Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of troops will be left behind in Iraq

[gogoplata]

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04militar...

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011.

....There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to “end the war” by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.

Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama’s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be “re-missioned,” their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.

In Iraq today, there are 15 brigades defined as combat forces in this debate, with one on its way home. But the overall number of troops on the ground is more than 50 brigade equivalents, for a total of 146,000 troops, including service and support personnel. Even now, after the departure of the five “surge” brigades that President Bush sent to Iraq in January 2006, the overall number of troops in Iraq remains higher than when Mr. Bush ordered the troop increase, owing to the number of support and service personnel remaining.....Mr. Gates, speaking at the Pentagon on Tuesday, a day after he appeared with Mr. Obama to announce the new national security team, made clear that the direction of troop levels now had been decided, with the only decisions remaining on how fast and how low.

“And so the question is, How do we do this in a responsible way?” Mr. Gates said. “And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved, with so much sacrifice, on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis, at this point.”

Great. 70,000 troops staying in Iraq past 2011, and a surge of 30,000 into Afghanistan right when India and Pakistan are increasing tensions in the region.

[Mass]

1. This is NOT what Obama says. It is what "Army planners"say

whoever this is.

Obviously, I'd like to hear Obama or Gates say something that clarifies what has ALWAYS been the real issue in ALL Democratic proposals, but what you are outlining is NOT what Obama said.

[gogoplata]

5. “I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it

might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

[thewiseguy]

7. You are misleading people.

The source of the article are military planners and not Obama.

[Mass]

9. He did not say how many. I think that there is a legitimate question to ask, but not

a wild claim like yours. He does not say what your OP says.

[gogoplata]

12. I didn't make the claim.

[thewiseguy]

15. and who did? Anonymous military planners or Obama?

[DevonRex]

17. Is the thread title yours or not?

[EFerrari]

19. It's a quotation from the article. n/t

[thewiseguy]

22. No Shit!

Are not you smart!

[EFerrari]

24. Too much coffee this morning? n/t

[DevonRex]

28. So he chose that title purposely. It isn't the title of the article, but it is

the title of the OP.

Thanks for letting me know. I'm so tired this morning that I didn't really feel like clicking and searching. Right now my biggest decision is whether to take an Ultram or a Vicodin for my headache.

[gogoplata]

32. If Obama pulls 16 brigades home in the next 16 days, there will still be

tens of thousands of troops occupying the country.

[Alexander]

111. And how long does it take to train and provide support for Iraqi troops?

Answer: Not very long at all.

So you've now pulled numbers from anonymous sources, attacked Obama for things he never said, and made assumptions when you have no answers.

And you think this is fooling us?

[gogoplata]

20. Thread title is from the 2nd paragraph.

[gogoplata]

18. There are 50 brigade equivalants in Iraq, Obama has stated that he wants to pull

16 brigades out in 16 months. The math is the math.

I want them all out.

[Kashka-Kat]

2. you really thought they'd give up those 14 PERMANENT military bases? "Ending the war" doesn't mean

they'd not still be there.

[cherokeeprogressive]

90. Who's "they"? Is Obama NOT the Commander in Chief?

"They". That word always gets me when used in this context.

Obama could have EVERY boot off of the ground in Iraq if he wanted. IN 16 months. The power is his to wield.

[Kashka-Kat]

178. they = Obama, armed forces, majority of congress

The bases will probably remain even if & when the occupation of the rest of Iraq ends - sorta like Guantanamo base on Cuban soil. Only a few like Dennis K. mention specifically what should happen to the bases, the rest define "ending the war" a bit differently and are intentionally ambiguous about the bases. I don't like it, but that's reality.

[DutchLiberal]

194. No, he's not. The military industrial complex acts as 'Commander in chief'.

There hasn't been a president yet who could or wanted to beat them, since Eisenhower warned about them in his farewell speech.

[FrenchieCat]

3. gogoplata is making it clearer that is he working hard to defeat

President Elect Obama in 2012.

[DevonRex]

11. Yep. Why are people doing this here? I thought we liked democrats.

[Spazito]

29. Yep, the OP's posts have been very.........consistent in their.....focus n/t

[gogoplata]

34. 3 purity patrols, who choose not to engage the issue, just attack a DU member.

