Doctor Fate wrote:Also, how about the whoppers Obama told last night? Too numerous to bother listing, but the SOF agreement in Iraq stood out. He implied he never wanted to keep troops in Iraq. That's just false. He put Biden in charge of negotiating the Status of Forces agreement and . . . we ended up with none.

Ahem:

Obama, March 2008 wrote:So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.

In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.

March 19, 2008 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

and...

Obama, February 2009 wrote:Let me say this as plainly as I can - by August 31 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

From this article Obama sets out his exit plan...

Almost six years after the invasion of Iraq, the end is finally in sight for America's involvement in its longest and bloodiest conflict since Vietnam. Barack Obama yesterday set out a timetable that will see all US combat units out by summer next year and the remainder by the end of 2011.

So, his intentions before and just after his election were to draw down troops over a period of 16-18 months, ending major combat operations, and leave a small rump (of about 50,000) that would be pulled out by the end of 2011.

What happened...

Well, from a starting point of 142,000 troops in Feb 2009, the deployment was drawn down, to 120,000 by Oct 2009, to under 100,000 in Mar 2010, 80,000 that July, and to 50,000 at the end of August. When major combat operations ceased.

And then the last troops left a couple of weeks before the end of 2011.

Wikipedia on MNFI, and the link at the bottom of the page to - MNFI Data

Who wanted to keep troops there longer? Not Obama (from the previous link):

The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, who had served in the post under Bush and was kept in office by Obama, introduced an element of doubt to the president's insistence that all US troops will be gone. Talking with reporters after the speech, Gates said he would like a "some very modest-sized presence for training and helping" Iraqi forces after 2011, but only if the Iraqi government requested this and there was no indication that it would.

If you are going to call someone a liar, DF, it's probably not a good idea to choose an example where their policy from 4 years ago matches pretty much what they did, and what they say they did.

By the way, I did not use a 'factchecker', I just googled 'Obama on Iraq 2008' , 'Obama on Iraq 2009' and then compared to the Wikipedia to see what happened to troop numbers.

danivon wrote:If you are going to call someone a liar, DF, it's probably not a good idea to choose an example where their policy from 4 years ago matches pretty much what they did, and what they say they did.

On the other hand, if you're going to prove someone wrong, danivon, you ought to have a clue what you're doing. You murphed it. Big time.

By the way, I did not use a 'factchecker', I just googled 'Obama on Iraq 2008' , 'Obama on Iraq 2009' and then compared to the Wikipedia to see what happened to troop numbers.

And, sadly, it shows. If you'd used my link, you would not wind up being so wrong:

U.S. Troops in Iraq

The president went too far when he accused Romney of not telling the truth about Obama’s position on leaving a residual force of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Romney: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you…

Obama: That’s not true. … [W]hat I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

Obama did indeed seek to leave several thousand U.S. troops in Iraq, and disagreed with Romney only over the size of the residual force. The administration tried to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government to leave 3,000 to 4,000 troops there at the time that negotiations broke down over the Iraqis’ refusal to grant legal immunity to remaining U.S. troops.

So, well done. You burned that Trump-esque tower of straw to the ground! You just happen to be 100% wrong.

Yes, I'm so 'wrong' to point out that in 2009, the President was saying that all troops should be out by the time the current SoF agreement expired, that the plan he outlined then turned out to be the eventual reality, and that it was accepted in 2009 that the Iraqi government was not likely to agree to any extension.

I would not be at all surprised if there was advice to the President to seek a renewed / new SoF agreement to have a residual force into 2012, and that was followed through with negotiations to allow it. But that doesn't mean that the President wanted to do it, or even that he would have done for any real length of time or for a significant number of troops.

On the original plan, he didn't want to do it, although as the plan even in 2009 meant going right to the wire there was always a question of whether to get an extension or not to cover a month or so after Dec 31 2011 for a small proportion, or to move over from actual ready-to-fight troops to other personnel deployments. The Pentagon were always more hopeful of that than any other part of the administration (and perhaps less mindful of the realities of Iraqi politics).

You also suggest that it was down to Biden that the SoF was not extended. That is risible. The main sticking point was one that America would never accept and which Iraq demanded - the removal of legal immunity for US troops. If the only way to get a renewal had been to accept that, I can just imagine what people would have been saying about Biden then.

