
President Obama today will hail the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq in a speech to the national convention of Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta, reminding the nation the combat mission in a war he opposed will be over at the end of this month.
"As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end," Obama will say today, according to excerpts from the White House. "I made it clear that by August 31, 2010 America's combat mission in Iraq would end," Obama will say. "And that is exactly what we are doing--as promised, on schedule.
National Democrats believe that even as the surge of troops to Afghanistan is ramping up, that troops coming home from Iraq will be politically well received.
Obama will tout that "hundreds" of U.S. bases have been closed or turned over to Iraqis.
"We're moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we've seen in decades. By the end of this month, we'll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office--more than 90,000," Obama will say in the speech.
The president will outline the strategy for the next year, with troops "supporting and training Iraqi forces, partnering with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilian and military efforts."
Obama will warn they are "dangerous tasks," and say, "The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq."
The White House provided a fact sheet showing that in Obama's first full month as president in February 2009, there were 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
At the end of May this year there were 88,000. By the end of the month Operation Iraqi Freedom will be over and there will be 50,000 troops in the country.
At the end of the month, there will be 1.2 million pieces of military equipment in Iraq, down from the 3.4 million pieces in January 2009 when Obama took office, the White House said. The equipment is going to Afghanistan, to replenish U.S. military stocks and to Iraqis, the administration said.
Bases in Iraq are being reduced from a high of 357 to 94 by the end of August.
The White House also sent these tidbits to put the drawdown in perspective:
theWalrus
August 2, 2010 9:20 AM
"The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq."
Sacrifice for what? All for a "war" that should have never happened and was a tragic mistake based on lies.
Sweet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
August 2, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to theWalrus
So true...
I wish President Obama never got it in his head to invade Iraq in the first place...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
August 2, 2010 9:28 AM
Yay! At last a relatively safe space has been carved out for private contractors and other war profiteers, and the troops can begin to come home.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EH
August 2, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to Winston Smith
MISSION ACCOMPLICE
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
August 2, 2010 9:53 AM
Oh man I would bet big money that if his promised deadline was moved a couple months, so many people on here would be screaming that he didn't keep his promise to end combat missions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
August 2, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to Viva!America!
But he did it, just like he said he would. So even though I think a 50,000 troop presence is 50,000 too many, I respect that it was part of his plan, that he informed the public about it and saw to it that he was able to keep his word despite the complexities involved. I'm happy about that and Obama's competence and ability to do what he says is pretty impressive after 8 years of a blundering White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
August 2, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to destor23
yes. I agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
August 2, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to destor23
For praising Obama's following-through on a campaign promise, you are hereby awarded the title of, "O-bot".
(yes, j/k.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
August 2, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to rynato
Neat! I am now Obot Firebagger, the bipolar bipartisan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike from Arlington
August 2, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to destor23
heh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdh
August 2, 2010 12:38 PM in reply to destor23
You're damn prolific, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
August 2, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to destor23
Shame on you for trying to have a complex opinion! Didn't you know every major issue we face today falls neatly into either 'for' or 'against'?
The only more serious crime you could have committed would be to change your mind on an issue when presented with a persuasive, reasoned, fact-based argument. At least you're not one of them flip-floppers!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
August 2, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to destor23
We shall see. Not only is 50,000 too many but there are tens of thousands of private contractors running all over.
Methinks this is a varying shade of "mission accomplished" as I doubt Obama has any intention of every taking us to zero troops/blackwater types in Iraq (and I'm not counting whatever it takes to defend our ginormous "embassy" there).
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, July was the deadliest month yet for US troops in that 9-year old war. (66 killed)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 2, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to destor23
Wow Destor, you seriously disappoint. Never expected you to be such a kiss ass. I mean you have your lips locked on O's butt the whole post! This is laughable and embarrassing at the same time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MoCrash
August 2, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Ah, I understand. Any praise for Obama whatsoever is automatically "ass-kissing" or becoming on "O-bot." Just like giving credit for a rare act of conservative good sense is being a "troll."
