afghanistan. If there's one thing I want it's a leader who realizes that circumstances will change but has enough common sense that we can't leave a job half finished and furthermore that we shouldn't split our attention.

So I ask you, even though we are in agreement that Afghanistan is an issue.. Why do you seemingly want to create the same situation in Iraq by leaving it an incomplete job? In this situation I don't understand your need to reference Afghanistan aside to point out the obvious that we failed to clean up our mess there. Which again is irrelevant at this point. If we go back into afghanistan now then Iraq will just fall prey to a similar fate.

Look at Russia/Afghanistan and the aftermath that we see today. :wtf:

Quote:

---

You've tolerated this ability under the right-leaning leadership of Bush and in the circumstantially affected positions of McCain, which haven't been static, either, yet you read sinister import into it when Obama reacts in similar fashion. That is the classic definition of short-sighted partisan cluelessness in you, not anything lacking in the candidate himself.

---

Pot calling the kettle black anyone? Where are your anti-obama posts? :D. Being that we're human doesn't it seem natural to you that we're going to have our opinions and judgements of others? Maybe you haven't read enough posts by P4B, although I doubt that to be true, but if you've read enough posts from P4B you would know that he's not really a fan of McCain either but prefers him over Obama. This part of your post just seems to be a deliberate attack that really has no bearing on the subject of this thread.

Quote:

---

To have a completely static, flat approach in the face of developing, changing war circumstances would be folly indeed.

---

Indeed it would be a folly, but an even greater folly which we've already commited once would be to leave a job unfinished and leaving a nation who is unprepared to fend for themselves after we've gone in there and wreaked havoc. I would prefer that my country not make the same mistake Twice.

But that's just me. :stoned:

Last Friday, David Axelrod said that Barack Obama "never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference." Yesterday, as the McCain campaign pointed out in an email, Obama's communications director Robert Gibbs said that "there's no doubt that the security situation has improved, much as everybody admitted it would if we put more troops on the ground."

Frederick W. Kagan recalls that, in fact, Obama predicted the surge would increase the level of sectarian violence in Iraq:


In the media, Obama repeatedly predicted that the surge would fail. The day the president announced the new policy, Obama told Larry King he "did not see anything" in the president's surge that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence." The same day, he said on MSNBC,


I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal.... I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he's wrong.


Four days later, Obama told Face the Nation, "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality--we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."
The Weekly Standard

I'd imagine it's bad to report the news but here it is.:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

He scubbed his web site cause, he is wrong on yet another issue




and another one, and another one


if a consevitive flip flops, like O lame A it would be on every news cast coast to coast


we have a lefty Media that has a hardon for obama


HE, and all you LIBS are wrong on Iraq.


Better it goes in Iraq= worse for Libs

Cant have that...no




He even said that Afganistan needs a surge now.... what a flip flopper

Wow, it kinda sickens me seeing everyone on here ready to hump McCains leg, but puking the second Obama makes a change. Everyone knew if you pump a shit ton of american soldiers somewhere, the violence will cut down there, but they don't stop, they go where the "cops" arn't, maybe Afganistan? The problem with the surge is that it is a temporary solution that does nothing to help the issue as a whole. Instead of training iraq soldiers to take care of their own country, we continue babysitting, sacrificing more and more soldiers.

Also, easy with the nay nay you righties, no need to show your true colors so early on in the election, except for P4B, everyone knows where that crazy sob stands, rofl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

Everyone knew if you pump a shit ton of american soldiers somewhere, the violence will cut down there, but they don't stop, they go where the "cops" arn't, maybe Afganistan?

---

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."........Obama

Everybody except for Obama that is. :D

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

Wow, it kinda sickens me seeing everyone on here ready to hump McCains leg, but puking the second Obama makes a change.

---

So the countless pro obama threads and obama fanatics don't bother you? Talk about hypocrisy....

And if the only change Obama is going to make is his stance on an issue then I'll more than happily puke all over him. Because that's the only change we're seeing thus far. Or maybe you didn't pay attention from the democratic primaries compared to the stuff he is saying now??

When you point you finger at someone you have 3 more fingers pointed right back at you :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I've stayed off the boards up until recently due to events here on canna dot com that just left a bad taste in my mouth.

---

Damn, ain't that the truth! I just spent a week off for mostly the same reason. Came back today, and almost immediately felt the nausea return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Damn, ain't that the truth! I just spent a week off for mostly the same reason. Came back today, and almost immediately felt the nausea return.

