Mar 28 2009

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Of The Obama Administration

Published by at 2:27 pm under All General Discussions,Iran,Pakistan

Update: Even WaPo determines Obama’s decision to win Afghanistan is a gutsy continuation of the Bush policies. - end update

President Obama has demonstrated two things in his first few months. First (and worst), he has demonstrated how truly inexperienced and unprepared he and his team truly were. But second (and most unexpected), President Obama has not been a complete far left liberal as predicted by the cries of the far right conservatives (still in exile). 

It is Team Obama’s inexperience and which have been providing the truly ugly side of his first two months in office. The Giechner debacle, the loss of control on the stimulus package to the liberal congress who turned it into a pork stuffed spendulus bill. A bill which will haunt team Obama to the next round of congressional elections since it cannot and will not fix the job situation (most of the jobs will not show up until after Christmas 2009).  Interestingly, this inexperience has been getting more and more notice by the leftists – which could really cripple this young President.

His worst trait: Obama’s tendency to naively believe in the liberal mythology that government can be a viable solution is another of his weaknesses that produce ugly results. is there anything uglier than decades of uncontrolled deficit spending ending with a national debt equal to 80% of our national GDP (assuming our GDP doesn’t crash in the process)?

Yes, Obama is having his ugly moments, which is the source of his rapidly (historically speaking) dropping poll numbers. His endless spending plans are becoming an albatross around all democrats.

The ‘bad’ Obama is the lesser evil of the ugly ‘inexperienced Obama’. His ineptitude on the world stage with our allies and enemies alike has been especially painful to watch. I am sure the far left liberals in Europe are surely cringing as their savior stumbles like a country bumpkin at a state dinner. These stumbles are hard to endure, but they are not killing him and have little to no impact on the nation – so far. Obama needs to be very careful with Iran and others, so that this quaint bumbling is not transformed into a dangerous underestimation of our national will to take out our enemies.

The ‘bad’ category is the grey area which has confused the far left and far right. My view of the call for national service is it is the same lame BS we saw in the call for school uniforms by the Clinton administration (why was this not the next Hitler Youth?). The far right is trying to pat itself on the back for getting Obama right when he has drifted left, but he has not been a far left ideologue, but the fact is Obama is not the boogie man they claim, and in the end their ideological over reach is just the flip side of the extremist coin.

I place the decision to close GITMO into this ‘bad’ category because it is only has potential to backfire at this moment. Once something explodes on Obama (like the deficit spending) then it can move from this grey area into the ugly. The extremists keep predicting the end of the world before the verdict is in – which is why they are being tuned out by the nation right now.

Both left and right refuse to deal with science: the left with global climate, the right with evolution/creationism. The far left wants to dictate how we live as does the far right. They each demand obedience to their religious dogma when all they have a right to require is tolerance of their distinctive views. When either side demands their myths be taught as mainstream they cross the line and middle America sends them to the fringe to think things over.

President Obama’s ‘good’ has been an interesting list of decisions (not always reached elegantly or willingly). This side of Obama first surfaced when he walked away from the liberal Holy Grail of the the NSA-FISA conspiracy lunacy. President Obama has not attempted to undo the 8 years of fixes the Bush administration imposed on the FIS Court which allowed 9-11 to happen to a great extent. He has also refused to go on any witch hunts related to this liberal myth.

The second surprise came with Iraq, where Obama has decided to preserve the successes hard won by the Bush administration and follow a measured and success oriented draw down of fighting forces. It did not take a lot of arm twisting by the military and state department to jettison the liberal plans for defeat at any price. They can slap PR lipstick on their silly plans to surrender Iraq to al Qaeda all they want, everyone knows those emperors of defeatism have no clothes.

The plan to apply the effort to win in Afghanistan has been another blow to the far left Surrendercrats and the Doom & Gloom far right conservatives. Obama knows we have al Qaeda on the ropes and we have the potential to deal a death blow to them in the coming years. He has continued the predator raids on the al Qaeda havens in the tribal areas of Pakistan (see here for news on recent successful attacks and those of the Bush administration). He has kept pressure on Pakistan to clean out the rat holes in the tribal region and his decision to send more forces to Afghanistan to try and break the back of the Islamo Fascists as was done in Iraq. This is a very centrist decision which is driving Obama’s liberal supporters nuts.

