Slashdot Mirror

Vote parent up. Obama is working to keep his 'promises', and the fact that the president and the congress don't agree all the time means that some of his decisions are stalled by congress. The grandparent post should at least read this before flaming.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/14/paul-hipp/rocker-viral-video-mocks-us-37th-best-health-care-/

Now, a real world test : I've had children in both the UK and the USA. There are some differences, but in an interesting way each system reflects the mindset of each culture. For instance in the UK the resources were more frugal - I didn't even know what an epidural was until I came to the US - my wife was only offered gas and air in the UK. The US had doctors and midwives on standby and the facilities were much better. However in the UK my wife had someone come visit her 2 or 3 times a week for a while whereas in the US she had to go for checkups.

Its horses for courses and some arbitrary ranking system concocted by health administrators / politicians looking at tables of spreadsheets is meaningless.

So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but FoxNews? Sure, not every network can attend, so I understand if the Shelbyville Gazette doesn't get invited, but Fox has the ratings to be considered on the short list of invitees. Even the other networks are getting uncomfortable with it:

Well yes. And it's perfectly fine to be uncomfortable with it. Fox has long been known to be biased from both left and right (e.g. Jonah Goldberg). Is it awkward and troubling for a media outlet to be singled out from an administration? Sure. At the same time though, it's not exactly that FoxNews has been on the up and up. It never was. Even when it was launched it was heavily promoted on conservative talk radio. I'm sorry, but when I hear "It's fair and balanced!" from Rush Limbaugh, I'm suspicious. Now if this endorsement was coming from the Columbia School of Journalism or the Annenberg Political Fact Check, or the Pulitzer Prize winning St Petersberg Times' Political Fact Check, then yes. But an unabashedly biased source, no thanks.

He's done absolutely nothing that he said he would do, and in fact has been even *worse* than Bushco regarding midnight bills, etc. So why is the media not lighting a bonfire under his feet?

Absolutely nothing? Not lighting a bonfire?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept: 54
Compromise: 14
Promise Broken: 7
Stalled: 17
In the Works: 149
Not yet rated: 274

Feel free to read the about page
The Truth-O-Meter is good fun too.
Every day it tracks the veracity of statements by public figures & politicians.

He's done absolutely nothing that he said he would do, and in fact has been even *worse* than Bushco regarding midnight bills, etc. So why is the media not lighting a bonfire under his feet?

Absolutely nothing? Not lighting a bonfire?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept: 54
Compromise: 14
Promise Broken: 7
Stalled: 17
In the Works: 149
Not yet rated: 274

Feel free to read the about page
The Truth-O-Meter is good fun too.
Every day it tracks the veracity of statements by public figures & politicians.

He's done absolutely nothing that he said he would do, and in fact has been even *worse* than Bushco regarding midnight bills, etc. So why is the media not lighting a bonfire under his feet?

Absolutely nothing? Not lighting a bonfire?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept: 54
Compromise: 14
Promise Broken: 7
Stalled: 17
In the Works: 149
Not yet rated: 274

Feel free to read the about page
The Truth-O-Meter is good fun too.
Every day it tracks the veracity of statements by public figures & politicians.

People mock Fox News because it lies and gives so much airtime to pundits who are clearly divorced from reality.

But I'm sure you knew that already.

People mock Fox News because it lies and gives so much airtime to pundits who are clearly divorced from reality.

But I'm sure you knew that already.

People mock Fox News because it lies and gives so much airtime to pundits who are clearly divorced from reality.

But I'm sure you knew that already.

People mock Fox News because it lies and gives so much airtime to pundits who are clearly divorced from reality.

But I'm sure you knew that already.

Refuted.

From your link, final paragraph:

But Beck has repeatedly said Jones is a communist. Present tense. Although we could not find a comment in which Jones explicitly said why he is no longer one, we found ample evidence that he now believes capitalism is the best force for the social change he is seeking. So there's truth to Beck's claim in that Jones was a communist, but it's apparent he isn't any longer, as Beck suggests. So we find the claim Barely True.

So, they have video of Van Jones saying he IS a communist, but can't find anything with him saying he is NOT. However, he has said some things that don't sound like a communist, so we don't think he is. Therefor, Beck is liar!

