Cool.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'll believe it when I see it. Now the news said when everyone else pulls out, 150 of the troops will remain in Iraq, what for?

Wasn't this the plan for years? lol Troops have been set to leave for ages. It's a publicity stunt at this stage.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Wasn't this the plan for years? lol Troops have been set to leave for ages. It's a publicity stunt at this stage.

A chance at reelection perhaps?

You're both wrong. It actually has nothing to do with either campaigning or politics at all. And it's not a fcking publicity stunt either. The real reason why the troops are comming home by the end of this year has to do with the fact that our agreement for legal immunity with regards to the troops being subjected to Iraqi law expires at the end of this year. Obama wants us to be subjected to trial and punishment only to the UCMJ and not the Iraqi legal system, so in order for us to stay there longer a new deal has to be negotiated that grants us immunity to prosecution under their laws as long as we occupy. But the government of Iraq just refused this deal which means that after December of this year, if we are still there we can now be tried for crimes in an Iraqi court. Obviously, this is unacceptable and that's why Obama is pulling the troops out. So anything else you guys think this is about is really secondary and inconsequential. Now, I admit that Obama (if he is smart) will use this oppertunity to pass this off as a WIN in the promises department, but the reality is that he really had no choice. There is no way he would have kept us there to be judged under the Iraqi legal system. Either a deal was made or we were going to come home, period.

This is where being in the military and keeping informed on current events helps!

^^interesting!

But then what about the 150 who will be left behind?

Supernova wrote:

But then what about the 150 who will be left behind?

I can't answer that without more information. I don't know WHO exactly will be left behind or for what reason. Rest assured, I'm sure there is some legitimate reason if only 150 people are deemed necessary to remain. They probably serve some crucial training role if I had to guess, but I haven't heard the details of that story so it's impossible for me to comment further. But I think that 150 is really insignificant compared to the 45,000 troops currently deployed there. Ultimately, we won't know how many end up being left behind or for what reasons until the decision is actually made. It could be as "little" as 150 or as much as 3,000 to 4,000 support troops. Anything at this point is pure speculation because we just don't have enough information and no decisions on that have been made yet.

@Bryce: I ain't wrong. lol (As usual, you go on your rants without even trying to grasp my point.)

My point was that troops have been set to come home for awhile now. This big hooplah about it is the publicity stunt. It's being treated as some new decision but it's not. It's a publicity stunt for a weak candidate to try and have some leg to stand on come election time.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

@Bryce: I ain't wrong. lol (As usual, you go on your rants without even trying to grasp my point.)

My point was that troops have been set to come home for awhile now. This big hooplah about it is the publicity stunt. It's being treated as some new decision but it's not. It's a publicity stunt for a weak candidate to try and have some leg to stand on come election time.

I have to agree in part, coincidence or not, Obama comes into office in the middle of a war, and he miraculously brings the troops home less than a year away from the next election. Naturally people are going to look at this with some consideration, like he finally did something right after all the stupid stuff that's come up since his inauguration. I don't think he's looking at this from a purely altruistic view, I think he's counting on this getting him a second term.

Supernova wrote:

I have to agree in part, coincidence or not, Obama comes into office in the middle of a war, and he miraculously brings the troops home less than a year away from the next election. Naturally people are going to look at this with some consideration, like he finally did something right after all the stupid stuff that's come up since his inauguration. I don't think he's looking at this from a purely altruistic view, I think he's counting on this getting him a second term.

I think he's just trying to ride whatever benefit he can from something he really didn't have THAT much to do with. He needs it. Not like he has anything else positive to run on.

Thanks Cap

Forgiveness Man wrote:

@Bryce: I ain't wrong. lol (As usual, you go on your rants without even trying to grasp my point.)

My point was that troops have been set to come home for awhile now. This big hooplah about it is the publicity stunt. It's being treated as some new decision but it's not. It's a publicity stunt for a weak candidate to try and have some leg to stand on come election time.

What do you consider "awhile"? The failure to negotiate the deal for us to stay longer is a NEW DEVELOPMENT which is what spawned the decision. Yes, we were eventually going to home but there was no date set in stone for that until now. Arguably, "the decision" to pull out was made by Bush over 5 years ago. But those decisions were always subject to renegotiation and not generally announced publically until there was a degree of certainty. The idea was to gradually withdraw little by little to give the Iraqi government time to transition to their own security force (and so that we could monitor the status of our puppet government for a while). We could still stay if we needed to, but we don't and since we would be putting our troops at more risk by staying past December, Obama decided to pull out. So yes you were WRONG and thus your point is moot. There is no need for a PUBLICITY STUNT and certainly not one completely unrelated to any issue that people are voting on right now. Weak candidate? For one thing, he's the President numbnuts (which automatically makes him the strongest candidate in the field at this stage (if you know anything about politics) and arguably stronger than any of the republican candidates based on merit alone (and polls). The only one with a snowballs chance in hell of defeating him is Romney. If he doesn't get the nomination, Obama is a lock for second term.