The article is from the NY Times, what do you dispute that is written, if anything?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gogoplata]

46. Refuse to engage with the topic? Just want to question loyalty?

Sidney, you are angry at the troops left in Iraq, just like I am. I choose to do something about it, you may feel that appearances of 100% love from the party is more important than opposing the continuation of an illegal occupation, we will have to disagree.

[Alexander]

51. Refuse to have a discussion? Just want to attack Obama?

Yep, that's your agenda.

Who do you think you're fooling?

[gogoplata]

56. I am engaged in this discussion, I am opposed to occupying Iraq. I am opposed

to an imperial presence of 70,000 military troops in the sovereign Iraqi nation. Are you?

[thewiseguy]

60. WTF are you rambling about? Where did Obama say 70,000?

[Alexander]

66. He didn't. This concern troll is just pulling stuff out of his ass.

The OP joined a week ago and every post has been tearing down Obama.

[Alexander]

62. I knew when I voted for Obama that he would keep some troops there past 16 months.

If you didn't know that, your own ignorance is the problem.

Obama made this perfectly clear during the campaign.

Of course, someone with your "concerns" probably never supported him anyway.

[thewiseguy]

65. The OP is spreading bogus claims about 70000 troops remaining in Iraq

Obama has never said such a thing. The article does not quote Obama saying such a thing. The OP is spreading bs.

[Alexander]

69. I know that. But Obama made it clear that "conditions on the ground" was the key.

The OP is either an ignorant fool or a concern troll disruptor.

[DutchLiberal]

197. Paranoid, are you?

[Spazito]

59. I don't dispute the article, I do, however, question your OP's 'slant' on it...

but, then again, I have found the vast majority of your OPs and posts to be similarly slanted so no surprise, imo.

[gogoplata]

63. The OP is the article.

[Spazito]

82. No, your OP is the compilation of your "opinion"...

and 'interpretation' of the article. Were it to be "the article" you would have simply cut and past 4 paragraphs from it and let it stand on it's own.

Your OP is misleading and deliberately so, imo, but, as I said before, no surprise there.

[DutchLiberal]

196. Don't you know? You can't question any politician with a D next to his name...

Unless it's Pleosi or Reid, then all of a sudden bashing is mandatory. But when it comes to others, it's 'party over country' at DU.

[DutchLiberal]

195. That's a filthy attack.

[thewiseguy]

4. Your thread title is false. Are you trying to stir up shit?

[gogoplata]

10. 2nd paragraph at the link

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

[DevonRex]

14. That would be my best guess. nt

[Starry Messenger]

6. What a fool I've been!

Why didn't I vote for McCain?

[firedupdem]

8. pretty sure that the op did....every thread is designed to start some

anti Obama bullshit.

[kennetha]

13. Obama is a master of tacit ambiguity

He will end the war "responsibly." But what does "responsibly" mean and entail? It's clearly meant to rule out a precipitous withdrawal that undoes what are claimed to be our gains in Iraq. But too much responsibility of this kind, and you've got a policy barely distinguishable from Bush's. Of course, the main point was to draw distinctions from Bush's policies. But the sense that there would be a radical shift was conveyed more by the tone of OBama's remarks -- the constant stress on ending the war -- rather than the details -- spelling out what ending it responsibly actually amounts to.

[EFerrari]

16. That's a good point. n/t

[leftstreet]

23. Good point

[gogoplata]

26. I think it's time that he let us know what the plans are, especially since Gates,

who supported the surge and SOFA, is running the show over there.

[Captain Hilts]

47. Bingo. nt

[MadHound]

21. If this is going to be the case, Obama can kiss the anti-war vote goodbye in 2012

We need to get all of our troops out ASAP, and if Obama doesn't do that, then we need to find somebody who will.

Just more confirmation that Obama is also working under the rubric of the two party/same corporate master system of government.

[EFerrari]

25. It would be helpful if Obama made a statement about how he's going to deal

with the obscene mess Bush is leaving there -- including our imperial embassies. Our economy gives him a very good cover for significant downsizing. I hope he uses it.

[MadHound]

27. Not just the economy, but public opinion

Hell, he could load the troops up on Jan 21st and bring them home with the entire country cheering him on. Leaving any sort of residual force in the country is just another euphemism for low level, long simmering military action.

