Say, whatever happened to that 16 month deadline?

[Flybrick]

I seem to remember His pledging that He'd give the order to the Pentagon to have the troops out of Iraq within 16 months of His Inaugeration.

Tick, tick, tick...



Note: I do not think that an arbitrary time frame is a good idea, but He did promise that as one of His first acts. I'm thinking that He is discovering that governing is much harder than campaigning. Which actually is fine with me.

I just wish those who cheered hardest for the "Hope and Change" train will admit, maybe, "not so much." One positive sign is "The Daily Show's" wicked barbs at the Administration. Perhaps, just perhaps, we might see the real press turn to its job of holding government to the facts instead of cheerleading.

I shan't hold my breath.

[Ritterskoop]

Has it been one month, even?

[sunflower]

It's been 23 days. 15 months, 7 days left.

[Jeemie]

I seem to remember His pledging that He'd give the order to the Pentagon to have the troops out of Iraq within 16 months of His Inaugeration.

Tick, tick, tick...



Note: I do not think that an arbitrary time frame is a good idea, but He did promise that as one of His first acts. I'm thinking that He is discovering that governing is much harder than campaigning. Which actually is fine with me.

I just wish those who cheered hardest for the "Hope and Change" train will admit, maybe, "not so much." One positive sign is "The Daily Show's" wicked barbs at the Administration. Perhaps, just perhaps, we might see the real press turn to its job of holding government to the facts instead of cheerleading.

I shan't hold my breath.

Damn brick- this is like, 432nd on the list of things to get on Obama for.

Plenty of other promises he's already completely muddied or sullied to get on him for this one yet!

Patience...patience...

[Flybrick]

Has it been one month, even?

The candidate promised "immediately."

It really would not be that difficult: "Hello, Bill, hi, yeah, it's me. Listen, the troops in Iraq? Yeah, most of 'em out in 16 months from now. Ready.......go."

As that was one of the central themes of his candidacy, it doesn't seem like it would be low on His 'to do' list or that it would take up much of His time. It's a simple order to issue.

I'm just sayin'...

[Ritterskoop]

Has it been one month, even?

The candidate promised "immediately."

Your original post said he promised within 16 months. Maybe this conversation would go better if you could find a citation showing what he promised, and then we'd know if it was immediate or 16 months. They are very different.

[franktangredi]

*post deleted by poster*

[Flybrick]

Has it been one month, even?

The candidate promised "immediately."

Your original post said he promised within 16 months. Maybe this conversation would go better if you could find a citation showing what he promised, and then we'd know if it was immediate or 16 months. They are very different.

From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ ... withdrawal, the candidate's own website:

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.

My emphasis in the quote.

As a practical matter, I fully understand why He hasn't. He's been a tad busy nor is the problem of leaving Iraq as simple as a campaign promise.

However, as an example of campaign BS bought into by many, and especially most of the major media outlets, I wonder why no cries of outrage?

[MarleysGh0st]

I seem to remember His pledging that He'd give the order to the Pentagon to have the troops out of Iraq within 16 months of His Inaugeration.
...
Note: I do not think that an arbitrary time frame is a good idea, but He did promise that as one of His first acts.
...
As a practical matter, I fully understand why He hasn't.

By all mean, feel free to continue with your criticism.

But kindly cut the "Messiah" crap.

[sunflower]

The candidate promised "immediately."

Your original post said he promised within 16 months. Maybe this conversation would go better if you could find a citation showing what he promised, and then we'd know if it was immediate or 16 months. They are very different.

From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ ... withdrawal, the candidate's own website:

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.

My emphasis in the quote.

As a practical matter, I fully understand why He hasn't. He's been a tad busy nor is the problem of leaving Iraq as simple as a campaign promise.

However, as an example of campaign BS bought into by many, and especially most of the major media outlets, I wonder why no cries of outrage?

Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it's not happening.

The interpretation that I get is that they will immediately begin PLANNING a responsible and phased removal. That statement doesn't include that he will give daily updates to the press or American public. I think you need to give it more than 24 days before you can say it's not happening.

[Flybrick]

By all mean, feel free to continue with your criticism.

But kindly cut the "Messiah" crap.

For you, I will.

It's not only me that feels the press and general public's unquestioning adoration of then candidate Obama bordered on the Messianic.

I see him for what he is, a politician. No better or worse.

My major issue is with his unquestioning supporters. By all means, support his policies, even his actions.

But not blindly.

I did not under the last President. I hope the majority of citizens do not under this one.

[Jeemie]

By all mean, feel free to continue with your criticism.

But kindly cut the "Messiah" crap.

For you, I will.

It's not only me that feels the press and general public's unquestioning adoration of then candidate Obama bordered on the Messianic.

