Skip to main content

50,000 American soldiers to stay in Iraq you've got to be kidding! President Obama you promised us you would get us out in 16 months! As a disabled Vietnam veteran who has spent the last 4 decades in a wheelchair because of one Richard Nixons compaign promise "To have a secret plan to get us out of Viet Nam". To be fooled once shame on Nixon but to be fooled twice and worst of all by YOU, shame on me and on all of who relied on you to keep your promise.

I am amongst the millions of americans who listened and believed in you and you promise to GET US OUT of Iraq in 16 months. Keeping FIFTY THOUSAND TROOPS in Iraq is not getting them out of that Hell hole. You said you would listen to the Generals on the ground and I accepted that but this is not listening this is capitulating to the never ending War Hawks! Don't you think you could have confided in the people who put you in your job before you make such a terrible choice too? Please excuse me if I am truly skeptical about this decision, frankly it smacks of Bush style politics.  Why didn't you take the time to discuss with the American people what the Generals said that guided your terrible decision to keep this unneccessary conflict going on and on and on like the energizer death Bunny,  who kills another G.I. every time he strikes a beat on his drum. Keeping 50K Men and women in harms way indefinately is no more ethical than Nixons endless excuses to perpetuate that war. Frankly unless you can show me there is truly and end in site you have turned me into a another angry, disheartened American veteran.

Originally posted to eddieb061345 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:10 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Creator

    He always said he would leave a residual force there.  The left over forces will be out by 2011.  

  •  This is just another example (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of our politicians corrupt I don't give a shit once I'm in office attitude. So many people think BO is different than the rest. I don't think the chances are good that he is...

    •  When it come to BO he seems to be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Simple Man

      a Jeckyll and Hyde Politician. He is Liberal on Domestic policy but turns in Mr Hyde when it comes to Iraq.

      Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

      by eddieb061345 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:22:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who Lost ...??? (0+ / 0-)

        Pres. Obama does have the pressure of the right wing AKA MSM to consider.

        Particularly since Time Magazine beat the drum regarding "who lost china?" This is a recurring theme and drives US foreign policy for both political parties. The fringe groups are not affected as they don't have a significant constituency. could a third party in power ignore the drum beat?

      •  Hey's it going? (0+ / 0-)

        Just like the diarist said:

        I am amongst the millions of americans who listened and believed in you and you promise to GET US OUT of Iraq in 16 months.

        •  a promise slightly revised is not "corrupt" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen, blingbling65

          please do not abuse language.

          Corrupt means he receives a personal gain for doing something behind the scenes and he tries to hide it.

          In this case Obama has adjusted his position - probably after looking at more facts and discussing it with commanders and intelligence people.

          To call this "corrupt" is a typical right wing red herring, a real non-sequitur.   Very tiresome.

          •  I don't think Fifty Thousand is (0+ / 0-)

            SLIGHTLY revised! I agree Corrupt is to strong but lame attempt to play down his broken promise to get our troops out is just wrong. Do you think things would have change if Obama had told us he would be willing to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq? We would be talking about President Clinton right now.

            Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

            by eddieb061345 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:15:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I am suprised by your knowledge of language (0+ / 0-)

            and contortion. You are usually pretty accurate in your arguments.

            Corrupt means: Guilty of dishonest practice (and other things, none of which mean:

            personal gain for doing something behind the scenes and he tries to hide it.

            But, I'm not trying to split hairs. Just that you brought it up that way and it is not his first slightly revised promise. I am sure there will be more and, unfortunately, his niave view that he would have so much control to deliver on his promises against the machine is the most troubling part for me.

            •  then you are implying that he knew (0+ / 0-)

              last year that he would be changing this now, and that he knowingly did so with the intent of misleading voters.  I don't think you can make either case.

              You are also assuming that he has no option to gather new information and act on it.  

              •  I am not implying anything.... (0+ / 0-)

                I was explicit (opposite of implying) in saying:

                This is just another example of our politicians corrupt I don't give a shit once I'm in office attitude. So many people think BO is different than the rest. I don't think the chances are good that he is...

                Now, how is that implying anything? Pretty straight forward, I thought.

                •  again you miss the point entirely (0+ / 0-)

                  by your definition it is "corrupt" only if he knowingly lied last year in order to win votes, knowing he would change his position now.  If you don't think that you have no argument that this is "corrupt"  You can't have it both ways.  Of course you think you can because this is the way you "argue" all the time, but you can't.  At least not if anyone is actually paying attention to your "points".

                  •  I am confused by your post... (0+ / 0-)

                    What do you mean have it both ways and that is the way I argue?

