i don't think anyone should be upset, whether they were an obama supporter or not, that he's changed his position on iraq. is it really surprising? if there's one thing the surge has accomplished, whether you agreed with it or not, is that withdrawing troops immediately is untenable.

i just think it's annoying that obama's campaign is spinning this into "oh well that's how i felt all along"--which may in fact be true. but it's not consistent with his rhetoric during the primaries. i'm pretty sure if he's elected and backs off on his plans to "renogtiate" NAFTA he'll say it's consistent with what his campaign said when it's self evident that it is not.

Originally Posted by triple

oh, so there's not a large anti-war sentiment in the country. good.

What country are you living in?

Originally Posted by DealyRrunk

What country are you living in?

I think that would be "Sarcasm-Land". You are living in "Over your head-land"

Originally Posted by MaDAssassin

**** happens, sometimes you get information on a subject after a claim and it only makes sense to change whatever you said.

so wait... is everyone on Bush's stay the course side now that the new cool black kid in town got on board?

Listen to the commanders and stay the course until it’s the “right time”. way to go antiwar crowd.

****ing sheep

you're all sheeple.

It***8217;s the most giant conspiracy ever, EVER!

Originally Posted by HaPpY

id rather have someone who admits mistakes and is capable of improvement than someone who "stays the course" (no matter how wrong they are)

Originally Posted by Lord Elessar

so wait... is everyone on Bush's stay the course side now that the new cool black kid in town got on board?

Listen to the commanders and stay the course until it***8217;s the ***8220;right time***8221;. way to go antiwar crowd.

I'm not and never will be

It was the wrong decision to begin with, the troops can be put to better use elsewhere, and the money being spent would be better left unspent. In a cost-benefit analysis, there is absolutely no point to us staying in.

The Kurds are going to keep pushing for autonomy (pissing off the rest of the region) and we've effectively handed Iran a close ally in the future.

Humanitarian and fly trap arguments are bunk because we seem oblivious to the countless other humanitarian crises around the globe and we could easily just stay in afghanistan/tribal pakistan and adequately draw the foreign fighters while also targeting the people we started all this to go after.



As for Obama's position, needless to say I am disappointed. I have noticed a very significant right-ward turn in the last couple weeks: statements on supreme court decisions, FISA, iraq, and faith based initiatives to name a couple. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he came out tomorrow with an automatic strapped around his shoulder while declaring that he will attempt to ban abortions and the IRS if elected.

Originally Posted by triple

KKK would be more interested in a libertarian candidate. But continue to perpetuate the "gop is racist" meme, its all you got.

Most white nationalists are wacko socialists, but they always vote for Bush.

There are so few KKK members these days, they arnt even worth mentioning.

Oh wait, he's already going right on abortion as well

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html

The fact that he opted out of public campaign financing ought to be the biggest red flag; Obama is disproportionately funded by people from the top 1 percent of Americans.

Obama is taking progressives for a ride: he has argued for ***8216;more deals such as NAFTA' in his past, saying such deals will boost the economy; his economic policy director is Jason Furman, who has publicly defended WalMart and it's business practices, saying it was a blessing for poor people.

Originally Posted by ScottTheWise13

I think that would be "Sarcasm-Land". You are living in "Over your head-land"

Originally Posted by Sn0wm4n

The fact that he opted out of public campaign financing ought to be the biggest red flag; Obama is disproportionately funded by people from the top 1 percent of Americans.

[Citation needed]

Obama is taking progressives for a ride: he has argued for ‘more deals such as NAFTA' in his past, saying such deals will boost the economy; his economic policy director is Jason Furman, who has publicly defended WalMart and it's business practices, saying it was a blessing for poor people.

Poor people need Wal-Mart. What exactly are you taking issue with?

Get informed, chump

Buttface!

Originally Posted by claudius

**** you, Tony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqiBwsjAa2s

I'm waiting for his response...

Originally Posted by Reggs

[Citation needed]



Poor people need Wal-Mart. What exactly are you taking issue with?

ZOMG BIG CORPORATE ENTITY EATS SMALLER STORES!!!!

I think that ^

Originally Posted by SirBatesAlot

He had to get to the left, and now he has to get to the middle. This is him slip sliding to the middle.

I've been saying this for the better part of a year

No matter who is to be elected president (including any of the nominees prior to primary season), there will be a US presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. That is in the best interest of all US citizens at this point whether they like it or not (I certainly don't). However, I don't believe that a full-scale occupation can ever be successful because I don't feel like it is possible for anything to get better in Iraq while Americans control the majority of the streets and the government's decision-making.

We need to phase out our presence, and things will get measurably worse before they get better. Iraqis need to decide for themselves the road that they're going to take, and we need to adapt more of a backseat approach in the ongoing civil war in order for it to ever end. Does that mean that things won't necessarily go the way we want them to? Probably; but to ever have peace again, this is the route that the next President needs to take in my opinion.