^^^^Wasn't wrong. The failure to renegotiate is a ridiculous cop-out for this big news publicity stunt for something that has been pretty set for ages now. It's trying to scrape benefits off of old news. Yes, it is a stunt. And no, I ain't wrong. And that last part is pure crap that liberals try to spew to discourage their opposition. Any of the GOP can trash this guy and if Obama wins, it's because the GOP screwed up. This is their election to lose. Obama is a failure with nothing to run on. Romney is probably the least likely to win of the field. Yes, Obama DOES need a stunt because he sees that America is starting to view him as a joke. (Except for the solidly Democratic majority who have grown so fond of the smell of their own waste that they'll never pull their heads out of their rear) Obama is hardly a lock.

LOL. This is hilarious.

Nystyle709 wrote:

LOL. This is hilarious.

You ain't never lie!

Quote :

Obama and Clinton to world: Stop gay discrimination
Clinton compared struggle for gay equality to women's rights and racial equality

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tuesday, December 6 2011, 10:21 PM





GENEVA — The Obama administration bluntly warned the world against gay and lesbian discrimination Tuesday, declaring the U.S. will use foreign assistance as well as diplomacy to back its insistence that gay rights are fully equal to other basic human rights.

In unusually strong language, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton compared the struggle for gay equality to difficult passages toward women's rights and racial equality, and she said a country's cultural or religious traditions are no excuse for discrimination.

"Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights," she said. "It should never be a crime to be gay."

Clinton's audience included diplomats from Arab, African and other nations where homosexuality is criminalized or where brutality and discrimination against gay people is tolerated or encouraged.

Many of the ambassadors in the audience responded with stony faces and rushed out of the room as soon as Clinton finished speaking.

President Barack Obama directed the State Department and other agencies to make sure U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote gay rights and fight discrimination. But there are no specific new consequences for poor performers, meaning the directive is more of a challenge to other governments than a threat.

In announcing the policy the U.S. did not point to individual countries with specifically poor records on gay rights, although an annual State Department accounting of global human rights has cited abuses against gays by such friends as Saudi Arabia.

The White House said Tuesday's announcement marked the first U.S. government strategy to combat human rights abuses against gays and lesbians abroad.

The speech in Geneva, home of the United Nations' human rights body, is also part of the Obama administration's outreach to gays and lesbians, a core Democratic constituency at home. Since taking office, Obama has advocated the repeal of the military's ban on openly gay service members — now accomplished — and has ordered the administration to stop defending a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

However, Obama has stopped short of backing gay marriage, saying only that his personal views on the matter are evolving. That position and a long delay repealing the military ban have left some gay supporters disgruntled.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney suggested that gay rights should not be a test for U.S. engagement abroad.

"I will be looking (at) foreign aid, whether it meets our national security interests and, number two, whether these nations are friends of ours and are willing to be friendly with us in ways when it matters the most," he said on Fox News Channel.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry went further.

"Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money," a Perry campaign statement said.

Clinton said she knows the United States has an imperfect record on gay rights, and she noted that until 2003 some states had laws on the books that made gay sex a crime. But there is no reason to suggest that gay rights are something only liberal, Western nations can or should embrace, she said. She said nothing about gay marriage.

"Gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world," Clinton said. "Being gay is not a Western invention. It is a human reality."

In her most direct challenge to nations with conservative cultural or religious mores, Clinton catalogued abuses such as targeted killings of gays, "corrective rape" of lesbians or forced hormone treatments. She likened the targeting of gays for mistreatment to "honor killings" of women, widow-burning or female genital mutilation, examples of practices the U.S. decries but has not penalized friends including Afghanistan for carrying out.

"Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition," she said. "But violence toward women isn't cultural; it's criminal."

She also compared the evolution of cultural attitudes toward homosexuality to the changing view of slavery.

"What was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights," she said.

The audience included lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists who applauded loudly and whooped in approval when Clinton finished.

Some of the diplomats who were invited were unaware of the topic beforehand, and Clinton introduced her subject gingerly. She said she knew it was sensitive and cut against ingrained traditions and expectations.

"Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all citizens and persuading your people to do the same," she said.

In the memorandum issued in Washington, Obama directed U.S. agencies working abroad, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, to use foreign aid to assist gays and lesbians who are facing human rights violations. And he ordered U.S. agencies to protect vulnerable gay and lesbian refugees and asylum seekers.

"The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States' commitment to promoting human rights," Obama said in a statement.

Gay rights groups praised the order as a significant step for ensuring that gays and lesbians are treated equally around the world.

