Expectations

[Strauss]

Let's turn next to expectations for Iraq:

Judgment You Can Trust

In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up with President Bush for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” He and Joe Biden are fully committed to ending the war in Iraq as president.

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

Encouraging Political Accommodation
​

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences, but the Bush Administration’s blank check approach has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.
Obama and Biden's plan offers the best prospect for lasting stability in Iraq. A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama and Biden will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.

Surging Diplomacy

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors—including Iran and Syria, as suggested by the bi-partisan The Iraq Study Group Report. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction and development.

Preventing Humanitarian Crisis

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis—more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama and Biden will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama and Biden will also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.

The Status-of-Forces-Agreement

Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

 

[Fox Mulder]

You'd have to be an idiot or a liberal to believe that Obama can do the things he promised.

 

[Alien Allen]

You'd have to be an idiot or a liberal to believe that Obama can do the things he promised.

there are a lot of poor black people that are going to royally pissed off at him when he won't be able to deliver the goods.

not to worry though as Jessie and Al will be ready to pick up the drum beat for them to condemn him.

This will be really interesting to see how this unfolds.

 

[All Else Failed]

so we are supposed to be sheep that just quietly take it up the ass without complaining?

silly me I forgot that the Anointed One has all the answers :nod:

no, complain all you want


I just think you're worrying too much

 

[All Else Failed]

You'd have to be an idiot or a liberal to believe that Obama can do the things he promised.

You piss on Liberals too much, like they're the only party that is dragging our country down the tubes. its both parties that are suffocating our country to death. There are a lot of Liberals who hate Obama.

 

[Alien Allen]

You piss on Liberals too much, like they're the only party that is dragging our country down the tubes. its both parties that are suffocating our country to death. There are a lot of Liberals who hate Obama.

but they are good targets

they are the worst of the two evils

 

[All Else Failed]

I see them as equals. They just disagree on trivial matters. They're the same thing when it comes down to it.

 

[Fox Mulder]

You piss on Liberals too much, like they're the only party that is dragging our country down the tubes. its both parties that are suffocating our country to death. There are a lot of Liberals who hate Obama.

Its not the parties, its government. And this is what I can't comprehend about people who vote Democrat. The Democratic philosophy is to create more government--its like choosing to have more cancer in a body. Ronald Reagan said in 1981 at his inauguration, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." And if you polled people right now, you'd get overwhelming agreement in their despise for politicians and government. Only liberals would claim we need more government, yet many of these same people voted for a President and a party who is goinig to GIVE US MORE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

Now I am not so naive as to think the Republicans are going to do government better than Democrats, but at least their general party platform (before Bush) was to reduce spending and reduce government, especially the federal government. And in fact, if you read the Constitution, the Constitution itself forbade a large, centralized government and on that guarantee was the only reason the states ratified it. And that's what I piss on liberals so much--they lay claim to the Constitution as sacred yet they have continuously violated it decade after decade after decade. They are hypocrites who support only those parts of the Constitution that support their political agenda.

 

[kelvin070]

Too many "ifs", "in case", "hope he dosent". You people have diminished and belittled him before he could even start. He will probably come out tops and go for a second term of office

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

If he can manage better than a 26% approval rating he will look better than the current administration.

Personally I hope he does great, we need it. But it still appears that he has opted to go the way of Clinton in regards to his cabinet choices.

What he was preaching was "Change".......

We had 8 years of Clinton already......Or did I miss something?

 

[All Else Failed]

Its not the parties, its government. And this is what I can't comprehend about people who vote Democrat. The Democratic philosophy is to create more government--its like choosing to have more cancer in a body. Ronald Reagan said in 1981 at his inauguration, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." And if you polled people right now, you'd get overwhelming agreement in their despise for politicians and government. Only liberals would claim we need more government, yet many of these same people voted for a President and a party who is goinig to GIVE US MORE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

Now I am not so naive as to think the Republicans are going to do government better than Democrats, but at least their general party platform (before Bush) was to reduce spending and reduce government, especially the federal government. And in fact, if you read the Constitution, the Constitution itself forbade a large, centralized government and on that guarantee was the only reason the states ratified it. And that's what I piss on liberals so much--they lay claim to the Constitution as sacred yet they have continuously violated it decade after decade after decade. They are hypocrites who support only those parts of the Constitution that support their political agenda.

