Don't say "cut and run." That's too simplistic.

I expect more out of you.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I never was a fan of going into Iraq, but I'm even less of a fan of cut and run. I'm not impressed with his leadership on these issues.
Hmmm. Were never personally a fan of the Iraq invasion in the first place, and not impressed with Bush's leadership on it huh? But you defend our being there as though it was the correct decision.

You have comprehension problems. Just because I have never said that we should have gone into Iraq. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of cutting and running. Obama's "plan" is to pull out one brigade per month. He figures we will be out in 16 months after he is "elected".
Yes, I have a problem with that. We just had 15 of 18 political bench marks acheived. These are set by the CONGRESS, the President, our Allies, and the Iraqs themselves. A year ago only 5 of those benchmarks were acheived.

So earth to Truth, I'm saying that given these advances it doesn't make sense to just pull out. The situation isn't worsening, it's improving. If there were no improvement or it was worsening, then it might be prudent to retreat. Don't you agree? If not, why not.

truthhurts wrote:
S-o, in other words, you personally disagree with various Republican positions and then vigorously defend those positions anyway.

You are just the kind they like. Just follow, baby, just follow.

I'm not following anyone. As far as Chip, I think Utah has made tremendous gains in helping to insure the health of the children of Utah. Have they not? We were in the middle a year ago at 25 for child healthcare in the country. I have no doubt that we will be significantly higher by next year.

ericmiami wrote:
Don't say "cut and run." That's too simplistic.

You are absolutely right. But the current "Obama plan" is to do just that in 16 months. Is it not?

ThomasK wrote:
You have comprehension problems. Just because I have never said that we should have gone into Iraq. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of cutting and running. Obama's "plan" is to pull out one brigade per month. He figures we will be out in 16 months after he is "elected".
Yes, I have a problem with that. We just had 15 of 18 political bench marks acheived. These are set by the CONGRESS, the President, our Allies, and the Iraqs themselves. A year ago only 5 of those benchmarks were acheived.

So earth to Truth, I'm saying that given these advances it doesn't make sense to just pull out. The situation isn't worsening, it's improving. If there were no improvement or it was worsening, then it might be prudent to retreat. Don't you agree? If not, why not.
Let's see. You say you were not in favor of going into Iraq in the first place, but are in favor of being there now. I'd say you have the comprehension problem as pertaining to my earlier statement. That said, is Obama's plan to withdraw in 16 months? Yes. Is it set in stone? No, it is not. Period. Never has been.

He has always said he would let events on the ground dictate the actual date of withdrawl, and has said so again just recently.

"But Obama said that his position has not changed at all. He said he is saying now what he always has: The war was a mistake and needs to be brought to "a responsible end," but "we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."

This means, he said, that his 16-month timeline "was always premised on" not endangering either U.S. forces or Iraq's stability, which he had previously been told by commanders was possible.

"I'm going to continue to gather information to see whether those conditions still hold," he said. "My goal is to end this conflict as soon as possible."

Although he did not specifically mention his 16-month timeline yesterday, Obama called it "pure speculation" to suggest he has been softening his position as violence eases in Iraq."

Obama Exit Strategy

So, whether it is 16 months or 14 months or 18 months or 24 months is really not that important at this point. Things can change. Obama will not back himself in the same corner Bush always does, namely, decide on a course of action and then stick to it no matter what happens or what additional evidence comes in. That is, well, stupid, and exactly the mind set that got us in this mess in the first place. What is important is a plan to GET OUT as quickly as feasible.

Now as for the "15 of 18 benchmarks" having been met, that is a subjective analysis based on one agency, and not all agencies agree. The "grader" in this case was the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Who does the Embassy report to? The State Dept. Who do they report to? Bush . Do you really think they are impartial? Do you always believe what the Bush Administration tells you, Thomas?

Here's a little more on that. Emphasis added.

"The embassy's evaluation, compiled in May, contrasts sharply with other recent assessments that Iraq has failed to achieve many of the goals that the Baghdad government and President Bush said would be reached by the end of 2007. A report by the Government Accountability Office, released last week, cited little improvement in the political and economic spheres and noted continuing military problems despite a significant decline in overall violence.

The embassy judged that the only remaining shortfalls were the Baghdad government's failure to enact and implement laws governing the oil industry and the disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and continuing problems with the professionalism of the Iraqi police. All other goals -- including preparations for upcoming elections, reform of de-Baathification and disarmament laws, progress on enacting and spending Iraq's budget, and the capabilities of the Iraqi army -- were rated "satisfactory.

Washington Post Article

I guess "satisfactory" can have different meaning to different folks, right?

But I digress. The real issue is this. Iraq belongs to the Iraqi's, it's their country, and they need to be the ones to control it. They've had long enough, and have at last a couple of years left with us in a combat role, even if Obama is elected. Long enough. If you think not, then how long is long enough for us to remain there in a combat role, Thomas? You tell me. Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years? Or will you just give us that weak, gutless "till the job is done" answer?

I'm not following anyone.
That's a laugh. You are so close to Bush your nose is brown.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
You have comprehension problems. Just because I have never said that we should have gone into Iraq. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of cutting and running. Obama's "plan" is to pull out one brigade per month. He figures we will be out in 16 months after he is "elected".
Yes, I have a problem with that. We just had 15 of 18 political bench marks acheived. These are set by the CONGRESS, the President, our Allies, and the Iraqs themselves. A year ago only 5 of those benchmarks were acheived.

So earth to Truth, I'm saying that given these advances it doesn't make sense to just pull out. The situation isn't worsening, it's improving. If there were no improvement or it was worsening, then it might be prudent to retreat. Don't you agree? If not, why not.

Let's see. You say you were not in favor of going into Iraq in the first place, but are in favor of being there now. I'd say you have the comprehension problem as pertaining to my earlier statement. That said, is Obama's plan to withdraw in 16 months? Yes. Is it set in stone? No, it is not. Period. Never has been.

He has always said he would let events on the ground dictate the actual date of withdrawl, and has said so again just recently.

WAKE UP! That's not what I said. If I did, prove it. You have to lie to make your point.

As far as Obama, if he is saying to let the events dictate the withdrawal, then why does he want to pull out one brigade a month immediately if he gets elected? He backtracks.

As far as improvements in Iraq, there HAS been improvement, whether you want to believe it or not. Even your "GUY", admits it. He's even backtracking because of it. But then, you suck up whatever your party line tells you to. Think for yourself, just once. I have no allegiance to the Republican Party. If they don't fit my beliefs, than so be it. You could never say that about the Democrats, and you know it.