Obama's Broken Promise

Pepe Silvia wrote:

oh, reeeeeeaaaaaaally??

i guess some people forget what is convenient for them to forget....

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

:roll:

which bank should i take this to???

perhaps the sperm bank, I really don't care...

apparently you assumed he meant (pick one) yesterday, today, tomorrow...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50J4ZK20090120

Obama to discuss Iraq troop drawdown on Wednesday
WASHINGTON
Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:33am EST
A U.S. soldier stands guard during a police graduation ceremony at Al-Furat Iraqi Police Training Centre in Baghdad January 14, 2009. REUTERS/ Saad Shalash

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barack Obama on Wednesday will meet top defense and military officials for the first time as president to discuss the possibility of accelerating the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq, officials said.

Barack Obama

Obama, who has pledged to pull U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months, was also expected to discuss the need for more forces in Afghanistan at the White House with a Pentagon delegation led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said.

The United States currently has 142,000 troops in Iraq and 33,000 in Afghanistan.

Obama made the 16-month Iraq withdrawal timetable a centerpiece of his presidential campaign despite misgivings among commanders who have advised a cautious approach to troop cuts.

The president-elect also said he would confer with senior defense and military officials before reaching a final decision.

Gen. David Petraeus, the former Iraq commander credited with pulling the country from the brink of civil war, was due to fly to the United States from Afghanistan to attend Wednesday's meeting in person, a senior military official said. Petraeus now oversees U.S. war efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan as head of U.S. Central Command.

U.S. Commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, was expected to join the conversation via video-link from Iraq.

Pentagon leaders were expected to provide Obama with a menu of withdrawal options and their respective inherent risks, including one for a 16-month drawdown.

A 16-month withdrawal would have combat forces out of Iraq in May 2010. The United States recently reached an agreement with Iraq that would require all U.S. forces to leave by the end of 2011.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the new president would instruct the Pentagon to prepare for a stepped-up withdrawal of combat troops and hear proposals for addressing a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

The Post also said Obama has indicated he would move ahead with proposed plans to send as many as 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, I think hes done a good job in the last year. Its still kind of early but if he continues to do what hes been doing, I'll vote for him in 2012. (and I voted for McCain last time).

inmytree wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

oh, reeeeeeaaaaaaally??

i guess some people forget what is convenient for them to forget....

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

:roll:

which bank should i take this to???

perhaps the sperm bank, I really don't care...

apparently you assumed he meant (pick one) yesterday, today, tomorrow...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50J4ZK20090120

Obama to discuss Iraq troop drawdown on Wednesday
WASHINGTON
Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:33am EST
A U.S. soldier stands guard during a police graduation ceremony at Al-Furat Iraqi Police Training Centre in Baghdad January 14, 2009. REUTERS/ Saad Shalash

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barack Obama on Wednesday will meet top defense and military officials for the first time as president to discuss the possibility of accelerating the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq, officials said.

Barack Obama

Obama, who has pledged to pull U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months, was also expected to discuss the need for more forces in Afghanistan at the White House with a Pentagon delegation led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said.

The United States currently has 142,000 troops in Iraq and 33,000 in Afghanistan.

Obama made the 16-month Iraq withdrawal timetable a centerpiece of his presidential campaign despite misgivings among commanders who have advised a cautious approach to troop cuts.

The president-elect also said he would confer with senior defense and military officials before reaching a final decision.

Gen. David Petraeus, the former Iraq commander credited with pulling the country from the brink of civil war, was due to fly to the United States from Afghanistan to attend Wednesday's meeting in person, a senior military official said. Petraeus now oversees U.S. war efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan as head of U.S. Central Command.

U.S. Commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, was expected to join the conversation via video-link from Iraq.

Pentagon leaders were expected to provide Obama with a menu of withdrawal options and their respective inherent risks, including one for a 16-month drawdown.

A 16-month withdrawal would have combat forces out of Iraq in May 2010. The United States recently reached an agreement with Iraq that would require all U.S. forces to leave by the end of 2011.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the new president would instruct the Pentagon to prepare for a stepped-up withdrawal of combat troops and hear proposals for addressing a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

The Post also said Obama has indicated he would move ahead with proposed plans to send as many as 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

sperm bank, nice, so are you saying he said that or not? am i still just hearing what i want to hear or do you accept he made the promise?

will it happen? it is 1 out of a "menu of options"

it's odd you go from saying i basically made it up to posting an article i assume to prove he is doing what you claimed he never said....?

inmytree wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

sperm bank, nice, so are you saying he said that or not? am i still just hearing what i want to hear or do you accept he made the promise?

will it happen? it is 1 out of a "menu of options"

it's odd you go from saying i basically made it up to posting an article i assume to prove he is doing what you claimed he never said....?