The philosophies of both parties has changed very much. The Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats for wanting bigger government. The Republicans preach small government but you know they're really not for it. They helped bail out all of those banks, they're in bed will tons of corporations (just like the Dems) and in fact the neo-con way of doing things is to enforce morality through law. So I don't see it as just a governmental thing, its both governmental and our inefficient, corrupt, two party system.

Hell, you want spending? Look at what we have spent on this overwhelmingly unpopualar war EVERY DAY. I'm not Bush bashing, but lets face it, Republicans aren't innocent either. Its like when John McCain boasted that he would try to stop pork barreling. You KNOW he's a liar because pork barreling is such a common practice in our government now pretty much everyone is involved in it.


I totally agree with you on the Constitutional grounds of a small government. I think the government is far too big and centralized. I'm just saying that the Republicans are money grubbing, big government advocates as anyone else is on the hill.

 

[SgtSpike]

I totally agree with you on the Constitutional grounds of a small government. I think the government is far too big and centralized. I'm just saying that the Republicans are money grubbing, big government advocates as anyone else is on the hill.

Perhaps some Republicans currently are. But you cannot base an entire party off of a few people's actions. The Republican party still stands for small government, even if it doesn't always happen every time a Republican is elected.

So, we have two choices:
- Vote Republican, which advocates small government, but sometimes screws up and makes the government bigger.
- Vote Democrat, which advocates big government, and always manages to make it bigger.

So, if you or anyone else is a proponent of small government, why in the world would you vote Democrat? No, the Repulicans aren't perfect, but at least you have a chance at a smaller government, whereas with Dems they're just going to grow it as big as they possibly can!

 

[Peter Parka]

I guess most people vote for the least worst option in their eyes, seeing what a mess Republicans have made of the last 8 years it really isn't too suprising that the USA voted for a liberal.:dunno

 

[SgtSpike]

I guess most people vote for the least worst option in their eyes, seeing what a mess Republicans have made of the last 8 years it really isn't too suprising that the USA voted for a liberal.:dunno

Yep, that's probably very true. The sad part is, the Republicans really haven't made much of a mess of anything, it's just the media has convinced everyone they have. :\

 

[Peter Parka]

Yep, that's probably very true. The sad part is, the Republicans really haven't made much of a mess of anything, it's just the media has convinced everyone they have. :\

I cannot really agree with you there but the media do make a bigger deal out of things. At the end of the day, Iraq was a mess, Gito bay is discusting and a violation of human rights and GWB proves what a fucking moron he is in his speeches. To be honest, I'd still have been much happier with McCain than Bush, he might be carrying on the same old stuff but at least he's not a fucking moron and a war criminal like Bush!:nod:

 

[siasl]

Yep, that's probably very true. The sad part is, the Republicans really haven't made much of a mess of anything, it's just the media has convinced everyone they have. :\

well, there are certainly different interpretations by the media of the growth in spending since the reagan years.

there's this, for example, from a think tank devoted to "classic liberal values" and libertarian principles....whatever the heck that means!
The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

there's other sites, too....easy enough to pick the arguement that favors your pov....

but the white house publishes its budget and in this pdf, the historical data is there for all to see.
federal outlays exceeded reciepts by 41 billion in '79, and mushroomed to 160 billion a decade later

The traditional pattern of running large
deficits only in times of war or economic
downturns was broken during much of the
1980s. In 1982, partly in response to a
recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However,
these were accompanied by substantial
increases in defense spending. Although reductions
were made to nondefense spending,
they were not sufficient to offset the impact
on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging
$206 billion were incurred between 1983
and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime
deficits increased debt held by the public
from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion
(48.1% of GDP) in 1992.

