Should we pay Sons of Iraq

[finknottle]

This was his original plan, which he wrote in a NYT editorial himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1

 

Depends on what you mean by 'original.' The last of the democratic nomination debates were held in January 2008, with the bulk held in the last half of 2007. This plan, which you note he wrote himself, was from July 2008, after the nomination was safely tucked away. Surely he had some kind of plan in mind during the nomination battles, when Iraq was the number one issue!

 

During the debates he ran sharply to the left of Clinton on Iraq, aligning himself solidly with Kucinich and Richardson to steal their oxygen. He was consistent and clear about leaving Iraq - all units, period, with a strike force remaining in the region capable of entering Iraq and going after AQ. That deadline was what won over the out-of-Iraq wing of the party. His timetable was a firm three months, and he attacked Clinton's flexibility as 'more-of-the-same' and her comments that there might be circumstances which would leave US troops there for several years. Talk of Obama defering to conditions on the ground did not arise untill the final stages of the campaign - Clinton was unsuccessful in getting the media to focus on his late change of position.

 

http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/02/27/FACT_C..._Iraq_7215.html

[IDBillzFan]

Go ahead and keep making a fool of yourself talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about. Sometimes his speechwriter or writers do speeches for him which he edits himself, sometimes he does a draft and then has his main guy, who is great, Jon favreau, mold it. Often times the big speeches, like the economic one a couple weeks ago, the one on race, most of the inaugural, he writes himself. There are ongoing friendly arguments all the time in the White House because Obama, who has a huge ego, claims he's a better speechwriter than his heralded speechwriter.

 

But keep on saying he just reads what others wrote for him knowing nothing about it. It makes you look real smart and makes me put a lot more stock in your opinions.

Okay. You're right. He writes his own speeches. My bad. That's what I get when I missing his briefings each morning. Tell him I said "Hi" later when you run into him in the hallways.

[Kelly the Dog]

Okay. You're right. He writes his own speeches. My bad. That's what I get when I missing his briefings each morning. Tell him I said "Hi" later when you run into him in the hallways.

No, my bad. I apologize for reading and listening.

[GG]

Sometimes his speechwriter or writers do speeches for him which he edits himself, sometimes he does a draft and then has his main guy, who is great, Jon favreau, mold it.

 

And then give it to Vince Vaughn, the chief of staff to deliver it in Vegas, baby?

[IDBillzFan]

No, my bad. I apologize for reading and listening.

Well, I do try to get on Pelosi's mailing list, but I'm starting to think she has it in for. Maybe you can put in a good word for me.

[Kelly the Dog]

Depends on what you mean by 'original.' The last of the democratic nomination debates were held in January 2008, with the bulk held in the last half of 2007. This plan, which you note he wrote himself, was from July 2008, after the nomination was safely tucked away. Surely he had some kind of plan in mind during the nomination battles, when Iraq was the number one issue!

 

During the debates he ran sharply to the left of Clinton on Iraq, aligning himself solidly with Kucinich and Richardson to steal their oxygen. He was consistent and clear about leaving Iraq - all units, period, with a strike force remaining in the region capable of entering Iraq and going after AQ. That deadline was what won over the out-of-Iraq wing of the party. His timetable was a firm three months, and he attacked Clinton's flexibility as 'more-of-the-same' and her comments that there might be circumstances which would leave US troops there for several years. Talk of Obama defering to conditions on the ground did not arise untill the final stages of the campaign - Clinton was unsuccessful in getting the media to focus on his late change of position.

 

http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/02/27/FACT_C..._Iraq_7215.html

That link doesn't work for me.

This is from a debate from November 2007 where Obama is already talking about 16 months, so I don't know where the three months comes from. I assume that means that within three months we would begin to pull troops out but I'm not sure.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/15...main/index.html

And years ago, sure you will find quotes about getting out immediately. You will also see quotes about never going in there at all. He has also said stuff in generic terms about the President sets the agenda and the generals carry out that agenda.

 

The point is, as a Presidential candidate in the months leading up to the election, he was always talking about timetables, which were targeted at 16 months, and he always mentioned that events on the ground were fluid, and that we had to be as careful getting out as we were careless going in, and that the commanders would be listened to, and a residual force would be left for quite some time. That was his plan and it was repeated over and over.

