world

Obama rejects Bush Iraq withdrawal plan

49 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

49 Comments
Login to comment

Go Obama!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama has seen his poll numbers slide"

Americans are starting to see through this guy.

I am so glad he is not in charge of our troops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DXXJP

Might want to check today's Gallup results... http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USN - And I'm so glad it's looking like Obama's not going to be in charge of our troops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USN - And I'm so glad it's looking like Obama's not going to be in charge of our troops.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109687/Candidate-Support.aspx

Sept 1-7 Obama 47% McCain 45%

And I see Obama leading all the way through except the week they tied.

Make sure you are sitting down while the TV after election day. The news of the Obama victory might be too much for you.

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OBAMA FOR PRES !!!!!! McCain should have choose a better candidate. My absentee vote will be in the mail. VOTE FOR OBAMA !!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is it just me, or is the headline a flat out lie?

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

If you were to say that Obama's boat is likely sunk, I think I would agree with you. Nonetheless, I think there is still time for Americans to grasp the lack of substance offered by McCain and his pretty face, for that is what Palin's function is.

However, I don't think it's at all true that Americans are starting to "see through" Obama. I think many Americans have always been looking for a reason not to vote for Obama and they have now found one in Palin. It's much more likely, I think, that Palin--and McCain's shrewd choice of Palin--require seeing through.

For example, McCain and Palin hold out the promise of cheap gas. That's not coming. That's never coming if for no other reason than that the oil companies do not want it. But there are additional reasons, the chief one being that cheap gas makes the exploitation of alternative oil resources uneconomic. And this is to say nothing of the increasing demand for a resource which is fixed at a given production cost.

McCain and Palin have nothing new to offer. McCain's promise to change Washington is meaningless without a strong Republican Congress and the Republican Congresspeople do not want to change Washington. Basically, Obama has defined this election to such a great extent that McCain and Palin are running on a not-Obama platform.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OBAMA FOR PRES !!!!!! McCain should have choose a better candidate. My absentee vote will be in the mail. VOTE FOR OBAMA !!!!

Your absentee ballot will be stacked with all the others, including the overseas military, and burned in an incinerator uncounted. American Democracy is fast becoming a contradiction in terms.

--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyways its the electoral collage that gets you the presidency and Obama is still ahead.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Now on to topic of coarse this is just a token withdraw to sooth the party. Has nothing to do with a pull out or a withdrew. By the way for the 8000 they pull out how many are they sending in their place, funny you dont see those numbers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans are starting to "see through" Obama."

Great, now only if we start seeing through the entire lot of US politicians, yes, every last one of them who are in Washington.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DXXJP,

I think Bush said that the numbers would remain about the same. However, it is the withdrawal that gets the news--that and the handover of Anbar to Iraqi security forces.

The effect is to take the war off the front page, to treat it as though already won and to remove a major source of Obama's strength. Of course, the truth is that the war is far from won but the administration just needs to keep it off the radar until November.

I think Bush is proceeding practically, given the situation that we are in vis-a-vis Iraq. I don't think his is the only practical approach to our problem, but it is a practical approach. I think Bush is politically more savvy than McCain (and, shudder, perhaps more intelligent) and I think his military inclinations are superior to McCain's.

Of the three--Bush, McCain and Obama--I think Obama is closest in spirit to where we need to get to. But I think all of them will be tied down to a public insistence that America shows itself to be "Number 1". That, I think, is the weakness of our foreign policy and I think it will be the undoing of America. There is no realistic scenario in which America remains "Number 1".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans are starting to see through this guy.

I think so too, Sarge.

It is hard for me to accept McCain as president, but I would rather have him any day than Barack Obama.

Anyway, the Japanese people have spoken and they would rather have the McCain/Palin ticket because of her glasses. They are not as interested in Obama`s kinship with a similar sounding town or rare family name in this country. Thanks, Japan!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not good. If bush gets his way that's 8 000 soldiers who won't be able to surrender on Jan 21 next year when Barack becomes our new president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Barack. This is just a plan to do nothing. Stay the course.

