PDA

View Full Version : President Barack Obama: 'Turn the page'



tacosndew
31 Aug 2010, 08:37pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41645_Page2.html


A shattering war initiated seven years ago by President George W. Bush lurched toward its stuttering conclusion Tuesday night as his successor, a subdued President Barack Obama, fulfilled his campaign promise to end combat operations in Iraq.

Speaking from the Oval Office in prime time – a move intended to attract the attention of Americans weary of war and focused on their own economic woes – Obama declared the responsibility for Iraq’s future had shifted to that nation’s divided and untested leadership.

“Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country,” said Obama. “Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest – it is in our own… [W]e have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.”

Obama then pivoted from guns to butter, a somewhat awkward shift to address growing public anxiety about the economy compared with the war’s diminishing importance on the national agenda. The president urged the country to approach the job of rebuilding the economy with the same determination American forces displayed on the battlefields of Iraq.

“Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work,” Obama said. “This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.”

Obama’s aides had suggested that the address wouldn’t be an argument for the ongoing war in Afghanistan, which has grown more deadly and more unpopular since the president took office. Indeed, Obama sent a strong signal to pro-war hawks – including some serving under him in the Pentagon – that the July 2011 date to begin withdrawing American forces from Afghanistan is firm, regardless of conditions in the combat zone.

“[M]ake no mistake: this transition will begin – because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s,” he said, reiterating the sluggish economy as his top priority.

Obama began the day with an emotional trip from the White House to Fort Bliss, Texas, where he told a group of soldiers that the milestone he would speak about from the Oval Office wasn’t a “victory lap.” He thanked them for their service, pledged to take care of wounded and disabled veterans and spoke of difficult days to come in Afghanistan.

Later, he phoned Bush from Air Force One, and said he hoped the end of the Iraq combat mission would mark a new beginning for his relationship with his predecessor, whom he has bitterly criticized.

“Here, too, it is time to turn the page,” the president said. “This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.”

While acknowledging the possibility that Iraq could descend from fragile stability back into violence, Obama said the U.S. troop drawdown will allow a shift of troops and materiel to the fight in Afghanistan, “as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.”

Obama, whose opposition to the war propelled his rise from an obscure Illinois state senator to the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2008, avoided anything that resembled George W. Bush’s ill-conceived “Mission Accomplished” pronouncement, which came back to haunt the former president as Iraq violence raged on.

Instead, Obama highlighted the sacrifices of the nearly one million American service members who served in Iraq and, his voice straining with emotion, the 4,400 Americans who died there.

But the president’s address – delivered from the same desk where Bush told the nation the invasion of Iraq had begun, justified by faulty intelligence that Saddam Hussein held weapons of mass destruction – was clearly meant to portray Obama as a leader true to his word and a competent Commander-in-Chief.

“This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office,” he said. “Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.”

Still, Obama said he had no intention of completely abandoning Iraqi security forces – and pressured the country’s leaders to use the milestone as a spur to action. Iraq still has no national government, its leaders still balking five months after elections intended to showcase democracy and erase the legacy of a ruthless despot.

Administration officials also made it clear that more American blood may yet be shed in Iraq. Some 50,000 U.S. troops will be stationed there for the next year to advise Iraqi security forces, and those men and women are still in harm’s way.

Although Obama’s speech was subdued, Republicans spent much of Tuesday portraying the president as a hypocrite, arguing that he was assuming credit despite opposing the war and voting against the Bush troop surge – a controversial strategy many credit with stemming an appalling wave of insurgent-led violence from 2004 to 2006.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), hoping to burnish credentials ahead of an election cycle that could make him House speaker, blasted Obama for an accomplishment that rightfully belongs to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq who oversaw the American troop surge.

"It sure makes things easier when you reject your own campaign rhetoric about how the surge — the Petraeus plan — shouldn't happen and wouldn't work,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.), speaking at an event in Lexington Tuesday. “[And] it makes it easier to talk about fulfilling a campaign promise to wind down our operations in Iraq when the previous administration signs the security agreement with Iraq to end our overall presence there."

"You might recall that the surge wasn't very popular when it was announced,” McConnell said. “You might also recall that one of its biggest critics was the current president."

Watch the video on the link, kinda helps when you read the article. I'm glad the troops are getting out of Iraq for various reasons, one being I'd like to see how it will do. Also i feel like the troops would be put to better use in Afghanistan.

I'd like to hear your opinion's please :smile:

Drox
31 Aug 2010, 09:07pm
http://msa4.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/mission_accomplished.jpg

couple years early lol but I think this is now worth something

Harpr33t
2 Sep 2010, 09:01am
Waaaay to early, They should atleast get UN troops in there to replace the American troops and to help stem Iranian influence.

SgtJoo
2 Sep 2010, 09:51am
Waaaay to early, They should atleast get UN troops in there to replace the American troops and to help stem Iranian influence.

The UN doesn't do shit. We haven't completely backed out, we still have like 50,000 troops training the Iraqis.

VirDeBello
2 Sep 2010, 04:06pm
The UN doesn't do shit. We haven't completely backed out, we still have like 50,000 troops training the Iraqis.

Yes but no combat operations or combat forces, they are all support personal. We don't train Iraqis, civilian contractors do only Special Forces train Iraqis and they train their SWAT teams but that as well is being handed over to the civilians now. And personally this conflict is giving people jobs, just ending it will leave people with no jobs. No more combat operations in the world, no need for abundance of infantry or the support personal for those infantry nor the civilians that support us there like EDOT and other civilian contractors.