I see him for what he is, a politician. No better or worse.

My major issue is with his unquestioning supporters. By all means, support his policies, even his actions.

But not blindly.

I did not under the last President. I hope the majority of citizens do not under this one.

Don't worry- I think the bloom is off the rose.

[mrkelley23]

Just in case anyone believes that withdrawal plans for Iraq are not being discussed....

I thought I remembered something coming from Gates and Petraeus about this issue, but I respect Flybrick's knowledge of all things military, so I kept my electronic mouth shut. Now that it is clear what Flybrick is saying, I think it's necessary to point out that it was publicly announced that Obama did exactly what the cite Flybrick quoted had said he would do -- asked his top military advisors to begin planning a responsible and phased withdrawal of combat personnel from Iraq. Granted, he hasn't made a big issue out of it, since he apparently believes the stimulus package is a bigger priority at the moment, but to say he has done nothing, or gone back on a pledge, is just not accurate. Here are my cites:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB11Ak01.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... 9M20090208

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2798

It's also worth pointing out that even in the campaign, Obama said that he would rely on the military commanders to draw up the strategy. It would not (in my mind) violate his campaign pledge if he were to listen to counsel from Petraeus or any other generals, and slow that timeline down some. As long as there is a timeline with a definite ending date, and one that ends before his first term is up. And in the article that Flybirck quoted, it's the "military experts" who believe that a 16 month timeline is possible. Call it political weasel-woring if you want, but it's true.

[Flybrick]

Mrk,

I contend that the candidate promised to bring the troops home in 16 months from his taking office.

"Planning" doesn't mean "go."

Please don't defer to me on things military or otherwise. I freely admit I'm not an expert. I know a lot about a few things in my former area - C2, air defense, etc. I even have a clue about the logistics for pulling off such a redeployment. But not all of it. It is immensely complicated.

By the way, those plans include options for 16 months, 23 months, and longer before combat troops are gone from Iraq.

My point is still valid in that this was one of the main issues of the campaign.

And now, not so much.

[mrkelley23]

I know it seems like it from my posts, but I'm not a great apologist for Mr. Obama. I voted for him, not because of hope and change per se, but because he represented the biggest change I could find from Mr. Bush. I concur with you and Jeemie in that I don't think he's an idealistic ultraliberal, but rather cut more from the Bill Clinton cloth: moderate and centrist on most issues, but overall more concerned with becoming and remaining elected than anything. He guessed, correctly, that the American people were ready for change, and so he stuck to that platitude, because he didn't HAVE to go any further than that.

What bugs me a little bit, and the main reason I keep finding myself rising to his defense, is that he keeps getting criticized for things that I see as, at the very least, smart politicking. You and I are remembering the Iraq promise differently (indeed, to me, it sounds like you're saying something very different from the website you quoted). As careful and measured and neutral as Obama tries to keep his speeches, I have a hard time picturing him pounding the podium and swearing to bring our boys home in 16 months. Instead, I picture something much more like what the above statement says: immediate plans for a withdrawal, asap, but with input given and considered before anything is permanently committed to. I admit he could have been a little more enthusiastic about things on the campaign trail, but I actually appreciate (as I think you do, from other comments) the fact that he's going slow, not pulling irreversible 180s on anything at first, but ordering reviews of the policies that most of us who voted for him found most repugnant.

Even if Iraq was the foremost issue on my mind in 2009 (it's not), and even if I was convinced Obama campaigned on bringing the troops out of there in 16 months, I would be willing to wait 20 or 23 months (which are the other two figures I have heard, in addition to the 16), if it was clear that the commanders on the ground felt strongly enough about it.

Contrary to what SSS and Jeemie seem to think about most Obama supporters, I am actually encouraged by the first month. I don't agree with the so-called stimulus package, not the size or scope or execution of it. What I do agree with is the way he has conducted the business of the people. I see a lot of action being begun, but it's being done methodically, even cerebrally. That encourages me.

[Jeemie]

Contrary to what SSS and Jeemie seem to think about most Obama supporters, I am actually encouraged by the first month. I don't agree with the so-called stimulus package, not the size or scope or execution of it. What I do agree with is the way he has conducted the business of the people. I see a lot of action being begun, but it's being done methodically, even cerebrally. That encourages me.

Interesting.

In what way do you see that?

I am really interested in knowing.

Because I see the stimulus package as a seminal piece of legislation, something it looked like he wanted at least SOME GOP support for, and I think he bungled it. I'd think that even if I supported it.

And I also do not see the intelligence behind an attempt to grab the Census away from Commerce and give it to the control of a blatant partisan in Mr. Emmanuel (Actually, I DO see the intelligence behind it, but it's not something I'd call "doing the business of the people").

