Maybe I should have spelled it out for you a little better. Everything that happens isn't on YouTube. If you believe that YouTube is THE authoritative source for information on what is happening in Iraq, then [rest of statement not stated due to lack of desire to be banned for life]

I don't believe I denounced anything, but now that we've gotten off of the original subject, what does it matter?

Did you even read my response?

Thanks:up: I'll be singing that song all day long now:rotfl:

Sure, but we have been hearing "all is well" since "mission accomplished". I mean how much more time do you all need in Iraq? The Iraq occupation is a month away from having been going on as long as world war 2!

I never said all was well, nor anything about what the situation in Iraq really is, just that one stupid video on YouTube doesn't necessarily represent what's going on in all of Iraq either. You assumed that you knew everything about how I feel about things because I didn't happen to agree with you.

As far as how much time "you all" need in Iraq, I don't have the answer to that question, nor do you. I'd love to see us out tomorrow, but not at the cost of leaving behind another VietNam as Mr. Obama has stated that he would do (yes, I know that he didn't use those exact words, but saying that he would leave on a specific date no matter what the situation is implies that he would, indeed, be willing to abandon Iraq in the manner that you deplored about the previous situations that you mentioned).

Leaving behind another Vietnam. Want to know what happened? "made in Vietnam" is now labeled in the back on panties in Victoria's Secret. Oh the horror. A far cry from the domno theory eh?

I know the right will blame Obama for the Iraq disaster. They will scream "we were so close, and just one more month" to victory. We all are ready for that nonsense over the next 4 years.

Thing is we have been hearing "almost there" for years now.

It may well be, but it doesn't have to end the same way. What is your solution to the situation in Iraq? Please, when you are answering this question, don't even bring up how we got into the situation to begin with because we cannot change what has happened in the past. Please inform us of how you would rectify this situation if you were the next President of the United States.

I'm glad you're psychic and know who will be President and what will happen in the future. Please, can you tell my how much longer I'm going to live so I know how far I have to stretch my savings? :D

The key word in that first quote being "believe". Are you denying that Obama and the Democratic party wanted to set a firm withdrawal date, no matter the situation in Iraq?

Edit : And now he supports what the Republicans have been saying all along, that being that you can't set a firm date and it has to be phased as the situation allows. Guess he was wrong before, like he was wrong about the surge working. Which position are we supposed to believe, the one that he espoused before or the one he's pushing now or the one he's gonna come up with tomorrow?

Nothing sounds wierdo in that. The point I was making is that the statement did not give an absolute timetable. My bad if that wasn't clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/08/us.iraq/

Was that the Iraqi request that you were referring to? It sounds kind of vague as to the date and does seem to imply that a firm date would be rather difficult to arrive at. Perhaps we're getting into semantics here, but setting a goal and setting a deadline are two different things. Again, are you denying that Obama and the Democratic party demanded that a specific date be set for withdrawal in the recent past?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@D&summ2=m&


Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it looks like it's demanding that troops begin to be pulled out of Iraq beginning on July 1, 2007 if the Prez doesn't make some determinations and that they begin pulling out no later than October 1, 2007 if he does, with the stated objective of redeployment of all troops being no later than 180 days from start of redeployment. How, exactly, that was to be interpreted is a subjective matter.

The only point I originally tried to make was that, Obama and his party were willing to specify that withdrawal had to begin on a fixed date, no matter what the conditions. They now don't believe that was the right thing to do, which is a good thing unless they change their minds again after Barry O gets elected. And don't doubt for a minute that a politician will say whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever they feel like doing.

As for the cherry picking of the bill, I'm sure you didn't want me to post the whole bill:D
Did you find something else in the bill anywhere that negated that section of the bill?

Of course the entire bill wasn't designed just to start the withdrawal. Bills in the US are never about one thing. They start out that way sometimes and then practically every person who gets their hands on it has to add something to it in the hopes that their little part of the bill will become law even if those voting on it never bothered to read it all. There is nothing vague in the section of the bill that I quoted. It is very specific and would have been binding upon the President and the Secretary of Defense if it had been signed into law.

As you said, that matters not except in our mini-debate about what the Democrats wanted to do or not do.

What matters is that, no matter who gets elected, they're going to inherit a hell of mess.

Thanks for the link to McCain's site, too. While all his points may not be totally defensible (and how could they be, after all, we are talking about election time rhetoric which is rampant on both sides of the issues), there are quite a few sentiments there that are hard to disagree with.