And then there was this interesting turn around on lobbyist influence in the bail out efforts:

At issue is an unprecedented directive that Obama — who has long railed against lobbyists as the personification of a corrupt Washington culture — issued last week barring officials charged with doling out stimulus funds from talking to registered lobbyists about specific projects or applicants for stimulus cash.

Under the directive, which began going into effect this week, agency officials are required to begin meetings about stimulus funding for projects by asking whether any party to the conversation is a lobbyist.

“If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing,” reads Obama’s memo, which requires the agencies to post lobbyists’ written communications online.

If only the congressional GOP had been so disciplined – they might not be in the position they are right now.

To me this all boils down to the fact that President Obama is not easy to label, and extremists left and right need to understand that crying ‘wolf!’ without any legitimate or proven basis is not going to get them any credibility. The fact that someone like Rush claims to be vindicated when Obama steps too far left on occasion is a joke – proving the old adage that a stopped watch is right twice a day. The far right have been predicting a lot of things, only some have come to pass. Many have not.

America would prefer President Obama not fall prey to the far left or right. We would prefer he succeed in the sense he reflects the common sense, common ground of the middle of America. The far right cannot claim their wishes for Obama to fail are proven when he goes on a liberal spending binge which will destroy this country. I do not need to be proven right about liberal drunken spending sprees by President Obama proving how bad it is on a country of as great as America.

Anyone who needs Obama to fail by proving far left policies are as bad as the far right (yes, there still are people who want all illegal aliens hunted down and deported) is missing the point. We need Obama to see the possibilities of staying away from the fringes and succeed to limit the damage to America – who cares whose ego is assuaged by implementing disasters!

Bottom line: As the economist noted today in lamenting Obama the trend seems to sum up with more bad and ugly than good – which are having an important effect on the electorate:

But at home Mr Obama has had a difficult start. His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks.

In the end it is the independents who select the winners. Right now they are not leaning towards anymore democrat foolishness. If this holds into next fall then the Democrats will be in a serious world of hurt coming into the first midterm elections (which are never good for the party in power). Ed Morrissey has some good comments on the Economist article as well.

20 responses so far

20 Responses to “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Of The Obama Administration”

  1. kathie says:

    Well done AJ.

    Some of my impressions and thoughts.

    Obama is staffing positions with a wide variety of people, in terms of color, gender and background. More then any other president. This is good, and not unexpected. His directive to his people seems to be, we want to work from the bottom up, those who have felt left out will be the focus of our attention. Much like the community worker who deals with those who never seem to find a way toward upward mobility. His townhall meetings are filled with “I need” people. He connects with them and their needs in a way that he does not with bankers and “Joe the plumbers”.

    His positions and directives are conceptual, leaving others to fill in the details. This makes people uneasy and leads to conspiratorial theories.

    He will close down Gitmo in a year. Then his group who decides what will become of the prisoners tells us that some terrorists will be settled in the US with Saudi type reeducation to help them adjust to life in the good old US of A. Is any one going to tell us who these guys are? Some will be tried in our courts. Of course we know that some can’t. If a court finds that some have not been treated well, do we just let them go here. Why not put them back on the battle field in Afghanistan and wish them well. Maybe I’ve just lived too long, but this kind to compassion for the enemy seems to me to be just so naive. I don’t really care what others think of America or our values, it is just stupid to let these people go at home. What does it say to our soldiers who have risked their lives and lost their lives to keep this country safe if we bring these people here and let them go for what others think. Only 6% that we know of, of the prisoners who have been reeducated in the Saudi system have turned up on the battle field. We have cells here at home that these guys could hook up with. One death from one of these bad guys would be the end of Obama and rightfully so.

    He put in $250 billion of directives in the $876 billion stimulus package and told congress to fill in the rest. I think his directive was make sure that you take care of the least of those in our society. Create jobs for the jobless, hand outs for states that can’t balance their budgets and on and on. Management is what $876 billion needed and Obama flunked.

    Volunteers or conscripted civilian children makes people nervous. I saw a video of uniform dressed high school aged children, and it was scary. I would like to decide how my children spend their summers or how and where they volunteer their time. My values and knowledge of my children’s needs can not be decided by the government. I think that the government is far to intrusive already into family matters. Maybe some children need to be taken over by the government but many, many don’t. Their parents are willing to parent. and that’s a good thing.

