You can listen at the link below.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=106178806

...and which president got us INTO this stupid war? Hmmm, selective memory once again, Mr. Bill!

From where I sit--looking out at day 6 of a 6-day dust storm blanketing Baghdad--Ricks pretty much nails it, with one exception--this transfer of authority, as opposed to others in the past, is real. As are the consequences.

One of the real issues is that the Iraqi government has not prepared its citizenry for the fact that there will be ongoing US troop movements in the cities--security force training and civil-military operations, in particular--despite our pleas for the GoI to do so.

Edited to add--it's good to see someone is actually paying attention to Iraq. I was just in the US in June and was astounded at the degree to which Iraq has fallen from the public's awareness.

Pulling out of Iraq may be as painful for us as it was for many of us to see the USA going in. But it is a necessity, and to not do so could be a disaster for any policy that seeks to stabilize the middle east.

Obama's instincts of moderation may serve him well, but the goal has to remain steadfast.

The pace of withdrawal--and in particular the movement of combat forces out of urban areas--has nothing to do with Obama's instincts. It's what is required under the terms of the security agreeement negotiated and signed by President Bush and PM Nuri last year.

That doesn't have anything to do with the future. You are a real bore.

And acquiesced to by Obama now, and perhaps even then considering the affect that his position in the presidential race was already having on the decisions of the Bush administration; just as Republican and neo-cons criticism influences Obama's actions now.

When Obama took the oath of office he assumed full responsibility for the military's strategy and tactics. The Constitution gives limited and questionable ability to even Congress to micro-manage a war. It has co-power to make treaties with foreign powers. Obama certainly can not blame Bush for what he does in Iraq.

Unless Obama has unilateral rescinded THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM then I don't see how he can avoid responsibility for what is happening now regardless of treaties made during the Bush adminstration.

The executive can choose how to enforce a law, and even how to interpret it; something that lead to serious abuses during the Bush administration IMO. Obviously Obama is trying to avoid similar abuses but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we have a balance of power, even in wartime.

Sport, it's not about acquiescing or not acquiescing. The SFA is clear. 30 June 2009 -- out of cities, town, villages, and localities. There's no choice in the matter, other than perhaps to pack up and leave altogether, which the President seems to understand is not possible.

Honestly, I can't decipher the rest of your post. Maybe it's all the dust in my head after a 7-day dust storm rolls into its 8th day.

But was completely oblivious to it all throughout his campaign?

Just curious.

I decline from taking the obvious bait...but, the SOFA and SFA weren't signed until December 2008.

No Bill W., it is you that is the bore. Same old, same old. We get it...Obama could walk on water yet you would still manage to find fault. Good luck with the bitterness...only three and a half more years to go!

My point is that the executive has leeway in how it interprets and enforces legislation. This leeway is particulary strong in time of "war" and with respect to matters of conducting war, even a war of choice.

And your posts suggest that your mental state is unaffected by the dust. They are perfectly logical. I am only disagreeing with that logic because I am not certain that the constitutional authority of the president taken fully into account with respect to "SFA".

I think if Obama wanted to pull out tomorrow he could justify it with or without the SFA. He could also choose to linger as long as he wants or even implement another surge. He just needs a "good lawyer" to justify it in the name of "national security".

In my opinion Obama would prefer not to make up authority to violate law unlike his predecessor G.W. Bush.

Cindy Sheehan -- remember? -- is in Martha's Vineyard, hoping along with other antiwar activists to pressure Obama to move toward swiftly ending our bloody entanglements.

Have you HEARD about this? Probably not. The silence of the media (and hypocritical "liberals") is DEAFENING. What was an antiwar outcry against Dubya has become bad form under Obama.

http://counterpunch.org/walsh08262009.html

The reality for me is Democrat or Republican, the Iraq situation is unchanged. Bush lead the United States into this mess and Obama BS'd campaigned he would get the United States out of it. My reality is we exchanged one useless president for another.

I hope it is only three and half years left and not another term. Perhaps H. Clinton can finally take her rightful place at the helm and the United States can stop forcing events for the history books.

Leaving Iraq will not be a simple task, but Obama pre election sure made it sound easy. Obama provided the classic politician behavior of saying what people want to hear.

Few things are sure in politics, but HRC is not going to run against a sitting president who made her Secretary of State. That nepotist has risen as far as she will go.

And we would be exactly where we are if Rodham was president.

