Obama plans to occupy Iraq indefinitely, and he called Hillary Clinton a racist.

[awaysidetraveler]

Baseless lies?

You tell me.

People have been writing this stuff on other threads, so I thought that I'd send it out there
and we'll see if there's any proof.

[msongs]

1. he believes in sanctions against the iranian people. is that a war? nt

[awaysidetraveler]

2. Yeah, I can't find any proof either.

[awaysidetraveler]

3. Actually, I'm starting to think that a bunch of republicans are posing as Hillbots on these threads.

And they're passing out lies like it was candy.

[Fresh_Start]

4. I've thought the same of both Hillbots and Obamabots

they benefit the most if the Democrats are at each others throats

[awaysidetraveler]

5. Yeah, that follows. So you think it's just a bunch of lies this time?

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I go with lies n/t

[awaysidetraveler]

9. Okay Rinaldo, where's your proof? And take your pick of the rumors.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I invoke the DU standard

My opinion is always proof enough, and if I choose to repeat something, it no longer is a rumor. From then on it comes from a very good source.

[Adelante]

24. Good enough source for me

:pals:

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. WesDem is a woman of great integrity

and a sweetie with a wicked sense of humor. And that comes from a very good source :)

[Fresh_Start]

22. I think there are many people willing to smear the democratic

candidates

some are not supporting any democrats
others are willing to smear their unfavored candidate
others are willing to smear other democratic leaders

When will this focus on the real opposition?

[joshcryer]

16. This happened with Dean in 04. Wouldn't surprise me if the most prolific...

...supporters on either side are CONTELPRO.

[still_one]

26. I don't know, but there sure is an influx of people new to DU, with a lot of hit and run

In other words, they start a thread or make an unsubstaintiated statement, and you don't see them again

If your feeling is correct, than that only confirms that the republicans are in full panic

[awaysidetraveler]

34. Interesting, I just kind of threw it out there. I guess that I'm not the only one. You're right.

To say that the republicans must be in full panic by now.

The money dried up in their party.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Baseless lies, of course.

Too bad that is the header of you thread. Kind of negative advertising for those who don't bother to open threads, and just inform themselves through headlines.

[awaysidetraveler]

10. There you go making sense again.

Always a pleasure to have the distinction of writing to you, FrenchieCat.

[Tulkas]

8. they distort everything

Defending our embassy is not the same as an occupation.

He never said she was a Racist, just that some of Billary's statements have injected race into the discussion.




They need to distort because if they tell it like it is they lose every time.

[awaysidetraveler]

13. Yeah, it's true. It reminds me of the way that GOP guys go at their arguments.

Start a baseless accusation, which takes time to research and discover is a lie.

Then start another baseless accusation, which does the same thing.

They seem to take pleasure in manipulating arguments in this way.

The irony of their tactic is that the practice of checking information makes me more educated on the topic.

While their practice of their tactic proves their ignorance.

[ThatPoetGuy]

17. Yes, it's a GOP tactic.

It's a GOP tactic to campaign on personality rather than issues, so that the voters don't know where you actually stand.

I have repeatedly offered clear quotations from Barack Obama's own plans, issued officially on his own website, in his own words; and I have quoted a full response from an interview, including all the context, to back up my claims. I've made my argument in a clear and logical manner, holding the truth in high regard throughout.

Have you offered any evidence to the contrary? Any at all? I haven't seen it.

I have seen you run and start another thread, where you call telling the truth "lying." Because, you know, people who hold your candidate to his word are, like, liars and such.

It's a very GOP tactic.

[awaysidetraveler]

25. What proof can I offer in support of a negative? That logic gives us WMD's, and is very GOP.

However, I have read the exact same materials you're dishing out.

And it does not say what you claim.

[ThatPoetGuy]

36. I'm bored.

I said "Obama intends to do X."

You said you hadn't seen any proof of it.

I produced direct and clear statements where Obama said he intends to do X.

Then you started a thread and called me out (not by name) for spreading "baseless lies."

"Baseless" would be if the statements had no basis. I can see how you and I might interpret the pdf differently, but I've shown the basis for my conclusions, very clearly.

"Lies" would indicate a deliberate effort to deceive.

So am I spreading baseless lies?