Welcome to Partisan America: Red, White and Blue -- and never should the colors mix.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
August 2, 2010 4:55 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Sorry to dissapoint, Clarance. I like for wars to end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 2, 2010 8:03 PM in reply to destor23
"I like for wars to end". That's all you got Destor? Well, just go on impressing your little following on TPM. You're a fraud.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Loner
August 3, 2010 7:09 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
Who are you to judge Clarance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 3, 2010 7:57 AM in reply to Loner
same as you to judge. And stuff your Bible bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Loner
August 7, 2010 7:43 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
"Bible Bullshit" What are you talking about. Your moronic posts never makes sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 7, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to Loner
Can't help you there Loner. Hopefully you'll figure it out. I'll try harder not to be judgmental. In the mean time stuff your Bible bullshit and let me know when ALL the troops come home and America has left the country we invaded and occupied for no justifiable reason. Then I also will sing praise with the Cult Obama chorus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Loner
August 8, 2010 9:15 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
I must apologize, I'm new here. I don't know all the freakin idiots. I am adding your name to my list.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 8, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to Loner
You're new alright.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
August 2, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
And of course I'm kissing Obama's butt. Haven't you heard? He's going to appoint me governor of American Samoa!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Loner
August 3, 2010 6:47 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
Any praise given to this President bring on the name calling is that fair.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 3, 2010 10:12 AM in reply to Loner
"Any praise given to this President bring on the name calling is that fair."
Praise? For what exactly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Loner
August 7, 2010 7:47 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
He has kept the majority of his promises. He should be highly praised for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bearpaw
August 2, 2010 9:53 AM
... for some loose definitions of "combat mission", "in Iraq", and "end".
50,000 troops on 94 bases, with another 28,000 troops deployed "in support"? Plus how many thousands (tens of thousands?) of mercenaries?
Please. That's an "end" like the healthcare and finance bills were "reform" bills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DeathSquad
August 2, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to Bearpaw
Seconded. Imperialism at it's finest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 2, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to Bearpaw
Thank you! You are 100% correct. Isn't it amazing to see smart people all of a sudden get ignorant and down right stupid!
Did you ever see so much cowardice in one place.
America lies to it's people with the complicity of Congresses' political cowardice and the media's complicity, invades a sovereign nation for no justifiable reasons, kills more than 500,000 innocent Iraqis, spends our children's future at 7.5 billion per month, hires mercenaries to indiscriminately kill innocent people and their families, builds a billion dollar plus embassy, allows rampant war profiteering with the end result of suffering and misery that we will uncomfortably continue to see on the off ramps of every American highway; homeless, crippled, out of work, destroyed American youth standing there at the light with cardboard signs begging for loose change. And all you're thinking is when will this dam light change!
And when the Iraqui mother who's child we killed comes to America three years later and goes to Macy's in NYC just before Christmas and finds her way to the crowded children's department and commits the same act of terror we rained down from the skies on her family years before, well then America, do not say "how could anyone commit such a horrible act"!
Support this President America in his war mongering and we will surely reap what we sow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jvwalt
August 2, 2010 10:12 AM
At least he'll have the courtesy and the taste to not hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Prob'ly won't show up in a flight suit, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
August 2, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to jvwalt
Lord I'd hope not: Sailorboy might have an "exclamation" over a pic like that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
August 2, 2010 10:13 AM
"... for some loose definitions of "combat mission",..."
Uh no, not at all. What part of the word "combat" is too difficult to comprehend? Furthermore, "mercenaries" are not troops.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 2, 2010 10:15 AM
The comments here are so predictable I could have written them myself. Instead, I'll just post one the smartest things I've ever seen anywhere, from a commenter who goes by "ironyroad" at TNR:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
August 2, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Obama is getting combat troops out of Iraq on schedule, as promised. So far, admittedly by my own tally, he has kept all of his campaign promises. That's change that I can believe in!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
August 2, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to CityGuy
He's broken 19 according to politifact, but he's kept more than a hundred promises so far.
Just letting you know just in case you get flamed by someone here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
August 2, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Thanks. And still a record to be proud of. I figure Obama to be in approximately the same position that Reagan was in back in 1984. Economy still not great. Some of his supporters disappointed at the lack of "progress". But overall, both men in a stronger position than their detractors give (gave) them credit for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
August 2, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to CityGuy
That should read "...back in 1982". Getting ahead of myself there!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
August 2, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to CityGuy
The only problem is that the hole we're in this time is about 8 million jobs deeper. We aren't getting back to full employment during Obama's first term under any circumstances, and it would take very nearly best-case circumstances to get there in his second. It's really not pretty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
August 2, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to hunter
What I'd like to know is how the right can get away with pinning the blame for the economy on Obama when their overriding answer to everything is that 'Government Is Not The Answer'.