---

I hear ya....when your candidate of a lifetime switches his positions like this assclown has, I'd feel a bit sick myself. Hope ya get to feelin' better.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

Everyone knew if you pump a shit ton of american soldiers somewhere, the violence will cut down there, but they don't stop, they go where the "cops" arn't, maybe Afganistan?

---

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."........Obama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

P4B, yes, Obama was against the surge (as am I, I still think we should have pulled out instead of digging ourselves deeper into the hole that is Iraq), is that a crime?

---

Violence is down by 80%, Al-Quada is almost a thing of the past, provinces have been passed over to Iraqi control, etc....

It's pretty clear that your just talking the left wing rhetoric instead of stating facts. Did ya know that we are down to pre-surge troop levels? LOL...I didn't think so according to your post. Hell, even ol' senile McCain knows that shit.:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

Diahashi, please keep your words out of my mouth, M'kay? You dont even know me you ass, dont call me a hypocrite until you read at least 5-10 post from me ;).
Anyone that ignores Obamas flaws is dumb as well, but in terms of sheer assclownery, McCain is leading.

---

Umm Here's what we both said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

Wow, it kinda sickens me seeing everyone on here ready to hump McCains leg, but puking the second Obama makes a change.

---

Quote:

---

So the countless pro obama threads and obama fanatics don't bother you? Talk about hypocrisy....

And if the only change Obama is going to make is his stance on an issue then I'll more than happily puke all over him. Because that's the only change we're seeing thus far. Or maybe you didn't pay attention from the democratic primaries compared to the stuff he is saying now??

When you point you finger at someone you have 3 more fingers pointed right back at you

---

Show me where I put words in your mouth. I've read 5-10 of your posts.. The hypocrisy isn't in you itself, it's in the fact that it's ok for Liberals to do one thing but if a republican does the same thing he catches so much flack for it. Had Obama been in support of the surge you would be praising him as our wise sage and savior.

ps: I have read 5-10 of your posts (and more). I stand by what I said as I've said nothing wrong. I don't agree with your views and that's my right. :thumbsup:

Wait P4B, so when we threw thousands of troops at a problem, it got better? Of course, lol, but when you say things like "Al-Queda is almost a thing of the past" it shows me that you are just talking right wing rhetoric. Al-Queda wasn't even in Iraq till we went there, and now you think that because there is a decrease in activity (although im pretty sure the situation is still shity over there) it makes everything all better? Because of the "Miracle Surge" we have decreased levels of violence, but you seem to think that it makes everything all better. If we had pulled our troops out, you know how much violence would be directed at them? 100% of 0. I am personaly glad that violence is down (who wouldn't be), and I'll admit, you seem to know more about the surge than me, but I'll say this again, if you think that the surge "solved" the problem, then I cant help but lol.

Diahashi, yes, you put words in my mouth, even if you didn't mean to. All I said was that it sickened me that it was ok for McCain to flipflop on his issues, but the second Obama made a change, you were ready to lynch the poor guy. Did I ever say anything positive about Obama besides defending him from you right wing nut jobs? No. I obviously prefer Obama to McCain, the same way you prefer McCain to Obama, but when you call me a hypocrite for that, I find your hypocricy ironic and sad. If Obama had been responsible for the surge, I would have slapped him too, because I am against us being in Iraq, and I am against anyone that wants to keep us there for even a second longer, even my sage and savior Obama (and thats assuming he was pro war, lol).

You're way off the mark here and seem to just be trolling for a fight. So to remove any possibility of this let me address your needless defense 1 point at a time:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

Diahashi, yes, you put words in my mouth, even if you didn't mean to. All I said was that it sickened me that it was ok for McCain to flipflop on his issues, but the second Obama made a change, you were ready to lynch the poor guy.

---

Here is what you said.. and here is my post that you claim I am putting words into your mouth

Quote:

---

Wow, it kinda sickens me seeing everyone on here ready to hump McCains leg, but puking the second Obama makes a change.

---

Quote:

---

So the countless pro obama threads and obama fanatics don't bother you? Talk about hypocrisy....

And if the only change Obama is going to make is his stance on an issue then I'll more than happily puke all over him. Because that's the only change we're seeing thus far. Or maybe you didn't pay attention from the democratic primaries compared to the stuff he is saying now??