[EFerrari]

30. Right. There's a matrix of good reasons: responding to public opinion,

the economy, signaling a new course in foreign policy, making good on the commitment to develop renewables. Iraq is a very powerful symbol, too, of the massive Bush failures. Obama could continue to use that symbol to advance his politics easily by downsizing and drawing down.

/oops

[WonderGrunion]

68. From a practical standpoint

If Obama rescues the economy, he won't need the anti-war vote in 2012.

My momma always said you catch more flies with molasses than vinegar. Perhaps a less aggressive approach towards Obama and the war might yield results closer to what you want. Otherwise, who will listen to you in 2012?

[MadHound]

184. Mmm-hmmm, you just keep thinking that

How nice of you to write off seventy five percent of the electorate as irrelevant.

Oh, and it's nice to see just where your priorities are, money over lives Nice set of morals you've got there.

[DutchLiberal]

198. The anti-war voters had only one choice for an anti-war candidate...

Kucinich.

[ellacott]

31. I'm convinced that many of you never read his positions

or paid any attention to his speeches or the debates. Many things you all are calling broken promises are not broken promises.

[gogoplata]

33. End the war, bring our troops home. ASAP.

That's what he emphasized.

[ellacott]

35. Just as I thought

Case closed.

[gogoplata]

36. So, this is old news and anyone who was paying attention would know?

[ellacott]

41. It's not worth it

amazing

[MadBadger]

43. He has emphasized bringing our troops home 1-2 brigades per month for 16 months.

[WonderGrunion]

Obama never stated that

You can go way back to when he first announced nearly two years ago that he was running for president. He never called for immediate withdrawal. Even if he did, he couldn't start that until he takes office. Even if he wanted immediate withdrawal, it's logistically impossible to do that with 180,000 troops and all the hardware and resources we have over there. He never emphasized what you're claiming. All informed voters knew that. I'll leave it to you to conclude what that makes you.

[zulchzulu]

37. What would you suggest we do if the Shiites begin slaughtering the Sunnis in a genocide?

Perhaps what happens if Turkey invades the Kurdish regions and methodically kills off the Kurds?

What about how we utterly destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, its water resources, its transmission lines and power grid?

I know. We should just leave. Let them kill each other off while we just look away.

It's more complicated than just having the troops leave (as they will eventually) overnight...

[gogoplata]

38. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence

presence there."

The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.

"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QGF5700&show_...

[EFerrari]

39. The international community needs to deal with these issues, not us.

If we do it, there's too much room for the same abuses we've seen since the invasion.

[zulchzulu]

99. I agree. We are part of the international community that has to face down these issues

Yes, the UN... which we are probably three quarters of troop-wise...

[EFerrari]

141. Very true, and the UN is not infallible or somehow magical but

I doubt that outfits like KBR would be getting away with their horrible cr@p -- poisoning the troops, allowing their subs to engage in slavery, murdering civilians without consequences -- if more eyes were on their behavior.

[mvd]

175. Right. Taking things into our own hands is..

what got us into this mess. I'd rather we made a phased but regular withdrawal starting now, but Obama should ask for international oversight - since some concerns about the aftermath are valid.

[EFerrari]

176. I hope he does. Thank goodness, I trust his team to frame it very well.

They're past masters at it and their skill will serve Obama and us very well in the next awful year or two.

[QC]

40. Why do you hate America? Why?? n/t

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

105. I like the giraffe one you had yesterday. :)

[Alexander]

45. That's a lot of concern for someone who joined a week ago.

I wonder how you voted on November 4th.

[gogoplata]

48. Another one who wants a loyalty oath and won't discuss facts.

There are people commenting here that this (tens of thousands of troops staying in Iraq) was so obvious that for anyone to be bothered by it was being naive. Then there are others, like you, who attack the messenger. The numbers are not mine, they come from Obama.

We need to stop the surge in Afghanistan and end our occupation in Iraq.

[Alexander]

50. You're tearing down Obama every chance you get. There's nothing to discuss.

You are here to spread your "concern" and get people to attack Obama before he even takes office.

I myself will wait until Obama is president, since he can't even start the withdraw until then.

Your agenda is obvious. Enjoy your stay.