Did I summarize it right?

Find a video of him as a child saying he's a child, then claim that he is a child, even though he's not well over the age of 21.

Get it yet?

There are much better examples, all on one handy page too! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

I read most of them, but let's skip to the "Pants on Fire" one
The claim:

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

They say that Holdren never supported that position. You click on the link, and it takes you to THIS article. Here's an excerpt:

We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy."

In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.

Of course, the book lists this as an example of a step that could be taken, but, of course, it has some problems. What did authors think the problems would be?

"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Now, granted, the book does not endorse the idea, but does bring it up as a CONSTITUTIONAL option, should population control become an important enough need.

And saying that this is a valid option and it is CONSTITUTIONAL, I think it's fair to say, "John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." Although, I will admit that "if the need becomes serious enough" should be added to the end of that.

There are much better examples, all on one handy page too! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

I read most of them, but let's skip to the "Pants on Fire" one
The claim:

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

They say that Holdren never supported that position. You click on the link, and it takes you to THIS article. Here's an excerpt:

We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don't shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, "We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy."

In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.

Of course, the book lists this as an example of a step that could be taken, but, of course, it has some problems. What did authors think the problems would be?

"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Now, granted, the book does not endorse the idea, but does bring it up as a CONSTITUTIONAL option, should population control become an important enough need.

And saying that this is a valid option and it is CONSTITUTIONAL, I think it's fair to say, "John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." Although, I will admit that "if the need becomes serious enough" should be added to the end of that.

The thing that I don't understand is that Glenn gets on his show and shows video of some member of saying something like, "I used to be a communist. Now I'm a radical communist." and people attack Glenn Beck!!??!! The only refutations of what Glenn Beck says are personal insults against him and his viewers.

Refuted.

Um... Your article is further proof that Van Jones was a communist. Your proof that Beck is wrong hangs on the fact that Van Jones hasn't given a recent interview claiming to be a commie? Seriously? Are you that blind?

Is it OK on the left to be a former commie? Is it OK on the left to be a radical muslim in the U.S. military?

Refuted.

From your link, final paragraph:

But Beck has repeatedly said Jones is a communist. Present tense. Although we could not find a comment in which Jones explicitly said why he is no longer one, we found ample evidence that he now believes capitalism is the best force for the social change he is seeking. So there's truth to Beck's claim in that Jones was a communist, but it's apparent he isn't any longer, as Beck suggests. So we find the claim Barely True.

So, they have video of Van Jones saying he IS a communist, but can't find anything with him saying he is NOT. However, he has said some things that don't sound like a communist, so we don't think he is. Therefor, Beck is liar!

Did I summarize it right?

There are much better examples, all on one handy page too! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

The thing that I don't understand is that Glenn gets on his show and shows video of some member of saying something like, "I used to be a communist. Now I'm a radical communist." and people attack Glenn Beck!!??!! The only refutations of what Glenn Beck says are personal insults against him and his viewers.

Refuted.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/125/direct-military-leaders-to-end-war-in-iraq/

"Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq"

Lets see, permanent military bases, check. Troops still in Iraq, check. US and Iraqi's still being killed, check. Where is this end of the war?

So far, Obama has kept his promises pretty well. I can see why many voters would be happy with him.

Slashdot might not represent the opinions of the majority.

Here, read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Thanks

While I like your little essay, I think by focusing solely on the international arena, you're missing out on a lot.

First of all, exporting US dollars as aid to other countries just gives the rest of the world more incentive to keep our currency from collapsing.

On to Obama -
I didn't vote for Obama (nor did I vote for McCain), but I've started to really like him. While he may not be accomplishing a whole lot yet, he's at least bringing light (and consequentially, discussion) to a lot of topics that were overlooked during the Bush years.

The Republicans aren't even debating his points based on actual facts, but relying on lies and character defamation.

I can totally relate to Obama. He's just trying to get some shit done in a broken system, and a bunch of crazies are trying to bring him down for no particular reason. So yes, his changes are going slowly, but I'm optimistic that he'll get most of his agenda done. He's already doing pretty well: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

To compare that to Bush's accomplishments is absurd. While I tend to give Bush a lot more benefit of the doubt than most people, I don't think he engaged the American public nearly as much, and in this time of cynical politics we need someone like that more than ever.