Why is unemployment still high? Because employers are still making their employees do more work for less money. After all, it's better than being unemployed, right?
Profits are up across the economy...why isn't hiring? Pure capitalism may indeed be self-correcting, but the pace of that correction isn't nearly fast enough for the general public. That's why government stimulus is so important.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
August 2, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to Forrest
they don't need to 'pin the blame', it's just a reality that when the economy sucks, incumbents and majorities get the boot. regardless of who is to blame or who has the better policy proscriptions. it's largely irrational. like the market. but it's just how the ball bounces.
and it's worth pointing out that obama has some of this same irrationality to thank for winning the presidency in the first place. the tanking economy in the month before the election was worth not a small number of percentage points (or fractions of percentage points) and electoral votes. not necessarily the deciding factor but significant enough that it could have been.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
August 2, 2010 10:22 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
ironyroad is exactly right. And the same fate awaits their liberal heroes - Dean, Weiner, Franken, Grayson, if they should ever get elected president. IF!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
August 2, 2010 10:50 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
That's spot on. There's a contradiction at the heart of the Left in America right now. Progressivism fundamentally depends on a strong and effective government. But the Left is so used to being in opposition that it seems incapable of trusting and supporting any actual government, instead preferring a role as outsider critics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PollyJunkie
August 2, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to OhioGuy
I totally agree. The president's ability to handle and efficiently runs the system that is our massive government is seen as a sign of betrayal and proof that he's not "one of us."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DeathSquad
August 2, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to OhioGuy
We're progressives, not republican members of congress. We don't just fall in line and blindly follow our party. We can criticize the President we voted for when he chooses to do things we don't agree with. That's what having a brain and a political position is all about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PollyJunkie
August 2, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to DeathSquad
If you supported the president when he did something with which you agree, then you might have a case. But when criticism is all you do, you can't call yourself a supporter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PollyJunkie
August 2, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Ironyroad is so right, it's scary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
August 2, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Thank you!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
August 2, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Comparing the left in America to the music habits of college kids - that's the smartest (no-fact-whatsoever) opinion you have ever seen? Really?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
August 2, 2010 10:20 AM
Hold up. I thought major combat operations in Iraq ended in 2003??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
August 2, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Chris
The key word there is 'major'. I guess George W considers the thousands dead after that point 'minor'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 2, 2010 10:23 AM
If we have armed troops in country then it isn't over is it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
August 2, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to Michael
Well, no. But Obama said as much: "The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq."
At the same time, that's pretty much a 2/3rd cut in the number of troops and the mission is different, more peace keeping and security than combat for territory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
August 2, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to Michael
Don't we have armed troops in Germany? Don't we have armed troops in Japan? Would you argue that World War II isn't over?
We have armed troops in Kuwait. Would you argue that Desert Storm isn't over?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DeathSquad
August 2, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to ondioline
Just one of the perks of invading so many countries! You get to build giant military bases in other countries. That way it's easier to police the rest of the world. You can't run a respectable bombing campaign on the other side of the planet without them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 2, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to DeathSquad
Um, actually, we can pretty much bomb anyone we wanted back to the Stone Age, anywhere, any time we wanted, from international waters and/or U.S. territory. B-52s, B-1's, B-2's, and even F-117's have global reach with aerial refueling and cruise missiles from our subs can strike every square inch of inhabited real estate on the planet. But hey, good luck with your next fashionable leftist platitude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
August 2, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Well, the aerial refueling rather depends on those oversea bases, does it not?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DeathSquad
August 2, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Ok then, America wins! So explain to me why we operate military bases in multiple foreign countries that we are not at war with?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
August 2, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Wait, wait... We do not have the capability to bomb from orbit yet?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
August 2, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to DeathSquad
Just one of the perks of invading so many countries! You get to build giant military bases in other countries.