When you point you finger at someone you have 3 more fingers pointed right back at you

---

Here I point out the fact that I DO NOT see you going into McCain threads to defend him when he gets attacked from the left because of his position on an issue, but when someone attacks Obama you come to defend him even going as far as to say:

Quote:

---

it kinda sickens me seeing everyone on here ready to hump McCains leg

---

Which I found particularly odd because this thread wasn't about McCain at all, but rather it was about Obama's shortsightedness and the fact that he is obviously wrong on the surge. So wrong in fact that he removed anything related to it from his website.

Quote:

---

Did I ever say anything positive about Obama besides defending him from you right wing nut jobs? No. I obviously prefer Obama to McCain, the same way you prefer McCain to Obama, but when you call me a hypocrite for that, I find your hypocricy ironic and sad.

---

Sigh.. You are completely wrong here. That is not why you are a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite for allowing Obama to do the exact same thing you accuse McCain of doing. Flip flopping on issues. I don't see you out there chastising Obama for flip flopping faster than a fish out of water.

You're allowed to prefer Obama, that does not make you a hypocrite but giving the man a free pass on what you accuse his opponent of doing does make you a hypocrite. Please read what people write before you jump the gun.

Quote:

---

If Obama had been responsible for the surge, I would have slapped him too, because I am against us being in Iraq, and I am against anyone that wants to keep us there for even a second longer, even my sage and savior Obama (and thats assuming he was pro war, lol).

---

The fact is that we are in Iraq. Whether you want to be there or not there is nothing you can do that is going to change the fact that we are there NOW. With that said if Obama had devised a plan that directly resulted in making Iraq safer, reducing terroristic threat as well as the insurgents which indirectly allowed us to reduce our troops sooner than originally anticipated.. you would slam him?

That makes no sense.

And about Obama being pro war:



â??2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).â?�



â??2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture... man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.â?�



â??4/21/05: Obama voted to make John â??Death Squadâ?? Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107â?�



â??4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 â?�



â??7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed â??The Nuclear Billâ?? by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 .â?�



â??9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.â?�

â??10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 .â?�



â??11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. .â?�



â??12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. â?�



â??5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 .â?�



â??5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 .â?�



â??6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawiâ?¦ Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 .â?�



â??6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 .â?�



â??6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 â?�



â??6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 â?�



â??6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183.â?�



â??6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 .



9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 â?�



â??9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 .â?�



â??11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 .â?�



â??12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 â?�



â??Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 ...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votesâ?¦â?�

You can look all these up for yourself. I don't feel like posting a link to each one and it's not hard to find the information.

But as you can see for being in office for such a SHORT time he sure has voted OFTEN in favor of war on quite a number of pro war votes.

:thumbsup:

What I found pretty funny was how some of these votes are very contradictory to what Obama advocates for other things.

For instance on the enviormental issue. One of things Obama touched on was the need to cut/clean up yucca mountain but here you can see he clearly voted for more funding for Yucca Mountain.

Keep looking at the votes carefully and you'll see a number of places where he has contradicted himself.

A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf.

It's also interesting to note that Obama has done a complete 180 since he announced his candidacy in 2007.

Hrmmmmmmm... coincidence that he's suddenly so Righteous on his high horse right when he announces his presidential candidacy. He suddenly had a change of heart despite having a pretty solid pro-war voting record?

Odd don't you think?

I don't think it's unreasonable to adjust your point of view. The surge has taken nearly twice as long as expected to make any identifiable difference, but I don't hear anyone picking Bush up on this. In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. And now it's all a success? Please. It's all propaganda, measured by the news channels. America lost the war a long time ago, and is simply fighting to maintain order. Even now, after more than one million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of the conflict, you are squabbling over how Obama picks over this? Ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralphbuick

I don't think it's unreasonable to adjust your point of view. The surge has taken nearly twice as long as expected to make any identifiable difference, but I don't hear anyone picking Bush up on this. In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. And now it's all a success? Please. It's all propaganda, measured by the news channels. America lost the war a long time ago, and is simply fighting to maintain order. Even now, after more than one million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of the conflict, you are squabbling over how Obama picks over this? Ridiculous.

---

The surge was a fail? So I guess that's why we're seeing the dramatic results we see today?

I fail to see your logic. I can agree we should not have gone into Iraq, but we're there and there's nothing that can be changed about that. Even if you're against the war you can't deny the facts and statistics that have shown steady decline since
the surge.

Propaganda from the news channels? I'm not sure if you've noticed but the majority of all news are liberal prone. Even fox news isn't nearly as conservative as it used to be.

1 million violent Iraqi deaths? Evidence please

You've come onto this forum with an obvious angry voice full of bias. Post fact and maybe someone will listen. You'll have to excuse the brashness of this post but it does get a bit irritating seeing people with sub 50 posts come onto the forum seemingly trolling for a fight instead of debating a topic intellectually like it should be.