It's also a pretty minor point - whether to keep a small number of troops in Iraq with the government of that nation's permission which was never going to be forthcoming - compared to the stunning realisation that I've just had - Obama actually kept his pledge pretty much to the letter, and yet no-one (to the left or the right) seems to have given him credit for it.

Oh I don't know DF, a lot of purple voters thought Obama won the debate and gave him a heavy advantage on security issues. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... mostShared

Spin all you want, when 53% to 23% of undecided voters think that Obama won that is not a good result for Romney.

danivon wrote:Yes, I'm so 'wrong' to point out that in 2009, the President was saying that all troops should be out by the time the current SoF agreement expired, that the plan he outlined then turned out to be the eventual reality, and that it was accepted in 2009 that the Iraqi government was not likely to agree to any extension.

Rarely have the goalposts moved so far, so fast.

That's not what I said, you know it, and I accept your apology.

You also suggest that it was down to Biden that the SoF was not extended. That is risible. The main sticking point was one that America would never accept and which Iraq demanded - the removal of legal immunity for US troops. If the only way to get a renewal had been to accept that, I can just imagine what people would have been saying about Biden then.

The only thing that is laughable is that such a goofball is VP. Here's a little insight to the brilliance of Biden:

Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate.

It's also a pretty minor point - whether to keep a small number of troops in Iraq with the government of that nation's permission which was never going to be forthcoming - compared to the stunning realisation that I've just had - Obama actually kept his pledge pretty much to the letter, and yet no-one (to the left or the right) seems to have given him credit for it.

Because (read the article I've already linked), the exit from Iraq was designed by Bush.

Furthermore, failure to get a SOFA did have consequences:

To many Iraqis, the United States’ influence is greatly diminished. “American policy is very weak,” observed Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff to Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. “It is not clear to us how they have defined their interests in Iraq,” Mr. Hussein said. “They are picking events and reacting on the basis of events. That is the policy.”

And, there are terrorist camps and attacks in Iraq today.

freeman2 wrote:Oh I don't know DF, a lot of purple voters thought Obama won the debate and gave him a heavy advantage on security issues. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... mostShared

Spin all you want, when 53% to 23% of undecided voters think that Obama won that is not a good result for Romney.

Yes it is. Who will they vote for? Watch the polls and wake me up when Mittmentum stops.

Oh, and what of Obama's "edge in favorability?"

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Mitt Romney crossed a major threshold early this week, moving above 50 percent in his favorability rating with voters, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls — and for the first time in the campaign he now leads President Obama on that measure.
The Republican presidential nominee has clearly benefited from the debates. He had a 44.5 percent favorability rating at the end of September, before the debates. But by Monday, when he and Mr. Obama faced off for the final debate of the campaign, Mr. Romney’s favorability average was up to 50.5 percent.
Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said Mr. Romney’s favorability surge “really has been remarkable.”

Biden being wrong is not news. That it would not have been politically possible for Iraq to agree to a SoF agreement which included immunity, and it would not have been politically possible for the USA to accept one that didn't trumps anything he may have said.

And yes I know who was President when the 2008 SoF agreement was signed.

(mittmentum? Not as good a neologism as romnesia)

Romney the presidential candidate is infinitely more attractive (to me) than the Romney who ran in the Republican primaries, and the Romney who was Governor of Mass is probably even more attractive (he got universal health care done, people, you've got to give him props for that.)

But an honest question to those who like him more than I do, does his constantly changing and evolving views bother you? Can you trust that you know what he stands for? Do you trust that his principles won't break down or blow in a moderate breeze? To me, I'm glad his views have moved, because it makes him much more reasonable and moderate, but you always want to know where a man stands, and are you comfortable that the Romney you're seeing today will be the Romney who governs tomorrow?

danivon wrote:Biden being wrong is not news. That it would not have been politically possible for Iraq to agree to a SoF agreement which included immunity, and it would not have been politically possible for the USA to accept one that didn't trumps anything he may have said.

At the debate, the President indicated he did not want to leave troops in Iraq. If that is the case, why did he try to get an SoF? Busy work for Biden?

And yes I know who was President when the 2008 SoF agreement was signed.

Obama doesn't. He takes all the credit for ending Iraq and for "saving GM." Neither was possible without the foundation laid by his predecessor. But, in his typically graceless style, he can't give Bush credit for anything.