The Stay the Course is the absense of any real ideas.

george bush has been a failure of a president. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If bush gets his way that's 8 000 soldiers who won't be able to surrender on Jan 21 next year when Barack becomes our new president.

Ridiculous self serving statements showing a complete lack of facts and understanding is why the Republicans lost Congress and will lose the White House in November.

And having a ridiculous definition of the word "surrender" does nothing to cover your lack of a definition for the word "victory".

Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hope, change, and surrender

and Unicorns!

Go Barack! Go Joe!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"hope, change, and surrender"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, that should be Obama's campaign slogan!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hope, change, and surrender

and Unicorns!

Last I heard, unicorns didn't charge a per diem for living at home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie - You mean this article?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/palin_per_diem_travel_expenses.html

george bush's plan is no plan at all. george bush's legecy will be of a National Guard drop-out who started a war and couldn't win it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

I think Bush's plan is a good plan. I just don't think it's a plan for ending the threat of terrorism.

When asked--last year I believe--whether he was an asset or a liability to the Republicans in the 2008 elections, he replied that he was a "strong asset". I think this plan is an example of him being a strong asset.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama needs to call out the Republicans as the liars they are. They constantly say Obama opposes drilling, I see no push back from Obama on that flank. But the Dems need to focus on McCain, not Palin. This race can be won, and we need to pre-empt the Republicans embrace of change(with no specifics). The polls will matter more after the first debate. But the O campaign has to set it up. FInally, the Dems need to emphasize to those poor white rural voters who don't realize as Webb does that poor black voters, poor Latino voters all have one thing in common with poor white voters: they are ALL poor and have been hit hard by the Bush economy. Do that and we win. Do not despair, Americans in general are smart, and the younger voters get it and will turn out by the hundreds of thousands this cycle to vote for Obama. What the Dems have to do is set up lawyers in Colorado and Virginia where all indications point to the Republicans attempting to rig the voting system, and scare away younger voters with lies. This is a cultural revolution afoot. I hope the bloggers pick up on what I have just posted. Because its the heart of what Obama needs to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have had an Executive in charge of the U.S. where power was the priority. We now need an Executive in charge of the U.S. where intelligence is the priority. Our country is in shambles any idiot can't see that.

Obama is the intelligent choice!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What the Dems have to do is set up lawyers in Colorado and Virginia where all indications point to the Republicans attempting to rig the voting system, and scare away younger voters with lies.

I've heard about those indications. Where can I get proof? I'm down with vote-rigging, but only if we benefit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey

Our country is in shambles any idiot can't see that.

Yes, an idiot would think that. Precisely why Obama is so popular, unfortunately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alinsky4prez said:

I'm down with vote-rigging, but only if we benefit.

Sorry, but that makes you one of the thugs as you call them.

And that comes from a hard core Liberal; a hard core Democrat.

The Republican have been caught rigging elections in Florida. A BBC reporter was forcibly removed from the board of elections office located in the Secretary of State offices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug4cKY-9akI

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, an idiot would think that. Precisely why Obama is so popular, unfortunately.

Way to go USNinJapan!! Thats why us patriotic Americans voted in President Bush for two terms!! Intelligence!

it just goes to show the heartbreak on the idiot left that the messiahs poll ratings have slipped so far their now in negative numbers.

McCain 2008!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McNeocon -

"Feeling a patriot today?" I got nuthin against alternative lifestyles. Just watching out for you, bruvah.