[dionysus]

52. so few posts, all attacking obama....

[Hawkeye-X]

188. Are you sure you're not jacksom_dem?

Because you sure sound like him

[DutchLiberal]

200. I wonder why you engage in personal attacks.

[mzmolly]

49. He's never said anything different. He always said we'd have a residual force

for a period of time.

[Alexander]

53. Thank you. Unfortunately the truth won't stop concern trolls.

[gogoplata]

54. There are people on this thread, very angry at this story. They, like me, didn't

count on 70,000 troops hanging out in Iraq for an indefinite time period.

[Alexander]

57. Yes, and there are people at DU, like you, who are spreading "concern".

Most of us who voted for Obama already knew this.

If you didn't know this, that's your problem, not his.

Assuming you actually voted for him, which I seriously doubt.

[gogoplata]

61. Ok , then if this is the "truth" about Obama and his plans.

What's the issue with talking about it?

[Alexander]

72. The 70k figure is out of your ass. Most of us knew there would be a small residual force.

If you didn't know that, that is your problem, not ours, and not Obama's.

The 70,000 figure, you just pulled out of your ass.

And when I see concern trolls stirring shit about someone who didn't even take office yet, I call them out on it.

[gogoplata]

75. Well, you started out intelligently, the 70k number is from the NY Times.

[Alexander]

79. No, "some say" it "could" be 70k - didn't you read your own OP?

Christ, it's like I'm arguing with a toddler.

[gogoplata]

81. That's where the 70k comes from.

[thewiseguy]

86. It does not come from Obama. The source are military planners!

Go back and read your own article again then revisit the thread title.

[Alexander]

89. Not even that, anonymous people who say it "could" happen.

The OP must need someone to help him tie his shoes in the morning.

[Alexander]

88. Yeah, we can always trust "some" who "say" it "could" happen.

For the love of God, are you really this stupid?

[gogoplata]

93. Stop changing your frame of attack, you accused me of making the number up.

Can't you debate with some honor?

[thewiseguy]

94. We have told you again and again that your number does not come out of Obama's mouth

Your thread title suggests falsely that it does. You can not run away from this.

[Alexander]

97. The OP is interested in attacking Obama, not facts. It's obvious.

[gogoplata]

100. You dispute the tens of thousands number? Based on what?

[thewiseguy]

103. So some anonymous source pulls a number out of their ass, you contribute it to Obama and then..

You ask me to dispute that number?

This is not freerepublic..

[gogoplata]

149. I'll type slower- Obama says pull 16 brigades in 16 months

that still leaves tens of thousands of troops.

That number doesn't include the contractors he is planning on leaving there either.

[Alexander]

152. No matter how slow you type, you're still a complete fucking idiot.

Training troops has never taken years, ever.

If you think it will take years to train the Iraqi military, you obviously have no understanding of the armed forces.

Thanks for playing. For your consolation prize, you get a pizza.

[gogoplata]

156. "Training has never taken years, ever" You need to catch up on the news from Iraq.

[Alexander]

158. They aren't training the same troops for years. You need to learn to read.

The troops they were training years ago are already on duty.

I know it must be hard going through life brain-dead, but not everyone is like you.

[gogoplata]

162. There ya go, "troop training" can go on for some time.

Easier to learn when you can figure it out on your own, isn't it?

[Alexander]

165. Not for years. Boot camp doesn't take years.

I can see why it would for you, though.

You probably think kindergarten is a 5-year program, too.

[gogoplata]

168. I guess you got it in your head we're going to only train one wave of grunts.

[Alexander]

172. Never said that, but thanks for playing. You fail yet again.

The troops we trained in 2005 and 2006 are already on duty.

The troops we are training now will be on duty within a year.

Once again, you're putting words in the mouths of others.

You don't want discussion. You're a troll with a martyr complex, and you're just here gainsaying anything anyone says, when you're not pulling things out of your ass.

[gogoplata]

107. There is no claim, zero, that Obama has stated a number.

The math is the math. 146,000 troops=approx 50 brigades. Reduce that number by 16 brigades, what's left?

What's left is an occupation army terrorizing the population.

[Alexander]

118. Except your OP says "Obama makes it clear...tens of thousands"

So once again, you're contradicting yourself in another failed attempt to attack our President-elect.

