We got it wrong Obama to cut spending

gales0678 · #1 02-26-2009, 01:26 PM

maybe this helps scott - see this was Feb '07 - months before you 1st quote from sept '07

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...co_talk_packer

SniperSB23 · #2 02-26-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gales0678

maybe this helps scott - see this was Feb '07 - months before you 1st quote from sept '07

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...co_talk_packer

Well a rapid withdrawal could be taken to mean anything. The first time he offered a timeline was September and that was 16 months. That was before anyone voted for him in the primaries and anyone voted for him in the general election. So the idea that anyone elected him on any campaign promise other than the 16 months one is ridiculous. If you want to complain that he's changing it from 16 months to 19 months that is fine although extremely petty. You can't say he had a campaign promise to pull troops out immediately though when in September '07 he first offered a timeline and it was 16 months.

SniperSB23 · #3 02-26-2009, 01:34 PM

It's not like he isn't going to renege on plenty of campaign promises. Just at least wait until he actually does to criticize him for it!

gales0678 · #4 02-26-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

It's not like he isn't going to renege on plenty of campaign promises. Just at least wait until he actually does to criticize him for it!

just pointing out the facts in feb of '07
from the article

"
In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy, in part, on a bold promise to begin a rapid withdrawal of American forces upon taking office."

if you want to define 16 months as rapid withdrawl that's fine that's your way to interpet it - but i read it a different way , i read it as the right thing to say to get voters behind you , which is fine , every pol does it

hillary gambled and lost in '02 when she voted for the war , all this would have been mute had she voted against bush , obama would be back in Ill mucking stalls with Scavs and Dell

gales0678 · #5 02-26-2009, 01:41 PM

[quote=gales0678]just pointing out the facts in feb of '07
from the article

"
In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy, in part, on a bold promise to begin a rapid withdrawal of American forces upon taking office."

if you want to define 16 months as rapid withdrawl that's fine that's your way to interpet it - but i read it a different way , i read it as the right thing to say to get voters behind you , which is fine , every pol does it

hillary gambled and lost in '02 when she voted for the war , all this would have been mute had she voted against bush , obama would be back in Ill mucking stalls with Scavs and Dell and bill would be back in the white house!

Antitrust32 · #6 02-26-2009, 01:58 PM

any time I've ever heard him talk its been 16 months.

I dont understand this arguement

If the POTUS thinks it is more appropriate now to change that to 19 months.... what is the big fuss? Dont you want your President to do what he and his generals think is best for our country and troops? Things change when it comes to war.

Shoot, Bush thought we'd go in there and win right away and everything would be fine and dandy. Obviously things changed there too.

You can get on President Obama all you want when it comes to his rediculously liberal spending that he has done since elected (I did not expect him to spend this much so far... its been dissapointing).

But to get on him about changing a WAR plan from 16 months to 19 months is just stupid. He's the Commander in Chief... let him do his job right. Its a touchy situation over there, I honestly think we are on the brink of WWIII and do not believe we'll be out of the middle east any time soon.

I want the POTUS to do what is right for the safety of our country.

Danzig · #7 02-26-2009, 02:00 PM

i'm not sure how they can legitimately figure that defense spending will be cut by leaving iraq-spending would ramp up in afganistan because that's where he wants to send most of those he's taking from iraq. more creative accounting i guess.

timmgirvan · #8 02-26-2009, 02:18 PM

Hopefully he won't follow Barney Franks' 25% reduction in miltitary spending!
I distinctly heard Obama that the troops would get a raise in pay and benefits. He better not foul this up....

GBBob · #9 02-26-2009, 01:36 PM

If any business was forced to stick to their business plan from 2-3 years ago continously, they would be in big trouble. His campaign was focused on getting the troops out. From there, I don't think the emphasis was or should have been on specifically when until he was elected. If anyone wants to change their vote because it's now 19 mos instead of 16 mos or even 16 instead of 10, then I think they missed the point of what he was really getting at.