O’Hanlon ‘livid’ over Obama’s plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
O’Hanlon ‘livid’ over Obama’s plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
Yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) published an op-ed in the New York Times outlining his strategy to get out of Iraq. The Washington Post reports that Iraq war supporter Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution was “livid” after reading Obama’s op-ed:
“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”
In 2004, however, O’Hanlon’s sentiments were strikingly similar to Obama’s. In an op-ed titled “Set a date to pull out,” O’Hanlon wrote that “our own enduring commitment to success in Iraq is beginning to work against us.” “Some will see this as cut-and-run,” he said. “It is not.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
68 Responses to “O’Hanlon ‘livid’ over Obama’s plan for withdrawal from Iraq.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
O'Hanlon was livid?
Good. I want to see his head explode.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:52 amWhat a POS. The articles he wrote for the Brookings Institute about the ptorgess on the war have been all LIES.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:56 amMeant progress. sorry for the typo.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:57 amHas this Clown been right about anything? why dont we just ignore the really stupid people like O' Hanlon.
Hell, he thinks going to war with Iran is a winner for the USA. that about says it all, dont it?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:58 amI don't see O'Hanshit's ass over in Iraq.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:58 amHow can a self-respecting scholar and writer, put something out like this without referencing his extraordinary contraction of himself and his remarkable ambiguity?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon
Methinks O'Hanlon doesn't understand the concept of "absurdity", or else he has a really, really limited imagination if he thinks this is the "height" of it.
For instance, I'd suggest that trying to claim that the bad economy is "all in our heads" is more absurd. Insisting that Barack Obama is running for "Bush's Third Term" is far more absurd.
I really wish we had a culture in which pundits, if they can't be wise, could at least be literate.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:00 amWho cares what he thinks. Not to mention what he said was a crock. His saying that Obama will pull out troops "regardless of what enemies do or what's happening on the ground" was inaccurate to say the least. The ilk on the right and even some of Obama's base have criticized him saying he changed his mind on Iraq because he says that he will pay attention to "conditions on the ground". Obama has always said that, but people like O'Hanlon conveniently see what they want to see and ignore the inconvenient truths.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:01 ammsheil
Don't make the mistake of considering Eraserhead to be a "self-respecting scholar and writer." He is a hack buried deep in a pit of denial regarding his flawed predictions prior to the war who now, like a certain Republican presidential candidate desperately tries to obscure his prior uncritical cheerleading by claiming to have been critical of the strategy all along.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:03 amBoo frickin' hoo.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:03 amIt is ashame that chickenhawk warmonerers like this tool and Bill Kristol live while we have lost 4500 good Americans for the cause these dreamers support. This guy has been wrong at every step of the way. Why give him space?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:04 amThis little man is somewhat of a clown. His pouting lividity
suggests how fitting he would look in lace cuffs and pointed-toed, buckled patent leather shoes... a courtisan from another time... but with modern tools to express his changing thoughts on war to follow his master's whims.
His master's whims - the truly "enduring" factor. Will he go down with the ship?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:04 amI am livid, too:
2 stolens elections
July 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am2 illegal preemptive wars
our State Sponsored Terrorism (see 9/11)
4,000+ men and women dying in 2 illegal Oil Wars
a crumbling infrastructure
a tanking economy
a Million+ dead Iraqis
the Millions of displaced Iraqis
Katrina and it’s continuing aftermath
Our disgraced Moral Standing in the World (secret prisons, prisoner abuse)
The Patriot Act
The Military Commissions Act
The Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act
The FISA Amendment Act
HELL on earth unleashed in the Middle East
People losing their homes left and right
$4+ a gallon for gas
skyrocketing food prices
US Attorney Scandal
lowered FDA standards
A dumber society
Greater disparity between rich and poor
A Disgraceful Environmental Policy
A Complicit Corporate Controlled Media
Manipulating Science
Executive Power Grab thus eliminating checks and balances
Disdain for the Constitution and The Bill of Rights
This "Phony War On Terror"
He should actually be "livid" with his barber.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:12 amWhat a horrid looking mop on his head, lol.
