Obama promises public support if troops sent off

[alan1]

I suppose most others didn't read the article and see what he said. The man is looking for an out in Afghanistan and he is looking to blame it on the lack of support from the people. That way if Al Queada or any other group starts training there again it's not his fault but ours.

This man does not have the Guts or the Intelligence to be the Commander in Chief.

Scary, very scary.

I disagree. The Oval Office used properly is probably the world's best bully pulpit. I hope Obama gets us out of that worthless hell hole, but if he does send more troops he'd darn well better throw the weight of the WH behind his decision.

And that he can do, but he can't promise the support of the American people, just like Mr Bush couldn't.

 

[goldcatt]

I suppose most others didn't read the article and see what he said. The man is looking for an out in Afghanistan and he is looking to blame it on the lack of support from the people. That way if Al Queada or any other group starts training there again it's not his fault but ours.

This man does not have the Guts or the Intelligence to be the Commander in Chief.

Scary, very scary.

I disagree. The Oval Office used properly is probably the world's best bully pulpit. I hope Obama gets us out of that worthless hell hole, but if he does send more troops he'd darn well better throw the weight of the WH behind his decision.

And that he can do, but he can't promise the support of the American people, just like Mr Bush couldn't.

It's his job to sell it if he decides to do it. He might be overconfident in his abilities, but that's nothing new for a POTUS.

 

[alan1]

I disagree. The Oval Office used properly is probably the world's best bully pulpit. I hope Obama gets us out of that worthless hell hole, but if he does send more troops he'd darn well better throw the weight of the WH behind his decision.

And that he can do, but he can't promise the support of the American people, just like Mr Bush couldn't.

It's his job to sell it if he decides to do it. He might be overconfident in his abilities, but that's nothing new for a POTUS.

And that's why my questions in the OP were said.
He can't make promises for you or I, he can make promises for himself.

 

[manu1959]

hey mountain, where in your quote did he say every? he didn't you did a$$wipe

you are reading shit that aint there scrotum breath

 

[goldcatt]

And that he can do, but he can't promise the support of the American people, just like Mr Bush couldn't.

It's his job to sell it if he decides to do it. He might be overconfident in his abilities, but that's nothing new for a POTUS.

And that's why my questions in the OP were said.
He can't make promises for you or I, he can make promises for himself.

But he is making promises for himself. It's his job to sell his decision, whatever it may be. He's promising he will drum up the support. Is he overreaching? Maybe. But there's nothing particularly nefarious about it.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Obama promises public support if troops sent off

More horseshit from the White House. He can't even make a decision to send more troops so how can he say that the public will support anything he does? I would support his decision to just keep his mouth shut until the 2012 election so we can pick us out a new President.

 

[alan1]

hey mountain, where in your quote did he say every? he didn't you did a$$wipe

you are reading shit that aint there scrotum breath

He's trying to divert the conversation because he can't answer the questions.

 

[alan1]

It's his job to sell it if he decides to do it. He might be overconfident in his abilities, but that's nothing new for a POTUS.

And that's why my questions in the OP were said.
He can't make promises for you or I, he can make promises for himself.

But he is making promises for himself. It's his job to sell his decision, whatever it may be. He's promising he will drum up the support. Is he overreaching? Maybe. But there's nothing particularly nefarious about it.

I never called it nefarious.
He is promising support he cannot deliver, especially considering that the party he belongs to has been screaming to remove the troops and end the wars for quite some time.
Of course, maybe I am wrong, maybe his party will support the war now that he is in charge of it.

 

[goldcatt]

And that's why my questions in the OP were said.
He can't make promises for you or I, he can make promises for himself.

But he is making promises for himself. It's his job to sell his decision, whatever it may be. He's promising he will drum up the support. Is he overreaching? Maybe. But there's nothing particularly nefarious about it.

I never called it nefarious.
He is promising support he cannot deliver, especially considering that the party he belongs to has been screaming to remove the troops and end the wars for quite some time.
Of course, maybe I am wrong, maybe his party will support the war now that he is in charge of it.

I never said you did. You replied to my point in response to Ollie, who strongly implied it.
I have no idea what the Dems will support. They're the Dems, they defy all reason. But you say he cannot deliver. I don't know whether he can deliver or not. Maybe he thinks he can.

 

[alan1]

But he is making promises for himself. It's his job to sell his decision, whatever it may be. He's promising he will drum up the support. Is he overreaching? Maybe. But there's nothing particularly nefarious about it.

I never called it nefarious.
He is promising support he cannot deliver, especially considering that the party he belongs to has been screaming to remove the troops and end the wars for quite some time.
Of course, maybe I am wrong, maybe his party will support the war now that he is in charge of it.

I never said you did. You replied to my point in response to Ollie, who strongly implied it.
I have no idea what the Dems will support. They're the Dems, they defy all reason. But you say he cannot deliver. I don't know whether he can deliver or not. Maybe he thinks he can.

More specifically, I meant he cannot deliver the support of the people that have been against the wars for the past few years. They have their reasons to be against it, and I don't think that the honest ones will change their mind just because we have a different CIC.

 

[goldcatt]

I never called it nefarious.
He is promising support he cannot deliver, especially considering that the party he belongs to has been screaming to remove the troops and end the wars for quite some time.
Of course, maybe I am wrong, maybe his party will support the war now that he is in charge of it.

I never said you did. You replied to my point in response to Ollie, who strongly implied it.
I have no idea what the Dems will support. They're the Dems, they defy all reason. But you say he cannot deliver. I don't know whether he can deliver or not. Maybe he thinks he can.

More specifically, I meant he cannot deliver the support of the people that have been against the wars for the past few years. They have their reasons to be against it, and I don't think that the honest ones will change their mind just because we have a different CIC.