:?

don't take it personal, lady...you said he "broke a promise"...I wrongly assumed you were basing this on the fact the troops are "not home yet"...therefore I said never promised to bring the troops home...I made an error...let me correct...he never said he would bring the troops home yesterday or today...

thanks for pointing out my ommision...

I'm guessing you now know you're wrong by making the statement that he "broke a promise"...

"it is the first thing I will do....."

i guess it takes 17 months to get around to the first thing he will do?

when it starts to happen i will believe it and will say i was wrong, until then.....

prfctlefts wrote:

Starfall wrote:

LOL. For someone who likes to dismiss other sites as left wing partisan sites regardless of the truth, I'm surprised you picked a right wing hack like Andrew Breitbart - who by the way is continually wrong.

I mean seriously, not only was he proven wrong on the identity of a person visiting the White House as NOT being the head of ACORN, he had the temerity to place a bet... and lost again.

But to the substance of the argument - I'm not happy about Obama either. The guy for all practical purposes is governing like Bill Clinton and his Democratic Leadership Council - swing to the center, curry favor with big corporations, and tell your base to fuck off because they'll support you anyway no matter what.

(EDIT) For the record, most of the hearings on healthcare were already televised, and had the Republicans not insisted on obstructionism the entire way, we'd have a real conference committee, that might have been televised, instead of the procedural method the Democrats are doing to bypass more GOP bullshit. The Republicans essentially took themselves out of the process because of their constant filibusters and delays, so fuck them, I'm glad the Democrats are getting this bill passed, even though I don't like it.

First off I only used that link for video purposes. I try to do my best and only use links that aren't bias,but somtimes you can fimd accurate info whether they lean left or right. However Media Matters isn't one of them IMO. They aren't even suppose to talk about politics because they are funded by tax payer subsidies. So in other words they are a criminal organization.

When were any of these proceedings televised ? I haven't seen any of them. Im not talking about debate. Im talking about what Obama PROMISED 8 DIFFERENT TIMES. So let me get this straight even though you don't like either of the 2 bills your still going to support it just to spite the GOP ?


If you think Health Insurance is exspensive now
just wait until it's FREE...

Well that's the problem - the video itself really doesn't tell us a lot. So Gibbs was grilled. Big deal, so was Perrino, so was Snow, so was every WH spokesperson. It's their job to take the heat.
Breitbart is a known shill who twists the truth to serve his ends. The incident with the two wingnuts who illegally recorded ACORN offices, for instance, was part of a scheme to discredit the organization, and Breitbart helped front those two.
Media Matters is not a political entity - they're a news media monitoring outlet. Whether or not you agree with Media Matters' politics, at least they properly document and source their entries, which is more than I can say for Breitbart and FOX. And if you really think they're a criminal organization, you might as well indict the Catholic and the Mormon churches for their involvement in politics too.

And BTW, the entirety of the health care debate was televised. All you have to do is look at C-SPAN's archives to see them. I'm not sure what they're aiming for with their recent request for televising the non-conference. I mean, what's going to be televised since there isn't going to be a real conference committee? Individual senators grandstanding? Whoopee, more Joe "Droopy Dog" Lieberman. :roll:

Besides, pretty much all of the work has already been done - what's going to happen is a process called ping-pong : the House will OK the Senate bill, with maybe a few minor adjustments, then send it back to the Senate for the final passage, then to the President for signature. They're having informal discussions to make sure the bill gets through without being subject to more GOP obstructionism.

As I pointed out before, the Republicans took themselves out of the process by virtue (LOL) of their obstructionism. The only one interested in any real discussion was Olympia Snowe and she still marched in lockstep to filibuster. And it'll only get worse from here on out - recently Senator Judd Gregg circulated a memo pointing out all the ways to delay and obstruct legislation. I mean, is THIS what we sent these buffoons to DC for, to NOT legislate? How long have we debated health care reform now, 60 years?