That's a baseless accusation. I won't call it a lie, but it's not the truth.

[awaysidetraveler]

39. I started this thread to find out if your statements are substantiated.

I can't find anyone else to back up your statements.

You produced statements where Obama said X in context Y.

I asked a question: are these baseless lies?

Others answered yes, no one else offered proof but you.

You never replied to the evidence of context.

Instead you cherry picked a debate.

I don't know if you're spreading baseless lies, or if you're simply misinformed.

The result--the distorted truth--is the same. That's what matters to me,
not my pride and not yours either.

[ThatPoetGuy]

14. Defending our embassy is NOT the same as an occupation!

No doubt about that.

Leaving military forces to protect US civilians, and leaving military forces to train Iraqi security forces, and leaving military forces to strike back at "terrorists" --

that starts to sound an awful lot like an occupation.

[awaysidetraveler]

19. Yeah, well he's not leaving combat forces to protect civilians at all.

I still don't know what gave you that idea.

As for training Iraqi security forces, he said in the debate that he would do so only to deal with terrorists.

And that's exactly what he should do. Get out as fast as possible, and leave open the possibility of having to return
to face serious terrorist threats.

Occupation usually includes a control of the government, and America can't do that without combat troops on the ground.
Therefore, Obama's ending an occupation, not engaging America in one.

[ThatPoetGuy]

28. "He's not leaving combat forces to protect civilians at all."

You still don't know what gave me that idea.

RUSSERT: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?"

OBAMA: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.

What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office -- which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable -- if there's no timetable -- then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."
-- From 9/26 DNC Debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Yes, where did I get that idea? Or am I just spinning "baseless lies," as you've accused?

I stand by my point: those who oppose Obama know more about his policy statements than those who support him.

[awaysidetraveler]

31. The plan is to pull the combat troops out by 2009, that's in the plan.

If you read the rest of the statement, he made it very clear that the civilians he was talking about
were in the embassy.

You're cherry picking, again.

You know, you don't have to use these methods of debate. The purpose of debate is to come to a common understanding
of what the truth is. It's not this.

[ThatPoetGuy]

11. I don't know about the Hillary claim, so I won't address it.

But here's Obama's own plan, in his own words -- again.


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

It includes such gems as this: "Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training othe Iraqi Security Forces." Emphasis mine, because it's just so fucked up.

Obama's plan will leave soldiers to protect the embassy, just like Edwards, but that's ALL Edwards will leave. Obama's plan will leave soldiers to protect the military, soldiers to protect civilians (see below), soldiers to "train" Iraqi troops and police forces, and soldiers to make war on the Iraqi people who fight back against the occupiers.

----------

Here Tim Russert asked him if he planned to get us out of Iraq by 2013:

RUSSERT: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?"

OBAMA: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.

What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office -- which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable -- if there's no timetable -- then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."
-- From 9/26 DNC Debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Protecting our embassy is one thing. That's a no-brainer.

What about protecting our civilians? Ambassadors and their staff are not civilians. He's going to leave the US military to occupy Iraq in order to bodyguard Halliburton executives?

What about "carrying out counterterrorism activities"? The British left regions of Iraq alone, and those regions experienced a huge decline in violence afterwards. These were not regions that people considered subdued.

What about leaving our military forces to train Iraqi security forces?

Tens of thousands of US soldiers will remain in Iraq indefinitely, under Obama's plan, to continue Bush's misguided policies of helping big business turn a buck off that country and fighting terrorists that the occupation created.

It should be pointed out that peace broke out in those regions of Iraq the British military left. Violence is only occurring where there is occupation. Obama's plan is a full-scale occupation, and he has made it clear that it's an indefinite occupation.

[awaysidetraveler]

18. Yes, and again you've picked out key statements and decontextualized them until they're meaningless.

Obama's statement: "Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training othe Iraqi Security Forces."

Obama clarified his meaning in the South Carolina debate with Edwards, stating clearly that he meant "... in Iraq" to mean during the period of extricating combat troops from Iraq. Also, he pointed out that the embassy would remain protected and that by "... in the region" he meant putting troops on ships or in other bases that are not located in Iraq.

