In what way? He's already removed 100,000 troops keeping to his combat withdrawal schedule.
His campaign promise said he would remove all troops in Iraq by 2009. How is that on schedule? Also, he only removed "combat troops", US soldiers are still there.
He made a distinction between the combat mission and the rebuilding process. Using his definitions of 'combat troops' and 'non-combat' troops (which he established and was using prior to winning the election), he
did withdraw that military force. If I recall, combat troops were charged with the responsibility of cleaning the remnants of the previous regimes and command hierarchy. Non-combat troops are the military presence given the task of protecting diplomats and infrastructure experts from civil war guerrilla attacks, as well as training and preparing Iraqi security forces. When he made this promise, I thought it was clear that we'd still have some form of military presence in Iraq. Trying to build a governing system in Iraq without a presence, never even occurred to me.
In fact, I never expected we would
ever have absolutely zero military presence in Iraq. Misunderstanding end-of-war-time goals and precedented military procedures is a good way to be disappointed. The US rarely left a country we've had a solid military presence in without establishing permanent military bases. In non-classified instances of US military deployment alone, we have our fingers in over
150 countries around the world.
If you expected every US troop to be out of Iraq, this was inevitable.
Again, he promised he would close it within six months of being elected. Whether it was his fault or not, he shouldn't make promises he can't guarantee.
He could have had the Senate haven't blocked him repeatedly by passing contrary bills. Should his campaign speech have added, "Assuming congress isn't a gigantic dick, I can do
x in
y amount of time"?
I guess I just don't why see his reputation should suffer for not being omniscient. That delay only really affects my opinion of a many certain members of Congress.
And if you still say he shouldn't make promises he can't guarantee, then consider that there are no guarantees.
If someone says they can run 50 meters in 6 seconds, and someone steers an elephant onto the track, who do you blame when he is late to the goal line? I don't see it as the runner's shortcoming.
Why do you have a problem with the word illegal? The PATRIOT Act is just that, it has the power to over rule the Fourth Amendment. Any law that supersedes the Constitution is null and void.
I see your point which is why I planned to drop this tangent, but citizens don't determine what is or isn't legal.
Even if it's obvious to us that this act conflicts with the constitution, enacted laws are not dependent on civil interpretation. In order to actually be found unconstitutional (and therefore illegal), the judicial branch must declare it as such. Laws don't have to be fair, just, or even logically consistent but they are still technically laws. It's just a preference for the technical definition of illegality over the practical use.
I just listed it as another reason for why I dislike the guy.
You're allowed.
Either way you're getting a bag of lies every time you turn on the TV.
Yes, both parties are always guilty of smearing the others. Accuracy of information is always something to check, but I also believe that accurate information-outlets exist. Ironically, I trust The Daily Show much more than Fox News when it comes to getting clean impartial editing of recent events.