...and Bill W, we can diagree on Clinton. I am not saying things would be perfect, however it would be a hell of a lot better than Obama's utopia. Obama is continuing the Bush administration of corruption and lies. I voted for John McCain. I am not Demo or Repub. I actually vote based on what these people stand for and weigh. Bush is a joke to the Repub party. My point of my initial post is Obama is BS liar and the ultimate political puppet.

"Her rightful place..."

That's how she felt, anyway, and it was that very same arrogant self-entitlement (among many other things) that caused her to lose her huge lead throughout the campaign. How you can believe she's less of a puppet than Obama is beyond me...remember, she voted for the war itself.

Still, it is baffling to me how quiet the anti-war movement is now...how did Cindy Sheehan go from being such a media darling and heroine ... to such obscurity so quickly? Is her cause no longer worth it?

I think many of us "voted" for the war having faith in the Bush administration. The problem now is this war has not served any purpose for a long while. That became apparant soon after the invasion. It is sad the anti-war movement is no longer a priority. Instead we are to focus on Obama's weekly "I can walk on water" show. Please try not to focus too much on my opinion of who I think would be better off running the country. I am merely conveying regardless of Obama being a Democrat, there has been no "CHANGE" from the Bush Republican administration. My niece will never see her best friend ever again because of this war. Almost two years later, her pain is mine and I hold the powers that be responsible. Bush was the leader of the movement to ignore the United States made a mistake going into Iraq and Obama used this war as a campaign platform and now is continuing Bush's ignorance about the war.

Wow.

How many here "voted" for this, and had faith in Bush? Wow, I can't believe I just read that. And in defense of Hillary, no less.


Even with that unbelievable statement above, it's interesting no one has answered my question. Why is Cindy Sheehan's cause no longer so press-worthy? And when Bush was (so often) on vacation, the cries were "how can he be on vacation when our men and women are dying in Iraq?!" Where are those same angry protests, from those same people now?

Tennis Guy, you have closed your mind at accepting anyone's view but your own. I get it. Perhaps we can leave my comments and agree to disagree.

As for your question about Cindy Sheehan, there is not one answer. There are many Cindy Sheehan's around the world. I pointed out my niece lost her good friend and her life is altered now and forever because of political ignorance.

Why not answer your own questions? I would be interested to know what you think.

"how did Cindy Sheehan go from being such a media darling and heroine ... to such obscurity so quickly? Is her cause no longer worth it?"

"Why is Cindy Sheehan's cause no longer so press-worthy? And when Bush was (so often) on vacation, the cries were "how can he be on vacation when our men and women are dying in Iraq?!" Where are those same angry protests, from those same people now?"

You have got to be kidding about Hillary Clinton, right? Not only was she not that progressive as a US Senator, but do you remember how conservative her husband was? Talk about disappointment! I worked to get that man elected in 1992, and he quickly moved to the right on every issue, especially when the GOP ranted and acted a fool. Not only would Hillary Clinton be keeping us in Iraq--remember, she cravenly voted for the damn authorization to let Bush invade Iraq--but she'd be ramping up in Afghanistan too, and would not have said a thing to Israel about its settlements.

If you're proposing an alternative to Obama or the GOP, then be serious and pick someone like Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, someone not totally already entangled in the corporate whoredom that controls both parties. Hillary Clinton is TOTALLY caught up in that too, just as her husband was. Remember, it was his economic crew that repealed Glass-Steagall and furthered the Reagan push for deregulation that led us to where we are today. (Unfortunately Obama has these same people running the economic ship yet again.) Oh, and by the way, her campaign head, Mark Penn, is now writing articles for the Wall Street Journal that drum up business for his clients. That's where Hillary's head was and is.

What are you talking about? A MAJORITY of Americans were against the war. Just search the archives of this site and you'll see that most of us on here were AGAINST the war--if you mean the war in Iraq. Afghanistan is a more problematic issue. There are TWO wars going on. The one in Iraq is winding down, but not quick enough for me and many people. The one in Afghanistan is building, unfortunately, and the fake election the US just attempted to engineer very well may turn out to be more of a disaster than we imagined. The US should be out of both countries, and should be working with Afghanistan's regional neighbors, particularly Pakistan, Russia, China, and yes, Iran, to resolve the issue there.

If Obama was attempting a "'walk on water' show," whatever that is, it long ago ceased to work. Have you missed the corporate-staged protests against health care reform? Or the protests from PROGRESSIVES, Democrats and independents, against Obama's and the Democrats' attempts to gut the health care reform effort?

Perhaps we can leave my comments and agree to disagree. It is rather pointless to carry on.