It's usually not in his stump speeches, but that was essentially what he said anytime it came up in the primary debates.

I'll have to look at how long ago he started making that position clear, but it was at least as early as last June. Might have even predated his run for Senate.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Good points, but Obama wasn't saying these things all along. He's changed his story because he has come to the realization that he may not be able to follow through. If he had been saying "end this ill-conceived war that never should have been waged as long as it doesn't look like it will destabilize the region" when that's what all the other Dems were saying, I'd respect him for it. They were right. Now that he's beaten them and Gen Petraeus' strategy worked, he agrees. He had been saying from the beginning that he was gonna start troop withdrawals when he took office, period.

Correct me if I'm wrong, that's how I remember it. I don't have time to look into now (I'll check later).

Good points, but Obama wasn't saying these things all along. He's changed his story because he has come to the realization that he may not be able to follow through. If he had been saying "end this ill-conceived war that never should have been waged as long as it doesn't look like it will destabilize the region" when that's what all the other Dems were saying, I'd respect him for it. They were right. Now that he's beaten them and Gen Petraeus' strategy worked, he agrees. He had been saying from the beginning that he was gonna start troop withdrawals when he took office, period.

Correct me if I'm wrong, that's how I remember it. I don't have time to look into now (I'll check later).




In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
To some degree, I agree with you. He is saying raise taxes on the rich as long as we're in a period of economic growth, and end this ill-conceived war that never should have been waged as long as it doesn't look like it will destabilize the region.

Personally, those mitigating factors just enhance what I've liked about him from the beginning -- nothing is black and white, nothing is beyond reconsideration. He makes clear his philosophy on foreign policy and economic policy. He's clear about the direction he wants to move in, but hesitates to make unconditional promises about specifics, because, well, it would be irresponsible to say "regardless of what's going on, we're leaving Iraq".

If he did, then you'd be telling me he's as unwavering, irresponsible, and reckless as Bush...and you'd be right.

I don't see that as lying or spin -- he's not keeping those mitigating statements quiet, and anytime someone asks him about it, he freely admits that nothing he's proposing is a fixed in stone "damn the consequences" sort of policy.

On the other hand, you have committments from McCain to cut taxes, and stay in Iraq until we win -- just don't ask when that victory will come, or what it means, or whether there's a certain point where the cost of victory is too high. Ask him about balancing the budget, and he promises to do that by 2013 too, even with tax cuts, just don't ask how that's possible.

Even if I agreed with McCain's economic and foreign policy ideologically, after seeing what Bush's absolutism did, I want someone who sees shades of grey and who is showing willingness to be flexible, rather than clinging to their ideology regardless of the situation.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I understand there is a place for attacks, I just want to change the world. 'Can't we all just get along?"
I'm just as guilty as the next guy.



I haven't decided who to vote for, but Obama is making it hard for me to commit to his side.

It's stuff like this that causes me to think twice.

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

This statement tells us a lot about Obama. Is he admitting that it would hurt the economy to rescind the Bush tax cuts? It seems to me like he's whispering the truth about common sense after shouting out whatever he thinks people want to hear. Obama has been preaching the woes of the Bush Tax Cuts for as long as he's been running for President. He's just hedging his bets here. It's all about the polls!

Just like his stance on the Iraq war. During the debates against the other democratic presidential candidates he promised to start pulling troops out on day one!
After he all but sealed the party's nomination he changed his stance to not pulling out unless it makes sense.

Well, duh.

He is promising the world and yet he keeps his options open with talk like this. Isn't it a perfect example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too? Pure political pandering, if you ask me. Why can't he just give it to us straight?


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Hey, if you promise to vote Obama, you can call me anything you like.

>> ^lavoll:
isnt the simplest rule "don't kill"? or wait, doesnt it say something like "thou shalt not kill", that must mean something completely different.
this probably falls under go into neighbour countries and kill all the firstborn sons and take the virgins for yourself.


This all depends on your definition of "kill".

I completely agree with you - man creates all of these problems. Religion is one of the tools which man uses to shape cultures and ideaologies around the world.

This leaves us with incompatible religions which are all incompatible with modern rationalism, leaving us with conflict between all the world cultures.

Religion is responsible for a much wider change in a believer's perception of reality than a simple following of the teachings of Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha. It is an ideaology which creates boundaries with other conflicting ideaologies.

The irony is that Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha and every other great thinker of the last 3000 years has been preaching the dissolving of boundaries and hierarchy.