As far as the final bill, (and it looks like the Senate bill is going to be passed - I prefer the House bill in substance) there's a difference between me not liking it on policy matters, and not liking it "just to spite the GOP". I don't like this bill in substance. No public option, no Medicare buy-in, no negotiation of lower drug prices, a tax on really good health insurance plans that will affect primarily the middle class, no real enforcement, mandating people to buy private insurance or else there's a tax penalty.
There are some really good things in it, however - Senator Bernie Sanders' Community Medical Centers project, for instance, will open up health care to a lot of rural areas - and as we're not going to get anything better thanks to cocksuckers like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, it's time to just pass it and improve on it later on down the road. There's a lot more things that need to be done.

But yeah, we could have done SO much better.

---

And if this bill gets passed, Obama will absolutely break a campaign promise. He said he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Well, the tax on the so called "cadillac plans" is just that - a tax on the middle class. It's especially heinous because most of those are union negotiated plans - better benefits were negotiated instead of better wages. What's going to happen now is that employers and workers will start opting for the more insidious high-deductible and more limited coverage plans because of costs.

inmytree wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

also, let's take a look back at this....i said:
yes, and he also broke his promise on the first thing he'd do was bring our troops home from Iraq

blackredyellow asked:
When exactly did he make that promise?

to which you replied:
he never said this...

people want to hear what the what to hear...



maybe you need to edit more than the last omission on when it would be? what are you saying he never said he'd do??

um...a...um...

no...

I still contend, people hear what the want to hear...

i think not.

when blackredyellow asked when Obama promised the first thing he'd do was bring the troops home from Iraq instead of saying he never said that and people hear what they want to hear you should have said October 27th 2007, when he said

on Oct 27th 2007 Barack Obama wrote:

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

you can try to change the argument to 'when' and 'how long' but that's not what was said.

when he did he say that?
he never said this

that is just untrue

so you gave an article written a little more than 2 years later and bolded that 1 of the "menu of options" was everyone out by May 2010....well, if in 4 months this turns out to be true and he ends the war as he said then i will stand corrected and admit it, hell, i'll even give him til June!

if it ever happens it would be a point, until then it was 1 of several options he was looking at

anyway, to the OP, here are some more broken campaign promises

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

edit: that's right, not broken campaign promises, per se, but things we should have never expected to happen -shrug-

TravisTheSky wrote:

I was skimming the responses.

I don't think anyone has mentioned that BO also promised do away with dictatorial "signing statements." (Making new laws all on his own without the approval of Congress.) Then he signed one.

I think the rest of you have covered the other broken promises: Bring the troops home, not renew the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, close Guantanamo, not raise taxes. Which ones am I missing?

he will meet with foreign leaders without condition.

don't be silly people

my questions is that if they put every little health care conversation on TV would you have watched it?

I also heard that Obama promised his dentist that he would floss every night before bed however he forgot to do it three times this week alone.

for some reason when I read the OP I started thinking about Bush on a battle ship under a mission accomplished banner. I know apples and oranges it is just what popped into my head

i have to say it's a bit disappointing to see all the partisanship here. if you feel Obama needs more time to get started on this change we can believe in then fine but to see all the excuses...i doubt if this were Bush any of you would be saying 'so Bush broke a bunch of campaign promises, i bet he told his dentist he'd floss everyday, too!' what you are saying it is perfectly ok for our politicians to lie to our faces and put in zero effort. or seeing people say Obama never said that! i mean he did say that but he never said WHEN so techinically he didn't say that (which, by the way, makes NO sense at all)

ya know, it's perfectly ok to support a politician and still voice unhappiness in their efforts. i've seen many Obama supporters here voice displeasure in things he's done or hasn't done but just giving him or Bush or any politician free pass after free pass is only what makes our whole system fucked in the first place.

i bet if you bought a car and got it home only to find out the dealer completely lied to your face about the car you'd shrug it off and say 'i bet he lies to his dentist about flossing, too, oh well!' how can you compare telling your dentist you will floss to the actions or inactions of the fucking president of the united states!?

if it was wrong for Bush it should be wrong for Obama, if something is ok for Obama to do it should've been ok for Bush to do, too. you can't have it both ways, it can't be so wrong when the other guy does it but perfectly acceptable when it's your guy.

like i said, it's perfectly reasonable to still support someone while being critical of them at the same time but to just shrug and look the other way when it's your guy is being nothing but a partisan hack and that is why politicians fuck us over so easily, they know too many of you just won't care as long as the have the right letter next to their name so there's no motivation to follow through on promises or look out for our interests over corporate interests.