(mittmentum? Not as good a neologism as romnesia)

True, but to have a sitting President playing cute little word games less than two weeks before the election is not too impressive.

geojanes wrote:But an honest question to those who like him more than I do, does his constantly changing and evolving views bother you? Can you trust that you know what he stands for? Do you trust that his principles won't break down or blow in a moderate breeze? To me, I'm glad his views have moved, because it makes him much more reasonable and moderate, but you always want to know where a man stands, and are you comfortable that the Romney you're seeing today will be the Romney who governs tomorrow?

An honest answer: he's not going to be as conservative as I would like. What I think he will be is business-like in terms of reviewing the budget. That is the only way the deficit can be brought under control. It won't happen overnight, but he will work on it, unlike President Obama.

I suspect any tilt towards moderation was a product of being a governor in Mass. He is going to be a very conservative president (if he wins). This tilt towards the center is designed to get moderates to accept him. I can't recall a politician who changed his policy positions like he changes clothes. "Tricky Dick" has met his match.

geojanes wrote:Romney the presidential candidate is infinitely more attractive (to me) than the Romney who ran in the Republican primaries, and the Romney who was Governor of Mass is probably even more attractive (he got universal health care done, people, you've got to give him props for that.)

But an honest question to those who like him more than I do, does his constantly changing and evolving views bother you? Can you trust that you know what he stands for? Do you trust that his principles won't break down or blow in a moderate breeze? To me, I'm glad his views have moved, because it makes him much more reasonable and moderate, but you always want to know where a man stands, and are you comfortable that the Romney you're seeing today will be the Romney who governs tomorrow?

This is right on point. I think that Romney's ability to shift views as needed is very disconcerting. I don't really know the man's core.

In the debate, I would rather have seen him be tougher as it relates to both Syria and Iran (and therefore Russia as well because of its overt and tacit support of those regimes). It would be fair to say that Syria is a moral crisis and that the US should provide a no fly zone and/or help arm the rebels. Similarly, on Iran, I think it is fair to say that the current sanctions are biting, but the reality is that they are insufficient to stop the mullahs. They still sell oil, and they still have foreign reserves, and they still will hit the point of no return under the current Obama policy. I didn't hear real policy differences on these crucial issues.

Romney made the decision that it wasn't worth driving these particular policy differences for electoral reasons. That may be the right election strategy, but it certainly leaves me puzzled as to his real strategy.

Of course, presidents who are more explicit often tell mistruths, often relative to their most important policy decisions. GHWB raised taxes; GWB engaged in the most ambition nation building exercise since the 40's in spite of a pledge that he wasn't a nation builder. The current president said he would close Guantanamo, go through every line item of the budget to eliminate waste, bend the health cost curve downward, halve the deficit, and end partisanship in Washington by taking the best ideas from both parties on the health care issue.

Well, RJ, on that last one, he and the Democrats pretty much did propose what had been Republican ideas (Romneycare and other Republican solutions based on non-single-payer insurance and extending Medicare & Medicaid). Problem was that as soon as Obama and the moderate Democrats proposed them, the Republicans decided their ideas were 'socialist' and almost universally opposed them. Thus the only debate became one within the Democratic caucuses with a handful of 'RINO's. Even then, what emerged was pretty much what a bipartisan plan would look like, just without the bipartisan part.

The Bush Medicare expansion is evidence that Republicans in Congress would do about the same, were it not part of their 2009 plan to auto-oppose anything from Obama.

I think that post-debate Obama will do two things.

1) try to show Romney's inconsistency over the past year. It's fine to move position over time as the evidence changes or as you rethink things. It's not usually seen as being so good when it appears to just be for political convenience. While all politicians, including Obama, can be shown to have done a bit of pander-based switching, Romney has been all over the place recently.

2) focus on what he is promising to do (hence the new 20 page booklet). This won't be an easy sell, as it's vague and not exactly based on a solid record. It's not part of a positive overarching narrative, either.

on the other hand, Romney will probably carry on, and play on the economy, and do the opposition role of criticising over any bad news.

Both campaigns will have some very negative moments, and ones aimed at the person of the other party's candidate. However, the debates do have the capacity to help both sides solidify voter attitudes

I think Gary Johnson clearly won that debate. Rocky Anderson was the surprise candidate. Virgil Goode sounds like James Carville.