Well, looking at the Germany/Japan situation, it's kind of hard to argue that this is such an awful thing. After all, these countries were two of the most dangerous regimes in history. And in a remarkably short time after we invaded them, occupied them and forcibly setup democratic governments, they are strong allies, profitable trading partners and stable societies. So, maybe sarcastically bemoaning our presence there isn't entirely warranted.
I should note that by no stretch of the imagination do I consider our occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan equivalent to Germany or Japan. But you went off directly attacking the post-WWII "imperialism," so I felt it was important to point out how unmistakably successful that project has been.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nandemosan
August 2, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to hunter
We've had stupidly expensive (at least in Germany) and unnecessary military presence in Japan, Germany and, don't forget, South Korea now for more than fifty years. None of the military bases (port facilities are a different matter perhaps) does a thing to safeguard the "host's" security and certainly does nothing to enhance our own. And given that the economic and social histories of Japan and Germany were primarily Western or at least Western in outlook, we didn't remake their societies so much as set them back on the path of better "global citizenship."
But as neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are real countries let alone nations and are populated overwhelming by peoples who's lives are dominated by pre-modern tribalism and a religion that is arguably anti-Western to its core, we couldn't hope to make them places "safe for democracy," etc., etc. even if we remained for another fifty years.
In short, the wars against and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have been complete wastes of time and money and may prove to be the undoing the U.S.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
August 2, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to Nandemosan
The one thing that those bases do to safeguard the hosts is put US troops in harm's way. China can't invade Japan not because of any problem with Japan, but because to do so they'd run into US troops and trigger a US retaliation. Our troops are booby traps - and nowhere is this more clear than in South Korea. They're there so that they can die if the North Koreans get ambitious, and we get dragged into the war. Now, we could go to war on behalf of our allies in Japan and South Korea and Germany anyway, but that would be subject to a vote and political maneuvering, and discussion. Once US blood is shed though, there's no stopping the war machine. Every dead American becomes the justification for the next dead American.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
August 2, 2010 8:37 PM in reply to libdevil
oh so the only reason China invading Japan would trigger a US retaliation is because there are some US troops already there??
i'm gonna have to disagree with that analyis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BigJay
August 2, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to hunter
Japan, Korea and Germany =/= Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Allies de-militarized Japan and Germany. They are not trusted enough to have their own army any more. That is one of the main reasons Japan is so technologically advanced - their engineers cannot work on military contracts, so they started working on consumer technology, leap-frogging the USA in the consumer technology race.
South Korea would be taken over by Kim-Jhong Psycho if the UN drew down in S. Korea (notice its not all the US), which would lead to international unrest in one of the (now) most important financial areas of the world.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are training troops to replace ours, so we can eventually draw-down to minuscule levels comparatively. We are not doing this in Japan, Germany and S. Korea because they will either a) not have a strong enough military to stay sovereign or b) are not trusted enough globally to have their own military, leading to an indefinite international military presence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Slideguy
August 2, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to ondioline
Since you mention it, yes. The US military appears to be for hire to the multinational corporations who want their investments protected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
August 2, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to Slideguy
Your answer, "yes" was in response to what exactly? It could be that I got a little lost because of the whole thread between what I typed and what you responded to, but I'm afraid I don't follow what you were trying to say.
"The US military appears to be for hire to the multinational corporations who want their investments protected."
And this has what to do with President Obama's fulfillment of his campaign promises? This has what to do with the examples I cited?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PollyJunkie
August 2, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to Michael
US troops have arms whether they're in Kentucky, New York or Iraq. That's the way it works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cosliberal
August 2, 2010 11:13 AM
Sounds a little too much like Mission Accomplished to me. The only end of Iraq or Afghanistan that matters is the total withdrawal of all American Troops from both countries and the open declaration that the preemptive wars of the Bush/Cheney junta will never be repeated!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 2, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to cosliberal
And, right on schedule, the second Obama fulfills a campaign promise (or even notes that he's on schedule to do so) we have the inevitable redefinition of the test for proving his undying devotion and fealty to the cause of progressivism to a place the left believes he cannot possibly reach.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nandemosan
August 2, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Why is it that all of you are so quick to trumpet the success of what was both a meaningless and, honestly, unfulfilled "campaign promise"? What don't you understand or fail to accept about the fact that we still have over 75,000 military personnel in Iraq and tens of thousands of civilian contractors performing one kind of support "mission" or another?