The 1980s began with substantial momentum
in the growth of Federal nondefense
spending in the areas of human resources,
grants to State and local governments, and,
as a result of the deficits incurred throughout
the 1970s, interest on the public debt. In
the early 1980s, a combination of substantially
increased defense spending, continued growth
in human resource spending, a tax cut and
a recession caused the deficits to soar, which,
in turn, sharply increased spending for interest
on the public debt. Federal spending

climbed to an average of 22.8% of GDP
during the 1981-1985 period. An end to
the rapid defense buildup and a partial
reversal of the tax cuts, along with a strong
economy during the second half of the decade,
brought Federal spending back down to 21.2%
of GDP by 1989.

you can't pretend to lay all this at reagan's feet....social spending begun by johnson contributes to it, as well.....

but here's an interesting sidebar

during the kennedy johnson years, the ratio of individual to corporate taxes as contributors to the federal budget reached 2:1 for the first time.....
through the nixon/ford/carter years, it hovered between 3:1 and 4:1

the reagan administration saw it bumped up to 5:1, where it stayed during the clinton years

during the bush administration, it rose again...now it's over 6:1

if the correct theory is that corporations drive growth in america, then contributing so little to the federal government -having so much extra money for R'n'D, marketing, retooling, etc- should point to boom times, shouldn't it?

 

[Minor Axis]

Yep, that's probably very true. The sad part is, the Republicans really haven't made much of a mess of anything, it's just the media has convinced everyone they have. :\

The sad part is when partisans vote party over competence and country. Just how short term is your memory? The fiscally responsible Republican party has inadvertently engineered the largest financial crisis of our lifetime, if I'm not mistaken, since TGD, but it's the media's fault they are perceived as they are, please... even if you want to blame everything on Bill Clinton, the Republican's had 8 years to make it right, but hows that gonna happen when you elect a dufus? (the reference is to Shrub)

 

[SgtSpike]

I cannot really agree with you there but the media do make a bigger deal out of things. At the end of the day, Iraq was a mess, Gito bay is discusting and a violation of human rights and GWB proves what a fucking moron he is in his speeches. To be honest, I'd still have been much happier with McCain than Bush, he might be carrying on the same old stuff but at least he's not a fucking moron and a war criminal like Bush!:nod:

You know, you're right. We should have left Iraq alone to continue its genocide, assault of its citizens, and harboring of terrorists. :thumbup And I've already given my opinion of Gito bay. If it helps keep nukes from hitting LA and NYC, I'm all for it, violation of human rights or not. Anyway, as Mulder pointed out in another thread, many unconvicted peoples are continuing to be held there for their own safety, as their own countries would kill them if they went back.

 

[SgtSpike]

The sad part is when partisans vote party over competence and country. Just how short term is your memory? The fiscally responsible Republican party has inadvertently engineered the largest financial crisis of our lifetime, if I'm not mistaken, since TGD, but it's the media's fault they are perceived as they are, please... even if you want to blame everything on Bill Clinton, the Republican's had 8 years to make it right, but hows that gonna happen when you elect a dufus? (the reference is to Shrub)

No, I did not vote party over competence and country. Stop trying to imply that I did or do.

And no, the Republicans did not engineer the financial crisis. In fact, the first six years of GWB's presidency was one of the times of this country's greatest economic growth and lowest inflation. The financial crisis came to pass because of subprime loans. Let's see... who was the main advocate that pushed for subprime loans to low-income families so they could own their own house? Oh yeah, that was the Dems. Try again Minor Axis.

 

[Minor Axis]

Try again Minor Axis.

Okey Dokey... Predatory Lender's Partner in Crime- Washington Post.

BTW, I don't know how you voted, so I tried to make that a generalized statement. My apologies if you were offended.