At Camp Lejune, President to Announce Troop Withdrawals from Iraq

Iraq Doesnt want us there The American People Doesnt want us there The time Has come to Give their Country Back to them END THIS DAMN WAR ALREADY!

Pray for our troops.

A day of 0bama staying in DC and not making a speech would be a welcome relief for the tanking stock market. Maybe he should try that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
EASILY the best quote of the year so far, and perhaps of the entire Obama Administration:
“The last of the U.S. troops will be in Iraq no later than Dec. 31, 2011.”
That’s the deadline set under an agreement the two countries sealed during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Yes, President Barack Obama has decided that (now that he’s got power and responsibility) the Bush plan is the best plan for Iraq. How’s that sit with Democratic Party leaders?
Nancy Pelosi isn’t the only Democrat unhappy with President Barack Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan. Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer said Thursday that — like Pelosi — they were surprised to hear that Obama apparently plans to leave more than 50,000 U.S. troops in the country.
“I have long been for a significant drawback of troops in Iraq,” Reid, the Senate majority leader, told reporters in a news conference. “Fifty-thousand is a higher number than I anticipated.”
Added Schumer: “Fifty-thousand is more than I would have thought.”
No doubt Democrats like President Obama would like Americans and the world to support the war in Iraq now that they’re commanding it, but opponents of the war remain silent. Why? Why not oppose the Bush/Obama policy the way they did when it was just the Bush policy?
Make no bones about it, if you opposed the Bush Iraq policy post 2006, then you just got completely and deliberately misled by President Obama. You’ve been had. Just as you were had on the idea of closing Gitmo (which remains open), ending torture (which is still as permitted as it was under Bush), on listening in on phone calls (which Obama supports now that he’s President), or on the Executive Privilege that protected Karl Rove from indictment now that Obama needs the same right to protect his various “Czars.” Same thing with rendition now that Panetta’s in charge of the CIA.
No more earmarks (except the 9000 in this current budget)
No more hidden text of bills (except that $780bn bill that no one could read before voting on)
No more cronyism (except at CIA)
No more partisanship (except in the WH Chief of Staff and Press Sec, but who notices those guys?)
Obama voters….you have been had

What about gose 50,000? Four crack divisions of community organizers?

If 0bama knew he would be withdrawing troops by 2010, why did he account for 10 years of same level Iraq war spending to calculate his 75% of $2T in “deficit reduction”?
===========
I just want that repeated.

Why do Demi-Dems keep talking about those lost in Iraq as if they are the worst military losses in history ((don’t get me wrong ~ 5 thousand is bad but nothing like other wars that Dems started or supported – Vietnam – 56,000 == == WW II – 408,000 US Troops; 20+ ‘Million’ world wide when you consider disease and all the other complicating factors of that war – should we have “Preempted” Hitler !!! ).
So why when Libs talk do they make ~ 5 thousand sound like 50 thousand as they ‘Propagandize’ about Iraq.
If we pull out and have to go back in (as Obama has already said we might – which the liberal media has avoided repeating as best they could — Propagandize what they like & Sweeping the rest ‘under the rug’) then unfortunately it may be more like 50 thousand if we have to land troops D-Day style (if we pull out and the area explodes this is very possible – 80% chance) as opposed to already being there. If we don’t go back in there may be mass genocide, and if the ‘Persian Gulf Oil’ stops flowing (even if you don’t care about US oil, all those other nation’s oil will matter too) you will see a Depression to make the present situation look ‘Child’s Play’. What is the likelihood all those Iraqi factions are just going to kiss and make up, and when they don’t it will pull in Iran, Saudi Arabia, possibly Turkey and possibly several others (why has our “Grand Illustrious Media” avoided informing the public about this issue – they even take the time to ‘drill in’ lesser points, but here No Mention !!)
Lets hope (for everyone’s sake) that Obama knows what he is doing here. I fear the ‘Inexperience Question’ may be very telling on this one.

I hope Liberals are real happy these days…
I hope they like the $ 13. Obama said himself “the check is in the mail”!!!!
I hope they like the TROOPS WILL STAY UNTIL THE BUSH WITHDRAWL PLAN GOES INTO EFFECT.
Obama is so cool. I hope he gets to be President forever. Whoops. I probably just gave Obama an idea.
Nah, he already had that one for a while. It is OBVIOUS.

I thought wars were wasteful and expensive.
What is genius-boy doing?
Does he not have a monster debt of trillions to slash or what?

“I think the troops that will be left are in great danger. The militants will realize they have no support and can erase them without any problems.”
You have a very poor opinion of the military might of the United States if you actually believe the above scenario (though my money is that its Cassandra calling from a right winger).
“Now, all the troops are leaving Iraq but being transferred to Afganistan??? So much for “troop withdrawal”!
Some troops are going to Afghanistan where the people who attacked us have been hiding and some are going home.
All the right wing has are lies and fear.
What a bunch of cowards.