Well, as I understand it, within the new Medical Care Reform legislation they're trying to pass, there are provisions to let the govt. have full access to your banking accounts (without warrant, etc).

This is a myth.

You are kind of missing the point. Congress doesn't want us to know what the bills say, and they don't want to really know what the bill says. If they don't actually read the bill, they have plausible deniability. If you can't read the bill, then they can say you don't know what you're talking about, and if that doesn't work, they'll just call you a racist for disagreeing. Take health care for instance. What Obama and the Democrats have been saying the bill does is not what the actual bill says. They are playing a magician; they want you to watch what there right hand (what they say) is doing while the left hand (what the bill says) is doing something else. Didn't you have a problem when Obama broke his promise that we'd be able to view bills a week before they are passed (see here)? Aren't you bothered that most in Congress don't read the bill before they sign it, and then try to tell you what it actually does? They are trying to reform health care in America without actually reading the whole bill! Ask your local Representative if they read the bill before they passed it back in August. Anything that expedites the process of you being able to read what is being passed will not be done. This is business as usual.

There's been waaay too many documented cases of people buying guns (and I mean big guns, like assault rifles) legally in the US with their God-given 2nd ammendment right and smuggling them to the drug cartels here.

When you say "and I mean big guns like assault rifles", it pretty much shows that you know nothing about firearms and US laws.

The articles you link to all cite the "90% of guns traced to US" lie. 90% of the guns that are submitted for tacing are from the US. Only a small number of guns are submitted for tracing, because there's no point in submitting AKs from China and North Korea with no serial number to the ATF for tracing.

Fully automatic guns (pull the trigger and they rattle off bullets) require a federal license with large yearly fees and an anal probe from the BATFE. They are rarely sold here and are exceptionally expensive. Even the gangs here don't buy them legally here. They smuggle them from overseas - it's way cheaper. I'm behind a censor here, but google "BATFE" and "class III license" to see what it takes to buy a machine gun.

What the ill-informed such as yourself call "big guns - like assault rifles" are military-looking guns that have been altered so that they fire one bullet at a time. To make them or import them here, they must not be alterable to fully automatic fire.

The articles you quote suggest a flood of guns from the US using faulty statistics, then go on to list a bunch of confiscated weapons that you cannot easily buy here. You can't get grenades and rocket launchers here. If they are able to smuggle those in from the third world, why would they pay US prices for rifles that aren't even full-auto?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/16/barack-obama/Obama-claims-90-percent-guns-used-Mexico/

I'm not saying out libel system is perfect but before i take shit like this from an American can you please look at which country.
1) has news full of rampant lies
2) has a population where 40-45% don't believe in evolution and believe the world was created in its current form

Oh right its the US, but yeah sure, OUR legal system is busted and cripples science journalism! You still have people on your news claiming provably false things, but yeah WE are the ones with the libel problem!

Sigh... arguing with people like you is less fun than smacking my head against a wall.

Your link is obviously partisan, but aside from that I think it's rather well-known how often private insurers deny coverage. Furthermore, from the comments:

"There is no issue here. The Oregon Plan follows the same practice as the majority of private insurance plans in not paying for experimental or unproven therapies. There are two reasons for this practice: first, to keep down costs (these therapies are exceptionally expensive) and second, to protect themselves from law suits when a therapy is determined to be useless and harmful to the patient. If this woman was paying for her own medical insurance, it's very likely that the decision to pay for this treatment would be the same."

You also say you already know all about the bill without television pundits giving you their biased analyses. Fair enough. But do you at least do research online, accessing websites that have historically demonstrated neutral and fact-focused attitudes? Politifact.com is a great one.

In fact...that's a nice segway to this link that factually counters your horrible misinterpretation of pages 15 and 16: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/22/ibdeditorialscom/private-health-insurance-page-16-house-bill/

Please read it. It's for your own good.

According to the bill currently making its way through the Senate, effective "year one of the plan" (that's 2013 in normal speak) you will no longer be able to opt for private insurance.

No. That is yet another outright falsehood -- i.e., Big Lie -- being put forth by the opponents of reform.

The provision in question only changes the way in which private insurance is purchased.