We are still up to our asses in the mess and spending hundreds of millions of dollars weekly that we don't have to sustain an necessary and strategically meaningless occupation.
I don't care if we don't have squads or companies leaving bases on search and destroy missions or even in support of the Iraqi military. We are still there whether we are expending ammunition or spilling our blood.
No. I agree with others - though lacking the visual affrontry of "Mission Accomplished," I fail to see how Obama's declaration is that different from Shrub's.
I see no end to the U.S. having tens of thousands of troops in Iraq with the very real possibility of the country imploding and the U.S. getting sucked fully back into the mess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 2, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to Nandemosan
Perfectly expressed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
August 2, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to Nandemosan
"Why is it that all of you are so quick to trumpet the success of what was both a meaningless and, honestly, unfulfilled "campaign promise"?"
Just for those of us scoring at home, are they meaningless when they're met as expressed but meaningful when they aren't? I'm just trying to make sure we're all being consistent here...
"What don't you understand or fail to accept about the fact that we still have over 75,000 military personnel in Iraq and tens of thousands of civilian contractors performing one kind of support "mission" or another?"
I know you weren't asking me, but I understand that perfectly. I understood it during the campaign when Senator Obama repeatedly indicated such. I understood it when he reiterated it, per the article above. What part of that is something that Senator Obama or President Obama created? What part of that is something other than what Candidate Obama said? None and none. It would be a lie to suggest otherwise, and it is naive to assume that the 44th President of the United States, be (s)he McCain, Romney, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Giuliani, Paul, Huckabee, etc. could have come any closer to the outcome you seem to be advocating than Barack Obama has done. If you disagree, then I guess I'm calling you naive.
"We are still up to our asses in the mess and spending hundreds of millions of dollars weekly that we don't have to sustain an necessary and strategically meaningless occupation."
True. And attacking Barack Obama for that, or criticizing those of us who support him accomplishes what exactly? The last time I checked, he didn't launch, vote for, or otherwise support the decision to invade. So if you don't mind, hold my hand just a little bit longer, and lead me to your point. Or are you just venting?
"I don't care if we don't have squads or companies leaving bases on search and destroy missions or even in support of the Iraqi military. We are still there whether we are expending ammunition or spilling our blood."
You don't care, but I do. And our President does. And I'm sure our military families do. To pretend that anything in this article suggests that somehow we are unaware that "we are still there" is a straw man argument, and the worst kind of sophistry...
"No. I agree with others - though lacking the visual affrontry of "Mission Accomplished," I fail to see how Obama's declaration is that different from Shrub's."
Then you should get your prescription checked. Your myopia has grown worse after 8 years of neglect. Get thee to an intellectual ophthalmologist... You probably also think that the BP spill is "Obama's Katrina" too. Which is to say you probably don't think...
"I see no end to the U.S. having tens of thousands of troops in Iraq with the very real possibility of the country imploding and the U.S. getting sucked fully back into the mess."
I see an eternal optimist who can offer no practicable solution that would realistically get them the outcome they seek. Further, I see that individual complaining about and criticizing those who likely share their same desires and overarching perspectives, but who are far more realistic about the way the world works. If there weren't lives on the line, such naivete would be charmingly innocent...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
August 2, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Nandemosan
"I fail to see how Obama's declaration is that different from Shrub's."
You can't possibly be serious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
August 2, 2010 11:16 AM
Back when folks expected honesty in Washington, combat troops were sent when there was a war, and fighting and dying ensued. The end to combat meant the death and dying stopped.
Now however, the meanings have been warped so much war is not even declared and end of combat has no relationship to fighting and dying and halting hostilities....
It's all about appeasing the masses with rhetoric for the voters...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
August 2, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to johnnydoughey
No, appeasing the masses is only a secondary goal. The primary goal is to keep the dollars flowing into the military industrial complex, so their executives and major stock holders can continue to accumulate money. Our government considers the loss of a few thousand members of our military to be a fair trade for this. And, no one counts the deaths of non-Americans, so that's not even in the equation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tk
August 2, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
You are both right.