 

In fact, I read that before the election when he went to Iraq he sat down with General Patreus before Patreus left his post. The reports were that the two had a very heated discussion, and may even have been yelling at each other about stuff, people attending the meeting were surprised at Obama, and that both of them came out of the meeting having a lot of respect for each other.

 

I also just read that they argued after the election and Obama wanted to get out in 16 months. Patreus and Gates told him no, it wasn't a good idea, he was adamant about it, they convinced him it wouldn't be smart, and then he said okay, go back and bring me some plans. After they brought it back he decided on the 19 month plan. This article was about the meeting, and before they made the 19 month plan that we now know Obama adopted. In other words, he wanted to be out in 16 months but eventually listened to his commanders.

http://danareport.com/2009/02/03/obama-cla...rals-over-iraq/

[Kelly the Dog]

Well, I do try to get on Pelosi's mailing list, but I'm starting to think she has it in for. Maybe you can put in a good word for me.

 

I hate her and she hates me.

[Kelly the Dog]

And then give it to Vince Vaughn, the chief of staff to deliver it in Vegas, baby?

 

Exactly. I think it's even spelled the same stupid way.

 

The kid is 26 years old, pretty amazing. This is a pretty cool article on him, and he explains the way they work.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756/page/1

Favreau and Obama rapidly found a relatively direct way to work with each other. "What I do is to sit with him for half an hour," Favreau explains. "He talks and I type everything he says. I reshape it, I write. He writes, he reshapes it. That's how we get a finished product. It's a great way to write speeches. A lot of times, you write something, you hand it in, it gets hacked by advisers, it gets to the candidate and then it gets sent back to you. This is a much more intimate way to work."

[Kelly the Dog]

• At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H., on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Tim Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

 

• At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the joint chiefs of staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."

 

• At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

 

• On Meet the Press on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal — one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years."

 

Taken in their entirety, Obama's comments reflect a philosophy of "about 16 months" for withdrawal. He also appears to be willing to take advice from commanders on the ground that might affect the general pace, but not the overall goal of withdrawal. Yet Obama has been artful in his rhetoric. His campaign has clearly emphasized "16 months" when speaking to antiwar audiences and "about 16 months" when answering questions from withdrawal skeptics. But Obama never urged a "precipitous" withdrawal; even a bill he offered in January 2007 that set a deadline for getting out of Iraq contained an exemption for national security.

 

The Plouffe statement, however, is troubling. Plouffe said the 16-month time frame was a "rock-solid commitment." But it's the only statement we found that supports the idea of withdrawal with no allowances made for circumstances on the ground, and it appears to be contradicted by the candidate himself.

 

After the McCain campaign attacked Obama as a flip-flopper, the candidate responded with another news conference the same day.

 

"I intend to end this war," Obama said. "My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission. And that is to end this war. Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

 

Weighing all these statements together, we find that Obama has not flip-flopped on Iraq, but that he has emphasized different aspects of his plan under questioning. This rates a No Flip on the Flip-O-Meter scale.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...-his-iraq-plan/

[GG]

Exactly. I think it's even spelled the same stupid way.

 

The kid is 26 years old, pretty amazing. This is a pretty cool article on him, and he explains the way they work.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756/page/1

 

Doesn't it make you a wee bit uncomfortable that the speeches are written by a guy who never really ran anything of substance prior to this job and a 27-yr old kid?

[Kelly the Dog]

Doesn't it make you a wee bit uncomfortable that the speeches are written by a guy who never really ran anything of substance prior to this job and a 27-yr old kid?

No. The kid is clearly brilliant. I usually listen to the speeches and then I often read the transcipts, just because that's kind of my job, and I'm usually extremely impressed by the construction of the narrative, the structure and flow, and some of the uses of language and alliteration. I know most people don't give a sh-- about that stuff, and I don't think it has anything to do with the Presidency either, I just think that both Obama and the kid are terrific writers.

 

I also like the way the Prez operates and right now I am very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves to be wrong. I understand why people are wary of him and that's fine. We will find out later. I think he has a ton of great qualities to be a great leader. I don't know if he's going to turn out to be one at all but I think he will, and I like to see where he's going.

