MR

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:35 am**

Wishy Washy much?

Surge now (but only partial)
Partial withdrawal for election year
Final withdrawal for next President to decide

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:04 pm**

Don't be fooled... this is a deal....

The Republicans (and their best supporters the war industry) get their war in Afganistan.....

The Democrats will get their HealthCare Bill (tax) passed.....

:roll:

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:19 pm**

what a clusterfuck.
the president is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:22 pm**

Lula wrote:what a clusterfuck.
the president is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Isn't that the truth? :roll:

Unbelievable . . . but predictable.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:37 pm**

Sulcero- One of the biggest war profiteers and Obama supporters is G E. GE also owns NBC, MSNBC and BRAVO. They have the 2 clowns that got into the WH under a Bravo contract for a reality show. Rick Immelt ( the Pres of G E was right there ) and it would not surprise me if reality TV for GE is how you get into the WH. Follow the campaign contributions. Eric, I also noticed the pull out before an election.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:44 pm**

Eric wrote:Wishy Washy much?
[
Surge now (but only partial)

Oh, please, 30,000 is only a 'partial' surge. That's like saying Bush only dug himself a 'partial' hole in Iraq.

It may be 10,000 less then requested...But, 30,000 IS a large number of troops.

Partial withdrawal for election year
Final withdrawal for next President to decide

He should have never mentioned this...it only give Republicans ammo. I think it's there because of things he said during the campaign and to appease members of his party.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:31 pm**

Monker wrote:
Eric wrote:Wishy Washy much?
[
Surge now (but only partial)

Oh, please, 30,000 is only a 'partial' surge. That's like saying Bush only dug himself a 'partial' hole in Iraq.

It may be 10,000 less then requested...But, 30,000 IS a large number of troops.

Partial withdrawal for election year
Final withdrawal for next President to decide

He should have never mentioned this...it only give Republicans ammo. I think it's there because of things he said during the campaign and to appease members of his party.

The Generals must have asked for X amount for a reason.....a reason that they know better than him, you or I

Yeah...it was made to appease his party...and THAT..is NOT a decision!

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:37 pm**

Monker wrote: That's like saying Bush only dug himself a 'partial' hole in Iraq.

You mean that unwinnable war that is won (and...those withdraw dates were Bush's, before you try to pretend Obama made that decision)? The war that drew Al Quada into a beatable situation and dealt them a body blow? That one? History will likely show WMD's were not counted on as the primary reason (I still think they assumed some would found), but successful it was, nonetheless. Whether you can say it was worth over 4k lives is not something that is arguable.....I couldn't make a decision to go to war, thats for damn sure, but time will tell whether trying to create a democracy in the middle of hell was a good idea or not.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:11 pm**

Eric wrote:The Generals must have asked for X amount for a reason.....a reason that they know better than him, you or I

Tell it to General Shinseki, or any of the other countless fired (err..I mean "resigned") military brass whose advice Bush consistently ignored.
Generals carry out the orders of the President, not the other way around.
It seems because McChrystal is an advocate of the Bush-era surge policy, the Right now has him confused as some de facto commander-in-chief.
Sorry, that's not how the chain of commands works...
Obama listened to McChrystal's advice and decided upon a "radical leftist" plan of sending a few less kids to their deaths.
For someone whose thirst to wage war at the expense of others seems boundless, you should be positively over the moon.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:26 pm**

The_Noble_Cause wrote: For someone whose thirst to wage war at the expense of others seems boundless, you should be positively over the moon.

Back that up please..

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:09 pm**

Eric wrote:
Monker wrote: That's like saying Bush only dug himself a 'partial' hole in Iraq.

You mean that unwinnable war that is won (and...those withdraw dates were Bush's, before you try to pretend Obama made that decision)? The war that drew Al Quada into a beatable situation and dealt them a body blow? That one? History will likely show WMD's were not counted on as the primary reason (I still think they assumed some would found), but successful it was, nonetheless. Whether you can say it was worth over 4k lives is not something that is arguable.....I couldn't make a decision to go to war, thats for damn sure, but time will tell whether trying to create a democracy in the middle of hell was a good idea or not.

Iraq was a war that should never have been started in the first place and Bush allowed it to drag on for FAR too long. It drew our attention away from the real problem in Afghanistan and split our resources. I never said it was an 'unwinnable war'. I said (in fact, I argued with Deen about this) that if took putting a soldier on every street corner to get peace and stability in that country, then that is what we should do.

Iraq was not worth 1 person dying for. It was not a threat to this country in ANY way. Period. Iraq was the modern day Cuba of the middle-east. They had a loud mothed dictator with a lot of talk but nothing behind him to make him a real threat.

WMD's were one reason we went there - and they didn't exist. Tying Iraq to 9/11 and terrorism in general was another...and that was all lies, until AFTER we were there and Al Quada saw an opening. It was ALL a huge waste of time, money, and lives....and it is all on W, his legacy.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:12 pm**

Eric wrote:The Generals must have asked for X amount for a reason.....a reason that they know better than him, you or I

And, they got 3/4 of what they wanted. That is a 'surge', 30,000 people. Get over it. 'Partial surge'...ridiculous.

Yeah...it was made to appease his party...and THAT..is NOT a decision!

In the big picture, it's also irrelevant right now. It's a long time before that gets here...and a lot of things can chane.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:15 pm**

Eric wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote: For someone whose thirst to wage war at the expense of others seems boundless, you should be positively over the moon.

Back that up please..

Oh, I dunno...
Could it have something to do with you starting THIS thread to gripe about Obama not sending enough troops up in them there Pashtun hills?
Maybe I got the impression from your flawless track record of Iraq cheerleading, even in the face of mounting evidence that it was all a false flag bucket of shit?
Isn’t it self explanatory?
While there is no known cure for neocon megalomania, I’m hopeful such Washington impulses will be curbed in the months ahead, especially as Cindy Sheehan and her CODE pinktards descend on Washington chanting “Hey, Hey, Barack Obama, how many kids will you kill tommorah?!”
Between them, and the 9-12 Mutual Teabag Admiration Society, something’s sure to give.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:53 am**

slucero wrote:Don't be fooled... this is a deal....

The Republicans (and their best supporters the war industry) get their war in Afganistan.....

The Democrats will get their HealthCare Bill (tax) passed.....

I support the troops and the war effort...and the reason to finish the job... WIN BABY WIN... we need that too happen once and for all... I also think beisdes ground troops its time to bomb the hell out of the caves again... My question is this... lets say July 2011 comes... and were not ready to withdrawl...what happens??? Do protesters start marching???

I also think Osma is dead and has been for at least 6 years...I have always thought that... but the taliban keeps regrouping anyway, because thats how they live...

I also think Kerrys senate report is creative writing to blame Bush that the war is still going on and is cover for senate democrats... its all they have... blame bush...
blame cheney...blame rummsfeld... it works for them... HEALTH CARE AND BLAME BUSH... :-)

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:57 am**

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Eric wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote: For someone whose thirst to wage war at the expense of others seems boundless, you should be positively over the moon.

Back that up please..

Oh, I dunno...
Could it have something to do with you starting THIS thread to gripe about Obama not sending enough troops up in them there Pashtun hills?
Maybe I got the impression from your flawless track record of Iraq cheerleading, even in the face of mounting evidence that it was all a false flag bucket of shit?
Isn’t it self explanatory?
While there is no known cure for neocon megalomania, I’m hopeful such Washington impulses will be curbed in the months ahead, especially as Cindy Sheehan and her CODE pinktards descend on Washington chanting “Hey, Hey, Barack Obama, how many kids will you kill tommorah?!”
Between them, and the 9-12 Mutual Teabag Admiration Society, something’s sure to give.

I think I complained about the wishy-washyness of his decision. "Send some troops, but not what was asked for...etc."

Cheerleading? Example? I see the good and bad from Iraq - something a loony lib like you cannot. Its all W is bad, and nothing else.

I've stated numerous times I wouldn't have the guts to ever be in any war if I were President./ Maybe pay a little better attention.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:17 am**

Eric wrote:I think I complained about the wishy-washyness of his decision. "Send some troops, but not what was asked for...etc."

The decision is to send less troops than McChrystal asked - your own quote above explicitly complains that not enough troops are being sent.
What kids of weasel word semantic bullshit are you trying to pull here, man?
Stop wasting my time.

Eric wrote:Cheerleading? Example? I see the good and bad from Iraq - something a loony lib like you cannot. Its all W is bad, and nothing else.

Nothing to do with W.
I've called LBJ a murderer who should've been impeached as well.
I'm against bullshit wars - period.

Eric wrote:I've stated numerous times I wouldn't have the guts to ever be in any war if I were President./ Maybe pay a little better attention.

Don't deny it, you are the forum's resident Iraq War supporter.
When the going gets bad, you dig in your heels, and find new ways to defend the indefensible.
Even as we speak, the British government is carrying out an inquiry into the hows-and-whys they got pulled into Iraq.
Reams and reams of lies are being exposed daily.
Funny how the "liberal media" has been titmouse silent about it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:48 am**

Say what you will about the war or the speech or whatever else, but I think most would be hard-pressed to deem Obama's first year in office anything more than a complete and total failure. This is coming on the heels of the new CEO of Obama Motors resigning after just 6 months too... is there a sound decision this guy has made yet?

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:08 am**

Ehwmatt wrote:....is there a sound decision this guy has made yet?

Here's the latest list of accomplishments making the rounds on the web.
I don't think snopes or politfact has looked at it yet, so take it with a grain of salt (in fact, I spot some errors already).
Some good here, some not so good.

1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women

4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information

7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier’s family

8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act

9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible

10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House

11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration

12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date

13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren’t even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan

14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research

15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research

16. New federal funding for science and research labs

17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards

18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect

19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools

20. New funds for school construction

21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out

22. US Auto industry rescue plan

23. Housing rescue plan

24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan

25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying

26. US financial and banking rescue plan

27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed

28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards

29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops

30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010

31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols

32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic

33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions

34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office

35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job

36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast

37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles

38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales

39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government

40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children

41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program

42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones

43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions

44. Expanding vaccination programs

45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters

46. Closed offshore tax safe havens

47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals

48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back

49. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices

50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources

51. Lower drug costs for seniors

52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings

53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel

54. Improved housing for military personnel

55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses

56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals

57. Increasing student loans

58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program

59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy

60. Established a new cyber security office

61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.

62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts

63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness

64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient

65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced

66. Improving benefits for veterans

67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration

68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud

69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco

70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules

71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports

72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons

73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive

74. Making more loans available to small businesses

75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare

76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court

77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans

78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000

79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel

80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan

81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan

82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans

83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production

84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters

85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket

86. Held first Seder in White House

87. Attempting to reform the nation’s healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured

88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform

89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform

90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform

Oh, and he built a swing set for the girls outside the Oval Office!

By / Robert P. Watson, Ph.D.Coordinator of American Studies
Lynn University

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:20 am**

The_Noble_Cause wrote:The decision is to send less troops than McChrystal asked - your own quote above explicitly complains that not enough troops are being sent.
What kids of weasel word semantic bullshit are you trying to pull here, man?
Stop wasting my time.

Try and read the whole post..or just stop reading my posts and responding. Please understand "WISHY-WASHY"

"Surge now (but only partial)
Partial withdrawal for election year
Final withdrawal for next President to decide"

The_Noble_Cause wrote: Don't deny it, you are the forum's resident Iraq War supporter.
When the going gets bad, you dig in your heels, and find new ways to defend the indefensible.

When the going gets bad? I simply have pointed out the positives that came from Iraq. Dictator dead, sons dead, other dictactor scared, Al Quada drawn in and defeated...and troops coming home victorious after our President said the war was unwinnable along with Majority leader Reid.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Funny how the "liberal media" has been titmouse silent about it.

Are you describing Climategate?

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:48 am**

Eric wrote:Obama's Afghan decision

For some reason I expected to see a picture like this when I opened the thread:

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:06 am**

Fact Finder wrote:http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/rumsfeld_responds.asp

Rumsfeld Responds

The statement from Rumsfeld:

“In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.’ Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response.”

“I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, ‘repeated’ or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.”

“In the interest of better understanding the President's announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”

This is true as far as I know and conforms with what Steve Hayes reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in October:

Perhaps more infuriating for Bush veterans was the suggestion by [Robert] Gibbs that the Bush administration ignored requests for more troops. It's nonsense, they say. McKiernan wanted more troops--he asked for three additional brigades in the summer of 2008--but he understood that he could have them only when they became available. "McKiernan was making requests down the line," says a Pentagon official, "and late in 2008 we did have the ability to commit more forces. So we did." Indeed, Bush sent nearly 7,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before he left office, including one brigade that had been repurposed from Iraq.

One Bush veteran asks, "If it's true that the Bush administration sat on these troop requests for eight months, is the White House suggesting that the Pentagon was incompetent or negligent or both? That would be a good question to put to the defense secretary--and President Obama is in a position to make him talk."

I couldn't reach Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but I did talk to a senior defense official who serves with him. This person stressed that Gates has gone to great lengths to avoid being dragged into political fights between administrations. Nonetheless, he offered a strong rebuke to the present White House political team.

"There was no request on anyone's desk for eight months," said the defense official. "There was not a request that went to the White House because we didn't have forces to commit. So on the facts, they're wrong."

that was the least unispired speech period...it was clear about the mission... but that was about it... then he took it to a campaign level that looked like it bored the heck out of the audience... Trying to lay blame with what the BUSH team is not working anymore...OWN IT now... you had a year before now to change what was happening before now... Obama would rather have been somewhere else for suer... than making that speech... you could tell that in his tone and the rheteric...

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:10 am**

Eric wrote:Try and read the whole post..or just stop reading my posts and responding. Please understand "WISHY-WASHY"

"Surge now (but only partial)
Partial withdrawal for election year
Final withdrawal for next President to decide"

I don't think you understand your own posts.
Your objection to Obama's Afghanistan strategy stems from him not sending enough troops.
If that weren't the case, why else mope about a "partial" surge, as well as Obama not listening to General McChrystal?
A General, mind you, who wants more boots on the ground?
It's not like you're arguing in favor of remote drone attacks, or for some paleo-conservative type isolationism.
Let's face it - you want more lives thrown into the jagged maws of the war machine.
Combine that with your unabashed pro-Iraq stance, and I'm left with no other conclusion.

Eric wrote:When the going gets bad? I simply have pointed out the positives that came from Iraq. Dictator dead, sons dead,

We could depose a lot of dictators by invading their countries.
I’m not sure what you think you are, but what you’re advocating is neither conservative or liberal, but insane.

Eric wrote:other dictactor scared,

Prove it.
Talks with Gaddafi pre-dated the Iraq War.
North Korea and Iran didn’t shrink in the face of Bush’s imperialism, they were emboldened.
Eight years after the fact, we are now broke and our military overstretched.
I’m sure the evil leaders of the world are just shaking like a leaf. :roll:

Eric wrote:Al Quada drawn in and defeated

Al Qaeda wasn't even there to begin with.
So what you are citing as cold hard proof of the war’s necessity pretty much amounts to a beneficial side effect.
More importantly, what kind of logic is this?
That we carpetbomb the shit out of other nations and depose their leaders, all in the chance that the destabilized state then becomes some sort of black hole for terrorism?
What kind of white cat stroking supervillian do you have to be to think that is in any way a sensible foreign policy?

Eric wrote:...and troops coming home victorious after our President said the war was unwinnable along with Majority leader Reid.

Uh huh.
Tell ya what, you start the victory parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, and me and the rest of the country will catch up with you later, k?

Eric wrote:Are you describing Climategate?

FactFinder has provided media sources covering that story ranging from MSNBC to WashPo to NYTimes to even the government-run BBC.
So what’s your point?
The media isn’t liberal, fool.
It’s owned by a handful of the most powerful transnational corporations on the globe.
Your Fox News puppet masters have you so well-trained to see a liberal agenda under every rock, that you don’t even notice the real-powers-that-be which are knuckleraping your ass.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:16 am**

Donald Rumsfled wrote: “In the interest of better understanding the President's announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”

Sounds like a waste of taxpayer money to me.
Besides, is there any Bush official with less credibility than this guy?

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:31 am**

The_Noble_Cause wrote:I don't think you understand your own posts.
Your objection to Obama's Afghanistan strategy stems from him not sending enough troops.

For the fifth time Corky...I said it was WISHY-WASHY. Send more troops, but not as many as the Generals wanted. At the same time announcing exit dates that benefit him.
I'm not in favor of sending more troops, truth to be told, although I sweat to even think about the consequences either way. He didn't make a decision...he tried to make 4-5 decision in 1...and in effect made no decisions. What he did was completely illogical. You either end the fucker...or you ramp it up and say you're gonna succeed (like we did with Iraq...even though you can't admit you were wrong)

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Prove it.
Talks with Gaddafi pre-dated the Iraq War.

Bullshit. Here's your proof fuckstick: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/inter ... &position=

He gave up his program 6 months AFTER the invasion and 1 week AFTER Saddam was caught in a goddamn hole. You'll lie like the last 20 times we argued about this and say that timing is merely a coincidence...but I have the facts on my side. You lie every time this is brought up. I don't know why you can't ever admit you are wrong. It is sad.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Al Qaeda wasn't even there to begin with.
So what you are citing as cold hard proof of the war’s necessity pretty much amounts to a beneficial side effect.

Who said they were? It just seems to make sense to point out the successes...and there were some...from the Iraq war. Defeating Al Quada there is a GOOD thing. Removing dictators from power is a GOOD thing. Scaring other dictators is a GOOD thing. Promoting Democracy in hell is a GOOD thing. To just keep saying Bush lied to sum up Iraq is not productive. I've stated on numerous occasions that history will tell whether it was worth it or not.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:36 am**

Eric wrote:For the fifth time Corky...I said it was WISHY-WASHY. Send more troops, but not as many as the Generals wanted. At the same time announcing exit dates that benefit him.
I'm not in favor of sending more troops, truth to be told, although I sweat to even think about the consequences either way. He didn't make a decision...he tried to make 4-5 decision in 1...and in effect made no decisions. What he did was completely illogical. You either end the fucker...or you ramp it up and say you're gonna succeed (like we did with Iraq...even though you can't admit you were wrong)

Parse your own post analytically, grammatically, syntactically, etymologically; I don’t really give a tinker’s fuck.
You will not get me to believe that someone who creates a thread bitching about 30,000 troops is somehow anti-war.
Sorry Joan Baez, I’m not buying it.
If that were the case, you would be commending Obama for not brashly listening to General McChrystal, instead of denouncing him.

Eric wrote:Bullshit. Here's your proof fuckstick: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/inter ... &position=
He gave up his program 6 months AFTER the invasion and 1 week AFTER Saddam was caught in a goddamn hole. You'll lie like the last 20 times we argued about this and say that timing is merely a coincidence...but I have the facts on my side. You lie every time this is brought up. I don't know why you can't ever admit you are wrong. It is sad.

So what?
I said talks with Gaddafi pre-dated Bush and that’s the truth.

Secondly, your article is written by Judith Miller.
Hmm, now where do I know her name from?
Oh right, she was Cheney’s lapdog stenographer in publishing WMD lies in the run-up to war.
Not really a credible source.
Your article, however, mentions that Libya came back into the international fold via talks a.k.a. diplomacy.
As this NY Times article below make clear, normalizing relations with Libya was handled by Condi Rice and Colin Powell, diplomats who understood the value of hardline carrot-stick negotiations over the “shoot first” Bush neocon approach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/23/opini ... -bomb.html

You Cons keep clinging to Libya, this microscopically teeny sliver of hope, to justify the Bush Doctrine, but by any other serious metric, it was an abject failure.
Terrorism and weapons build-ups increased exponentially around the world.
Besides, Gaddafi had offered up his weapons programs previously under Clinton and to the Brits in 1999, as well.
So the whole point is just garbage.
Just for the sake of argument, however, let’s go along with you to neocon jabberwocky fantasyland and pretend Libya did cave because of Bush.
Well, what of it?
That does very little to change the fact that North Korea and Iran grew stronger.

Eric wrote:Who said they were? It just seems to make sense to point out the successes...and there were some...from the Iraq war. Defeating Al Quada there is a GOOD thing. Removing dictators from power is a GOOD thing. Scaring other dictators is a GOOD thing. Promoting Democracy in hell is a GOOD thing. To just keep saying Bush lied to sum up Iraq is not productive. I've stated on numerous occasions that history will tell whether it was worth it or not.

You talk about these actions with the icy cavalier detachment of a serial killer.
Sure, all those things are swell, especially when it’s not your ass, or your son’s and daughter’s ass, on the front line.
None of the post-facto Iraq justifications you listed above was worth ONE single American life.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:43 am**

I thought this was a better speech.. er letter... http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio ... 4287614061

Subject:
Do Your Job

To:
President Barack Obama
Rep. F. Allen Boyd
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. George LeMieux

November 20, 2009

Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country. One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you but I don't think you like America nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals." Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British ? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War ? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers,husbands,and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around because we stand for freedom. I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American.If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue .You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves. And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight ? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing.

I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

McAlpin , FL

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:58 am**

I feel sorry for this guy Harold B. Estes, he will no doubt now have 50 years of IRS returns audited and the wrath of Keith Olberman, Matt Lauer and David Letterman upon him. He might want to consult Joe "the plumber", before he says anything else.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:18 am**

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Donald Rumsfled wrote: “In the interest of better understanding the President's announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President’s assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.”

Sounds like a waste of taxpayer money to me.
Besides, is there any Bush official with less credibility than this guy?

Dick Cheney.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:34 pm**

No comment on the strategy. I agree...he's damned if he does and damned if he don't...sounds like does and don't...so he'll really be damned.

I tried to watch his speech, but I got completely annoyed by how he kept looking back and forth between his teleprompters, never looking forward nor taking his eyes off the words he is reading. His speech pattern makes it hard to take as well, which I guess comes from reading 3-4 words per line...over and over again. They need to put line breaks in the teleprompter so he doesn't pause in the weirdest times.

It would be hilarious for someone to fast forward a video of him giving a speech.

Ok...who'll be the first to bring up GW??? Come on. You know you want to.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:49 pm**

hoagiepete wrote:No comment on the strategy. I agree...he's damned if he does and damned if he don't...sounds like does and don't...so he'll really be damned.

I tried to watch his speech, but I got completely annoyed by how he kept looking back and forth between his teleprompters, never looking forward nor taking his eyes off the words he is reading. His speech pattern makes it hard to take as well, which I guess comes from reading 3-4 words per line...over and over again. They need to put line breaks in the teleprompter so he doesn't pause in the weirdest times.

It would be hilarious for someone to fast forward a video of him giving a speech.

Ok...who'll be the first to bring up GW??? Come on. You know you want to.

Here I am.

You've got to be kidding me. He did a great job giving the speech, despite whether you liked the content. And, yes, George Bush comes to mind in a big way when you're criticizing the way Obama delivered that speech.

MR

Obama's Afghan decision

Obama's Afghan decision

Re: Obama's Afghan decision

Re: Obama's Afghan decision

Re: Obama's Afghan decision

Re: Obama's Afghan decision

Re: Obama's Afghan decision

Re: Obama's Afghan decision