Fact > Opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

The surge was a fail? So I guess that's why we're seeing the dramatic results we see today?

I fail to see your logic.

---

It sounded to me like his logic was that the success or failure of the surge needs to be measured by the goals set out for it. There were specific "benchmarks" set out by which to measure the accomplishments of the surge, and his argument was that those were not met, so the surge did not accomplish its goals, therfore it failed.

Making progress is great, but it's not the same as succeeding.

I haven't seen a "report card" on the surge in awhile. Has anyone? In January, this is how it stood:

Government Benchmarks: 2 of 8 Accomplished

1. Perform constitutional review. Unmet

2. Enact de-Baâ??athification reform. Partial

4. Form semi-autonomous regions. Unmet

5. Hold provincial elections. Unmet

6. Address amnesty. Unmet

8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met

16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met

18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. Unmet



Security Benchmarks: 1 of 8 Accomplished

7. Disarm militias. Unmet

9. Provide military support in Baghdad. Partial

10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Partial

11. Ensure impartial law enforcement. Unmet

12. Establist support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. Unmet

13. Reduce sectarian violence. Partial

14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met

15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres. Unmet



Economic Benchmarks: 0 of 2 Accomplished

3. Implement oil legislation. Unmet

17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. Partial


Does anyone know if any of the other benchmarks have been met since January? That's how we will know if it has succeeded, failed, or had mixed success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

You've come onto this forum with an obvious angry voice full of bias. Post fact and maybe someone will listen. You'll have to excuse the brashness of this post but it does get a bit irritating seeing people with sub 50 posts come onto the forum seemingly trolling for a fight instead of debating a topic intellectually like it should be.

---

Man, you just kind of jumped on that guy. What was so offensive about his post? It didn't sound like a troll to me --- just stating his opinion like everyone else. It's good you asked him to back up the million deaths claim with a fact. But what about this post is inapropriate?:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralphbuick

I don't think it's unreasonable to adjust your point of view. The surge has taken nearly twice as long as expected to make any identifiable difference, but I don't hear anyone picking Bush up on this. In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. And now it's all a success? Please. It's all propaganda, measured by the news channels. America lost the war a long time ago, and is simply fighting to maintain order. Even now, after more than one million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of the conflict, you are squabbling over how Obama picks over this? Ridiculous.

---

Diahashi, I do not troll, it is you that decided to attack Obama, and I decided to defend him. If you had said McCain is psycho from POW camp and is an insane liberal (or conservative) douchebag, I still would have told you that you were out of line. I am a moderate, and above all I would like to see a fair representation of both candidates. You didn't give this, so I pointed it out and said the obvious bias made me sick.

You obviously don't grasp Hypocricy or irony, so let me spell it out for you, ok? McCain and Obama both change their views, but instead of calling it flip flopping and attacking them, I point out that BOTH OF THEM ARE DOING THIS. What sickens me is that you, in your righteous hypocricy, ignore McCains flip-flopping (god I hate that word) and verbally lynch Obama when he does the same thing. Both of them are politicians, and both of them sway with whatever breeze is currently blowing, but to target one and say he is a spinless liberal, while ignoring McCains identical tactics (flipflopping, *shudder*) is the epitome of stupidity, so I pointed this out.

You are insane though if you think I would spend my time defending a republican, especally when you and P4B are doing such a great job of that. I defend Obama because I like him, but my dislike of McCain doesn't blind me like you are implying. If you think I am a hypocrite for not defending McCain, does that mean you defend Obama? If so, you are doing one hell of a job, rofl.

As for Obama and his "180", I cant help but laugh, because while his views might have changed (like a typical politician I might add, same as McCain), he is still fighting for democrats, and if he did a 180 he would be a republican. I would say he did maybe a 45, but as long as he represents the intrests of democrats, and fights republicans, I can forgive him a little meandering and pandering.

And finally, yes, I am aware we are in Iraq, but to assume there is nothing we can do about it is just dumb. My "solution" is to elect a man that wants to get us out of there, hopefully by 09. My solution offers a casuality free enviroment for our troops, and a self governing Iraq. What does yours offer?