    He wants to fix the economy so that we don’t experience highs and lows. The only way to do that is to have the government take over. European countries economy is so spoken for and controlled that it is virtually stagnant. Is that really what we want? Capitalism has risk, but the upside is that the sky is the limit and that is a frame of mind as well as a way to wealth. Socialism is not very risky but also breeds mediocrity, and mediocrity is a settled position. It fundamentally goes against every thing that is American, you can be any body you want to be!

    Cap and Trade equals impoverishment and a belief that the world is coming to a dirty end. Algore knows what makes climate change? Let’s all go out and buy a battery car, anyone spare $20,000. Oh please! Let’s drill for our own oil until we can replace it with an other form or forms of energy. It would help many states balance their budgets and give some breathing room to fix the economy. Does anyone need a job? Does anyone think it is easy to taking over land to build windmills, and put solar panels all over the place as well as wires to hook it all up, just ask Diane Fienstien, or Ted Kennedy what they think. So we will punish a whole country economically before there is even a plan, a time line, a way to switch to another form or forms of energy. Obama says, cap and trade and leaves the mess to someone else to suffer the consequences and figure out a plan.

    I’m happy Obama has adopted many of the policies Bush put in place to keep this Nation safe. Even if he pretended that there would be no torture or rendition. He will need people in Iraq when he puts pressure on Afghanistan and to keep the Iranians under control. Mostly I think he hasn’t thought much about the consequences of his foreign policy statements during the campaign. Mostly it was anything but Bush, we have lost our moral authority, we need to regain it. That is not a foreign policy. Changing words to be kinder is superficial, does it say that Obama is really superficial? We don’t know but we fear that he is, and the world is dangerous and I am scared. The only person who I trust at the moment is David Patraeus…….boy am I happy he is still around. I hope we can find a good person to keep an eye on our Southern border, Iran is on the way through.

    I hate the idea of government run medical care. It is not true that those who don’t have medical insurance will not be taken care of and that there are 45 million people in that uncared for position. Everybody who has medical insurance pays for those who don’t. Just like anybody who steals from a store, the store will be paid back by those who buy from the store. And the story goes on. Someone who pays, pays for those who don’t.

    Obama’s phraseology sounds beautiful to the ear, but dumbfounds the mind. Is he lying or does he come from another planet? My real is not his real as much as I wish it were. I want to believe him, but mostly I’m finding myself questioning everything because I am thinking he is trying to pull a fast one. Cap and Trade, medical care for all and preschool to college for all and he is going to cut the budget in half. In eight years Bush was able to cut a few billion from the budget. How are we going to expand the government by trillions and cut it in half. I mean really. Even if we had no defense budget we couldn’t do it.

    I am sick and tired of the Bush bashing, denigration, and the glee expressed by those who hate. Obama would be wise to cut it out and have those around him stop it as well. He looks small and petty. It is not pretty.

  2. WWS says:

    Congratulations on your son, btw.

    The Afghanistan gamble *could* work if this adminstration maintains the political will to see it through when the going gets hard, and it will.

    The crux of the problem is whether or not they are really prepared to take the battle to the frontier areas of Pakistan which are safe havens for the Taliban, especially once Pakistan starts to howl about their territory being violated. That is a very difficult problem to solve, but until it is addressed Afghanistan cannot be stabilized.

    They also need to address the drug trade which finances the Taliban and which is the source of much of the instability in the country. Turning a blind eye to this, which we have done until now, has been a huge mistake.

  3. gwood says:

    Isn’t it interesting that Obama’s willing to shut down legal commerce across the southern border, but not illegal entry?

  4. lurker9876 says:

    I have a guy who is still willing to give Obama more time to prove that he will come up with a balanced budget after this year. He keeps arguing that Bush was a reckless and irresponsible spender.

    And I still read that many Obama supporters still want to give Obama a bit more time to prove himself….what?

  5. Terrye says:

    The thing about Obama that bothers me the most is the spending. That is the kind of thing that can have long term consequences. Bush may have spent more than some fiscal conservatives liked, but the deficit was actually going down when Democrats took over Congress. Besides, even when Bush was spending the most, it was never more than the country could pay back. Obama is talking about adding more money to the national debt than every president before him combined. That is almost inconceivable.

