"No matter how much this Administration wishes it to be true, the idea that the situation in Iraq is improving because it only takes a security detail of 100 soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships to walk through a market in the middle of Baghdad is simply not credible or reflective of the facts on the ground." "What we need today is a surge in honesty. The truth is, the Iraqis have made little progress toward the political solution between Shiia and Sunni which is the last, best hope to end this war. I believe that letting the Iraqi government know America will not be there forever is the best way to pressure the warring factions toward this political settlement, which is why my plan begins a phased withdrawal from Iraq on May 1st, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat troops by March 31st, 2008." He gets my vote.
This is one thing I don't like about Obama. He put together some kind of Iraq withdrawal plan that has no chance of being enacted and will be long done and failed by election time (his plan is to be completed by May 2008). What's the point? He needs to focus on what he's good at. Leave the Iraq thing at "we need to get out of Iraq" - no need to get into a mess of details that will never see the light of day.
It's posts like these that make me think the whole Traitor_Jorge persona is a put-on; a LHutz for the D&D. Nobody could be moronic enough to think that this helps their cause, could they?
He says whatever the people will vote for him wants to hear, just like every other politician. He reminds me a lot of Deval Patrick, a lot of sizzle, very vague on how is he actually going to cook the steak.
Now I know were opposites (even though i'm sure you are ok in person)... I applaud the few democratic leaders who think up a plan...that is genuine and noble...Much like the person...Those traits will help him, not hurt him...trust me...
Teddy, is that you? <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/APx2YJ-_jos"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/APx2YJ-_jos" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> (That never gets old.)
Sure, but if Kerry was campaigning on a plan to deal with Iraq after he got into office, that would make sense. If he were campaigning on a plan to remove troops in, say, August 2004, that would have been pointless and stupid. If Obama wants to campaign on what he would do once he's in office, I'd be all for it. Realistically, he can't do that until mid/late 2008 because he doesn't know what the Iraq situation will be like in 2009 right now. So it makes sense to just stick with something like "we shouldn't be there and I will work to get us out" or whatever. No point in campaigning on a policy that is going to be irrelevent by the time you'd take office.
"Even though they say it's safe, look at all the people, boats and helicopters they needed to protect them to go shopping, that's not safe at all! We need to tell the truth more: alot more. Let's face it, the people that live there are still fighting, if they stopped, then it would stop the fighting. Tell the people that live there that we will have to go home sometime, I don't know what the f*ck else to do. So, let's start leaving two weeks from next Tuesday, so we can be out right after the New York and California primaries."
No no! We must stay without any measure of when the end will come! We must waste another two or three thousand kids, we must throw another 100 billion into the meat grinder (how much is that now? 1/2 a trillion?). W've got to make sure another few thousand Iraqis slaughter each oth!er After all it's what America wants.