Oh! And you need to capitalize the M when talkin about Barack.

peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Missouri, a swing state"

A lot of previously Democrat safe states are going to become swing states this election. Maybe even California.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But the O campaign has to set it up. FInally, the Dems need to emphasize to those poor white rural voters who don't realize as Webb does that poor black voters, poor Latino voters all have one thing in common with poor white voters: they are ALL poor and have been hit hard by the Bush economy

True, as a Foreigner I can see that, trouble is that some "patriots" don't care about the status of their countrymen but rather the image before the world to be "number 1", that's not bad, what it is bad is to continue a war that even if you might win, the cost of that war was too high, that the war wasn't worth. The economy is in shambles, the Dollar was too low that affected other economies, in my country, it started to depress our exports, so, our equivalent to the Federal reserve had to buy dollars to boost it up. Now, there are two large banks in the U.S. at the border of bankruptcy... so, what does justify to continue a war that you haven't won? is it the reaction of an obstinated mule? (sorry for the comparison, but in mind it came very fast).

My hopes goes to Obama, not only because he is liberal, but I trust to teach the U.S. that greatness comes from within and defending against true terrorism, rather than wining senseless wars (after all, the war on Iraq, is NOT a war on terrorism)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The war on Iraq, is NOT a war on terrorism"

The liberation of Iraq is a significant victory in the war on terrorism. If Obama had been president since 2001, Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons would still be running the place into the ground as he collaborated with terrorists, systematically murdered his enemies, shot at our U.N.-sanctioned planes patrolling the no-fly zones, and resurrected his WMD.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2 - We disagree. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nobody ever thought Obama would get this far --> Hillary was and is the Party favorite. Dem Party is changing and making consessions to support Obama. =The Dems are bending to the will of the people.

This is really Bull-Moose 2: -changed politics and women finally got to vote also popular vote reflected electoral vote = the party actually picked the president and not the people. Wilson kept us out of WWi until absolutely necessary. =minimized losses. U.S. Decreased expansion (Colonialization)

Negative: WWii came shortly after, but not really the us fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USNinJapan2

So you accept socialist activity at the highest level to bail out Freddy Mac and Fannie May as just part of normal activity in a normal economy? The Dow Jones is nowhere compared to the Clinton years when you figure in 8 years of growth that would have occurred if Bill's economic growth had continued.

You accept that having Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and then letting him escape because the executive branch refused to support the CIA with the Army Rangers and then allowing the span of the Afghanistan/American war to be 6 years without total defeat and significant progress in rebuilding, as being a good way to portray America's military?

Maybe you can't see the Clinton years of low unemployment and budget surpluses as a possiblity to be the norm. Maybe you don't see Bush's current high unemployment, huge rises in inflation (maybe you can accept the exclusion of the costs of food and energy; but I can't! - which if considered makes a bad situation look bleak) and a return to enormous deficits as a bad thing.

By the way crime is up under the Bush administration. We have lost respect around the world; of course that means nothing to a NeoCon like yourself.

Iraq was not our ally; Georgia was our ally but the only help we could provide is "after the fact" help. One billion dollars will not repair all the damage done in Georgia. Oh by the way we and the Europeans built a pipeline to circumvent Russia because of the way they used their energy supplies opportunistically. The joint effort was to take control away from the Russians on the energy front. Guess what? The pipeline is in Georgia and the Russians were flying jets yesterday on bombing raids to hit that strategic pipeline - according to Reuters. Oh but they said they were leaving. They say they are leaving. They will be leaving in the future.

The housing market crisis is a separate issue then the recent lender bailout when it comes to the average American citizen. If you are loosing your home the lending bailout will not help you at all. A lot of people are losing their homes; many have already lost their homes.

We now have more terrorists in the world that are not Taliban/Al Qaeda and we have more terrorists who are Taliban/Al Qaeda. But you describe that as "the surge worked."

Korea is no longer dismantling, it has been reported that it is rebuilding, its nuclear facilities after already making great progress under the Bush Administration. The best deal the Bush administration could get could not compare to the stall in progress that occurred under the Clinton administration.

Iran has made massive progress in uranium enrichment. And the NeoCon solution is for Israel to bomb Iran and destabilize the region. It was disgraceful for McCain to sing "bomb Iran" and allow it to be recorded and disseminated.