    I also think that Obama is devious. For instance, at his recent “town hall” it turns he had all campaign workers present. The whole thing was a show.

  6. Terrye says:

    In fact on this budget, Obama was involved both in the Senate and White House. He voted for much of it as a Senator and it is his signature as President. Bush’s name is nowhere on that bill. And yet Obama says he inherited a trillion dollar deficit. That is just plain dishonest.

  7. penguin2 says:

    AJ, interesting commentary and I appreciate your voice of reason. Kathy and Terrye covered a some of my thoughts as well. There are a few points that come to mind for me. I don’t think the noise coming from the far right is because they “want to be right,” I think they are voicing their fears that they will be right, which is intolerable to many. Obama represents unacceptable positions to a significant number of independent, freedom loving Americans.

    His stand on abortion without restraint is an abomination. Embedded in his health care bill/agenda are significant issues that will not only continue the battle on the beginnings of life, but will make end of life part of the same plan. And as someone in health care, I can tell you that translates to middle of life moments as well. No longer productive, no longer useful, you cost to much to maintain. That is Hitler’s Germany, not America.

    Good point about Clinton regarding school uniforms, but, there is a huge difference between a school uniform (I went to Catholic school) and adolescents in uniform, doing mandatory service to the state.

    Why do I fear what he is doing? Everyday, I turn around and there is a new bill that will significantly impact our simple everyday lives. Look, at the regulation of produce, farming bill-can’t recall name this moment, but we should all be concerned about it

    One last thought, I don’t believe that he is absolved from anything about that pig of a “porkulus” bill. He could have told Pelosi and Reid no. All of his spending is to achieve his social engineering agenda, it is only partly about the economy.

    Our fears, and reactions to Obama are magnified because there is a Pelosi and Reid and almost all leftist Democrats in power. Radically intent on advancing their agenda and thus far succeeding.

  8. I guess I take a far more negative view of Obama and how far left he is.

    First I agree with you on certain foreign policy matters that Obama is more in the center. However this does not come as a shock to me. We saw Obama clearly backtracking in the campaign season on Iraq. I thought he would take this stance on Afghanistan though I had no idea that VP Biden would oppose it. Items dealing with the FIS did not surprise me because the Executive rarely gives up power

    Chas Freeman and his wild views were a slip. But I take that more as a vetting malfunction

    In some I think Obama realized that much of the anst over several of these issues was Bush derangement syndrom.

    Let me say as to the leftward swing of Obama there are issues you left out. Such as social concerns. Obama in the first 60 days has shown nothing but a far left attitude on life issues. The fact that he is about to appoint the most far left on abortion Governor as Sec of HEalth and Human Resources is troubling.

    In a telling op-ed by the Director of Public Policy and Social Justice in the Archdiocese of San Fran he pointed out quite bluntly the Honeymoon is over. That is quite a statement from a Diocese that has to walk a tightrope as to these things.

    Further the people that PResident Obama has vetting his Federal Judges don’t seem like screaming “moderates” to me.

    On economic issues the Fact that the Obama administration wants unheard of powers for the Govt to take over now non banking business is well jawdropping.

    As to these budgets is it Obama has lost control of congress or really doesn’t care? It seems to me that he is steaming full steam ahead on rather ambitious and yes on the more left plans.

    THe last time I looked Obama had not got off the Card Check bandwagon and it has been only a full assualt and pressure on the blue dog Seantors to derail this. (If it is derailed but it looks better than it was just weeks ago)

    What concerns me most is the complete lack of the promise of bipartisanship on these issues. Obama could have got that but for some reason is letting Reid and Pelosi freeze everyone out. I have to think that is through design.

    SO besides on military matters and some areas of foreign concern I am not sure Obama is some gray area of niether right or left

  9. kathie says:

    Geithner said an interesting thing on “Meet the Press” this morning. It was something like, we want to curb the appetite of excesses, that Americans need to get away from things, borrowing for things. Gregory ask will people be able to own two homes and live the high life. I think I understand what the government intends to engineer. The rich will not be rich enough to cause the swings in the economy because the government is going to take away their money. Obama will so tie up money that we will all be a big middle class country.