                    •  you know what I mean (0+ / 0-)
                      1. you tell me it is "corrupt"
                      1. I ask you to define corrupt
                      1. you do
                      1. I then point out what that means for your argument
                      1. you deny that 4 is the case but you continue to repeat your baseless assertions even though 4 is a logical conclusion from them
                      1. this is your pattern here and in the global warming diaries
                      •  You've totally lost me on this.... (0+ / 0-)

                        Not trying to be difficult, but you're not making sense to me. If 4 means that he would have had to premeditate his dishonest behavior, which is what I think you mean, I disagree. And, as it relates to the Global Warming diaries, please help a brother out and give me an example of what you mean.

                        Bottom line on both issues:

                        1. The effects of man on global climate change (warming and cooling) has not been proven with any reasonable certainty and;
                        1. Our politicians are corrupt

                        Again, how do I want it both ways? I know your position are counter to mine:

                        1. Global climate change is effected in a meaningful way by man and that is a proven fact and;
                        1. Our politicians are not corrupt

                        Is that accurate?  

                        •  a few things (0+ / 0-)

                          global climate change - I think that the science linking it to human activity is overwhelming and there is no significant peer reviewed scientific evidence countering that link. That is not to say it is a proven fact.  "proven fact" is a red herring.

                          Many many politicians are corrupt.  I never said they weren't. (Again the hallmark of your style, which is to attribute things to others without evidence and to make all or nothing claims without evidence).  What I said was that Obama's current Iraq plan is not any evidence of corruption unless someone is willing to claim and provide evidence that he knowingly and willfully mislead voters intentionally on this in a fraudulent attempt to get votes he would not have otherwise received.

                          Global warming - you say it is happening and he have to stop polluting but you say that the human link is unproven.  Yet all you provide for evidence are tired worn out talking points from the right wing deniers or cherry picked datapoints that are based on either ignorance of science or a willful attempt to mislead those who can be mislead.  

                          •  Ok...point(s) well taken... (0+ / 0-)

                            proven fact = red herring...ok. I have come to realize that facts are irrelevant. What is rellevant is ones perception or story, aka their truth. Not withstanding that, to say there no peer reviewed scientific evidencecountering that is false. The true nature of the argument counters that exact concept, so saying that there is peer reviewed scientific evidence is , actually, the same circular argumument that you accuse me of deploying. In other words, if I believe the sky is green and I ask a peer to review my work knowing he believes the sky is green, does that then constitute peer review? and does that then mean the sky is green? I know that is not a great example, but I hope you get my point. My point was, politicians are corrupt. You wrote that the hallmark (I love that word) of my style was to attribute things to others without evidence. Really? So, I get from that that I don't have evidence of political corruption. I am sure you don't mean that since you agree many many politicians are corrupt, but I get your point on my view that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Also, my view on pollution and such is that it's fundamentally bad for many reason's, like respretory failure and mercury levels (all proven)and not just some gray issue that hasn't been proven.

                          •  this is the most pathetic argument you (0+ / 0-)

                            have made

                            Belief has little to do with it. Science is about corrobaration and replicibility of data and results, so keep your red herrings on green skies etc. That is pitiful.

                            As for corruption you are proving yourself consitutionally unable to read or pay attention to what I say and you are adept at obfuscating/denying what you say.  I never said no politicians were corrupt.  Many times.  In fact I said many are.  The only point I made was that your assertion that Obama's stance on Iraq is 'corrupt" is bereft of facts or logic, neither of which you supplied to make your case.  You simply asserted that Obama is corrupt becuase he "lied" and that all politicians are corrupt.  Both claims are patently ridiculous.
                            Trying to point out your logical flaws is getting very tiresome, because you refuse to acknowledge anything I write. All you do is say that you have, and then your very next words belie the fact that you have not.

                      •  I would also add (0+ / 0-)

                        That I believe these things are connected. Meaning, our politicians are corrupt and that is evidenced by the global warming hoax.

  •  I wish . . . (4+ / 0-)

    evreybody would read the current SOFA agreement.

    The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008 between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal and a referendum scheduled for mid-2009 in Iraq which may require U.S. forces to completely leave by the middle of 2010. The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat. U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces will be subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies may retain their immunity. If U.S. forces commit still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.

    What we need to do is be sure the administration and the DoD doesn't try and work around this agreement.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:20:41 AM PST

  •  The Baghdad Embassy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sheddhead, Gemina13, anonevent

    is the largest US embassy compound in the WORLD.  Anywhere.  We're not going to leave Iraq in my lifetime or my children's lifetimes.  Unless we have to evacuate via helicopter from the roof of one of those embassy buildings.