"The math is the math. 146,000 troops=approx 50 brigades. Reduce that number by 16 brigades, what's left?"

If Hillary Clinton or John McCain had won, there wouldn't even be 16 brigades to subtract.

Before, I thought you were either incredibly stupid or a concern troll.

I apologize.

You're obviously an incredibly stupid concern troll.

[gogoplata]

157. Now you're just messing around. It does not say that Obama states anything

about the tens of thousands. It is easily figured out though.

[Alexander]

160. I quoted you. You made that asinine assumption.

Based on anonymous sources and the idea that a single soldier must go through years of training.

Your IQ is roughly equivalent to that of mustard.

[Alexander]

96. You're attacking Obama for the words of an ANONYMOUS SOURCE.

Not only that, an anonymous source who says it "could" happen.

Can't you debate with some intelligence?

[gogoplata]

104. We have 146,000 troops in Iraq, Obama says bring home 16 brigades

how many does that leave?

[Alexander]

106. He didn't say he'd only bring home 16 and leave the rest there forever.

Not even your own article says that.

Maybe when you learn to read, you can argue with the grown-ups. Okay?

[gogoplata]

109. Where is "forever" used by anyone in this debate?

[thewiseguy]

114. Left behind in Iraq for how long?

[gogoplata]

117. You tell me.

[thewiseguy]

119. Its in your thread title and you want me to tell you?

[Alexander]

121. The OP must think we're as brain-dead as he is.

[gogoplata]

133. Yes, I do. You obviously think that there is some timetable given.

[Alexander]

136. Your own article specifically explains what they would be doing.

Training Iraqi troops and providing logistical support.

That takes months, not years.

If you don't use your brain, that's nobody's fault but your own.

[gogoplata]

139. dupe

[gogoplata]

142. You believe that quote, but not the others?

[Alexander]

144. Considering that's the only quote attached to a name, yes.

See, in Journalism 101 they teach you that anonymous sources aren't trustworthy.

Hopefully you'll figure that out when you start college in 10 years.

[gogoplata]

148. You're right on that. How do you know that we will only be training them for months?

[Alexander]

150. How many troops have you met whose training took years?

I'm guessing zero, or they wouldn't be in the military.

[gogoplata]

151. The military has been training Iraqi troops for years as it is. You've forgotten?

[Alexander]

153. Not the same ones. Not everyone is as stupid as you are.

[gogoplata]

159. Have you ever noticed that the insults that people hurl, especially if they are

the same insults over and over, are really just a sign of where that person's insecurities lay?

[Alexander]

161. Have you noticed that you change the subject whenever you're proven wrong?

I sure have.

[thewiseguy]

84. and what does that have to do with Obama?

[mzmolly]

55. Did people think they were voting for Kucinich?

Cause I'm not seeing the contradictions?

[gogoplata]

58. Some above obviously did, they think this is a big lie.

[Alexander]

70. At least they voted for Obama. More than I can say about you.

[DevonRex]

110. I want to know why this guy is even here.

[DutchLiberal]

201. Yes, you were with him in the voting booth, I'm sure...

[Alexander]

207. Joining after the election and trashing Obama in every post...

...leads me to think that one does not support Obama.

I guess for some DUers, that's not enough proof.

[Buzz Clik]

64. You must have been away from all media during the campaign.

this is not news.

[gogoplata]

67. Why are the posters up top, who are concerned that I would dare quote this article,

saying that this a big lie?

[thewiseguy]

71. Because you are spreading bogus claims that Obama has said 70000 troops will remain in Iraq

[gogoplata]

73. Do you know how many will stay? Tens of thousands?

[thewiseguy]

76. Residual force = 70000?

I have never heard Obama say tens of thousands of troops will remain in Iraq. Your article does not quote him saying that either.

So why did you post an article suggesting otherwise?

[Alexander]

77. You certainly don't. So quoting 70k over and over is a lie.

You might as well quit while you're behind - your concern trolling is obvious.

[gogoplata]

80. Have you even read the article? Try that before you show your ignorance.

[Alexander]

83. Yes, I did. "Some say" is not a valid source. Go back to school.

If you cited papers this way, you'd never have made it past Junior High.