Maybe you were out on a ship somewhere in the 90's when America had jobs and very low inflation but I was able to enjoy those years and I want the future to be prosperous not Bush-Like.

Yeah I am the one who knows the facts but I am the idiot. So be it.

Believe me I can continue to bring up examples that make the average American feel like our country is in shambles.

Intelligence is the answer not force!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

obama will not win the election because he's too busy going after the Republican VP candidate rather than the presidential candidate, calling her a liar and pig.

His less than presidential demeanor, along with his missing in action sidekick, will ensure a Republican victory.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey

Yes, the Clinton years weren't bad economically, but that's about it. Sorry to hear that you've been so down and out these past 8 years and that your view of the world today is so bleak. That's really a shame, but really, why the hell should I care about your circumstances? I'm doing just fine thank you very much and am doing better now than I did during the Clinton years. I am naturally going to vote for the party and candidate who is going to ensure that MY personal success continues, not necessarily YOURS. Would you expect me to do anything other than what's in my serlf interest? After all that's what you're going to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USNinJapan2

Nice Red Herring. I have been racking up degrees which serve me quite nicely thank you for asking. But you comment speaks volumes about who you are. Your concern is for yourself; screw Americans less fortunate than you. I am grateful to be born in America; I am grateful to be born very intelligent. I want to reach out to others born less fortunate in other countries. For those Americans who do not share my level of education I want the best for them. I will always vote to do what is best for the many and not worry about my personal interests. I can take care of myself I do not need to vote in people to look out for my self interests; I vote in people who look out for the nation's best interests. I hope they never erase your comment.

After all that's what you're going to do.

You have no idea what I do. You are so self absorbed you could never imagine what others are thinking much less what others less fortunate than you are going through. Don't try to play like you are better than others and that is what people better than others do. Warren Buffet is so much more successful than everyone you will ever know put together in your entire lifetime. He does not vote for people who will carry out his self interests; he is interested in the good of society.

I noticed you could not address any of the real issues I brought up. I will keep it simple and address the topic of the thread and request your reply.

I Said:

We now have more terrorists in the world that are not Taliban/Al Qaeda and we have more terrorists who are Taliban/Al Qaeda. But you describe that as "the surge worked."

And I Said:

You accept that having Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and then letting him escape because the executive branch refused to support the CIA with the Army Rangers and then allowing the span of the Afghanistan/American war to be 6 years without total defeat and significant progress in rebuilding, as being a good way to portray America's military?

The Article Said:

“Now, the choice for the American people could not be clearer. John McCain has been talking a lot about change, but he’s running for four more years of the same foreign policy that we’ve had under George Bush. Sen McCain will continue the overwhelming focus on Iraq that has taken our eye off of the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11,” Obama said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush Iraq withdrawal plan

What withdrawal plan? There is no Iraq withdrawal plan,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DanManjt

That was just a typing error, it meant to say Bush Pseudo Iraq Withdrawal Plan to Get McCain Elected to a Bush Third Term Plan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm doing just fine thank you very much and am doing better now than I did during the Clinton years.

As a Canadian, I have been doing much better now than during the Clinton years. With the US$ lossing as much value as it has, my relative purchasing power has increased 20%. Since the price of oil is the primary cause for CDN$ to gain(Canada is biggest supplier of oil to the US) and the US$ to drop and one the biggest buyers of light sweet crude oil is the US forces. I suppose it would be in my self interest(if I were a Mammon-worshipper) to hope for McCain to win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII - Like you haven't called Obama worse right here on JT. Don't even say find them because they've been deleted over and over again.

Maybe as a jew (you stated you were the other day) you have never heard the statement, "you can put lipstick on a pig and you still got a pig."

But when Sarah hits back at earmarks, she just a damn hypocrit.

But the military movement by george buah is nothing more than poppy-cock. he's doing nothing. Except for his lieing and his hiding of the true facts to get involved in Iraq, he's done nothing just like now.