Wayne,
I have a sneaky feeling that our Michael uses a "hairdresser." ;)
July 15th, 2008 at 10:15 amEisenhower started Vietnam.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:16 amUS inflation grows at fastest pace in 27 years
July 15th, 2008 at 10:16 amHis mentor Insane McCain has taught him well "recorded flip flops no problemo (when speaking to hispanics) you where taken out of context" snark snark
July 15th, 2008 at 10:18 amLet's also not forget the context of Eraserhead's poutathon about Obama's editorial seeing as how the Iraqi government publicly stated through multiple officials that it wants to see the U.S. schedule withdrawal. We know Chimpy and The Dick want to stay to steal the oil. G.I. Joe LIEberman wants us there to protect Israel. McNutzi wants us there because he is a delusional old man who wants to look tough. Not sure what this loser's motivation is.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:19 amNoob17 Says:
It appears that Bush will start pulling troops out of Iraq before the November election or at least have some firm dates when some troops will come home.
This is a clever trick to make support for Obama decrease.
Actually the pullout is ironically both a scheduled action and related to "the conditions on the ground"--depending on which 'conditions' actually matter, of course.
The planned troop reduction is simply the end of the 18-month "surge". However the number of troops left will still be higher than the pre-surge levels.
You are correct that Bush and the GOP will be play it for political effect.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:19 amEisenhower was the first to send advisers to S.Vietnam.
It was under LBJ that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was signed by Congress in 1964.
And we all know that the Gulf of Tonkin was a "false-flag" event.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:20 amEisenhower was the first to send advisers to S.Vietnam.
It was under LBJ that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was signed by Congress in 1964.
And we all know that the Gulf of Tonkin was a "false-flag" event.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:20 amsorry about the double posting.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:21 amPut your body where your words are, O'Hanlon. In order for O'Hanlon to have any credibility on his statements, he needs to spend more time on the ground with troops in Iraq. Only then will he be qualified to make judgmental statements regarding Barack Obama's troop withdrawal strategy. Until then, O'Hanlon needs to s.t.f.u.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:21 amGive him a haircut, a uniform, strap one on him, and send HIM over!
July 15th, 2008 at 10:25 amO'Handjob pounds the pickle.
-GSD
July 15th, 2008 at 10:26 amJoin up or shut up o'hanlon.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:27 amO'Hanlon must be another "yellow elephant".
July 15th, 2008 at 10:30 amKay - great listing. I too am livid about the same things. It makes me feel "bitter" and I will continue to "whine" about these issues.
Noobie; Eisenhower sent in the 1st US advisers in 1954 after the French got their asses waxed at Dien Bien Phu.
Look things up before you post, you clueless twit!
July 15th, 2008 at 10:30 amThe Pentagon is expected to call for withdrawal of 100,000 troops by spring of 2009, which is a faster withdrawal than Obama was planning.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145848
July 15th, 2008 at 10:32 amMy uncle Tony would have said "This O'Hanlon punk needs a beatin'".
Of course, I'm more civilized than that.
I think.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:34 amTell me again -- WHY is this guy important? Why is he worth listening to?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:37 amIf O'Hanlon is "livid" then I guess he's convinced Obama will be the next President--otherwise why would he have his panties in a bunch?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:37 amCould we please stop giving this idiot any coverage on Think Progress? I fail to see how his inane rantings qualify as news or are otherwise worthy of any notice at all.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:39 amWho is O'Hanlon, and why is it of importance that he became livid with soon to be elect President Obama's time line for troop withdrawal?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:41 amSo, where does the Iraqi government fit into this whole equation? Do they have a say in the matter?
What if the Maliki government and the parliament decide that they want all foreign troops out ASAP, even if the US commanders on the ground are opposed to such an action?