[Alexander]

74. The OP won't last long. All of his posts have been anti-Obama.

Not to worry, this one will go back under the bridge where he belongs.

[gogoplata]

87. Not anti-Obama, anti-war.

[jenmito]

91. Anti-Obama-supporters even. Here's an example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[gogoplata]

95. ?

[Alexander]

98. It's simple. You're a concern troll. And you've been busted.

It's only a matter of time before you taste granite.

Enjoy.

[DevonRex]

128. Retread perhaps?

[Alexander]

132. Probably. I wonder what his previous screen name was.

[DevonRex]

140. Maybe that puppet guy? Can't remember his name. :)

[jenmito]

108. ?

[gogoplata]

113. !

[jenmito]

116. This is your most positive post about Obama YET. Doesn't say much about you, does it?!

[Alexander]

92. Not anti-war. Anti-fact. Anti-Obama. Anti-valid source.

Attacking Obama for something an anonymous source says "could" happen is the very pinnacle of stupidity.

Congratulations, you've won DU's dunce cap for today. Now go sit in the corner until you learn to read.

[Buzz Clik]

78. The analysis of Obama's stance is not new.

[jenmito]

85. You started a similar thread 3 days ago and most of your posts are critical of Obama and his

supporters (just one example of each):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Alexander]

101. Yep. This concern troll just got busted.

[jenmito]

112. I like doing searches on newbies who start negative threads like this. It's always revealing.

[gogoplata]

115. Sounds like some people have too much time on their hands.

[jenmito]

123. Sounds like you aren't an Obama supporter.

[Alexander]

127. Yep. I think the OP just invited us all to Alert on his dumb ass.

[jenmito]

130. I agree.

[Alexander]

125. Yes, you do.

[DutchLiberal]

203. You have to show a certified Oath of Loyalty to Obama before you can post here...

Didn't anyone tell you?

[Alexander]

208. No, we just expect people not to trash Democrats with every post.

You know, that pesky stuff about the rules and all.

[DevonRex]

120. We all know it, so why is he still here? I honestly do not understand

why this is okay here all of the sudden.

I come here to talk to other democrats, who "generally" are supportive of democrats. This poster has not said ONE thing that even came close to "generally" supporting the democratic PE.

[Alexander]

129. The more people Alert on him, the faster he'll go away.

[DevonRex]

138. I've been doing my civic duty.

I think the mods must be flummoxed over this situation, too. Who would have thought that so many would surface now?

Once again I feel sorry for them having to stop the nonsense. And I admire their strong stomachs.

[elkston]

102. You're not fooling anyone. Your candidate didn't win in the Primaries.

You expected Obama to crash and burn. Instead, he won big time. Now you come back under some new name with a fake anti-war outrage.

You really think Hillary wouldn't have advocated for a "careful" withdrawl either?

Whatever, dude. Obama won, nothing you can do about it. You're either a racist, a hater, or both.

[kennetha]

122. Gosh, you're tiresome.

You've got broken record itis. Or something.

Take a chill pill, dude -- or dudette, whichever the case may be.

[thewiseguy]

126. Says the person who made a thread on DU saying he would never vote for Obama

We heard you loud and clear.

[DevonRex]

134. Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

Personally, I'm considering starting my ignore list again since the nuts are coming out of the woodwork lately. Why can't they stay on their own sites and trash him? Oh yeah. Hardly anybody goes to their sites anymore.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

124. I'm wondering...

who this is a retread of. Any guesses?

[dionysus]

131. lets go with methuen or hermanmunster

[DevonRex]

135. OMG. I had fogotten all about them.

Who was that puppet guy? He was definitely off his rocker and off his meds.

[Alexander]

147. But who could forget jlake, Tellurian, and jackson_dem?

[rvablue]

145. Elkston, if you think that these disruptive posts

spreading misinformation and "concern" regarding Obama, I would venture to say, please stop.

I'm over the freakin' moon Obama is President. I didn't vote for him in the primary. I voted for Hillary. And I can tell you with every bone in my body that even without SoS, I wouldn't have a sore bone in my body.

Obama as President is one of the greatest reliefs and joys of my ENTIRE life. Sounds exaggerated...it's not...the last 8 years have been hell and I'm excited to see what will happen next. I intend to give Obama a FULL YEAR before I squack about anything he does. I trust him.