[ThatPoetGuy]

23. We're butting heads here.

Fundamentally, if you write something up, call it "awaysidetraveler's plan," format it as an official document, call it an official document, and post it on awaysidetraveler.com, then THAT is what I'm going to believe. Not some spontaneous statement in a debate.

Especially since Obama has dishonestly retconned his own plans in debates before, like when he claimed his health care plan is universal. It isn't.

If Obama wants to clarify his Iraq plans to make it sound less like he's planning to occupy Iraq for the rest of our lives, then I'll breathe a lot easier. But the documents -- the official documents -- remain unchanged. It would take ten minutes to update them. And yet they still say he plans to occupy Iraq, training security forces, protecting US civilians, and fighting terrorism, with no end date.

[awaysidetraveler]

27. Why don't you quote the humanitarian aid to Iraq in that plan and call that "permanent occupation"?

I mean, that means we'll be there as well.

[ThatPoetGuy]

32. And you, sir, would NEVER distort someone else's argument.

So after I've shown these quotes, and included their full context, and linked to primary sources, it's okay if you still disagree with me. We can be respectful enough to say: hey PoetGuy, you're putting too much faith in an online .pdf, and I can say, hey awaysidetraveler, I'm going to interpret his words literally.

Do you still think my interpretations are "baseless lies"? Because I've provided far more than an adequate basis for my statement, and I haven't consciously misrepresented anything.

[awaysidetraveler]

37. I'm not distorting anyone's argument, and I am taking Obama literally.

However, I am also having a little bit of faith in a man who has been working in community service for the last twenty years,
faith that he will stand by both the spirit and the substance of his agreement to leave Iraq.

I would like you to share that faith. That is the purpose of why I am writing to you at all.
I am interested in the truth.

[ThatPoetGuy]

40. Thank you.

When I suggested that you were distorting my views, I was referring to your idea that I would consider humanitarian aid to be an occupation.

I believe you have goodness in you, and I believe you want to see the same results from Iraq that I would like to see. I found Obama very inspiring a while ago -- I read his autobiography and was excited at the prospect of an Obama presidency. And then his campaign began, and it's been strikingly downhill since then. Issue after issue, he's staked out a right-wing position, and then attacked Hillary and Edwards for being too liberal. If he wins the presidency, I hope he swings to the left of his rhetoric -- but it will be harder to do, now that he has attacked Hillary and Edwards for not being right-wing enough.

Anyway, Mr. Wayside Traveler, I hope you find hospitality everywhere along your wayside path. Please accept that my warm regards are genuine as I turn away from this argument. Good night, friend.

[awaysidetraveler]

41. And thank you.

Now that I consider it, the humanitarian aid comment was hyperbolic.
My apology for that distortion.

Please accept my warm regards as well, and thank you for helping me to shape this argument.
It is a pleasure and a surprise to find the warmth of poetry at the end
of this protracted debate of good substance.

Good night, friend.

[mtnsnake]

15. You make an excellent point of what goes on here

way too often. Thank you.

[awaysidetraveler]

20. No sir, thank you.

[Adelante]

21. Baseless lies, yes nt

[awaysidetraveler]

29. How about some proof to back that up, got any?

[Adelante]

35. I don't need no freakin' proof

I got Tom Rinaldo ;)

[ErnestoG]

30. Silly lies. And no solid proof for either of them.

But I suspect you know that.

[awaysidetraveler]

33. It's good to hear, though. Thanks.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

42. On Iraq

What ye say to this? Pretty colonial isn't it?

...

First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say "reduce," and not "fully withdraw."

This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency.

On this point, I am in basic agreement with our top military commander in Iraq. In testimony before Congress earlier this year, General Casey stated that a key goal of the military was to "reduce our presence in Iraq, taking away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency: that of the coalition forces as an occupying force."

This is not and should not be a partisan issue. It is a view shared by Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and someone with whom I am proud to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee.

I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces.

At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism.

We must find the right balance - offering enough security to serve as a buffer and carry out a targeted, effective counter-insurgency strategy, but not so much of a presence that we serve as an aggravation. It is this balance that will be critical to finding our way forward.

Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency.

...

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/

"What is happening in Iraq is about the security of the United States" - Barack Obama

What about the Iraqi children Obama? Not in your political calculus?