The felt presence of a higher reality or an inner intent to all of nature is at the heart of ancient religion and shamanism. This is not what modern religion is. What modern religion is needs to be finished with.

Thanks for your comment

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Hitler was an atheist, Stalin was an atheist. Martin Luther King was a Christian. The problem isn't religion, the problem is man (imo). In other words, if god isn't real, then there is only man. And then that makes religion a man made institute. Thus, its man that is the problem, not religion. Depends on what you mean by religion as well. If you are saying that following Christ's rule of the golden rule, do onto others as you would have them do onto you is a bad thing that causes evil I would have to say what is good then? If you are saying that men corrupt the heart of what that religious body stands for and then uses his power to distort all that he has influence over, then yes, I would agree that is a problem. But the problem still lays with man at that point, not religion.

I don't mean to be adversarial or anything, just trying to stress a point.

But on the topic of the video, I don't agree with his sentements that the only good trooper is a Christian one, lots of people of different faiths and non-faiths have died for this country.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Religion is one of the most powerful recruting tools available to the US military.


Why else could it be that they so badly want to have creationism taught in schools?
Why else could it be that Commander in Chief must be a christian?
Why else is it that the illegal invasion of Iraq is seeping with religious overtones?

9/11 was a huge message to the world that the problem of religion really must be addressed.

Hitler was an atheist, Stalin was an atheist. Martin Luther King was a Christian. The problem isn't religion, the problem is man (imo). In other words, if god isn't real, then there is only man. And then that makes religion a man made institute. Thus, its man that is the problem, not religion. Depends on what you mean by religion as well. If you are saying that following Christ's rule of the golden rule, do onto others as you would have them do onto you is a bad thing that causes evil I would have to say what is good then? If you are saying that men corrupt the heart of what that religious body stands for and then uses his power to distort all that he has influence over, then yes, I would agree that is a problem. But the problem still lays with man at that point, not religion.

I don't mean to be adversarial or anything, just trying to stress a point.

But on the topic of the video, I don't agree with his sentements that the only good trooper is a Christian one, lots of people of different faiths and non-faiths have died for this country.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Religion is one of the most powerful recruting tools available to the US military.


Why else could it be that they so badly want to have creationism taught in schools?
Why else could it be that Commander in Chief must be a christian?
Why else is it that the illegal invasion of Iraq is seeping with religious overtones?

9/11 was a huge message to the world that the problem of religion really must be addressed.

Yeah, I think intentionally collaborating with terrorists for a new attack in October to try to scare people is likely. They want to have the trials for the Guantanamo detainees in September, though through their own incompetence (and with some help from the Supreme Court ruling), that's already looking unlikely. Petraeus is supposed to come back and report to Congress on Iraq in September, most likely late September.

Declaring martial law and cancelling elections is too ham-handed. Even Fox viewers will think that's a crock. They've been careful not to push the war too hard (i.e. no draft), for fear it becomes the focus of people's attention.

Martial law would have the same effect, waking people up finally.

It's all going to be about using every extended power of Bush's to try to make the political landscape favorable for McCain, or in their uniquely neocon mindset, to try to get people afraid of terrorists again, thinking that will automatically benefit them.

I take it back :-) You filled in the blanks.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Who says I ate the lie we were all fed?

It doesn't matter to me what it was about or why we went there, Fade. I didn't want our President to send troops there in the first place. I'm more interested in what the Iraqi people want us to do now that we've messed their country up. We should say, "What we've been doing isn't working, we've made a grave mistake. What would you like us to start doing to make thing better? How can we improve your way of life?"

I don't care what Gen. Petraeus has to say, or what the troops that have been there have to say. Frankly, I think their theories are irrelevant. If the American people want so badly for Iraq to be a free country than why don't we let them decide how to handle their own problems (or the problems we've so generously bestowed upon them)? We should offer our assistance only after they ask for our help on their own terms and in the way they decide they want us to help.

How come we haven't heard our Presidential candidates talk like this? Aren't we acting worse than England did to us before we declared our independence? At what point will we admit that we shouldn't be the one's deciding what the best exit strategy is? Shouldn't we ask the Iraqi gov't when and how we should leave. To me, making ultimatums to leave on a certain date, regardless of the consequences, is as bad as ignoring the issues and planning to stay indefinitely.