I think the fact that this OP signed up 6 days ago shows EXACTLY who they are and who they would have rather seen in the White House.......continuing to blame this on Hillary voters is very hurtful...I'm serious it really hurts my feelings because I'm on board and a post like this can really sting at this point....I would suggest that despite the heightened tensions during the primary you might refocus who you blame these types of posts on.......I think they might be coming from folks who supported a DIFFERENT LADY....Hmmmm?

[Alexander]

146. The only disruptive things in this thread came from gogoplata and kennetha.

"I think the fact that this OP signed up 6 days ago shows EXACTLY who they are and who they would have rather seen in the White House.......continuing to blame this on Hillary voters is very hurtful...I'm serious it really hurts my feelings because I'm on board and a post like this can really sting at this point....I would suggest that despite the heightened tensions during the primary you might refocus who you blame these types of posts on.......I think they might be coming from folks who supported a DIFFERENT LADY....Hmmmm?"

You have a point.

Some trolls here are/were McCain or Palin supporters.

But you can't deny that some are/were bitter Hillary Clinton supporters as well.

In short, there's really no way to determine who a troll would rather see in office.

[gogoplata]

155. Disruptive? Look at the takeover of the thread you've attempted. LOL!

[Alexander]

163. This entire thread is disruptive bullshit. Your disruptive bullshit.

We will enjoy watching the mods bring the hammer down on you.

[gogoplata]

164. Attack, attack. You have any other talents?

[Alexander]

166. Yeah. I can read and use facts. Don't blame me because you can't.

[gogoplata]

170. LOL!

[Alexander]

174. I wonder how hard you'll laugh when your ass gets tombstoned.

[DevonRex]

169. And I congratulate you on your patience and tenacity. :)

I'm so very tired of all the anti-Obama nonsense here lately. I'm particularly tired of the ones who pretend to post an article simply for "discussion" when in reality all they want is to tear Obama down. I find that to be disgustingly dishonest.

So thank you for your diligence today.

[Alexander]

173. Thanks. They are like roaches when the lights come on.

Bring up their previous attacks on Obama and they change the subject or run away.

They'd rather talk about anything but their history of trolling DU.

[DevonRex]

154. (((hug)))

We know you're wonderful. Really.

Please, please don't have hurt feelings.

[DutchLiberal]

204. You're either dumb as a rock or plain abusive. Or both.

[Alexander]

209. You describe the OP perfectly.

[HughMoran]

143. Oh no

Not another moronic thread dissing Obama before he's taken office.

[Two Americas]

167. is there no way...

Is there no way that we can be loyal to and supportive of the new administration, yet still express opposition to the various Bush doctrines and programs, and the influence those have had over Democratic politicians? Must it be all or nothing?

Is loyalty to a politician more important that steadfastness in support of the causes that are the very reason we supported the politician in the first place?

An extended military presence in Iraq, and the pursuit of what can only be described as imperialistic goals there, including the maintenance of numerous and massive US military bases and the protection of corporate interests setting up shop in Iraq, are things we were all opposed to when the Bush administration was promoting them.

Whether or not the OP is new, is a "concern troll" or a "freeper" or deserving of "granite" or not - isn't all of that chatter in violation of board rules? - nevertheless, attacking the messenger rather than the message has a chilling effect on dissent, is suppressive to freedom of speech, and is not conducive to the climate necessary for the free and open exchange of ideas.

[Alexander]

171. There is a way, and it is not by doing what the OP is doing.

I don't care how old or new DUers are.

If you do nothing but attack Obama, you deserve the "concern troll" label.

The OP has done nothing but attack Obama. A cursory search of his week-long posting history would reveal this.

I would very much love to discuss Obama's plan for Iraq.

But that is not why the OP is here, and that is not what the OP is doing.

[Two Americas]

185. dissent is not attack

The OP may have a hidden agenda. We can't know - it is hidden. The OP may be wrong. That can be debated. I am not talking about the OP. I am talking about the responses on this thread. In this case, because the member is new, people can more effectively and credibly accuse them of being a "troll" and assign destructive motives to them. However, the remarks on the thread show an intolerance of any and all dissent, from "trolls" or not, and create a climate of fear and suspicion, encouraging people to imagine a group of shadowy characters with evil motives, and implying that any and all critics can and perhaps should be placed under this cloud of suspicion. I think we have had just about enough of from the right wingers over the last 8 years.