Please stop spreading disinformation.

And from HERE:

The White House raised the 2009 budget deficit projection to a staggering $1.8 trillion today. For context, it took President Bush more than seven years to accumulate $1.8 trillion in debt.

I don't know where the $1.8 trillion accumulation over seven years comes from, as this Treasury Department utility shows an increase of $1.8 trillion in debt by the end of 2004.

And Politifact shows here that the total debt run up under Bush was around $5 trillion.

Right. 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems and 78% of those filers had insurance. Citation [businessweek.com] That doesn't just make things more expensive for those with healthcare, it makes them more expensive for policy holders, anyone who wants a loan, small businesses, investors, and stockholders. And it's not just over the short term, it has an overall detrimental effect on our nation's economic well being which continues to mount.

Health care is too expensive, no question. We're not going to fix it with preventive medicine (source 1 source 2, may be related I didn't check). Spreading out the cost sounds great until you realize that a lot of people don't have insurance because they can't afford it, and won't be paying their full share if they go for a public option either, so the same people who are paying more now will be paying more then too. If you want to make health care more affordable to have to do things to reduce the cost directly. Then more people would get insurance anyway because it would be cheaper.

I believe nearly everything he said, perhaps you never listened. Track them yourself. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ While Obama made some overly optimistic promises it's pretty clear that congress and political fear mongering are limiting factors. Obama is not a genie. He has no magic wand. Real progress takes time.

He's spreading a right-wing talking point, debunked here, italics mine:

Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.

For more details, see PolitiFact's Obameter. They have a comprehensive list of Obama's campaign promises with links to the promise and summaries and links with news on each one.

As a side note, has Obama actually done anything he said he would do? Has Obama done anything that McCain didn't say he would do? Has Obama given any speeches where he didn't steal from Bush?

Probably not.

Yes, and I'm fully against the president being in league with the space aliens from Jupiter. That's TREASON, and we should put the president to DEATH for being in league with the space aliens from Jupiter.

As I mentioned earlier, here's Obama's birth certificate. He was born in Honolulu. I know Hawaii is a freak state that doesn't count, but he's still American on a technicality of Hawaii being a state.

Also, Barack Obama's birth certificate.

It's all on THOMAS - eventually.

However, it is not on THOMAS a minimum of 5 days before any non-emergency bill is passed. There is also no ability to comment on THOMAS (that's not the point of THOMAS).

Don't get me wrong -- I think THOMAS is great, it just doesn't do what Obama's promise said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/

[President Obama] will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

I wonder if through ANY of this, Obama is going to keep one of his election stump promises, to publish every bill he's going to sign, in its entirety at least 5 days before he signs it?

Already broken, according to PolitiFact.com. And boy did they get a lot of mail about that and several other ratings, from both sides, which says to me they probably are one of the more impartial reporting sites out there if they're pissing off everyone...

More to the point, I wonder if/when the webfilter @ the site I work at will start allowing Facebook, since it's blocked "as a security threat or inappropriate for government use". I can see the justification now: "But, see, the GSA has signed a deal, and the White House even has a Facebook (and Myspace) page. Surely the GSA and the White House know what's appropriate for government use..."

Why is it easier to break a promise than keep one?

You only need to break a promise once.

Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and food-denial are not torture techniques.

Sales-teams use the first as a team building exercise...

Waterboarding as a team building excercise? You're an uninformed, ignorant idiot. It was torture when America hung Japanese for doing it to American POWs.
John McCain on Politifact

It never became a team building excercise - there is a lawsuit in the works because one sales team used a pale imitation of waterboarding to boost morale:
Team-Building or Torture? Court Will Decide.

And as far as skipping a night's sleep or a few meals goes, that's nowhere near the scale when used as torture. They don't equate. How often have you gone five days without sleep, or without food? Let us all know next week how easy it was to do. Bring proof.

But Biden is not rich. Despite being in the Senate for a couple generations, he's "dead last" Senate in terms of income. So yes, you can complain that he's favoring draconian copyright laws to the detriment of the public, but you can't accuse him of corruption just because he's staked a position you disagree with.

Not anyone else you can vote for. Obama's campaign made a big deal about how he was funded by small donors, but 2/3rds of his income was from corporate interests.

