Ask Me Help Desk - Where Campaign Promises meet Reality Road

Where Campaign Promises meet Reality Road

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Quote:

Since taking office last week, Mr. Obama has recommitted to ending the war in Iraq but not to his specific campaign pledge to pull out roughly one combat brigade a month for the first 16 months of his presidency. His top commander in Iraq has proposed a slower start to the withdrawal, warning of the dangers of drawing down too quickly.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama visited the Pentagon for the first time since becoming president, and he seemed to be looking for an option that would let him stay true to his campaign promise, at least in theory, without alienating the generals. The White House indicated that Mr. Obama was open to alternatives to his 16-month time frame and emphasized that security was an important factor in his decision.

The " base " is beginning to question what they signed onto . Let the buyers remorse begin.

Kevin Drum - Mother Jones Blog: Withdrawing From Iraq

Quote:

Obama also has a lot of credibility at stake over this. He said during the campaign that he wanted to withdraw within 16 months, and while there's a lot of room to fudge there, he still needs to show that he's serious about that. It may end up being 24 months instead of 16, and the residual force he leaves behind may end up comprising tens of thousands of troops, but he still needs to start. He needs to show the world that his word is good.

What a choice!. do the right thing and lose credibility... or keep his word and risk national security . That's the web he wove. All the cocktails and Wagyu steak won't change that reality .

Sadly the koolaid crowd has bought into all this hype largely due to the media portrayal of Mr Obama as the wonder boy of the ages. If he does as promised it will be VietNam all over again. When will the American public wake up and start learning from past mistakes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

What a choice ! ......do the right thing and lose credibility ...or keep his word and risk national security .

Hello tom:

It's YOUR viewpoint that keeping his word is a risk to national security.

There's ANOTHER viewpoint that says it was the policies of George W. Bush that put our national security at risk, and that reversing them would make us SAFER.

YOUR viewpoint has been absolutely repudiated by the American people.

The most startling thing of all, however, is the insistence by the newly repudiated, that once Obama sees what the repudiated saw, the aforementioned repudiation will disappear.

I don't get that..

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

It's YOUR viewpoint that keeping his word is a risk to national security.

It's a logical fallacy called the False Dilemma: Fallacy: False Dilemma
I've seen it often here.

EC,
Based on your theory of sticking your head in the sand we should never have been attacked under the clinton watch? What about the USS Cole, WTCI, and a dozen other places where we were attacked and were too dumb to understand that war had been declared on us. You must admit that no matter how much you want to criticize President Bush that we have not had another attach on our soil. So who had kept us safe from the enemy in time of war?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

EC,
Based on your theory of sticking your head in the sand ....

Shoot I missed where he mentioned that theory, can you show me where?

Reread his comments above and it is clear where his priorities are. Head in sand, rear end in air. So when we are nuked only that will get singed:D

You will recall of course that this was all very predictable during the campaign. One of his key foreign policy advisors Samantha Power was talking about him needing more flexability in his Iraq policy.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...-a-202228.html

He later threw Power under the bus when she dissed Evita by calling her a monster .

But now Power is back in play and is going to work closely with Evita .

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Samantha Power, the Harvard University professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author who earned notoriety for calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a “monster” while working to elect Barack Obama president, will take a senior foreign policy job at the White House, The Associated Press has learned.
Officials familiar with the decision say Obama has tapped Power to be senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, a job that will require close contact and potential travel with Clinton, who is now secretary of state. NSC staffers often accompany the secretary of state on foreign trips.

The Associated Press: Professor who slammed Clinton will be Obama aide

When she was a liability she was disposable . But it is just more indication that Obama was never being sincere about his Iraq policy .It always was a concession to the base for electoral politics .

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

Reread his comments above and it is clear where his priorities are. Head in sand, rear end in air so when we are nuked only that will get singed:D

Sorry, I can't understand your sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

You must admit that no matter how much you want to criticize President Bush that we have not had another attach on our soil. So who had kept us safe from the enemy in time of war?

Hello again, 450:

No matter how much you righty's try to re-write the past, I'm here to set the record straight...

IF, as you say, we've been at war since the bombing of the USS Cole, WHO DIDN'T stop the towers from being attacked??

You say we should be proud of the dufus because we WEREN'T ATTACKED, since the first time we WERE ATTACKED...

Huh?? That's like saying you should be happy because I only punched you in the nose ONCE.

What about BLAMING the dufus for being ATTACKED in the very FIRST place?? He WAS the pres then. No?

excon

Yea, and in a year when something else happens you will still be blaming President Bush for it. And making excuses for his hiness that sob he has only been on orifice for a year and it's not his fault, sob sob

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

It's a logical fallacy called the False Dilemma: Fallacy: False Dilemma
I've seen it often here.

Thank you for the enlightened explanation. It does nothing to explain the situation Obama has put himself in but I bet it makes you feel superior.

Just trying to help users to not get lulled into a discussion based on false premises.

It's not possible to determine unequivocally that these are false premises. Pulling out of Iraq prematurely would most likely have undesired consequences to our national security. Not pulling out of Iraq as promised is certain to damage Obama's credibility with the "base" tom refers to.

Alleging this is a "False Dilemma" doesn't "help" us, it's a tactic to used dismiss our arguments (and by implication, us personally) as irrelevant. Don't fall for it my conservative friends. Now wasn't THAT helpful? :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Alleging this is a "False Dilemma" doesn't "help" us, it's a tactic to used dismiss our arguments (and by implication, us personally) as irrelevant. Don't fall for it my conservative friends. Now wasn't THAT helpful?

You are too sensitive. The false dilemma can be applied to the specific attempt at stating a fact, it's not about the individual.

BTW how did the conservative doctrine help prevent the towers attack?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You are too sensitive. The false dilemma can be applied to the specific attempt at stating a fact, it's not about the individual.

Your diagnosis is incorrect. Tom was attempting to engage in a valid discussion and you injected your little discussion killer for no good reason. Has nothing to do with MY sensitivity.

Quote:

BTW how did the conservative doctrine help prevent the towers attack?

I'd rather stick to discussing claims I've actually made or defended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Your diagnosis is incorrect. Tom was attempting to engage in a valid discussion and you injected your little discussion killer for no good reason.

There was good reason, the premise you wanted people to discuss was faulty and inaccurate.

And you not answering my question a discussion killer!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

There was good reason, the premise you wanted people to discuss was faulty and inaccurate.

And I'm quite certain I showed you can't prove it to be faulty. Yes, I sure did.

Quote:

And you not answering my question a discussion killer!!

"how did the conservative doctrine help prevent the towers attack?"

Talk about faulty premises, I made no such claim and your question doesn't even make sense. Since the towers WERE attacked it seems quite obvious to me that NOTHING prevented the attack, conservative, liberal or otherwise. You killed that discussion before it ever got started.