“Under BUSH WITHDRAWL PLAN. Nice.”
ROFLMAO.
You mean the same withdraw plan Obama was touting on the campaign trail months before the IRAQIS agreed it was a good idea and forced Bush’s hand.

“No. Bush cleaned up a bipartisan, once-popular decision to attack Iraq when everyone else was willing to let it fall to massive violence.”
Iraq was about to fall into massive violence in Mar of 2003?
Or are you referring to 2007 when it about to fall into massive violence because the Bush team had completely screwed up the occupation?
There was a bi partisan decision to go after Iraq or did Bush decide that then seek Congress’s approval?

Memory Hole – for Ryan C: . J. Res. 114: 2001-2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Oct 10, 2002: resolution passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 296 Ayes, 133 Nays, 3 Present Oct 11, 2002: This resolution passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals were 77 Ayes, 23 Nays.

Memory Hole #3 – the Clinton years. For all of us, since we were babes in arms then (hmmm)
Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world”
Clinton: “Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again”
Clinton: “The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.”
Overthrow of unfriendly governments by the United States can be found throughout the past 50 years
Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the “Iraq Liberation Act”) was signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton. The act directed that: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [3] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.

“Memory Hole #3 – the Clinton years. For all of us, since we were babes in arms then (hmmm)”
You mean when we were cataloging and destroying WMD?
“Memory Hole 2 – for Ryan C – via Wikipedia reference –
March 2003″
I didn’t say the initial war was not popular.
After all Bush told the American people that we were in imminent danger and we were still angry and looking for a fight after Afghanistan.
When that proved false the American public turned on him.
That’s what happen when you enter into wars of choice based on lies and fear.

It was the stated policy of the US to seek regime change (see Memory Hole #3)
It was a bipartisan decision to authorize force in Iraq (Memory Hole #1)
A majority in opinion polls supported this course up thru the invasion (Memory Hole #2)
Is anyone like Nancy or Harry “clamoring” for 17,000 more in the “good war” in Afghanistan? Who says 35,000 to 50,000 thru 2011 is good? Iraqis and McCain and Obama but Nancy and Harry not sure at all!!!

“I would hate to be the 35,000 left in iraq. They will face much more violence, similar to before the surge.”
So we should keep 140,000 troops in Iraq forever?

Sorry Ryan C, we cross posted.

Regime change without invasion and occupation.
That happened against our nuclear rival the Soviet Union and the oppressed nations of Eastern Europe.
Good! -
1) But the proxy wars inbetween were 10 times as bloody as Iraq,
2) We COULDN’T invade a fully nuclear nation – hmm we have the same problem with “partial” regime change in NW Pakistan, don’t we
3) The oppression like I said was on 2 full generations of a 1 billion people and continues on a 1 billion more to this day in China, N Korea, Cuba etc.
And remember how our regime change went in Cuba!!!
4) It took a change from a Stalin to a Gorby to accomplish (with the Pope, Reagan and Iron Maggie pushing hard).
On a scale from Stalin to Gorby, where did Saddam fall – uhh ask Iran, Kuwait, or his own Kurds and Shia.

Uhh, who wrote Profiles in Courage?
And what was it about? (Besides a rejection of his daddy’s lack thereof in 1940)

“Only Obama can lose this war.”
This statement is absolutely ludicrous. It’s absoludicrous.

Bush freed Iraq from Hussein.
- How many lives would Hussein have taken if he was still in power??
- How many did he take before being ousted (~2 millions) !!
If we had just left Hussein in power do you really think he would have just sat there like a good boy. He was well known for interfering with other countries: Invaded Kuwait & Iran, Pushing the Kurds to the border with Turkey, Skuds into Israel, Thousands of dollars to Palestinian suicide bombers, etc, etc.
So, do you really think he would have left Afghanistan alone. Democracy was the last thing he wanted for the region (it interfered with his plans). He had ‘Billions upon Billions’ in wealth, and he would have used it to fund insurgents, weapons & suicide bombers in the Afghan situation.
If we had not invaded Iraq all those insurgents would have just gone to Afghanistan (has our ‘illustrious media’ ever pointed this out – ever!!).
The Surge worked;………. and now Security & Democracy are taking hold (and will continue as long as Obama doesn’t act like a fool & pull the troops out too early – sorry libbers).
The people of Iraq OWE BUSH, a HUGE Debt of Gratitude !!!

Reducing deployment in Iraq is good any way but remembere the turmoil in the middle-east is historical remain which will never be resolved until the end of the whole planet earth.