    I think the plan will become very clear when Obama presents the new tax code. The $250,000 earners will become more middle class. There will be new brackets for those who earn $500,000, and on up. More like what they are presenting for New York state taxes. So if the rich can keep only say 20% of their earnings, they will not swing the economy to such highs and lows.

    So going forward the government will have the fruits of our labor, therefore it can stabilize all things, including the mind of ideas, innovation, and why bother to take a risk, why bother to think big.
    Soon you believe that all people a inherently good, so there is little need for defense. This is old Europe redo. I just hate this idea.

  10. crosspatch says:

    Don’t look now but Obama has fired the CEO of GM. Well, for all practical purposes he did.

    Next Saturday I buy a Toyota.

  11. Redteam says:

    Kathie, you said:

    Obama is staffing positions with a wide variety of people, in terms of color, gender and background. More then any other president.

    I wonder why you said it and what is your basis? it’s hard to imagine more variety than G.W. Bush appointed.

    and does it matter what color or gender a person is when doing political jobs? Shouldn’t they all work equally well in fulfilling their objectives?

    Just wondering.
    ,

  12. kathie says:

    Redteam, no it doesn’t matter what a persons race or gender is to me, but it means a lot to the dems I think, and I’m sure Obama is very proud of his diversity, and expected from the black community. Actually I’m more interested in the “content of character”. Also I was try to find something positive to say about Obama, and it was an impression only. I agree that President Bush had a very diverse administration.

  13. crosspatch says:

    What I find most amazing about Bush’s administration is the number of Clinton appointees that he left in their positions.

  14. Terrye says:

    crosspatch:

    I think Bush was trying to make nice after the whole President Select business. He should have fired Tenet anyway.

    However, I think we would all be surprised at how many people are in the permanent government and they never leave. No matter who is in the WH.

  15. Alert1201 says:

    I think your assessment of Rush is wrong. He has been right on two major areas – first that Obama would lurch the country socially and economically to the left, which he has done, and that he would not go far left regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. All through the election Rush was saying that Obama would not withdraw the troops and that his promises to do so were just a ploy to satisfy the far left.

    I would also add that Rush has been right on many other secondary issues as well – that he would gut the military, that he would seek to placate our enemies and that he would not act in a bipartisan way toward Republicans.

    To lump Rush in with the whining pessimistic far right crowd is wrong his analysis has been quite good and almost prophetic.

  16. GuyFawkes says:

    kathie:

    “The rich will not be rich enough to cause the swings in the economy because the government is going to take away their money. Obama will so tie up money that we will all be a big middle class country.”

    Wow. It’s amazing you could be so wrong on that one. How can you take the message of “It’s probably a good idea to live within your means”, and turn that into “The gov’t is going to take all of your money away”? Geithner wasn’t talking about the super rich there – he was talking about people making $40K/year who took out $500K sub-prime mortgages. Do you think that’s responsible behavior?

    As for the “big middle class country”:

    The top tax rate is going to go from about 36% to about 39%. Please explain to me how that is going turn someone making $250,000 per year into “middle class”.

  17. GuyFawkes says:

    Alert1201:

    Obama is going to withdraw most troops from Iraq by September 2010, and all of them by the end of 2011.

    He just announced a plan to increase the fight against Al Qaeda (our “enemy”) in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The military budget this year is bigger than last year.

    He and his Admin have reached out multiple times to Republicans – he’s had dinner with conservative writers, and he’s had multiple meetings with Republicans in Congress already. Here’s a hint: if the Republicans decide to vote en mass against a bill just because they feel like it, then it is NOT the President who failing to act in a bipartisan manner.

    Congratulations: every single point you made in that comment was completely and utterly wrong. You just proved AJ’s point for him, through your own stupidity.

  18. Alert1201 says:

    Guyfawks,
    During the campaign it was a 16th month complete withdraw. I prefaced my comment with the words “All through the election” not the decision he made last week. He is basically keeping with what other democrats proposed to do – set a time table for major troop withdraw but leave a small number of troops present. See this for proof:
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/186716
    Here is even a lefty site making the claim: http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan130309.htm

    Rush predicted he would do this.