Then what?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:44 amO'Hanlon is the pundit equivalent of our own Noob17.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:45 amSo the idiot goes to the next level while he says he's not going to the next level. Now that makes me livid.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:45 amJust what we need a "whiner troll". You just earned your self a flagging.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:47 amWho pays attention to this idiot anymore?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:52 amWho?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:56 amThe Iraqi PM and the Iraqi National Security Adviser have both been asking for specific dates of our withdrawal.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:59 amConsidering that O'Hanlon has been wrong about virtually everything, then Obama's plan must be a good one.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
July 15th, 2008 at 11:00 amVerbalKint, which idiot, Noob17 or O'Hanlon? When either comes back from the front in a US uniform in which he served, I MAY pay attention to what either says.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:00 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU7OqGCIcak
July 15th, 2008 at 11:21 amHe belongs on the Mc Flipflopper`s campaign it`s a sure sign of success for the old man, not!!!!
July 15th, 2008 at 11:23 amSeems my comment asking how this guy with a bad hair cut and a weak brain can be given such public platforms to spout his craziness are awaiting moderation.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:23 amWhat did you do jb, go and use the evil "anole eyes" word. Everyone knows that word corrupts the mind, curves the spine, and in general causes massive societal damage. Right TP?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:28 amTake it easy with the moderation....too much of a good thing and all that.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:29 amIf the Vietnamese can survive what we did to them and even forgive us to some extent, then there is hope that Iraq can someday recover and rejoin the world with some degree of normalcy.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:33 amFirst we must get out and let them work out their own problems.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:34 amO'Hanlon reminds me of the joke about 2 Irishmen leaving a bar...
July 15th, 2008 at 11:35 am.
.
.
.
Hey! It could happen.
Did they find O'Hanlon in the drunk tank?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:36 amWhy is there a pic of Cosmo Kramer's younger brother heading this thread ?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:40 amYeah, well, Noob, I suspect these are not the ONLY things that you "believe" that are mistaken.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pmLivid, huh? Well, I hope his pointy little head EXPLODES.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pmO’Hanlon was livid?----Who cares what O'Hammon thinks about Obama, Iraq, or the All Star game, This expert on all things war needs to just go away.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pmPlease,
Futue postings about O'Handjob should not include a photo.
KTHXBYE
July 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pmNoob17 Says:
I believe that it was President Kennedy who first sent fighting troops to Vietnam. I believe that it is not a wise to bring up the 4500 deaths in Iraq when 66,000 died in Vietnam. It just gives ammo to whe right-wing war nuts.
After reading your posts, you sound quite a bit like a right wing nut trying to pose as a progressive. At the minimum, you are a concern troll.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pmMay I suggest Mr. O'Hanlon insert his head MUCH deeper into the blender the next time he does his hair.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pmLivid, huh? I like that. I might have to change my name.
Hearing and seeing O'Hanlon being quoted as if he knows anything worth knowing, Angry McAngus said that he was "livid" that this obvious shite for brains actually seems to receive money for these nonsensical statements.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:26 pmSo, how high does the death count have to be before it's "wise" to bring it up? You are a horse's ass, Noob17.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pmI am slow on the uptake, but was that picture of O'Hanlon specifically chosen because he looks like Beavis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beavis
July 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pmGod pless Iraq
http://www.softonlinesoft.com/vb
July 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pmBoob17,
No, actually, 3.2 million were killed in Vietnam. The figure for Americans is 58,000+. The Pentagon Papers said we must prevent the free and fair elections reuniting North and South (as we agreed) because it was obvious Ho Chi Minh would win over 80% of the vote. VP Nixon wanted to go nuclear if the French imperialists were defeated. Eisenhower said no.
The Pentagon Papers said the Domino Theory was not true.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened and if it did it would have been justified because the Maddox was overseeing raids along the North's coast.
Haldemann said Nixon sabotaged the peace talks in 1968 and 1972 because he thought peace would be bad for him in the elections. We could have had the final terms in 1968 and half the lives could have been saved.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:54 pmI have the book titled:
THE TEN THOUSAND DAY WAR
July 15th, 2008 at 10:37 pmVIETNAM: 1945-1975
by Michael Maclear
It was made into a 26-part TV series that is often on the History Channel.
O'Livid is so O'Relevant
July 16th, 2008 at 8:34 amoops.
I definitely need more coffee.
O'Livid is oh so O'Irrelevant.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:37 am