“Bush freed Iraq from Hussein.”
If only Congress would have considered that cause justification for the loss of life and money. Which they obviously would not have.

“If we had just left Hussein in power do you really think he would have just sat there like a good boy. He was well known for interfering with other countries: Invaded Kuwait & Iran, Pushing the Kurds to the border with Turkey, Skuds into Israel, Thousands of dollars to Palestinian suicide bombers, etc, etc.”
He was contained though it was far from a perfect arrangement.
There are many POS dictators and thugs running countries throughout the world
Shall we invade them all?

“The GOP talks a lot a bout liberating Iraq. If liberation, why they go accross the globe? For liberation sake, why not just liberate Cuba is the GOP really means it?
Hypocrites.”
Because Iraq falls squarely in the center of the middle east, where trade routes exist to smuggle arms to Syria, and eventually Hamas and Hezbollah. It’s strategic importance in the war on terror cannot be underestimated. It is admittedly a gamble with a democracy in the heart of the middle east, but if it works it out could prove invaluable in changing the middle east from a 9th century feudal system into a modern civic law society. It is a long shot, but could transform the middle east and have significant impact on Ahrab based terror. We won’t know for years, maybe even decades, if the gamble pays off.
Unfortunately, we have short sighted and politically manipulated posters on here who see things through 1969 rose colored hippy glasses and get all their information from ignorant politicians and fly by news.
Go join the military and make it your life to study the threats to our country, then come back and post when you are educated.

“You must admit we have empowered Iran, which is now a threat in the area”
Actually Iran is now more isolated than it was before. While it is true that Saddam and Iran were competitors, they were both dictatorships. The influence of a democratic Iraq is putting pressure on the current Iranian society as many of the upcoming generation of Iranians are interested in democracy.
Add in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Iran will be an isolated theocracy among democracies.
Saddam’s power was secure and wouldn’t have been challenged. His son’s were also far more brutal and ambitious than even Saddam was. The removal of that regime can only have positive long term effects in Iraq and the middle east, as long as we continue to support the new democracy as much as possible.
Accepting the status quo and containment theory with the new dynamics of the war on terror wasn’t the right answer either. Hard decisions had to be made. Alliances with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Jordan simply wasn’t going to change the middle east. All of which are (and were at that time) friendly monarchies or sudo dictatorships.

there will be not peace in iraq once our troops are out of iraq u will see more
voiencle than ever before because the iraq army cannot handle the insurgents
over there .the insurgents will overthrow the iraq goverment ina matter of months,and u see some terrosists activity here in the united states.

If we pull out and have to go back in (as Obama has already said we might – which the liberal media has avoided repeating as best they could — Propagandize what they like & Sweeping the rest ‘under the rug’) then unfortunately it may be more like 50 thousand if we have to land troops D-Day style (if we pull out and the area explodes this is very possible – 80% chance) as opposed to already being there.
American Lives were almost invariably saved by dealing with Hussein now, instead of later. If Iran, N Korea, Libya, Syria acted up then Hussein would have just seen it as an opportunity to act up himself (apparently none of you thought about that). We were Ultimately going to have to deal with Hussein eventually, and he had been given enough chances and had the ‘Most Barbaric’ past of any of them (he was a Modern Day Hitler – Bush & Cheney preempted him and most of the world is CLUELESS).
Lets Bust another Myth: — WMD was not Bush’s only Stated reason for dealing with Hussein: His Genocidal Past; Breaking 15+ UN Resolutions over ~ 10 years and refusal to comply on SO many fronts, Including Lighting Up and Firing on our Jets for years (in the N. & S. No Fly Zones) etc, etc. Also since he was captured he has admitted that he was trying to make the World think he had WMD (mostly as a deterrent to Iran, the US & also probably Israel). Do you think that is why Tenet (CIA Chief and a Bill Clinton Appointment) made the ‘Slam Dunk’ Comment. Keep in mind Hussein was putting on a
‘show’ for our overhead satellites.

‘Waiting any longer’ to deal with Hussein would have been one of the largest mistakes made by the US in our lifetimes.

Obama’s plan to withdraw many troops is a good idea. Obviously, the details he now has as president and the advice of generals tells him this is the best way to withdraw.
Thank goodness we have a president who can adapt to new information.
The Iraq people have had plenty of time to train their own people to police themselves.For those who think we should keep our troops at full strength, how is that different from occupying Iraq?
I feel so bad for the Iraqis for their great losses of life, property and infrastructure due to our misguided invasion. It will take them decades to put their country together again. And to those who lost loved ones, or suffer lasting injuries, my prayers go out to them, whether they are Iraqis or our soldiers and their families. I don’t know how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld can sleep at night. So much misery caused by blind ambition.

silky,
Nice try, better luck next time !!

Phentermine diet.

Phentermine capsule.