    I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. - President Barack Obama

    by ThirstyGator on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:23:57 AM PST

    •  That's what I keep thinking... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThirstyGator, anonevent

      that I'd rather see people who work there, trying to maintain (or re-create) diplomacy, safe, rather than dead.  But hey, I'm wacky that way...

      "The joy of activity is the activity itself, not some arbitrary goal which, if not achieved, steals the joy." ~John "the Penguin" Bingham

      by sheddhead on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:28:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Equating Obama with Nixon is Disingenuous (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NewDealer, BJMS, The Creator

    First of all, there is a firm deadline to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq.

    You know as well as anyone that Nixon was a liar and was lying about his "secret plan."  Everyone knew that was bogus during the '68 campaign.

    Nixon didn't care at all about pulling out of Nam because he was CYAing on losing the war.  Obama is not going to lose Iraq and those 50K troops are not going to be in combat -big difference.

    Obama is smart enough not to give the Cons an issue to beat up the Dems so he did the pragmatic thing.  I don't see how anyone is hurt by this since our troops won't be doing any fighting, unlike Afgan.

    •  Nixon did escalte after all (0+ / 0-)


      •  True that (0+ / 0-)

        Nixon expanded the war into Cambodia and committed war crimes bombing North Vietnam.

        If Obama expands the Iraq war into Iran or Syria, then you could compare him to Nixon.

        Somehow I doubt that will happen.

        •  I do too (0+ / 0-)

          both Nixon and Johnson went down in flames (deservedly so) because they campaigned on one thing and did something quite different in office.  I would expect that Obama and his advisers are not blind to that piece of history.

          I understand the diarist's concern and you have to respect the high price he paid for Nixon's deceit.  But personally I'm not seeing he same pattern here.

    •  No it's not.... (0+ / 0-)

      They are cut of the same cloth. Our political system saw a change around the 1930's to the current system of corrupt, pandering and out of touch career politicians that we get to enjoy today. The comparison is just.

      •  So FDR started the corruption? (0+ / 0-)

        And Obama is just another corrupt politician?

        Whatever you're smoking, you need to stop.

        •  No, FDR didn't start the corruption.... (0+ / 0-)

          But, I agree someone needs to stop smoking, namely you. Are you suggesting that the President is the only politician in our government? Please, there are many politicians and they are corrupt. Period! There are so many examples, I hope you're not trying to say they are not corrupt.

          •  I am suggesting (0+ / 0-)

            that corruption did not start in the 1930's like you said.  That is just nuts.

            Until you can prove that Obama is corrupt, you should knock off the accusations.

            •  When do you think it started? (0+ / 0-)

              and, I can prove it.

              Corrupt means dishonest practice and since he said one thing and did another (not just on this, but other things, as well), I feel it meets the defenition.

              Do you disagree?  

              •  The Post-Civil War Era (0+ / 0-)

                was very corrupt.

                Of course, before the Civil War you had slavery which was very evil too.

                So it is very hard to say when massive corruption started.

                But not only has Obama avoided any taint of corruption, he had to swim in the cesspool of Illinois politics without being tainted by guys like Blago and Buriss.

    •  Do you believe I's Disingenuous? (0+ / 0-)

      Do you think my dairy was "Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating" This is the definition of Disingenous. Let me reassure you, you are dead wrong about my motivations comparing Nixon Promise to end the VN war and Obama's promise to end the Iraq war. The facts are Both of these men made promises to get elected and both men broke those promises.

      Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

      by eddieb061345 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:09:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I couldn't agree more....n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  I guess. (0+ / 0-)

        We'll see in 16 months, no?

        (Not saying we shouldn't hold his feet to the fire, but I hope you see where I'm coming from.)

        The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early....Well, what are we waiting for? There's no deadline on a dream!

        by Panurge on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:22:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If Obama had not won the nomination (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        second gen

        there would be no deadline for U.S. troops to get out of Iraq.  Obama forced W to negotiate the SOFA that set the deadline.

        Yes, I think comparing Nixon, who was a known liar and who lied repeatedly about Nam, with Obama is most insincere.  You can't seriously equate Nixon and Obama because Nixon allowed thousands to die in a lost cause over 5 years, while Obama is getting U.S. troops out of combat in the timeframe he promised.

  •  You half-cocked (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    motherfuckers are the reason "liberals" lose elections.  Or, should I say, extremist liberals like yourself.

    Obama is doing something that is wise both politically, and, more importantly, from a military standpoint.

    Give it a fucking rest.  He's moving in the right direction in the most responsible, reasonable way possible.

    In 1993, NO Republicans voted for the most successful economic program in history. NOT ONE. Wrong then, wrong now.

    by The Creator on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:25:42 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site