Only if you follow the Republican sophistry that donations from employees of Freddie Mac == donations from Freddie Mac.

First, taken in context it's pretty clear that he was talking about taxes coming out of your paycheck. Even politifact agrees with that sentiment (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/)

From

The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

"I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.

Jamieson noted GOP ads that claimed Obama would raise taxes on electricity and home heating oil. "They rebutted both with the $250,000 claim," she said of the Obama campaign, "so they did extend the rebuttal beyond income and payroll."

Now, your second part:

Second, this isn't really a tax increase at all since you're supposed to be paying taxes on online purchase as it is. It's called a Use Tax and just because you haven't been paying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, there is no reason why purchases made online should be tax free other than it is difficult to enforce. I would even say that it gives online vendors an unfair advantage over local stores.

If Obama said, "No New Taxes", you'd have a point. He didn't say that. He said that taxes would not go up for families making under $250,000/yr. Well, with this, my taxes will go up, and my family makes under $250,000/yr.

But, please, don't let the facts get in the way of the spin.

First, taken in context it's pretty clear that he was talking about taxes coming out of your paycheck. Even politifact agrees with that sentiment (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/)

Second, this isn't really a tax increase at all since you're supposed to be paying taxes on online purchase as it is. It's called a Use Tax and just because you haven't been paying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Besides, there is no reason why purchases made online should be tax free other than it is difficult to enforce. I would even say that it gives online vendors an unfair advantage over local stores.

At what point is he going to step up and say he's the President now and actually follow it up with action?

There are numerous websites keeping track of Obama's campaign promises and the progress (or lack thereof) he's made on them.
http://promises.nationaljournal.com/
http://obamapromisetracker.com/index.html
http://ideapalooza.com/blog/?p=133
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ to much too quickly instead of focusing on war and economics.

That said, large parts of Obama's agenda are going to be read in the context of Bush's 8 years, because so much of the agenda is "I'm going to fix Bush & Republican actions."

It's in the works. Still plenty of time to meet a 16 month deadline.

Here too: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

The flaw is that they accidentally let Obama win.

So, you're saying that your NeoCon masters sold your souls to the Democrats?

Shouldn't you be taking this up with your NeoCon/Republican Overlords, instead of bashing the company that promised votes for your side in 2004?

Silly hypocrite, thinking is for real kids.{my apologies to the Trix Rabbit}

*disclaimer*
I am a registered Republican, and have been since the early 1990's. This past Presidential Election was a choice between a shite casserole, or a turd sandwich. I picked the turd sandwich option[Obama] because the shite casserole from the past 8 years left a bad taste in my mouth.
I've seen the light[1], and am glad we seem to be moving that way.

[1]Opening up FOIA, and more; do your own research, but with an open mind for the facts instead of party hype.

So, take another cheap shot, I've Karma, armor, and agility to burn...take your best shot, you stupid git!
Obama has been in office for less than two months. Having to deal with the past 8 years of heinous rule, how can you expect anyone to straighten this mess out in two months or less?
 

For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter

Lets see how the Obameter holds up... heres what it says about Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq

On Jan. 21, 2009 â" his first full day in office â" President Obama met privately with the military commanders in charge of Iraq.
...
After the meeting, Obama issued a statement, included below in its entirety:

"This afternoon, I met with our ambassador to Iraq, the commander in Iraq, and the overall theater commander in the region in order to get a full update on the situation in Iraq. Key members of my Cabinet and senior national security officials also participated in this meeting.

"The meeting was productive and I very much appreciated receiving assessments from these experienced and dedicated individuals. During the discussion, I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.

"In the coming days and weeks, I will also visit the Department of Defense to consult with the Joint Chiefs on these issues, and we will undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region."

Promise kept.

Well that's all fine and dandy right? And after he gets the boys out of Iraq he's going to get the boys out of Afghanistan, right?