Also, Ralph, ignore Diahashis comments, opinion has plenty of room in a debate, especially since we have seen how valid "facts" are *Cough BUSHLIEDABOUTFACTS Cough*. He is so biased that he ignored the facts you presented too, a la "In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met". I didn't even detect a harsh tone from you, only one of disapointment in our leaders and those that continue to follow their flawwed policies. I agree with you, and hope to see more posts from you, maybe then Diahashi will simmer down ;)

Have a good one! :s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

It sounded to me like his logic was that the success or failure of the surge needs to be measured by the goals set out for it. There were specific "benchmarks" set out by which to measure the accomplishments of the surge, and his argument was that those were not met, so the surge did not accomplish its goals, therfore it failed.

Making progress is great, but it's not the same as succeeding.

---

8 out of 18 have been met I believe.

And having ideas is great, but putting them into practice is not the same as saying it out loud.

Words for thought. It's easy to criticize when your hands are clean of the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralphbuick

I don't think it's unreasonable to adjust your point of view. The surge has taken nearly twice as long as expected to make any identifiable difference, but I don't hear anyone picking Bush up on this. In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. And now it's all a success? Please. It's all propaganda, measured by the news channels. America lost the war a long time ago, and is simply fighting to maintain order. Even now, after more than one million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of the conflict, you are squabbling over how Obama picks over this? Ridiculous.

---

Welcome to the debate, Ralph. My advice would be not to get baited into a personal argument.

You are right, in January, 3 of the 18 benchmarks were met. Do you now what the "report card" is now? I haven't seen one in awhile, although I know things have improved in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Man, you just kind of jumped on that guy. What was so offensive about his post? It didn't sound like a troll to me --- just stating his opinion like everyone else. It's good you asked him to back up the million deaths claim with a fact. But what about this post is inapropriate?:

---

I find any unsubstantiated claims inappropriate. Coming onto a political forum to bash a official with no backing seems a bit brash. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion. I've never denied anyone that. It doesn't mean I have to respect their posts when it is lacking in content.

I'm not keen on finger pointing without evidence. Doesn't matter which side of the fence it is.

Admittingly this is a personal problem of mine, but I feel there should be some level of fact checking in peoples posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I find any unsubstantiated claims inappropriate. Coming onto a political forum to bash a official with no backing seems a bit brash. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion. I've never denied anyone that. It doesn't mean I have to respect their posts when it is lacking in content.

I'm not keen on finger pointing without evidence. Doesn't matter which side of the fence it is.

Admittingly this is a personal problem of mine, but I feel there should be some level of fact checking in peoples posts.

---

Asking for facts is great, but accusing someone of trolling when they are just stating their opinion is not helpful in my opinion. And bringing up another member's low post count like it makes any difference to the validity of their post is petty. As far as I know, there is no hierarchy here based on post count. If anything, it seems like you might cut someone some slack on their VERY FIRST POST to this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

Diahashi, I do not troll, it is you that decided to attack Obama, and I decided to defend him. If you had said McCain is psycho from POW camp and is an insane liberal (or conservative) douchebag, I still would have told you that you were out of line. I am a moderate, and above all I would like to see a fair representation of both candidates. You didn't give this, so I pointed it out and said the obvious bias made me sick.

---

for someone who is talking about fair representation of both candidates you sure seem to be bashing one of them and the support that he has.

For a moderate you sure are flying off the handle fairly easily. Again I bring to you the question.. Why are you not going into the Obama threads and defending him. Telling people how you are disgusted with their bashing of the republican candidate?

You obviously chose this thread to participate in and to come to Obama's aide, giving him a free pass of what you accuse McCain of doing.

Quote:

---

You obviously don't grasp Hypocricy or irony, so let me spell it out for you, ok? McCain and Obama both change their views, but instead of calling it flip flopping and attacking them, I point out that BOTH OF THEM ARE DOING THIS. What sickens me is that you, in your righteous hypocricy, ignore McCains flip-flopping (god I hate that word) and verbally lynch Obama when he does the same thing. Both of them are politicians, and both of them sway with whatever breeze is currently blowing, but to target one and say he is a spinless liberal, while ignoring McCains identical tactics (flipflopping, *shudder*) is the epitome of stupidity, so I pointed this out.

---

I have a firm grasp on hypocrisy and irony. The question is do you? Because Hypocrisy and Irony are two seperate things. Hypocrisy is the fact that you say it's ok for Obama to do one thing but then chastise McCain or his supporters for doing the same thing. That sir is hypocrisy. You did not point out that both of them are doing this. You only pointed your finger in the direction of McCain and his supporters.

I've never denied McCain was using political strategy. This is an election and it would be ridiculous to think otherwise. I agree that they are both politicians and they both are going to say whatever it takes to win.