True. But can he change enough minds to drum up significant if not universal support?
Or in the alternative, does he need to change that many at all? He campaigned strongly on withdrawing from Iraq and shifting focus to Afghanistan. And he won.

 

[Ame®icano]

Obama promises public support if troops sent off - Yahoo! News

Snip,
Nearing a decision on sending more troops off to war, President Barack Obama told a military audience Thursday that he will not dispatch them into conflict without proper support — including the backing of the American people.

"That is a promise that I make to you," Obama told more than 1,000 troops and their families gathered at a hangar here, as the president stopped briefly for refueling en route to a four-country trip to Asia.

Really?
Can he make that promise? Is every American all of the sudden going to support sending more troops into conflict?

How many Americans believe in his promises anyways? How many he kept so far?

 

[alan1]

I never said you did. You replied to my point in response to Ollie, who strongly implied it.
I have no idea what the Dems will support. They're the Dems, they defy all reason. But you say he cannot deliver. I don't know whether he can deliver or not. Maybe he thinks he can.

More specifically, I meant he cannot deliver the support of the people that have been against the wars for the past few years. They have their reasons to be against it, and I don't think that the honest ones will change their mind just because we have a different CIC.

True. But can he change enough minds to drum up significant if not universal support?
Or in the alternative, does he need to change that many at all? He campaigned strongly on withdrawing from Iraq and shifting focus to Afghanistan. And he won.

He campaigned on a lot of other things also.
The troop withdrawal from Iraq that he campaigned on is not happening. The media is ignoring that.

 

[goldcatt]

More specifically, I meant he cannot deliver the support of the people that have been against the wars for the past few years. They have their reasons to be against it, and I don't think that the honest ones will change their mind just because we have a different CIC.

True. But can he change enough minds to drum up significant if not universal support?
Or in the alternative, does he need to change that many at all? He campaigned strongly on withdrawing from Iraq and shifting focus to Afghanistan. And he won.

He campaigned on a lot of other things also.
The troop withdrawal from Iraq that he campaigned on is not happening. The media is ignoring that.

It's happening, but not at the levels or the pace he promised. Which is a huge disappointment to me.
The bottom line is, what exactly is he promising in that article? IMO, it's that he thinks he can deliver substantial public support if he decides to send more troops to Afghanistan. Maybe he can, maybe he's writing checks he can't cash. Hopefully he'll decide to get us the hell out of there and we won't find out.

 

[Polk]

I suppose most others didn't read the article and see what he said. The man is looking for an out in Afghanistan and he is looking to blame it on the lack of support from the people. That way if Al Queada or any other group starts training there again it's not his fault but ours.

This man does not have the Guts or the Intelligence to be the Commander in Chief.

Scary, very scary.

I watched the speech. That really, really wasn't the context. However, it's pretty obvious the American people are starting to want out.

44% want to start withdrawal
7% want to keep the current number
7% want to send more, but less than 40k
35% wants to send 40k

Americans Split on Afghanistan Troop Increase vs. Decrease

 

[Polk]

It's his job to sell it if he decides to do it. He might be overconfident in his abilities, but that's nothing new for a POTUS.

And that's why my questions in the OP were said.
He can't make promises for you or I, he can make promises for himself.

But he is making promises for himself. It's his job to sell his decision, whatever it may be. He's promising he will drum up the support. Is he overreaching? Maybe. But there's nothing particularly nefarious about it.

I read it as a statement of intention, not a statement of certainty. He's not saying he guarantee any individual person supports it. He's saying that he'll try to lead people to a supportive position.

 

[Si modo]

That man is unbelievable! Now his excuse, after pissing off most of the nation with his clear indecisiveness on looking out for those in harms way and making most of us so fed up we're screaming pull them out at this point, ....

Fuck him. Just fuck him.

 

[Sarah G]

More specifically, I meant he cannot deliver the support of the people that have been against the wars for the past few years. They have their reasons to be against it, and I don't think that the honest ones will change their mind just because we have a different CIC.

True. But can he change enough minds to drum up significant if not universal support?
Or in the alternative, does he need to change that many at all? He campaigned strongly on withdrawing from Iraq and shifting focus to Afghanistan. And he won.

He campaigned on a lot of other things also.
The troop withdrawal from Iraq that he campaigned on is not happening. The media is ignoring that.

He campaigned to withdraw within 18 months, that is still doable in spite of Republican clamoring that he complete every campaign promise before he's even been in office a year.

It's pretty unreasonable that Repubs of all people are demanding such deadlines when none were placed upon the previous administrative failure.

 

[SFC Ollie]

True. But can he change enough minds to drum up significant if not universal support?
Or in the alternative, does he need to change that many at all? He campaigned strongly on withdrawing from Iraq and shifting focus to Afghanistan. And he won.

He campaigned on a lot of other things also.
The troop withdrawal from Iraq that he campaigned on is not happening. The media is ignoring that.

He campaigned to withdraw within 18 months, that is still doable in spite of Republican clamoring that he complete every campaign promise before he's even been in office a year.

It's pretty unreasonable that Repubs of all people are demanding such deadlines when none were placed upon the previous administrative failure.

Sarah, Please, the man is following Bushs guidelines for Iraq that he established before he left office. And that is all he has done with Iraq, other than pull our troops out of the cities where they could actually do some good.

He is wishy washy in Afghanistan, and there is no argument about that.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama has taken many opportunities to attend military loss ceremonies lately. He is sending a clear message. See the losses we are suffering is his cry.

I think he was trying to say we need a war goal that Americans can get behind. I agree with that idea. I disagree with the message being sent when you delay a decision and phrase things in terms of "if" we send troops. It makes the situation sound unimportant. I would be very offended as a person serving in the military to think the Commander in Chief was not certain our sacrifice was needed.