A recent article from the LA Times proves enlightening:

Reporting from Baghdad and Washington -- The U.S. will reduce its military presence in Iraq by 12,000 troops over the next six months as part of the first major drawdown since President Obama announced his plan to end combat operations in the country next year, U.S. military officials in Baghdad said Sunday.
[...]
The plan would reduce U.S. troop strength by nearly 10% just as Iraq is preparing for nationwide elections in the fall -- a step that would have been unthinkable at the height of the insurgency but was endorsed in this case by top U.S. military officials.
[...]
The plan calls for the number of U.S. brigade combat teams to drop from 14 to 12. Two brigade teams that had been scheduled to redeploy in the next six months will not be replaced.
[...]
When the American move is completed, it would reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq to about 128,000 troops, dipping for the first time below the number of troops in the country before then-President Bush ordered the buildup he referred to as the "surge" in 2007.
The schedule for the withdrawal represents a compromise between the 16-month timetable President Obama had advocated during his election campaign and a 23-month plan that had been pushed by the military.
Under the compromise, all combat forces would be pulled out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, but a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would remain for training and support missions.
The Iraq withdrawals are crucial to the administration's plans to devote more military resources to Afghanistan, as well as to limit spending at a time when the government is facing record deficits.
Senior U.S. national security officials are nearing completion of a strategic review of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, a step that Obama has described as an effort "to stabilize a deteriorating situation," one he has implied was neglected by Bush.
[...]
Last month, Obama announced plans to send 17,000 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan -- deployments that would more than offset the troop reductions in Iraq.

Yep. So

For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter

Lets see how the Obameter holds up... heres what it says about Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq

On Jan. 21, 2009 â" his first full day in office â" President Obama met privately with the military commanders in charge of Iraq.
...
After the meeting, Obama issued a statement, included below in its entirety:

"This afternoon, I met with our ambassador to Iraq, the commander in Iraq, and the overall theater commander in the region in order to get a full update on the situation in Iraq. Key members of my Cabinet and senior national security officials also participated in this meeting.

"The meeting was productive and I very much appreciated receiving assessments from these experienced and dedicated individuals. During the discussion, I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.

"In the coming days and weeks, I will also visit the Department of Defense to consult with the Joint Chiefs on these issues, and we will undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region."

Promise kept.

Well that's all fine and dandy right? And after he gets the boys out of Iraq he's going to get the boys out of Afghanistan, right?

A recent article from the LA Times proves enlightening:

Reporting from Baghdad and Washington -- The U.S. will reduce its military presence in Iraq by 12,000 troops over the next six months as part of the first major drawdown since President Obama announced his plan to end combat operations in the country next year, U.S. military officials in Baghdad said Sunday.
[...]
The plan would reduce U.S. troop strength by nearly 10% just as Iraq is preparing for nationwide elections in the fall -- a step that would have been unthinkable at the height of the insurgency but was endorsed in this case by top U.S. military officials.
[...]
The plan calls for the number of U.S. brigade combat teams to drop from 14 to 12. Two brigade teams that had been scheduled to redeploy in the next six months will not be replaced.
[...]
When the American move is completed, it would reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq to about 128,000 troops, dipping for the first time below the number of troops in the country before then-President Bush ordered the buildup he referred to as the "surge" in 2007.
The schedule for the withdrawal represents a compromise between the 16-month timetable President Obama had advocated during his election campaign and a 23-month plan that had been pushed by the military.
Under the compromise, all combat forces would be pulled out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, but a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would remain for training and support missions.
The Iraq withdrawals are crucial to the administration's plans to devote more military resources to Afghanistan, as well as to limit spending at a time when the government is facing record deficits.
Senior U.S. national security officials are nearing completion of a strategic review of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, a step that Obama has described as an effort "to stabilize a deteriorating situation," one he has implied was neglected by Bush.
[...]
Last month, Obama announced plans to send 17,000 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan -- deployments that would more than offset the troop reductions in Iraq.

Yep. So

Can we look back in four years time and think of George Bush as a benevolent caretaker in light of the atrocities commited by the new administration? YES WE CAN! -- It's more and more obvious with each news week that all the glitzy promises and election rhetoric that came Barack Obama was a load of meaningless drivel to deceive people - please don't expect things to be better, lest you sink into complacency and don't notice the BS until it's up to your armpits.

For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter, which tracks election promises kept and broken. So far it's showing that it's early days but the USA is getting pretty much what it voted for.

That sight you list is partisan and very pro-Obama. How can they mark 'no earmarks' as a compromise?

...

Maybe the justification is the justification they gave?