[mrkelley23]

Different viewpoints, obviously. My view is that he wanted GOP support because bipartisanship and getting things done was one of the things he did campaign on, and the House Republicans sucker-punched him. Instead of folding, or totally trashing the opposition (which would have been the method the last eight years) he rethought his strategy, adapted, and got something done. Compare that with the ONLY things Dems had the cojones to stand up to Bush on in the last four years, immigration reform and social security reform. I guess it helps that I don't really see the stimulus package as a seminal piece of legislation, but rather a big omnibus bill that will help counter the weight of all the earmarks that he's going to claim to have done away with.

I know you're upset about the Census thing, but I have a hard time getting my back up about it. Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture. But it would fit with the Clintonesque picture I see Obama painting for himself. Bush grabbed power in a cocky, ruthless way. Clinton grabbed power, too, but he did it around the edges, and by making political deals.

Here's what I do see:

Review, with the intent to close ASAP, Guantanamo Bay prison

Review some of the most troubling environmental decisions made by the Bush Admin

Reach out to the Republicans, even if they turn their back on you for now

Continue to praise people like Judd Gregg and David Petraeus, even if they do things that make you want to rip their throats out.

Take on one big initiative at a time, and keep the strokes broad and general. Let the true experts work out the details.

Come up with ways to prevent this economic mess from happening again. I don't agree with his ideas on this, but at least he's thinking about it and doing something (referring to Geitner's plan, or lack of one here)

[Bob78164]

And I also do not see the intelligence behind an attempt to grab the Census away from Commerce and give it to the control of a blatant partisan in Mr. Emmanuel (Actually, I DO see the intelligence behind it, but it's not something I'd call "doing the business of the people").

You keep on pounding away on this point. I've been following the Census issue since the first Bush Administration. In my view, it's the Republicans, much more than the Democrats, who politicized the Census.

A little background. An old friend and Caltech roommate married a statistician. Trust me when I tell you that neither of these people are partisan hacks. My friend works as a defense consultant (he saw the plane hit the Pentagon because, at the time, he was walking into the Pentagon via another door).

My friend's wife worked for Commerce during preparations for the 1990 Census. She ultimately resigned her position as a matter of principle. It became clear to her that the Department had decided to reject the consensus of its in-house professionals (sound familiar?) that adding sampling techniques to an actual enumeration was necessary to achieve the most accurate census possible. I didn't need to take her word for this, by the way -- it got a decent amount of press coverage at the time.

That's not the only issue. I hadn't realized this until the New York Times started pounding away at the issue, but prisoners are counted (for federal purposes, including redistricting) where they are imprisoned, not where they actually live. That has a strong tendency to remove voting power from urban (i.e., Democratic) areas and transfer it to more rural (i.e., Republican) areas. There is nothing in the Constitution to require this distortion -- it is purely and simply an artifact of politics.

So please spare us your agonized protestations that Obama is somehow politicizing what was heretofore a Census free of partisan contamination. It just ain't so. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Come up with ways to prevent this economic mess from happening again. I don't agree with his ideas on this, but at least he's thinking about it and doing something (referring to Geitner's plan, or lack of one here)

Obama's plan is no different than Bush's- just dressed up differently.

I'm actually more upset over this than the Census...because for a party that claims to care for the little guy, they're sure screwing 'em over on this one. $10 trillion for large financial institutions...$50 billion for homeowners to try and refinance/write down their mortgages.

I also do not believe in trying to reflate an economy that was deflated by too much debt by adding more debt.

I see him as just as beholden to the financial institutions as was Bush.

Not that I see bankers as evil...just that I understand the axiom that if you ask a banker about how to solve an economic crisis, do not be surprised that his answer is something that will enrich bankers.

No- I see no careful thought behind what's going on here...and this is a big issue- especially since this involves a lot of debt.

Two days ago, the UK issues a debt offering for which it could find no buyers. The Bank of England had to step in and buy it...and you know what that means.

It may be inconceivable at the moment, given the importance of the US economy to the rest of the world, but how much more debt do you think foreigners are going to will willing to soak up for us?

There are already rumblings.

[Jeemie]

And I also do not see the intelligence behind an attempt to grab the Census away from Commerce and give it to the control of a blatant partisan in Mr. Emmanuel (Actually, I DO see the intelligence behind it, but it's not something I'd call "doing the business of the people").

You keep on pounding away on this point. I've been following the Census issue since the first Bush Administration. In my view, it's the Republicans, much more than the Democrats, who politicized the Census.

A little background. An old friend and Caltech roommate married a statistician. Trust me when I tell you that neither of these people are partisan hacks. My friend works as a defense consultant (he saw the plane hit the Pentagon because, at the time, he was walking into the Pentagon via another door).