But continue to repeat what the conservative media and the republicans want to talk about. This does nothing to bring forth the truth. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

obama can campaign against Mr. Bush all he wants (apparently none of his 300 advisers told him Mr. Bush is not running for re-election). He'll never be elected U.S. President.

obama's biggest hurdle has always been trying to connect with working-class (Bible and gun hugging) swing voters. However, his advisers foolishly told him to instead launch an attack on Sarah Palin, the poster child for American small-town values.

Bad strategy, Team obama.

While obama didn't personally engage in the smear campaign directed at Mrs. Palin, he did trip up by disrespecting her origins. Remember, Team obama's initial response after Mr. McCain announced she was going to be his running mate was to ridicule the size of the Alaskan town she came from. That was followed obama himself beginning to refer to her as a "former mayor" when she is actually a sitting governor.

She justifiably struck back by chiding him about his time as a community organizer, which clearly paniced Team obama. obama got lured into arguing about the importance of community organizing. This lead the American voters to start questioning what being a community organizer has to do with being U.S. President.

Mr. McCain's camp successfully led the Harvard lawyer into the trap where American voters are beginning to consider who has more overall government executive experience - the top of the democrat ticket or the bottom of the Republican ticket.

obama's run for U.S. President is over. But the fault of this implosion lies at the feet of the far-left wing of the DNC since they nominated their weakest candidate this time around.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

at the end of eight years of Clinton the economy was going bad: big companies like AOL-Time Warner, Yahoo, Enron, were taking big hits and many Internet companies went bust.

The homebuilding boom was because the Gov lowered interest rates = people bought houses. -and this helped a recession. =we are now paying for these low interest rates.

Obama is right in that the War in Iraq must end. -the sooner the better. People must be responsible for their own nation and Canadians must stop shopping in the U.S.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

I don't mind disagreeing. I'd just like to know what I'm disagreeing about and what your reasons are for the disagreement. I can only guess that either you think Bush's plan is not politically motivated or that, if politically motivated, it will not be effective. If it's either of those two then, yes, we disagree. Absent a statement of reasons, neither agreement nor disagreement have much power--unless, of course, you're just voting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII,

When did Obama call Palin a pig? Do you never tire of making things up? of attempting to divert and distort?

The expression "to put lipstick on a pig" is at least 20 years old, probably older, and the clear meaning is "to make a meaningless, prettifying change". That is the context in which Obama clearly spoke when he itemized the similarities between McCain's program and Bush's and then observed that there was nothing of substance left and that McCain's use of the word "change" was vapid.

Of course, if you consider Palin to be lipstick on a pig, that's a different matter. But don't blame Obama for the opportunistic inferences that you make.

Moderator: Readers, no more references to "lipstick on a pig" on this thread please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You disagreed with my post and I disagreed with your post SezWho2 at 04:39 PM JST - 10th September

I think this plan is an example of him being a strong asset.

Good for you. But I don't think of him being a strong asset.

I think george bush is the legacy of failure.

he had the chance to show his leadership when we went into Afghanistan, but he chose to start a war of choice and allowed the Afghan war suffer for his cronies. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People must be responsible for their own nation and Canadians must stop shopping in the U.S.

That would mean that the US would have to reduce/replace the energy it uses by 66.19%(which would mean no longer being in Iraq). Energy reduction and no more Iraq War, the two things I would think the US should be concerned about. Until that is achieved other nations will enjoy the transfer of wealth that is occuring at the moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

I don't think of George W. Bush as being a strong asset, either--at least, not to the country. And I basically agree with what you have said in your post.

My point was that he can fail and still be an asset to his party and McCain if he can make Iraq disappear from the headlines and take some of the wind out of Obama's sails. Iraq is far from settled, but Bush has managed to make it go away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2 - Oh-h-h-h.

Maybe.

This new information that's coming out might ruin that.

But I see your point.

Take Care. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites