Pres. Obama Announces All U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by End of 2011

61 Responses to Pres. Obama Announces All U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by End of 2011

1. 

   Solo 21 October 2011 at 2:31 pm #

   Taylor I am breathlessly waiting to see how you and your followers are going to turn this into a negative!
2. 

   Solo 21 October 2011 at 2:33 pm #

   I predict that you and your people are going to say one of two things. It’s no big deal or he should have done this sooner. LOL! Obama2012!
   • 

     secularhumanizinevoluter 21 October 2011 at 4:58 pm #

     “you and your followers” “you and your people” Excuse me….. HEY, imbecilic ass monkey……..I guess since you’re such a solo come lately round here someone should splain some stuff to you. Nobody round these parts are “followers”. Neither are we “your people” when it comes to Ms. Marsh. We are members of a community that discuss, often with diametrically opposed points of view the issues facing the world, our nation, politics in general and everything else under the sun. Sometimes politely…sometimes(as in YOUR case) NOT. We happen to have found a place where inteligent commentary from Ms. marsh and others here is the order of the day. Now maybe over at Obamazoid general it IS a case of your being HIS people or HIS followers, but round these parts we mostly laugh out loud…OOOPS, forgot…LOL at imbecilic assmonky gibbering like yours. THERE, clear that up for ya? Now fuck off.
     • 

       Solo 21 October 2011 at 10:36 pm #

       Temper temper! Your horns are showing! LOL!
       • 

         secularhumanizinevoluter 22 October 2011 at 12:26 am #

         Oh, no temper involved at all. Just a final recognition of a mentally void Obamazoid incapable of reasoned discussions and divorced from reality. So again…fuck off.
         • 

           Solo 22 October 2011 at 1:12 am #

           Again with the fuck off? You seriously need to expand your vocabulary!
         • 

           secularhumanizinevoluter 23 October 2011 at 11:50 am #

           Why? My limited vocabulary is MORE then sufficient for the limited caliber of of Obamazoid gibbering you serve up.
3. 

   LiberalJoe 21 October 2011 at 3:00 pm #

   I’m going to confuse you a bit Solo. It is a big deal and yes he should have done it sooner.

   This was a war that should never have been fought. The destruction of a country, hundreds of thousands of Iraq’s killed, millions displaced, 5000 american troops dead tens of thousands wounded, many with crippling disabilities, and hundreds of billions down the drain that could have been used here at home. A lost decade.

   I’m overjoyed we’ll be leaving and yes it should have been sooner..

   If he went after the war criminals in the Bush administration that would be the icing on the cake.

   I’ll refrain from commenting on domestic policy and the election-lets just breath a sigh of relief that we are leaving and ending that quagmire.
   • 

     Solo 21 October 2011 at 3:12 pm #

     OK! I admit, I agree with most of that!
     • 

       whitepaw 21 October 2011 at 5:58 pm #

       I will not refrain from the obvious… Amazing how Obama starts to say what progressives want to hear a year before he is up for re-election. I am VERY pleased that Iraq will soon be over. But I am still unimpressed with the performancer of Barack Obama as POTUS.
4. 

   PWT 21 October 2011 at 3:22 pm #

   It’s not a big deal. He is only following the SOFA negotiated and signed by Mr. Bush:

   The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: “Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq”) is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal and a referendum scheduled for mid-2009 in Iraq which may require U.S. forces to completely leave by the middle of 2010.[1][2] The pact requires criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and requires a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that are not related to combat.[3] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces will be subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies may retain their immunity. If U.S. forces commit still undecided “major premeditated felonies” while off-duty and off-base, they will be subject to the still undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certifies the forces were off-duty.[4][5][3][6]

   The Iraqi government also approved a Strategic Framework Agreement with the U.S.,[7] aimed at ensuring international cooperation including minority ethnicity, gender, and belief interests and other constitutional rights; threat deterrence; exchange students; education;[8] and cooperation in the areas of energy development, environmental hygiene, health care, information technology, communications, and law enforcement.[9]
   • 

     secularhumanizinevoluter 21 October 2011 at 4:46 pm #

     BINGO!!!!! Give that Marshian a Quepy doll!!!!!
   • 

     spincitysd 22 October 2011 at 3:23 am #

     I see footnotes PWT, can I have some links to go with those? Sourcing please! I only ask because your quote nails it. The SOFA did require the US to pack all its troubles in its old kit bag and vamoose by 2012. The deal was done by W under great duress, and when all other options had fizzled.
     • 

       Cujo359 22 October 2011 at 5:35 pm #

       That appears to be from the Wikipedia entry on this SOFA.
5. 

   jjamele 21 October 2011 at 3:31 pm #

   Um, I’d also like to remind you that

   1. Talk is cheap. It’s typical of Obama supporters to pop champagne in response to a pretty speech without waiting to see the action that follows.

   2. We are leaving behind a massive security force to guard a Vatican City-sized embassy. In what way is this “withdrawing,” anyway?

   I’ve heard enough promises, you clearly still enjoy hearing them. I’d rather wait to see what happens after the applause dies down.
   • 

     Solo 21 October 2011 at 3:39 pm #

     Wow! Just wow! LOL!
     • 

       jjamele 21 October 2011 at 4:47 pm #

       Exactly the level of response I’ve come to expect from an Obama Apologist, thanks for letting me down.

       Hope I didn’t use words that are too long. Here, let me try this: “LOL! WOW! ROTFLMAO! I mean, WOW! LOL!!”
       • 

         Solo 21 October 2011 at 10:52 pm #

         And your attitude is what I have come to expect from an Obama hater. Insulting the President himself isn’t enough anymore, now your ilk feel a need to insult his supporters as well. But you know what, people who hate are always consumed by it in the end. Progressives, the real ones don’t spew hate. I do take some solace out of the fact that when Taylor posts at most only a few dozen people reply. Which means the attitudes being expressed here aren’t what most actual progressives think and believe. Que the crazy insults!
         • 

           spincitysd 22 October 2011 at 3:18 am #

           He is not insulting the President, he is insulting you, quite directly Solo.

           Defaulting to a wait and see attitude toward Obama’s statements is not hating the President. It is can just be a sign of disappointment in Obama’s words not matching his actions. Enough disappointment and people can become quite cautious in lending credence: once bitten twice shy.

           And BTW if we happy few are so insignificant Solo, why bother posting here? After all we are just a few dozen gadflies buzzing about–right? But for some reason it does matter. It matters enough for you to insult the proprietress of this blog, to abuse regulars like Cujo359, and to generally act like an A-1 jerk.

           I have yet to see one cogent argument from you Solo, just a stream of Ad Hominems of different shapes and sizes. There is no logical fallacy you are not willing to indulge in, sometimes multiple times in one post.

           Lets see you stated right off with an Ad Hominem Abusive, followed with a taunting non sequitur, continued on that vien in a even more juvenile manner, descending into mindless internet speak best left to die on Facebook, go back to your standard of Ad Hominem Abusive when Cjuo359 made some valid points, ( you never once bothered to counter them with, you know, facts) and did a very slight dig via the Fallacy of argumentum ad populum to insult this forem. Nicely played.

           Just one question who the hell do you think your impressing here? What larger purpose are you supporting other than your need to be a foolish little troll? I thought the antics of the Obamabots on this blog were annoying in 2008, I was wrong; thanks for hitting a new low. Fact free, insult laden, and utterly without any socially redeeming value (other than as a warning to others of how not to act), I guess you can take pride in hitting a new low for Obama trolls on this blog. Now take your prize and go back to that slime covered rock you have been hiding under since February of 2009.
         • 

           Solo 22 October 2011 at 4:26 am #

           Spincitysd

           Trust me I have no need to impress you! I just get a kick out of watching the likes of you flip out whenever you run into someone who doesn’t buy your intellectualized crap. How many times can someone use Ad Hominem in one comment? LOL! I just gotta laugh when I run into people like you who have this need to prove their intellectual superiority and failing miserably I might add.
         • 

           secularhumanizinevoluter 23 October 2011 at 11:54 am #

           “and failing miserably I might add.” there, see what I mean? A PERFECT text book example of your being divorced from reality. Please step aWAY from the blunt!
   • 

     RAJensen 22 October 2011 at 4:53 am #

     Typical. Marshans have joined the echo chamber over at Fox News. Didn’t take very long. Do you folks wait to get your talking points while sipping latte and watching Fox and Friends?
     • 

       spincitysd 23 October 2011 at 5:38 am #

       Fox news? Sorry, the number you have dialed is incorrect, please call directory assistance to get the correct number.
6. 

   Taylor Marsh 21 October 2011 at 3:56 pm #

   Read Spencer Ackerman:

   is.gd/DXCX8d
7. 

   Cujo359 21 October 2011 at 9:18 pm #

   Greenwald summarized Obama’s efforts on Iraq pretty well here:

   “[T]he Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline. The reason they’re being withdrawn isn’t because Obama insisted on this, but because he tried — but failed — to get out of this obligation.”

   Yep, that’s right. We’re leaving because Iraq told us not to let the door hit us on the way out, not because it’s what Obama has been trying to do.

   It’s a big deal, but it wasn’t Obama’s doing. Anyone who thinks that Obama has been supportive of leaving has to have remarkably selective attention.
   • 

     Solo 21 October 2011 at 11:05 pm #

     But of course when something bad happens under President Obama’s watch it’s all his fault. When something good happens he had nothing to do with it. How sad! Obama2012!
     • 

       spincitysd 22 October 2011 at 3:40 am #

       Not the point being made by Cjuo359 at all, Solo. The point is not that something bad happend and its Obama’s fault. The point is that the President stands accused of trying to unilaterally abrogate a treaty made by the past Administration. SOFAs, Status Of Forces Agreements are not trivialities, they are bedrock foreign policy documents, and you violate them at your peril.

       The accusation is that Obama attempted to act in bad faith and alter a bi-lateral treaty with Iraq. The accusation is that Obama was acting one hundred and eighty degrees from his promise made in the 2008 election. The accusation is that Obama should get no credit for this withdrawal because he was beavering away to scupper it; he wanted the troops to stay. And unlike you, dear Solo, he actually pointed to a source, Glen Greenwald. You, lazily, went to another character assassination, plus the odd pointless insult.
       • 

         Solo 22 October 2011 at 5:21 am #

         None of what you just said is true. Here you again ascribing sinister intentions to President Obama. The fact is both country’s wanted a few thousand non-combatant military trainers to stay through the end of the year. The Iraqi gov wanted them to provide training/stability and the Americans wanted them there to blunt Iranian influence. When President Bush was negotiating SOFA the two sides couldn’t agree on the rules those American personnel would operate under so rather than allowing that point of dispute to derail the entire agreement they decided to table it. Figuring they had a few years to work something out. They couldn’t come to an agreement through the rest of Bush’s Presidency. When President Obama came into office he continued to negotiate the point but the Iraqis wouldn’t budge, they insisted that any American soldier that stayed past the deadline would have to be subject to Iraqi law, no immunity! After one final push this week President Obama decided to drop the issue! President was trying to abrogate anything!
         • 

           Cujo359 22 October 2011 at 5:25 pm #

           “After one final push this week President Obama decided to drop the issue! President was [not] trying to abrogate anything!”

           He was trying to negotiate for more presence in Iraq, not for earlier withdrawal. What Obama announced in this speech was that things were going to go as they had been since before Bush left office. Whoever or whatever you want to blame for that, this is no achievement on the part of Obama. The best you can say for him is that he’s living up to what the U.S. government promised another government before he took office.

           Not what I’d call an achievement, unless I were trying overwhelm people with a long list of “achievements”, most of which were either trivial or imaginary.

           That doesn’t strike me as so terribly difficult to understand, assuming you’re not motivated to avoid understanding it.
         • 

           spincitysd 23 October 2011 at 6:17 am #

           “He was trying to negotiate for more presence in Iraq, not for earlier withdrawal.”
           Cjuo349

           More presence dear Solo is an abrogation of the SOFA . The agreement was that troop strength would be zero, that is zilch, kine, nada, squat, bupkis. Any active duty troops above zero is a violation of the SOFA. To attempt to go above the previously agreed number is to act in bad faith, to attempt to change a critical aspect of a SOFA.

           You really should not talk about things you do not have an understanding of, Solo. SOFAs are a very complex document where every odd nit is picked. They are flash-points of bi-lateral relationships. Bend the rules ever so slightly, or even look like you are taking advantage of the host nation, and you are in for a shit storm of nationalistic blow-back. To be stationed overseas is to walk on egg shells for military members and their families. One bad actor, a service member clipping a national whilst driving under the influence, can cause months of outrage with the citizens of a particular nation. Iraq was very clear that it would not budge on matters of national sovereignty. It was clear that the exception granted for US servicemembers would be grandfathered out in 2012. For Obama to attempt to challenge that bedrock stance of the Iraqi government was both an abrogation of the treaty and epically foolish.

           After all was said and done Obama defaulted to the agreement the Bush-Cheney Administration had hammered out with the Iraqis. Big stinking whoop. No points to Team Obama for that, no gold stars for handing in the homework on time.
   • 

     Solo 21 October 2011 at 11:20 pm #

     You are just determined to hate this President no matter what. If President Obama had gold nuggets coming out of his rear end your re-action would be, why aren’t the nuggets bigger? You are the left’s version of a teabagger! With people like you out there who needs Republicans? They can just sit back and watch people like you wreck imperfect Dems/Progressives (which all of them are) for them!
     • 

       secularhumanizinevoluter 22 October 2011 at 12:28 am #

       Honey be careful…ya got some santorum on yer lower lip and that stuff stains.
       • 

         Solo 22 October 2011 at 1:26 am #

         Jesus Christ on whole wheat toast!!! I say “rear end” and you immediately go to the gay thing! LOL! I guess the fact that you posted a comment that didn’t include the words “fuck off” should be considered a plus!
8. 

   tonyb39 22 October 2011 at 1:39 am #

   I give the president the credit for getting us out of Iraq! That said its a pattern with him that he never leads, he’s always following! The president did the same with DADT and again i give him the credit..Obama is no leader and i will not vote for him again..Hope there’s a green party candidate? If not well a write in..Breaking this 2 party oligarchy has to start somewhere..
   • 

     spincitysd 22 October 2011 at 3:41 am #

     The duopoly has to be shaken up tonyb39, a true third way has to be found.
   • 

     Solo 22 October 2011 at 4:37 am #

     I am so tired of this President Obama isn’t a leader crap. What difference does it make how the war in Iraq ended or how DADT was repealed? What matters is that they both got done. Whether the President was out front, part of a larger group or just held the door open it got done under his watch! Oh! By the way, that leading from behind thing worked in Libya, so your criticizing the President for a strategy that worked. How GOP of you!
     • 

       ogenec 22 October 2011 at 8:29 am #

       Just dropped in to say a couple of things. First, IMHO, I think Solo is absolutely right to detect a pervasive, reflexive, anti-Obama attitude on this site. It exists, it’s manifest, and there’s not much point in pretending otherwise. Second, it is rather ill-mannered (cruel, really) to come in and taunt these few holdouts from the Great Democratic Internecine War of 2008. Solo, you really should leave them be. No need to trade insults with them.

       Third, having said that, I do think a “wait and see” approach is merited. I think it is a fair criticism of Obama to say that his actions have not always matched his rhetoric. BUT…. when he delivers, you have to give him credit. When he announced he intended to repeal DADT, everyone here said “Just wait – he won’t follow through.” As the process continued to unfold, and folks were still being discharged, folks said “See – we told you.” But when, at the end of that process, Obama did in fact sign DADT out of existence, folks here said “Obama had nothing to do with it. It was all Dan Choi and the LGBT activists. And by the way, why is DOMA still on the books?!?!?”

       I think what Solo is saying is, this is a rigged game. When progressives don’t get what they want (public option, Gitmo), Obama is exclusively to blame – no extenuating circumstances whatsoever. When they do get what they want (DADT, Iraq), Obama is never given credit – there is always someone else who is responsible for the achievement.

       So yes, it IS true that Obama (and the Iraqis as well) wanted to extend the stay of a few thousand soldiers. It is also true that some private security forces, Special Ops etc. will remain. How does that diminish this accomplishment in any significant way? By that logic, we are still fighting the Korean and Second World Wars, since we still have troops stationed in the Korean Penninsula and in Germany. Maybe we should blame Obama for that too.

       Or perhaps not. At this particular time in history, it behooves us to be less simplistic in our prescriptions. For all the vaunted talk about the Arab Spring, “winter is coming,” to quote Game of Thrones. Egypt is becoming more bellicose re: Israel, and the secular youth who were the face of the revolution are being shoved aside by older and more radical elements. In Libya, watch for the pogrom against Gaddafi’s tribe. In this particular part of the world (Africa and the Middle East), this is the way of things: the violent departure of an autocratic leader leads to mass killing as long-repressed factions seek to end their subjugation. See the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. When we leave Iraq, it will happen there too – civil war will resume between the Shi-ite majority and the Sunni minority. Personally, I don’t blame anyone for trying to forestall that outcome.

       Okay, that’s more than a couple of things. Summing up: Solo, be nice! Marshians, chill out. And keep the Middle East in your thoughts – it’s about to get “hot in herre.”
       • 

         whitepaw 22 October 2011 at 12:26 pm #

         Ogenec — fine post, but your assumption that progressives on this site that find fault with Obama are still stuck back in the 2008 primary is a bit off base. Frankly, Im tired of two specific arguments pertaining to PDWO (Progressive disappointment with Obama)… 1. Complaints only come from past supporters of Hillary Clinton, or 2. The extremely annoying argument from Melissa Harris Perry that progressives hold Obama to a higher standard than white presidents, and are therefore guilty of an insidious form of racism.

         Grrrrrrrrrrr………………. There is MUCH to be disappointed with!
         • 

           ogenec 22 October 2011 at 2:27 pm #

           With all due respect, whitepaw, it isn’t. I’m not saying that all progressives, or all who post on this site, are stuck back in the 2008 primaries. But a significant number of the latter group are. And they are very easy to spot. Until very recently, they rocked Hillary avatars. They still breathlessly follow her comings and goings, posting photos, videos, speech snippets etc. When the Clintons bought their house, and when Chelsea got married, the explosion of their comments here was nothing short of orgiastic. The dead giveaway is their recycling of 2008 insultese: “Obamabot,” “Race Card!,” “Present.”

           These people are beyond redemption, and there simply is no point engaging with them. So I don’t. Not even to mock them, which is so ridiculously easy as to not be fun. Progressives who express substantive disappointment with Obama, on the other hand, I can talk to all day. And in fact, I agree with several of their criticisms.

           You already know how I feel about the Melissa Harris-Perry argument. I don’t agree with it – in fact, I detest it.
       • 

         Cujo359 22 October 2011 at 5:42 pm #

         “I think what Solo is saying is, this is a rigged game. When progressives don’t get what they want (public option, Gitmo), Obama is exclusively to blame – no extenuating circumstances whatsoever.”

         Piffle. I don’t exclusively blame Obama for anything, nor do I see evidence that anyone else is. He is, as leader of his party and head of the executive branch, in a far better position to not disappoint us than any other politician. Just about everyone commenting here, including quite possibly Solo, is aware of this situation. To claim that giving Obama the lion’s share of the blame, because he has the lion’s share of the power to make things otherwise, is “exclusively” blaming him is sophistry.
         • 

           ogenec 22 October 2011 at 11:37 pm #

           I think you are falling into the same intellectual trap as some others on the site. Bandying about words like “piffle” and “sophistry” doesn’t really do anything to advance your argument, such as it is. Now, my contention is that Obama did not get sufficient credit on this site when DADT ended with the stroke of his pen. It seems as if you dispute that. So why don’t we go to the videotape, huh?

           From the simple Google query “Taylor Marsh DADT,” we get the following post from May 2009: http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2009/05/obamas-dont-ask-dont-tell-shame/. Captioned “Obama’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Shame,” the post decries Obama’s lack of courage on DADT and ends with the following: “Through no courage from Democrats, the issue of DADT could eventually wind its way through the courts with a positive outcome. But it sure won’t be because Pres. Obama, his Administration or the Democrats in Congress showed leadership or any courage on the issue.” (Comments are closed on the post, so I can’t see who commented. But I’m sure a fair number of Marshians yelled “Preach!!”)

           Let’s roll tape forward. In late May 2010, DADT repeal passed the House. The post on TM: http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2010/05/dadt-repeal-passes-house-senate-bill-out-of-committee/comment-page-1/. Thanks were meted out to Patrick Murphy and then-Speaker Pelosi, but not Obama.

           Let’s continue: In October 2010, another post by Taylor Marsh, captioned “Obama Against DADT While Propping It Up.” Garners 27 comments, all in support of the caption’s premise. The illustrious Cujo359 commented as follows: To me, this issue is another example of Obama’s ability to promise stuff that he has no intention to deliver, and then being forgiven for it by the nominally progressive issue groups involved.”

           Continuing on – bill passes Senate in December 2010. TM post: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Heroes Are the Soldiers.” 52 comments, most of which go out of their way to avoid giving Obama credit. With the notable exception of LiberalJoe and my man Solo.

           Roll forward again. July 2011, we begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel, as Pentagon suspends DADT enforcement. Joyce Arnold publishes a post captioned “Queer Talk: Pentagon suspends DADT enforcement.” A grand total of 3 responses, with Joyce and Secular admonishing us to hold our breath.

           Rolling on to September 2011, when DADT is officially ended. Awful quiet in here, except for a guest post by Joyce “Queer Talk: DADT ends with celebrations.” It garners 6 comments, a couple of which pertain to the continuing injustice of DOMA being on the books. Absolutely no mention of Obama.

           So let’s recap. When DADT repeal didn’t look promising, the headlines here were about “Obama’s shame” and his “propping [DADT] up.” Cujo359, who accuses me of sophistry on this, personally commented that Obama had no intention to deliver DADT repeal. But when DADT repeal passed, the posts here were about the soldiers, Pelosi, Murphy etc. being the real heroes. Everybody, it appears, but Obama. And oh yeah, why hasn’t DOMA been repealed yet?

           Quod Erat Demonstandum. Cujo359, you can use all the ten-gallon words you like, but I have the Google. And I just proved the essential truth of my argument. No DADT repeal – Obama’s fault exclusively. DADT repeal – no credit due Obama whatsoever. Straight from the mouths of the posters and commenters here. Including you.

           Peace out. And better luck next time.
       • 

         Solo 22 October 2011 at 7:40 pm #

         I am nice but around here that doesn’t count for much. I have to admit though I do get some pleasure out of poking this hornets nest! LOL!
       • 

         Solo 22 October 2011 at 8:31 pm #

         What pisses me off and many African Americans for that matter is the unwillingness by some who call themselves progressives to judge President Obama fairly. Here is a guy who was born to a poor single teenage mother and despite that made to Harvard, the US Senate and finally the White House. Doing it through hard work and following the rules. But still they don’t like him. Given those facts what are other African Americans suppose to think? I’ll tell you what they are thinking. There thinking, damn if they don’t like this black person which black person would they like?

         After spending lots of hours in my childhood watching star trek reruns I became a firm believer in the Mr. Spock rule. Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever is left is your answer. Since this President has lived his life (personal & professional) in a moral way, almost to the point of being boring, so no one can credibly attack him on those grounds. So what’s left? The only thing that’s left is the fact that he is a black man.

         I suspect that many so called progressives see the African American community strictly as a source of votes, not as a community of equals to be respected. They have long since gotten use to the idea of blacks voting for white democrats, reverse that dynamic and they freak out. They don’t seem to be aware that without the AA vote no white Dem outside of Vermont and the San Francisco bay area could win an election.

         The worse kind of racism isn’t overt racism. That is easy to spot and deal with. The most damaging kind of racism is the kind that comes with a smile. The worse kind of racist is the one who willing to tolerate only the blacks who are willing to serve their interests and kiss their ass. AA who are not willing gotta go.

         President Obama and his family don’t re-enforce that sense of superiority. That is why Republicans and some Dems hate them so much. They are proof that no one is better than anyone else, that given the opportunity anyone can accomplish anything.
         • 

           jjamele 22 October 2011 at 9:38 pm #

           Sounds to me like you are actually arguing that because Obama is the child of a single mother, is African American, and got through Harvard and became President, African Americans have no right to criticize him. You are only one step away from arguing that, given Obama’s inspiring background, NO ONE has the right to criticize him.

           Hey, Solo, guess what? I frankly don’t give a damn where Obama went to college, who is mom was, or anything else about his background. None of that has any impact on my life or the lives of 300 million Americans. We are selfish, I guess- all we really care about now is how well he keeps his promises, how terrible the health care “reform” bill was, why GITMO is still open, and how he can’t seem to make a move without consulting the worst elements of the Republican party first.

           And please spare us the Star Trek analogies. I think we’ve all had more than enough of the “three dimensional chess” argument. Obama doesnt’ reach for the possible- he reaches for what he can get without fighting. Which means, he ends up with very little. Oh, but we are supposed to praise him anyway. Because his mom wasn’t married.

           I supported Hillary in the primaries- but I voted for Obama in 2008 and hoped for the best. The Best is not what I got- in fact, what I got was something only slightly better than McCain. Maybe.

           Oh, but I keep forgetting- his mom wasn’t married, and he went to Harvard. I apologize for having an opinion on Obama’s presidency that does not take this inspirational background into account. What was I thinking?
         • 

           Solo 23 October 2011 at 12:54 am #

           jjamele

           What were you thinking? More like what was I thinking? Thinking that I could reason with a malcontent. Malcontents can’t be reasoned with! “How terrible the healthcare reform bill is!” I could sit here and tell u that every major progressive achievement was in the beginning a compromise, just like the ACA. The emancipation proclamation, social security, medicare, medicaid were all less than their proponents wanted. The emancipation proclamation didn’t free all the slaves just some of them. Social Security didn’t cover everyone until 1955, it passed into law in 1935. Medicare/Medicaid in the beginning was suppose to be medicare for every but again it’s proponents recognized that there wasn’t enough political in Congress so they did what any rational person would do, they took what was available. Medicare for people over 65 and Medicaid for the poor. If it was up you all or nothing types none o those landmark things would have happened, your more interested in punching cons in the face than actually getting something accomplished. Grow up! 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing!
       • 

         spincitysd 23 October 2011 at 9:38 am #

         Ogenec,

         Don’t go away mad, and please don’t go away. I’m missing you already.

         Since you have come here to reason with us I will attempt to respond in kind. I’ll try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum, but forgive me if I slip up; it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

         I may as well plead guilty to being less than enamored of Barack Obama, he was not my go-to guy. In fact he placed third in my loyalties. With Cujo359, I am part of the unhappy few that supported John Edwards. Get burned like that and you get very cynical about ever other politician on the national level. When Edward died an ugly death in his supposed base of the south, I defaulted to HIllary. I voted for HIlary in CA not because I had any great confidence in her, but because Ms. Marsh’s laying out of Hillary’s cause temporarily swayed me to Hillary . But when February came and Our Most Sacred Lady Of The Tastefully Appointed Pantsuit got creamed in the caucuses, I had no sympathy for her incompetently lead campaign. I got infuriated when she and her motley crew tried to steal delegates from Obama via the hash that was the FL and MI primaries. Just because Edwards and Obama (Edwards especially) were too clever by a half in MI did not give Hillary carte blanc to steal that states entire delegation.

         But that, as they say, is history. My beef with Obama is that he way over-promised and then spectacularly under-delivered. Shall we Ogenec?

         DADT / DOMA: Obama campaigned on being a “fierce advocate” for Gay rights; his words, not mine. Lets’ pick up on the DADT aspect first.

         Obama is the Commandeer in Chief, with a stroke of the pen he could have ordered a stop loss. God knows the military was stop-lossing all sorts of people who wanted out; why couldn’t Obama stop-loss people who wanted to stay in? Any particular reason? Other than political?

         So instead of a strong stand on the merits of letting Gay and Lesbians serve, Obama twiddled and piddled on such nonsense as the survey. He is the Commander and Chief of the Military, he dose not have to ask mother-may-I. He orders the military to do something and they do it; end of drill. Any brass hat who has a problem with the new policy can be reassigned to the critical coconut crab census on Diego Garcia until they are ready to retire. Truman, thanks to his tour as an artillery officer in WWI, understood how to get the four stars in line. I understand that threading the repeal of DADT through Congress was a totally different kettle of fish, but early strength on the matter could have actually sped the process along. There were overwhelming majorities in poll after poll for the repeal of DADT, use the Bully Pulpit to make that point painfully clear to the homophobe obstructionists.

         DOMA. This is were the claim of “fierce advocate” really does not hold any water. Obama’s stated position is for civil unions. That is not Marriage, never has been, never will be. It is, to be quite blunt about it, a second class form of union. I have a very short fuse about these kind of things Ogenec; either you are a fully realized human being, with all the rights and responsibilities that status incurs, or you are not. Anything short of fully actualized is totally unacceptable. Any form of second class, less than, citizenship is totally unacceptable. I do not give a rat’s ass what kind of bogus rationalization you use to support the suppression of Immigrants, Gays, African-Americans, or Women, it is still other-ing, it is still bigotry, it is still deplorable. That a supposed scolar of Constitutional law, a man who should understand the importance of widening the scope of civil rights, of widening the scope of full citizenship, cannot understand how important the repeal of DOMA is, is appalling.

         The J’accuse for DADT and DOMA is quite simple, a fierce advocate leads from the front. What Obama did was lead from behind. For me, the loss of all those fine men and women in uniform due to DADT continues to be an outrage. These were people of honor, people willing to step up and serve a greater good, people who loved their nation with such a passion that they were willing to lay down their lives for that nation. Obama treated that passion, that dedication, that service, like garbage. He sacrificed these men and women on the alter of political connivence. So,ya, I’m a tad pissed Ogenec. These were my brothers and sisters in arms, and they were treated like dirt.

         But my greatest disappointment with Obama is his continuance of all the Bush-Cheney violations of civil and human rights. Bush-Cheney set up a shop of horrors after 9/11 and Obama, who specifically promised to dismantle that structure, ended up re-enforcing it. Lets just brush over the greatest hits, shall we?

         Gitmo; still there, larger than life and twice as ugly.
         Sneak and Peak warrants; ditto.
         Wholesale violation of our privacy, from snail mail to email; still going strong.
         Extraordinary Rendition; still kidnapping for fun and profit.
         Black Site Prisons; now outsourced, and with a new lemon-fresh fragrance!
         Kangaroo “Military Tribunals”; Operating at full throttle and using evidence contaminated by abuse and torture.
         Extra-judicial killings; Obama is now judge, jury and executioner of any ex-pat who gets earns his ire. Who need nine jurors and beyond a reasonable doubt when you have Predator Drones?

         Any up sides?
         Dream Act? Nope, DOA
         Card check for the unions? Sorry SEIU, you passions were wasted.
         Single Payer? Traded away in a back room deal, in secret, for the payback of neutrality from Big Pharma and other incumbents.
         Public Options; smothered by Congress with barely a discouraging word from Obama.
         Jobs Bill Part 1; One trillion dollar bill was far too small, and then whittled down by an obstructionist minority (Republicans) in Congress.
         Jobs Bill Part 2; Showed up only when Obama’s polls were falling precipitously. Too little, too late, and under ferocious attack by the same Congressional Republicans who shredded the Stimulus.
         Middle East policy; MIA, a speech in Cairo early on, then abject surrender to the onslaught of Greater Israel proponents inside the beltway and in Israel.
         Arab Spring: Late to the party, spoke out of turn on Egypt, Bahrain and Syria. No real action to back words except in Egypt.
         Libya; Unsteady at first, dithered too long, did not inform Congress. Working out despite all the negatives. Fingers crossed that Team Obama / Team NATO can finesse Libya into a safe harbor.
         Afghanistan; did exactly what he promised to do: double down on the disaster in Central Asia.
         NAFTA; Went 180 out from his stance in 2008. Expanded trade deals to Panama, Columbia and Korea. Giant sucking of US mfg. jobs overseas continues unabated.
         Debt / Austerity; Jumped on this bandwagon with both feet and got nothing but grief for it. Pissed off his base, and got zero loving from the Elephants. “Grand Deal” was a sell-out of core Democratic values reaching all the way back to FDR.

         From my perspective I have good reason to be dubious of Obama as a default. His continuation of the Bush-Cheney policy of deceit and rampant lawlessness is more than enough. I want my 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments back. I want an end to the Unitary Executive. Obama has not ended the heinous policies of Bush-Cheney viz. Civil Rights. He has entrenched those God-awful policies. A man who can cavalierly dismiss those bedrock constitutional principles out of false “moderation,” or not rocking the boat, or whatever bogus excuse the White House is trotting out in its last press release, cannot be trusted one whit.

         Obama has no core principles, no political center, everything is negotiable. That means you alway have to look at the particular deal that is being done and ask que bono, who benefits? What is the end game? Unfortunately for Obama partisans, it fairly easy to make a prima facia case that the only concern for Obama is a “win” were he gets “something done” that pleases some mythical middle. That leads to “wins” like DADT where most of the heavy lifting is done by activists and where Obama manages to drift in at the close. Buy the time Obama is publicly present, the battle is near won, but at great cost. How much credit do you give a MIA president, who only floats in at the last minute, for a ugly win? One thing for sure Ogenec, that president is getting not much credit, and no hosannas from me.
9. 

   ladywalker68 22 October 2011 at 3:58 am #

   Make no mistake….Getting out of Iraq is a big deal. That said, I am trying to figure out how Obama’s first term is any different than a 3rd term would have been for Bush.

   Not much, me thinks.
10. 

    tonyb39 22 October 2011 at 10:06 am #

    Ladywalker,
    “I am trying to figure out how Obama’s first term is any different than a 3rd term would have been for Bush.

    Not much, me thinks.”

    Exactly!

    Ognec,
    I don’t much like President Obama that is true! There has been no real change, too much BUSH in Obama! Didn’t like Bush either, ha, but i didn’t vote for him! Voted for Obama, not again..
    • 

      ogenec 22 October 2011 at 10:28 am #

      tonyb39, you have every right not to like Obama. I’m not here to convince you to like Obama, or to vote for him. Do you, and Imma do me – as the saying goes.
    • 

      Solo 22 October 2011 at 7:19 pm #

      A few days ago I caught a clip of the actor George Clooney (an Obama supporter) commenting about how Dems tend to eat their own! I think he was referring to progressives/Democrats such as yourself!
      • 

        whitepaw 22 October 2011 at 8:09 pm #

        Geroge Clooney (eye candy yes)… political expert… no…..
        • 

          whitepaw 22 October 2011 at 8:12 pm #

          George…………..
        • 

          Solo 23 October 2011 at 3:02 am #

          I wasn’t aware one had to be a political expert to have an opinion on politics.
11. 

    secularhumanizinevoluter 22 October 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    So …it appears your point appears to be shaping up as…If you didn’t support Obama during the primaries if you DARE to be critical of Obama because he is at BEST mediocre……….you do it JUST because you hate him and not that he sortta…well…SUCKS and is a pathetic excuse for a Democrat. AND if you DARE wonder what things would be like if Hillary had been chosen instead……you’re nothing but an Obama hater? ogenec, you to are entitled to your opinion…even when it sucks.
    Like you said…”do you,and imma do me.
    • 

      Cujo359 22 October 2011 at 6:30 pm #

      I’d say you’ve summed it up pretty well. But then, I’m not the one making the argument.
12. 

    ogenec 22 October 2011 at 10:50 pm #

    You got that right – you aren’t. And, Secular, that’s not what I am saying at all. I like to think I’ve been very clear about this. There are progressives who disdain Obama for being the polar opposite of everything they stand for. I have no problem with such people, even as I (mostly) disagree with them. It boils down to an honest difference of opinion. Then there are folks who backed Hillary during the primaries – they believed, and still believe, that she would have made a better president. I agree with those people even less than I do with progressives writ large. But, here again, I have no problem with them.

    The only folks I have a problem with are those who backed Hillary in the primaries to such an extent that the cause became personal for them. Their default is to insult anyone who dares express a different view, especially one that treats Obama more or less favorably. Again, I like to think I described their genus rather accurately: Hillary avatars, ooh, doesn’t she look great in that picture, Obama is an arrogant SOB who really was surreptitiously giving us the finger when he stroked his cheek etc. These folks know themselves just as well as I do.

    So don’t get it twisted. By no means is every person who supported Hillary during the primaries a reflexive Obama hater. But some are. And a fair number of such people post on this site.
13. 

    tonyb39 22 October 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    Ogenec,
    Your a class act and i always enjoy reading you..Thanks
    • 

      ogenec 23 October 2011 at 8:45 am #

      thank you tonyb39. I like that we can be civil even as we disagree. What a radical concept!
14. 

    Taylor Marsh 23 October 2011 at 9:56 am #

    I’m always happy when people cite my writing, so thanks.

    I was correct about DADT and Obama’s lack of leadership, which remain so. It’s a great thing it was passed, but it happened in spite of Obama, who almost blew it.

    Agreeing with John Aravosis on this one:

    http://www.americablog.com/2011/09/are-you-disappointed-with-obama-simply.html

    President Obama gets big kudos for (signing) the repeal of DADT (though he handled it poorly, and it almost didn’t happen as a result).

    Obama does get “big kudos” for the repeal of DADT. Agreed.

    The fact remains that if Rachel Maddow and the gay community hadn’t hammered Pres. Obama for weeks on end, while she also interviewed Lt. Col. Fehrenbach multiple times, making him an example that couldn’t be ignored, who knows what the outcome might have been, because Pres. Obama “handled it poorly, and it almost didn’t happen as a result.”

    The warriors and heroes in the fight were people like Aravosis, Maddow and Fehrenback, as well as Dan Choi.
    • 

      Solo 23 October 2011 at 10:26 am #

      Both the professional left and the radical right complain about President Obama’s lack of leadership despite all the evidence to the contrary!
      • 

        Taylor Marsh 23 October 2011 at 10:52 am #

        Solo – Unless you put issues before your adoration for Pres. Obama, you’ll never be taken seriously around here.