My problem is that you portrayed Obama as being innocent. That the McCain supporters have no reason to criticize Obama. However, again, you do not go into the Obama threads to go defend McCain. For someone who says they are for fair representation you sure seem to be traveling down a one way street.

Quote:

---

You are insane though if you think I would spend my time defending a republican, especally when you and P4B are doing such a great job of that. I defend Obama because I like him, but my dislike of McCain doesn't blind me like you are implying. If you think I am a hypocrite for not defending McCain, does that mean you defend Obama? If so, you are doing one hell of a job, rofl.

---

Ahh.. so the truth comes out. I'm insane to think that you would spend your time defending a republican. So I guess it's safe to say that you are definitely biased toward Obama. For someone who claims to want fair representation and then points the finger at McCain and his supporters it sure sounds contradictory to what you've been saying all this time.

And yes, I have defended Obama on the RARE occassion. I believe in fact not opinion or speculation. I believe P4B can attest to this. He may have seen 1-2 of my posts where I defended Obama. I've even said very recently that I anticipate that Obama will most likely win the election.

Sorry to disappoint you on that front.

Quote:

---

As for Obama and his "180", I cant help but laugh, because while his views might have changed (like a typical politician I might add, same as McCain), he is still fighting for democrats, and if he did a 180 he would be a republican. I would say he did maybe a 45, but as long as he represents the intrests of democrats, and fights republicans, I can forgive him a little meandering and pandering.

---

What exactly is he fighting for? And tell me why have his interests suddenly reversed from what his voting record indicates? Does this not bother you at all? Even though McCain has made a move toward the center.. most of what he has said has been fairly consistent withhis voting record. Sorry I don't like feeling as though I'm being lied to, with Obama's voting record in contrast to what he says... it feels like the man is lying to me. Straight up, no questions about it.

It's funny you should say fights the interest of democrats because for the last 8 years Dems have typically been supportive of Bush. It is only around 2007 that the entire democratic party had made a shift to distinguish themselves from the republican party.

Now let me ask you this.. How can you trust a party that has been going along with Bush this entire time.. and then 6 years into his presidency they suddenly change gears... What a coincidence with the presidential election year coming up. But I suppose you don't see it that way, you see it as the Democrats having a change of heart.

Face it... the Dems are not the saints you paint them out to be.

Quote:

---

And finally, yes, I am aware we are in Iraq, but to assume there is nothing we can do about it is just dumb. My "solution" is to elect a man that wants to get us out of there, hopefully by 09. My solution offers a casuality free enviroment for our troops, and a self governing Iraq. What does yours offer?

---

I said there is nothing we can do about the fact that we are in Iraq. I never said there was no way out. Please outline for me how Obama's plan will offer a casuality free enviorment for our troops and for Iraq. Furthermore tell me how your plan will ensure the safety of the Iraqi people and their Government once we're gone.

Look at what happened to afghanistan after we left it. Or here is a better example. Look at Afghanistan in the late 70's after Russia left. It fell apart and into the hands of the Taliban... and later it became a safehaven for Al Queda.

Leaving a job half done and not ensuring stability in that region will do nothing but undermine what our troops have been over there for to begin with. While I can strongly say I never agreed with the US going into Iraq... I can also strongly say that we have a moral obligation to ensure that nation succeeds. Pulling out now would be a waste of all of our tax dollars and American lives that have been put out into Iraq.

I don't want my fellow Americans to have died for nothing. Perhaps that's a sentiment we don't share?

Quote:

---

Also, Ralph, ignore Diahashis comments, opinion has plenty of room in a debate, especially since we have seen how valid "facts" are *Cough BUSHLIEDABOUTFACTS Cough*. He is so biased that he ignored the facts you presented too, a la "In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met". I didn't even detect a harsh tone from you, only one of disapointment in our leaders and those that continue to follow their flawwed policies. I agree with you, and hope to see more posts from you, maybe then Diahashi will simmer down ;)

Have a good one! :s4:

---

Debating is one thing, but your posts have no substance.. no backing to your claims and is just opinion. While opinion is perfectly acceptable you truely shouldn't act like you're above it all... especially when you're left back peddling now to try to cover yourself.... in which you've contradicted yourself a few times now.

Fact not fiction..

I'd advise ALL people to read over the sticky at the top of the forum. This has gotten a bit out of hand and it ends here and now.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, nobody deserves a personal cut down because of it. End of subject and unfortunately this one is closed!

Have a good one!:jointsmile: