pastajoe

In October 2008 George W. Bush was president when the withdrawl agreement was drafted, and ratified by Iraqi lawmakers a month later in November 2008. The pertinent part of the agreement that President Obama honored was that, “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” Obama took office in January 2009.

You realize the timetable was established and agreed to when Bush was president.

That's a good bumper sticker, but the realities are more complex. You want to leave our troops in a country where we're telling them what to do? So much for winning hearts and minds.

Again, nobody seems to know the details of the Statement of Forces agreement. Obama wanted to keep US troops in bases in Iraq. But Iraq had to agree that US soldiers wouldn't be arrested in Iraq if civilians accidentally got killed, which is a common agreement with other nations where we have bases. Iraq wouldn't agree to that, as is their right as a democratic nation ( isn't that what the .Republicans wanted?), so we took our troops out.

Including one of the questioners, Hewitt. I thought they were supposed to be objective.

Everyone would pay the same income tax rate, and we all get taxed more on what we consume. So the middle class would pay a greater percentage of their income on goods and services than the rich. The hope is that the rich would spend their increased wealth on investment in jobs. But there's no requirement that they do, or that they do it in the US.

Kasich forgot to mention who was president when the budget got balanced. Jindal reminded me of a kid who ate too much sugar. Trump's right on taxes, a flat tax is regressive.

Fiorina appearently doesn't understand that a simple majority can't pass laws in the Senate. The Democrats had a comprehensive immigration reform plan with some Republican support, but there were enough Republicans to filibuster the bill so it wouldn't get voted on.

Cruz is trying to position himself as VP candidate if Trump wins the nomination. How come none of them talk about the amnesty program that occurred under Reagan?

Fiorina is trying too hard to look tough.

Round 2 of Trump vs the field tonight. Who's going to throw the Hail Mary to get some attention? I see Carly Fiorina has an ad where she says she's 61 and proud of every wrinkle she has. The problem is she doesn't have any because she got a face lift before running, so I guess she wasn't proud of those wrinkles. I wonder if Trump will make a crack about her being too thin skinned, and then say he was talking about her persona.

It's not his regular gig, he could temper it with practice. Dunleavy is a veteran and he's a snoozefest.

I liked listening to Paul Hamilton's play by play for the two games. He brings some excitement to the broadcast. I'd much rather have him take over for RJ than Dan Dunleavy.

Great role model for young guys to learn hard work can get you to the NHL. He won't have to be a 4th line agitator with the Amerks. Good on PK.

Saturday and Monday games on WGR radio. Paul Hamilton and Andrew Peters doing broadcast.

Was disappointed in the Falling Skies finale. The last hour felt rushed and predictable.

While 'crazy' is not a proper description, he's probably basing his opinion on such 'out of the mainstream' statements as “Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery” “A lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay” “We live in a Gestapo age” Carson has also compared Obama voters to Nazis, and homosexuality to murder.

Primaries did not occur before 1912, when the Republicans initiated the process with the Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, and LaFollette primary. Before that the candidates were selected by the party leaders in smokey back rooms. Why they had to be smokey and in the back, I do not know. The early primaries tend to make the more conservative and liberal candidates look more popular than they are with the majority of Americans, because the more extreme members of both parties are more involved than the majority of the country who don't pay attention until later in the process. An analogy is we're only on the second inning of the nine inning process. The previous winners of the last two Iowa caucuses were Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

I don't think they can refuse service, but they can tell a potential client that there may be a conflict of interest if they have differing views, and that they don't think they are the best choice for their case. But in the end if they're a court appointed attorney or the client still wants to hire them, they can't refuse service.

I blame the Puritans from the 1600's for founding the extremism of today.

Grey jerseys? Ugh, they would have been better with just black and blue. It's the worst of the 4 teams. Grey and yellow jerseys are the worst to buy if you play in white vs dark leagues where everyone has different jerseys.

1. A retiring politician tends to vote their conscience instead of for political reasons, which would make her support the reasoned choice, while the Republicans and some Dems like Schumer are against it for political reasons. They know the Jewish lobby is important for contributions and elections, and knowing Obama is a lame duck, are looking out for their own political futures. I usually support Schumer, but don't like his pandering on this issue. 2. The deal reduces insecurity, not increase it. The lack of any deal with no monitoring of Iran would increase insecurity. 3. Israel already has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. My fear is they will someday go rogue and use them, and the US will be left to deal with the consequences. 4. The embargo is not sustainable by the US alone, and the other nations involved believe it is a good deal and would not continue them when this deal is possible. China wants their oil, Europe wants their trade, and Iran wants their business. If Iran violates the agreement, that all goes away. 5. Congress hasn't received all the details because some of them are classified and have to be presented in closed hearings. It hasn't been possible to do so with Congress in recess. 6. The 24 day notification has been used as a red herring. Nuclear technology is not like a meth lab. They can't pack it up quick and leave no evidence. Scientists have said that detection devices can detect the presence of radioactive and chemical residue left behind even if the complex machinery is removed. And if Iran dragged their feet on allowing inspections, that would be evidence they were hiding something. 7. Lifting the economic sanctions does not give Iran free reign to provide missiles and other weapons to terrorists. They are still restricted under UN sanctions that remain in place. 8. For all the talk of military action, I never hear the advocates say how that would work. Air strikes wouldn't guarantee success. Do we invade with ground forces? Alone or with who? What about terrorist retaliation in the US? Do we lose the support of Middle East moderates we're trying to empower in Iran and neighbors to the more extreme elements? Who wants to sacrifice their loved one in the military when a diplomatic solution was available and verifiable?

My wife's brother was a delivery driver for Home Depot. 3 years ago a woman went through a stop sign and totaled his truck. He ended up with a painful back injury and had to stop working. Doctors couldn't ease the pain, so prescribed OxyContin. He got hooked on them and drinking to kill the pain. Despite his wife trying to regulate, he found ways to get them. It destroyed his liver. We got a call Monday night that he was in hospital. When we got there he was removed from life support and died after 4 hours. 51 years old, wife and 3 kids, member of Christian rock band at church. All because someone ran a stop sign.

@HillaryClinton: "We are smart enough—compassionate enough—to figure out how to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures."—Hillary

Powell spoke at the UN about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger, which was later found to be based on flimsy evidence. But since we thought of Powell as a reasonable person, it gave the claim credibility. Even he was misled by the evidence. Cheney advocated a 1% policy regarding threats. "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response." And after 9/11 I think there was a degree of ignorance by Americans who were mad and grouped all Muslims as " those people" who attacked us, and wanted to get revenge.