My friend's wife worked for Commerce during preparations for the 1990 Census. She ultimately resigned her position as a matter of principle. It became clear to her that the Department had decided to reject the consensus of its in-house professionals (sound familiar?) that adding sampling techniques to an actual enumeration was necessary to achieve the most accurate census possible. I didn't need to take her word for this, by the way -- it got a decent amount of press coverage at the time.

That's not the only issue. I hadn't realized this until the New York Times started pounding away at the issue, but prisoners are counted (for federal purposes, including redistricting) where they are imprisoned, not where they actually live. That has a strong tendency to remove voting power from urban (i.e., Democratic) areas and transfer it to more rural (i.e., Republican) areas. There is nothing in the Constitution to require this distortion -- it is purely and simply an artifact of politics.

So please spare us your agonized protestations that Obama is somehow politicizing what was heretofore a Census free of partisan contamination. It just ain't so. --Bob

This is much different than an argument over whether sampling is or is not needed for a more accurate census.

This is something that is not even legal.

As for the prisoner issue, seeing as prisoners cannot vote, I do not see this changing the balance of power very much.

[Flybrick]

Mr. k, a thoughtful couple of replies. Thank you.

Regarding his pounding the pulpit, thankfully that is not his style. However:

'I will end this war,' Obama says
From staff reports The News & Observer
Published: Wed, Mar. 19, 2008 07:30AMModified Wed, Mar. 19, 2008 11:43AM

Barack Obama said today in Fayetteville that the United States must end the war in Iraq to meet its real security challenges.

"I will offer a clean break from the failed policies and politics of the past," Obama said. "Nowhere is that break more badly needed than Iraq."

"I will set a new goal on Day 1" as commander in chief, he said. "I will end this war."

Obama said his policy would finally force the Iraqis to take responsibility for the security of their country, instead of relying on an open-ended involvement by U.S. troops.

He proposed removing one to two combat brigades from Iraq each month after he would take office in January 2009, with a complete drawdown in 16 months. He said he would leave enough troops in Iraq to guard the American embassy as well as to staff a counterterrorism force to strike at al-Qaida.

Nothing necessarily wrong with this strategy. If the relative good progress politically continues, give the keys back to the Iraqis, wish 'em well, and we are outta there. But this is but one example among many of him saying he would, from Day One, end the war and do it in 16 months.

I agree that President Obama is an intelligent man. As for "acting cereberally," at least for the stimulus bill, I disagree. How could anyone have read and comphrehend the thousand plus pages in the legislation? I don't believe it has been done thoughtfully at all. I fear that some horrendous mistakes are in it. The looming banking bailouts will make this one look tiny and will be even worse, but I digress.

My take is that he is an inexperienced politician with no executive experience. That is, I believe, what is hindering him. Most of the missteps of his young Administration have been related to that. He has a large staff, all enamored with being in the White House, all wanting to charge out and do stuff, all thinking they are in charge. Same thing happened to Clinton.

Related to this is the President's penchant for having 'advisors' or whatever the title is for aides in the White House that will duplicate what the Cabinet Secretaries are supposed to do. Not to mention the doubling of his White House counsel's office. Something like 22-ish lawyers in that one office. All of that is a clown show waiting to happen.

I truly, truly hope he's a centrist and not of the Pelosi ilk.

[mrkelley23]

This is much different than an argument over whether sampling is or is not needed for a more accurate census.

This is something that is not even legal.

As for the prisoner issue, seeing as prisoners cannot vote, I do not see this changing the balance of power very much.

Prisoners are counted as citizens, even if they are felons, for apportioning purposes, which is I believe the point Bob was trying to make.

I think the attempt to turn over the Census was to keep Sen. Gregg from doing things with the Census that the Dems wouldn't like. I suspect you'll see the attempt to take over the Census quietly die out, now that Gregg's got cold feet. If the White House really wanted de facto control over the Census, the President would simply nominate someone who will do exactly as he says on the issue.

[Jeemie]

Prisoners are counted as citizens, even if they are felons, for apportioning purposes, which is I believe the point Bob was trying to make.

I think the attempt to turn over the Census was to keep Sen. Gregg from doing things with the Census that the Dems wouldn't like. I suspect you'll see the attempt to take over the Census quietly die out, now that Gregg's got cold feet. If the White House really wanted de facto control over the Census, the President would simply nominate someone who will do exactly as he says on the issue.

We shall see. Although, as far as apportionment goes, why should they not be counted where they are, and presumably where they're using more resources, than where they actually reside?

Anyhow, as I said, I let myself get a little sidetracked on that issue. The real issue is what to do about the economic crisis...and as I said, I see no careful thought going on in the slightest.