"Today's actions by President Obama make clear that the United States will not turn a blind eye when governments commit or allow abuses to the human rights of LGBT people," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy organization.

Source:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/obama-clinton-world-stop-gay-discrimination-article-1.987842?localLinksEnabled=false

"However, Obama has stopped short of backing gay marriage, saying only that his personal views on the matter are evolving. That position and a long delay repealing the military ban have left some gay supporters disgruntled.

Clinton said she knows the United States has an imperfect record on gay rights, and she noted that until 2003 some states had laws on the books that made gay sex a crime. But there is no reason to suggest that gay rights are something only liberal, Western nations can or should embrace, she said. She said nothing about gay marriage."

Pots calling the Kettles Black.

Hail Hillary!

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-veto-defense-853/

Quote :

Obama to approve indefinite detention and torture of Americans
Published: 15 December, 2011, 02:28
Edited: 15 December, 2011, 07:55



Less than a month after he threatened to veto terrifying legislation that would cease constitutional rights as we know it, Obama has revoked his warning and plans to authorize a bill allowing indefinite detention and torture of Americans.

After passing in the House of Representatives earlier this year, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 went before the US Senate last week, where it was met with overwhelming approval. In the days before, the Obama administration issued a policy statement on November 17 saying explicitly that the president would veto the bill, as it would challenge “the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation.”

Opposition from the White House seemed all but rampant until RT revealed earlier this week that Senator Carl Levin told lawmakers that the legislation was altered because “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that those last minute changes yielded legislation that would “not challenge the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people,” and therefore “the president’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto.”

Originally the White House said that the administration objected to matters in the bill that applied to detainees. Under the act, Americans could be arrested and held indefinitely in military-run prisons and tortured without charges ever being brought forth, essentially making Guantanamo Bay a threat for every American citizen.

Under the legislation, a literal police state will be installed over the United States. Republican Congressman Ron Paul said earlier this week that “this should be the biggest news going right now,” as the legislation would allow for “literally legalizing martial law.”

“This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous,” said the congressman and potential Republican Party nominee for president.

In its threat of a veto last month, the White House said it had similar sentiments, writing in an official statement from Washington that “The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects.”

“This unnecessary, untested and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals,” added the White House. “Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

Despite Obama’s promise from last month, a veto seemed questionable after it was revealed that the bill, which approves the budget for the Department of Defense, came at a price tag much lower than the president had asked for.

It is expected to be in Obama’s hands anytime this week.

Shame shame. Not a good idea.

Hmmmm. Don't quite know how to interpret this.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/20/obama-administration-guarantees-women-better-access-to-birth-control/

Quote :

Obama Administration Approves Rule That Guarantees Near-Universal Contraceptive Coverage
By Guest Blogger on Jan 20, 2012 at 11:46 am
Our guest blogger is Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at American Progress.



Today, in a huge victory for women’s health, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that most employers will be required to cover contraception in their health plans, along with other preventive services, with no cost-sharing such as co-pays or deductibles. This means that after years of trying to get birth control covered to the same extent that health plans cover V!agra, our country will finally have nearly universal coverage of contraception.

Opponents of contraception had lobbied hard for a broad exemption that would have allowed any religiously-affiliated employer to opt out of providing such coverage. Fortunately, the Obama administration rejected that push and decided to maintain the narrow religious exemption that it initially proposed. Only houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt. Religiously-affiliated employers who do not qualify for the exemption and are not currently offering contraceptive coverage may apply for transitional relief for a one-year period to give them time to determine how to comply with the rule.

Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost.

Family planning results in better health outcomes for women and their children—a woman who has a planned pregnancy is more likely to be in better health when she gets pregnant and more likely to seek prenatal care, and children who are born at least two years apart are healthier. Family planning is also the most effective tool we have in reducing unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion.

An expanded religious exemption would have created an unreasonably large loophole that would have kept these benefits beyond the reach of millions of women. This decision honors the conscience of these women over that of the institutions that employ them and ensures that cost will no longer be a barrier to accessing basic and essential preventive health services.

Update:
“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is promising a legal challenge” over the new rule, Kaiser Health News reports. “There really is no change,” said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the bishops. “What has been announced is that they are going to delay an enforcement. It’s as if they said ‘We’ll give you a year to figure out how to violate your conscience.’” The bishops’ group “will fight this edict; they have no choice but to fight this edict,” she said.

I can see where there would be objection beyond religious grounds. What does "employers will be required to cover contraception in their health plans, along with other preventive services, with no cost-sharing such as co-pays or deductibles" mean? If the company plan doesn't cover contraception, and not all do, they'll have to pay for their employee's birth control out of their own pocket? Or cover the co-pays and deductibles? If they have to do the same thing now for men's erectile dysfunction then that's bullshit too.