Paralyzed
2 Sep 2010, 04:08pm
God Bless America :)

SgtJoo
2 Sep 2010, 04:17pm
Yes but no combat operations or combat forces, they are all support personal. We don't train Iraqis, civilian contractors do only Special Forces train Iraqis and they train their SWAT teams but that as well is being handed over to the civilians now. And personally this conflict is giving people jobs, just ending it will leave people with no jobs. No more combat operations in the world, no need for abundance of infantry or the support personal for those infantry nor the civilians that support us there like EDOT and other civilian contractors.

I know we are ending combat operations. I was just telling Harpreet our job in the region isn't done. Iraq is still a very fragile country and we still have troops there to help finish the transition to a stable nation with sovereignty .

I think it's good we're finally pulling our combat forces to increase the resources available in Afghanistan. Now that's a country that needs a lot of work to not be considered a failed state. If only we could stop trying to force an all powerful central government but c'est la vie.

PotshotPolka
2 Sep 2010, 07:32pm
Waaaay to early, They should atleast get UN troops in there to replace the American troops and to help stem Iranian influence.


Because we all know the Iranians and Iraqis are REAL chummy.

Lux
3 Sep 2010, 07:15am
Because we all know the Iranians and Iraqis are REAL chummy.

The enemy of my enemy is...:thumb:

Paralyzed
3 Sep 2010, 07:18am
Quoted from BarackObama's twitter:


I made a pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office—and tonight the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. 2:20 AM Sep 1st

There were patriots who supported this war and who opposed it. We are united in appreciation for our troops and our hope for Iraq’s future. 2:30 AM Sep 1st

America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. I am proud of their service and awed by their sacrifice. 2:40 AM Sep 1st

The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not. 2:50 AM Sep 1st

Harpr33t
3 Sep 2010, 01:42pm
Because we all know the Iranians and Iraqis are REAL chummy.

Ever heard of Al sahdr army or otherwise known as the Mahdi army. Shiites from Iraq and Iran are basically on the same page except for the seculars.

Chêvouÿx
3 Sep 2010, 02:10pm
Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard during this year's Debate resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(debate)), we aren't decreasing combatant presence from Iraq and surrounding areas whatsoever. Instead, Obama's replacing troops with American-based combatant PMCs. So, rather than federal forces, we have civilian forces who don't have to abide by the UCMJ, solider-enforced ROEs, etc.

Jazzyy
3 Sep 2010, 08:20pm
Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard during this year's Debate resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_%28debate%29), we aren't decreasing combatant presence from Iraq and surrounding areas whatsoever. Instead, Obama's replacing troops with American-based combatant PMCs. So, rather than federal forces, we have civilian forces who don't have to abide by the UCMJ, solider-enforced ROEs, etc.
Yes, because it was at the point where the U.S. realized they can't win a war against terrorists, so they just create their own terrorism group, supply them with money and weapons, and have them duke it out for the next 40 years.

SgtJoo
4 Sep 2010, 06:02am
Yes, because it was at the point where the U.S. realized they can't win a war against terrorists, so they just create their own terrorism group, supply them with money and weapons, and have them duke it out for the next 40 years.

OR it was because we finished most of our combat duties in Iraq so we leave behind a stable democracy that will be able to handle its own internal problems so that we can focus on Afghanistan. But you know, you're probably right.

PotshotPolka
4 Sep 2010, 09:12am
Yes, because it was at the point where the U.S. realized they can't win a war against terrorists, so they just create their own terrorism group, supply them with money and weapons, and have them duke it out for the next 40 years.

http://thecia.com.au/reviews/n/images/no-country-for-old-men-4.jpg

APenguin
4 Sep 2010, 11:36pm
http://thecia.com.au/reviews/n/images/no-country-for-old-men-4.jpg

LOL


That's all.

VirDeBello
8 Sep 2010, 07:38pm
Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard during this year's Debate resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(debate)), we aren't decreasing combatant presence from Iraq and surrounding areas whatsoever. Instead, Obama's replacing troops with American-based combatant PMCs. So, rather than federal forces, we have civilian forces who don't have to abide by the UCMJ, solider-enforced ROEs, etc.

Fuck yeah dude lol those dudes get paid 6 digits strait up off the bat. Fucking crazy.... its the rumor of why the lowered SF standards because everyone was going civilian security forces. They still abide but global and country laws. Isn't there a European security group under investigation by the UN I think because they killed innocent civilians?

SgtJoo
8 Sep 2010, 08:34pm
Fuck yeah dude lol those dudes get paid 6 digits strait up off the bat. Fucking crazy.... its the rumor of why the lowered SF standards because everyone was going civilian security forces. They still abide but global and country laws. Isn't there a European security group under investigation by the UN I think because they killed innocent civilians?

Are you talking about Xe (Blackwater) or something else?

PotshotPolka
9 Sep 2010, 06:12pm
Are you talking about Xe (Blackwater) or something else?


There was some other Euro company I thought that was guarding an embassy that shot up a street too.

SgtJoo
9 Sep 2010, 06:30pm
There was some other Euro company I thought that was guarding an embassy that shot up a street too.

Aegis Defense Services?