What would (for example) 75,000 troops and 100,000 contractors sitting in Kuwait for the next several years (estimate only a handful of operational deaths per year), what would that do for you or your bottom line?
But hey -- we are out of Iraq!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Slideguy
August 2, 2010 12:28 PM
I beg your pardon. Four huge, "permanent" bases, a fortress in downtown Baghdad, and 50,000 uniformed troops, supported by an equal number of mercenaries, is not a withdrawal. It's an occupation designed to ensure that only our puppets get to run the place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
August 2, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to Slideguy
good point ... if we were talking about a withdrawal.
of course, since we're instead talking about a drawdown and the end of combat operations, your point sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
August 2, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to Slideguy
And since nobody has been running the place for several months, your last point doesn't hold up very well either. But I suppose governmental chaos in Iraq is "all part of the US' imperialist plan".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
August 2, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to midnight rambler
"But I suppose governmental chaos in Iraq is "all part of the US' imperialist plan".
...actually...yeah. I can see them wanting to keep strong and independent (/uncooperative) authority from emerging in that part of the world. If they can't simply impose a friendly and compliant democracy (I don't think nation building is that easy, but tell that to the neo-cons), they'd just as soon keep the society off balance indefinitely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Roma Victors
August 2, 2010 1:27 PM
This is classic Republican jujitsu -- leave two wars for the next president, then call the Democrats appeasers and peaceniks for withdrawing too fast. Meanwhile, the far left is banging a drum to get out faster. I agree with many posters here -- we can't exit Iraq fast enough for my tastes. Still, let me just put aside the Kool-aid for a minute and say, this is one of the key reasons I voted for President Obama, and I'm glad he's following through. I know, that stain on my lips is a warning...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
August 2, 2010 2:15 PM
We'll have 50000 troops there. 50000 targets. They will still be in combat, because you don't get to choose not to be in combat when somebody's raining mortar fire on you. Get them all home.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BenP
August 2, 2010 4:18 PM
Well, it is a start. Lots of troops are coming home and the footprint is shrinking, that's a good thing. But the "combat" to "support" designation of those 50k is cynically cosmetic.
And there's the little fact that our State Department is fielding its own private military to fill in any vacuum otherwise. Shouldn't that be part of the conversation?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97915/state-dept-planning-to-field-a.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
August 2, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to BenP
Yikes. There seems to be no end to this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
August 2, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to BenP
Of course it should be part of the conversation but these o-bots prefer defending Oboma to defending the truth. It simply makes them too uncomfortable. What bothers me most is we're talking about America invading a sovereign nation w/o any justification, occupying it for 8 years, indiscriminately killing it's citizens, forcing our young soldiers to return again and again to the war till they are either maimed, killed, or psychologically scared for live. This Cult Obama is only comfortable when they can talk HC policy, reelection strategy, Sharron Angel or the Tea Party. They don't want to get too close to anything ugly.
And TPM is just as cowardly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Loner
August 3, 2010 7:16 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
Clarance you sound like a teabagger run amuck. This Obama Cult as you called it, did not start this war nor voted for it. The only thing this President can do is being the troops home. I am in total agreement with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
August 2, 2010 5:19 PM
Did any one notice that Christina wrote this article in the future tense? That is, she received an advanced copy of Obama's speech, and published a blog on TPM well ahead of the actual event.
What's up with that, Crhistina? Obama-botting a bit too much lately?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nikki
August 2, 2010 5:51 PM
Bible says loose the four angels bound in the great river Euphrates; and there was a war prepared for however much time anyway it said when that war ended God would seal his people up. Then all the bad stuff that everyone hates about Revelations will happen some good stuff too but mostly bad. This is the war at the great river Euphrates I researched it interesting to see the Bible come to life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nike shoes
August 3, 2010 8:07 AM
Hello! The burning hot summer arrived, this is the demonstration stature good season,
the retreat winter sincere appearance, lets lithe, the individuality, the fashion,
the sex appeal, mature you start from here! Has a good news to tell everybody: Recently,
every bought full 200 US dollars in this company, then has the present to see off,
Vietnam which buys delivers are more, please do not miss this good opportunity!!!
= http://www.pointingtrade.com/ ====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35
Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy) $25
FREE sHIPPING
== http://www.pointingtrade.com ====
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?