[GG]

No. The kid is clearly brilliant. I usually listen to the speeches and then I often read the transcipts, just because that's kind of my job, and I'm usually extremely impressed by the construction of the narrative, the structure and flow, and some of the uses of language and alliteration. I know most people don't give a sh-- about that stuff, and I don't think it has anything to do with the Presidency either, I just think that both Obama and the kid are terrific writers.

 

I won't disagree with the above. That's why his speeches are over the top effective.

 

But notice, you said very little about substance in your effusion. That's where my concern lies.

[DrFishfinder]

I did a deployment in Iraq and can only give an example of how this doesn't work. I was in India Co. 3/25 out of Buffalo and deployed in 05. I can remember at different times during our deployment we handed out money for collateral damage caused by Marines. We would go out on patrol and set up a defense somewhere near an area we messed up. A government official would literally start passing out money. A line would form and people would just start collecting. No questions, no investigation! All it took was, my car was destroyed. Sorry about that, here have a pile of money. My cart was blown up. Okay no problem, have a bag of money. A marine accidentally killed my daughter. Sorry to hear that, you get a big pile of money. Honestly, we had to have passed out millions over the deployment. Marines seem to have a knack for destroying things. Sorry if that offends anyone. On a sidenote: I made $26,000 as a corporal/sergeant.

 

We would then shake hands and kiss babies all the way back to our firm base. The strangest thing happened over the next week, after handing out all that money. We would find alot more IED's, more attacks with small arms fire, and less assistance from City officials/public. In short, more Marines got hurt. We then would find ourselves handing out more money for the damage caused from these latest attacks. We pay for insurgent damage as well. Interesting way to fight a war, huh?

 

Even though a sizable portion of the Iraqi citizens ostensibly want to be able to live their lives and raise their families in peace and some semblance of prosperity, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are diametrically opposed to this. And as long as those two terrorist groups keep demonstrating their propensity to do anything, including killing innocent citizens, to sustain their stranglehold on the country and control the populace with extremist so-called "Islamic Rule", no amount of money is going to change a thing. As soon as the allies leave, IMO, it is just a matter of time until Al Qaeda and the Taliban have the governments bent over a barrel, just like they accomplished in the Swat area.

 

Giving bags of money to the citizenry isn't going to alter the terrorist's agenda one iota; regardless of the intent. This is a war of ideology and control. And the same goes for Hamas and Hezbollah, BTW.

 

I am deeply grateful for your service.

[Kelly the Dog]

I won't disagree with the above. That's why his speeches are over the top effective.

 

But notice, you said very little about substance in your effusion. That's where my concern lies.

I think there is enough substance in there, too. The construction of the narrative usually includes a bunch of substance.

 

Granted, it's a tricky game. You can't bog a speech down in policy details. It also depends on what you're trying to accomplish in each individual speech. And some of it is personal preference. Like, for example, I happen to love the little professorial history lessons he usually gives in these speeches. Other people may think it's boring or they don't think they should be spoken down to (although they probably also didnt know the history). But I love that. The economics one and the race one to me were just extraordinary. Full of substance, full of context and subtlety, an extremely hard to accomplish blend of being smart and being accessible.

 

To me, the speeches that he gives are a very fine line he has to walk, very much akin to why there aren't many or any really good NFL Football analysts. You have to simultaneously appeal to both the football fanatics and the casual fan, which is almost impossible. You have to say new stuff all the time, in new ways, all the while trying to make sure you drive the points home that most people have heard already. You want to be brief and yet you want to be thorough. You want to be entertaining while being informative. You don't want to come across like a know-it-all but you want people to think you know it all. You want to be in control without being controlling.

 

It's a hard thing to do and I think Obama and the kid and the rest of them do a remarkable job.

[Chef Jim]

I won't disagree with the above. That's why his speeches are over the top effective.

 

But notice, you said very little about substance in your effusion. That's where my concern lies.

 

But GG alliteration, the speeches have !@#$ing alliteration in them!

[Kelly the Dog]

But GG alliteration, the speeches have !@#$ing alliteration in them!

 

Fukk off, you fatuous frumpy fag.

[Chef Jim]

Fukk off, you fatuous frumpy fag.

 

Said the left leaning limp wristed lousy liberal.