In reply to this comment by Fade:
I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to you Deedub, but it was never about Saddam. If it was the war would be over. It was never about "Iraqi Freedom". That's just the lie you were fed to make it pallatable.

Who says I ate the lie we were all fed?

I consider myself to be an optimist and I want to believe that we went there for the right reasons. I want every one of our troops to be a worthy ambassador for The United States of America. I want to grab their faces everyday and remind them to be on their best behavior because somebody is always watching them. I want Iraqis to see everything that is good in you and me when they interact with our soldiers and look into their eyes. I think all Americans want the Iraqis to have our intentions realized in their day to day lives. We are generally good people. We want them to have what we have. Unfortunately, that's not the reality.

Regardless of how it's going now, we all want it to work out in the end. But, how much weight does the average American pull in the four years between elections?


It doesn't matter to me what it was about or why we went there, Fade. I didn't want our President to send troops there in the first place. I'm more interested in what the Iraqi people want us to do now that we've messed their country up. We should say, "What we've been doing isn't working, we've made a grave mistake. What would you like us to start doing to make things better? How can we improve your quality of life?"

I don't care what Gen. Petraeus has to say, or what the troops that have been there have to say. Frankly, I think their strategies and theories are irrelevant. If the American people want so badly for Iraq to be a free country, then why don't we let them decide how to handle their own problems (or the problems we've so generously bestowed upon them)? We should offer our assistance only after they ask for our help on their own terms and in the way they decide they want us to help.

How come we haven't heard our Presidential candidates talk like this? Aren't we acting worse than England did to the settlers here before they declared their independence? At what point will we admit that we shouldn't be the one's deciding what the best exit strategy is? Shouldn't we ask the Iraqi gov't when and how we should leave. To me, making ultimatums to leave on a certain date, regardless of the consequences, is as bad as ignoring the issues and planning to stay indefinitely.

Imagine the good we could be accomplishing with the amount of money and energy and manpower and lives we are shoveling into a sinking ship. Imagine the amount of cooperation we would be getting from the Iraqis if they knew they were ultimately in charge.


In reply to this comment by Fade:
I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to you Deedub, but it was never about Saddam. If it was the war would be over. It was never about "Iraqi Freedom". That's just the lie you were fed to make it pallatable.

nevermind, it's a dupe to be *discarded. Vote on Gun's at http://www.videosift.com/video/SNL-mocks-General-Petraeus-and-his-supposed-progress

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/snl-notices-petraeus-mock_n_96401.html

I went around the whole day yesterday with the "Iraq me Dave Petraeus" song in my head.

Petraeus needs a reality check...

qm, lying to the country is illegal even if your strange assessment of the "success" of the invasion is correct.

The only mistake in taking out saddam was we didn't level iran first.

as for giving iran the "smackdown"... well, you can't fucking afford it.

A few dozen Raptors over Tehran and the shadow of one B-2 is all it would take, just like Israel kicked Syria's ass from the air(also underreported).

Oh and while you're at it could you please illustrate some of this "alternate history of the past eight years" you refer to?

1) Claims that Bush "stole" the election when in fact it was the taxocrats who tried to steal it
2) Bush "knew" about 9-11...or planned it (not worthy of any response deeper than "Koo-koo!")
3) After 12 years of sanctions and an entire world intelligence community agreeing saddam had wmds (which he did, since he used them) claiming that poor saddam was "illegally attacked".
4) Slick Willie "did everything in his power" to answer muslim terrorist attacks in the 90s.
5) Islam is a 'religion of peace' the government is picking on.
6) Non-stop doomsaying over how Iraqi thugs were going to defeat the world's finest armed forces.
7) Deliberate (what-liberal-media?) blackout of any positive news from Iraq
Sandbagging Gen. Petraeus.
9) Hillary supports the war unless the crowd she's bowing to opposes it.
10) Terrorists at Gitmo are being "held without trial" (even tho US law doesn't apply to them).
11) The Patriot act has led to rampant eavesdropping on regular joes and internment camps, etc.

Liberal alternate history: a negative, half-baked fairy tale focused only on greed, exploitation and cynicism, sold to neo-hippies by paleo-hippies, both who've never been hungry for more than a day and therefore have no understanding of what privation really is, resulting in no gratitude, no shame, no nothin' except hatred for Bush.

http://waronterror.videosift.com/video/Iraq-Me-Dave-Petraeus

Hilarious, considering Fox interviewed Seth Lipsky who wanted the Nobel Peace prize to be given to General Petraeus.