Obama said that under his plan, there would still be combat troops in Iraq in 2010, seven years after the war began. And he questioned the premise that the recent gains could complicate the withdrawal.
"Those are the same folks who said that we can't pull troops out because things are too violent," he said. "Now that the violence has subsided, you can't pull troops out because things have improved. It's a Catch-22."
So, Mr. Obama, what is confusing you?
Things were too violent, so we didn’t pull the troops out, and now the violence is greatly reduced. So it was a good idea to leave the troops there, wasn’t it? And you were wrong to oppose leaving the troops there to quell the violence, weren’t you?
Now that the violence has subsided, you want to pull the troops out and let the violence increase again? Then what should we do?
I bet your grandmother once told you, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Mr. Obama, you have what appears to me a thoroughly undeserved reputation for intelligence. What sense is it to succeed in reducing the violence, and then set the stage for a recurrence of violence?
Mr. Obama, the United States had and still has bases in countries that haven’t attacked us for over half a century, or more (the UK hasn’t attacked us for almost 200 years, and we still have bases there). While in the Air Force I was stationed in Turkey and England, and had duty at bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Thailand, and The Philippines. My oldest son was stationed with the Army in Germany for a total of ten years.
Why wouldn’t we maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as it serves our national purposes, the same as we have in so many other countries?
That Democrat donkey kicked you in the head, right?
That explains why you're "Stuck on Stupid."