    His Afgan plan is nothing new. He always said we need to focus on Afgan and Iraq has taken our focus where it should be – iraq. No surprise here.

    The reaching out to repubs was simply window dressing. I did not hear him complain when they were shut out of the committee meetings. What idea did he incorporate into any of his policies? None!

    Rush predicted he would do this.

    The repubs did not vote against the bill because the felt like it. They did it because they honestly believed it was bad policy and it will hurt America. A 1000+ pages than nobody had even read. You can disagree with them but do not attribute their decision as just some “feeling” they had.

    And please lets keep the talk civil. No need to call anybody stupid. I did not insult AJ I was respectful and cordial as he is with others who disagree with him. I simply said he was wrong. You can be wrong and not stupid. If you want to be mean and nasty go back to the Kos or Huffington.

  19. GuyFawkes says:

    Alert:

    I truly do love how the only time anyone calls for “civility” on this blog is when I dare to use the same language with you, that you all use for me. Tell ya what – if you make that same request the next time someone insults my family or tells me that I love it when terrorists set off bombs in a market square, then I’ll start taking you seriously, okay? Until then, I will treat you all with the same exact level of civility that you show me every day.

    Obama never, NEVER pledged to remove all troops in 16 months. He pledged to remove all combat troops. After talking with Patraeus and the other generals, he moved that to an 18 month schedule. And you think that’s a bad thing on his part?

    You specifically stated that Rush predicted that Obama would “gut the military”. The defense budget for next year is higher than this year. Rush was wrong. You were wrong. Admit it, or implicity acknowledge that you are dishonest.

    You stated he would “placate our enemies”, when in fact he has increased the fight against Al Qaeda. Please provide proof otherwise.

    “What idea did he incorporate into any of his policies? None!”

    100% wrong. The stimulus bill included the largest tax cut in the history of the United States. (Which the Republicans then voted against.) He did so in a (fruitless) effort to gain GOP support. The fact that only 3 GOP Senators are willing to engage in meaningful bipartisan discussions say more about the GOP than it does about Obama.

    Here’s a simple test of that: the GOP leadership on Thursday gave a nice little presentation about their “budget counter-proposal”. Please search around, and tell me what the deficit would be, at the end of any year between 2009-2019, with that “budget”.

    (Hint: you can’t. Because there are no numbers in that alleged “proposal”. It’s a joke.)

  20. Alert1201 says:

    OK, lets take just one of your false notions – Obamas 16 month departure from Iraq. Since you did not bother to read my links I will add three more and put the quotes from three independent national and international sources.

    http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-01/2009-01-22-voa15.cfm?CFID=153712716&CFTOKEN=65947803&jsessionid=8830ab013f934d45db9c421b20736f747b55

    The new president has vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. He also supports a plan to nearly double the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, where violence has increased in recent months.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/brown-plans-to-withdraw-troops-as-he-backs-obama-over-war-on-terror-872388.html
    Gordon Brown prepared the ground for a historic realignment in the “war on terror” yesterday by setting out a four-point plan for withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by the end of next year.
    Although he is refusing to set a detailed timetable for withdrawal, it is clear Mr Brown is in agreement with the US presidential candidate Barack Obama on the need for military action in Afghanistan to take priority. Both appear to be working to a 16-month timetable.

    http://english.sina.com/world/2008/1201/201854.html
    U.S. President-elect Barack Obama reiterated on Monday his plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq in the first 16 month after he takes office.
    Obama told a press conference in his transition office headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, that he still believes 16 months is the “right time frame” to redeploy U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
    He reiterated the timetable that he has been insisting during his campaign as he present to public his national security team.
    The president-elect also underscored the importance to make sure that American troops are safe during transition period and Iraqi military can take more security responsibilities.

    And Obama did not listen to Patreas
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html
    WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
    But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
    Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

    The point is Obama made the promise during the campagn to remove the troops with in 16 months and then changed his mind after the election. Something Rush said would happen.

    If you cannot bother to face the truth on this one fact then I will not bother with the others.

    And just because some nasty republican has hurt you little feelings by saying bad things about you does give you the right to blast and insult everybody who disagrees with you. I have been insulted time and time again by leftists but I have not let their small minded abuse bother me. I suggest you get some thicker skin.

    I’ll give you the last word. I’m not going to bother.