Obama Lied, People Died
Submitted By Todd on March 1st at 3:55am
"What???"' They'd screech! "How can you say such a thing???!!!!"
"A Democrat will never end the war quickly," I'd answer. "To pull troops out quickly, you've got to be respected as a strong Commander in Chief. Barack, as a Democrat, will have to prove himself to be tough, or he'll risk tainting the Democrats as weak on defense for another generation. Only McCain is positioned to end the war faster than Bush."Everyone shook their heads in disbelief over my assertion, and uttered some variation of, "Obama will pull the troops out right away when he gets in, just like he says." Despite my concerns, the President has committed to withdrawing the troops much faster than anyone might have guessed. He now promises he'll get them all out as quickly as President Bush would have. Surely, no one would have suspected he'd be this quick about it, even though Iraq is a much calmer place than when he made his 16 month commitment.
The president announced that 35,000 to 50,000 troops will stay in the country as late as Dec. 31, 2011, the full withdrawal deadline set by Iraqi leaders and President George W. Bush, and that Obama pledged to meet.Wow. Imagine that? Barack Obama is following George W. Bush's withdrawal schedule? Bush the moron? The "Bush Lied, People Died" president is Obama's role model for wind down?
"It seems like a continuation of the war in a different form," (said Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, whose members opposed the war and have disrupted hearings on Capitol Hill). "The continued presence of that many military troops would be a provocation. It would be 'occupation lite.' "Republicans are naturally pleased - while Obama had campaigned on a systematic withdrawal of essentially all troops in 16 months starting in his inaugural month, the GOP is content to see the President doing the right thing, instead. The loony left, which he duped to depose Hillary, is less impressed, but reluctant to speak harshly.
“I’m happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that’s a little higher number than I anticipated,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, told reporters before heading to the White House. His spokesman said after the meeting that Mr. Reid still held those concerns.What Reid is trying to say is, "isn't the liberal wing of the party going to be pissed that you utterly used them, Mr. President?"
Another person briefed on the session said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, was particularly upset. She kicked off the public criticism on Wednesday by saying she did not understand “the justification” for 50,000 troops.Translation? "You big sack of crap, Obama! You lied to us all! You were the anti-war candidate, and now you're going to keep it going based on the Bush schedule?"
Senators Patty Murray of Washington State and Charles E. Schumer of New York echoed those sentiments on Thursday. “Fifty thousand is more than I would have thought,” Mr. Schumer said. “We await the justification for why that would be.”The President's betrayal of those who believed deeply in him on his defining policy stance will bite their tongues because he is still in honeymoon, but now the thickest of the moonbats must see the truth - He is not the Messiah, he's just another lying politician. But the good news is, anti-war Obama fans, that Obama is deferring to Bush on the withdrawal schedule. Or is he?
He also acknowledged the "hypothetical" possibility that the US could keep a "very modest-sized" force past the December 2011 deadline - if the Iraqi government requests it.You might want to ask your Savior what the meaning of "very modest-sized" is.