The definition of "concern troll" has become anyone expressing any dissent, and the characterization of anyone expressing dissent has become asking people here to view them as suspicious characters not to be listened to or trusted. It is no stretch whatsoever to see this as a classic case of an aggressive attempt at suppression of freedom of speech. It is right out of the right wing propaganda machine handbook - "of course you would say that, you are a liberal and liberals hate America." And how do they define "liberal?" As anyone disagreeing with them. And how do they characterize those dissenting? As "liberals." Since we have all been victims of this tactic for so long, directly or indirectly, I think we should disavow it ourselves when used here.

This is not a defense of the OP, nor an attack on any of the posters here. It is a plea that we do not become like that which we have been fighting against for so long - that we do not emulate and imitate our persecutors and oppressors - lest we lose the war in our zealousness to prosecute the battle, or wage imaginary battles based on suspicion, guilt by association, and character assassination.

Many sincere members here, who have impeccable integrity and have been loyal to the party for decades, worked hard for the success of the party, and who have been consistent in the opinions they express, are being attacked exactly the way that this presumed "concern troll" is being attacked.

[EFerrari]

177. It's very ugly to see people attacking a poster this way

when they're supposedly here to have discussions. Ugly.

[Alexander]

179. The OP is here to disrupt, not have discussions. He has attacked Obama and Obama supporters before.

I wish people would look up someone's posting history before automatically assuming they are here with the best intentions.

[EFerrari]

180. The OP has been out done by the responses. A Pyrrhic victory. n/t

[Alexander]

181. The OP is not long for this board if he keeps this up.

And judging by the new topics in General Discussion, he has shown no sign of stopping.

[EFerrari]

182. There's gotta be a better way to do this, imho.

I don't pretend to know what that would be. But calling people out for hours on one of these threads can't be the best way to go about it.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mwei924]

186. Leaving ZERO troops in Iraq is crazy talk and unrealisitc.

We still have a bunch of troops in Germany.

[mitchum]

187. You're hell on those Billy Goats Gruff, aren't you?

[Starry Messenger]

189. Got bored calling people nazis over in GD, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Guess you figured the fish were better over here in GDP.

[gogoplata]

206. Only the pro-torture folks, are you one of those?

[Radical Activist]

190. What a deceptive article.

It says:
"That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011."

Is Obama the status-of-forces agreement negotiated under Bush? Is Obama an Army planner? No and no. Nice bait and switch though.

How did so many progressives become so gullible about believing any poorly thought out argument that makes Obama look more conservative? People who look for disappointment usually find it.

[gogoplata]

192. I'd like to know which is it-(1) Is this old news, everyone knows Obama wants

to stay in Iraq, or (2)Does he really mean it when he says out in 16 months.?

[Radical Activist]

199. The article loses credibility when

it starts throwing out numbers for how many troops Obama will keep in Iraq based on nothing but speculation. Nowhere in that article does Obama make it "clearer than ever that tens of thousands of troops will be left behind in Iraq." It has no quotes or plans from Obama to that effect.
A very small force in a country that is no loner an active war zone (like we have in Germany, Japan etc) is different than 50,000 troops. Its speculation that feeds into those who always look for the "worst case scenario" with Obama.

[DutchLiberal]

193. Why the surprise? He already said this during the primaries.

Of course, all the people who are outraged about this NOW, were too busy dreaming away with 'hope' and 'change' during the primaries to actually pay attention. You wanted all American troops out of Iraq? You wanted no permanent US bases in Iraq? Only Kucinich and Gravel were advocating that position, and we know what kooks they are...

[gogoplata]

202. I was only surprised at all of the attacks.

[DutchLiberal]

205. You'll get used to it. Critcizing should be restricted to Republicans.

After which all of DU pats itself on the back that they're not like the sheep who blindly followed Bush...

[Alexander]

210. Funny, I thought misinformation was restricted to Republicans...

Little did I know that supposed "Democrats" would pull numbers out of their ass and attribute quotes to Obama that he didn't even say in a lame attempt to make him look like a warmonger.

[maddezmom]

211. locking

OP is no longer with us.