By MichaelJames

Mar 28, 2009 12:43pm

President Obama De-Emphasizes Priority of Democracy in Afghanistan

Last December, when President Bush appeared in Kabul with Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, he stated that one of the top priorities of the U.S. is "to build a flourishing democracy as an alternative to a hateful ideology…It’s difficult because extremists refuse to accept the beauty of democracy. They’ve got a different vision, and so therefore they’re willing to kill innocent people to achieve their objectives."

Yesterday, when President Obama announced his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, he made no such declaration.

"Democracy" and "democratic" were mentioned three times — in relation to Pakistan. But while the president mentioned the "elected" government of Afghanistan — and his special envoy to the region, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, is working hard on the elections to take place in Afghanistan later this year — it seems clear that the absence of rhetoric demanding a "flourishing democracy" in the country was not an accident. Though of course the administration will support democratic efforts in the country, the emphasis is now on stability and human rights.

As ABC News’ State Department reporter, Kirit Radia, notes, the administration’s "white paper" on the new policy makes the distinction even more apparent:

"The following steps must be done in concert to produce the desired end state: the removal of al-Qaeda’s sanctuary, effective and democratic government control in Pakistan, and a self-reliant Afghanistan that will enable the withdrawal of combat forces while sustaining our commitment to political and economic development." (Emphasis ours.)

Said the president yesterday: "we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future."

"We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future," he said at another point in the speech. "We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends, and our allies and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists."

-jpt

User Comments

Good, democracy there was always a joke.

Posted by: Huh | March 28, 2009, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm

Here’s an interesting story from the web pages of the Washington Post.
It is a little off topic, as they say, but it does hit upon a recurring theme of the Obama administration. That would be faking out the electorate.

Posted by: jcarob | March 28, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm

“… extremists refuse to accept the beauty of democracy. They’ve got a different vision …”
A different vision? Than OURS? HOW DARE THEY!!??!!
The beauty of democracy is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachmann, who now want to overthrow America’s democracy because they don’t like its result.
Losers.

Posted by: R Mutt | March 28, 2009, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm

Rachel: “I sure regret my vote for Obama. Deeply regret it.”
Katharine: “Here’s another moderate who regrets her vote for Obama.”
Raymond252: “After voting for Obama, I am FILLED with regret. I wanted to punish Republicans, but punished America by mistake.”
pepe: “I regret my vote for Obama. I will apologize to my 3 year old son for the great financial pain I am causing him by having voted for Obama.”

Posted by: NoMoreMr.NiceGuy | March 28, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm

Sounds like Obama has decided that when bin laden is killed or captured, he will quit, saying he kept his campaign promise.. Never mind that someone will follow bin laden and Afghanistan will return to Taliban rule and once again a safe haven for al Queda, which will continue it’s effort against the US and the world.. Obama has already lost the war with this policy.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm

Not surprising. Obama doesn’t emphasize democracy in the U.S. much, either.

Posted by: PD | March 28, 2009, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm

I think this is very smart. What we should be doing in Afghanistan is helping its people provide a functioning safe government that helps protect them from the people who would use their nation to damage ours. What these people need is safety and education. Ideals about government can come later when they work them out on their own.

Posted by: Annie | March 28, 2009, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm

“Political and economic” development is fine as long as Afghanistan has a military force sufficient to protect itself from a return of Taliban and Al Queda, which would no doubt again use Afghanistan as a base. What is the likelihood of an effective Afghan military in the next ten or so years?

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 1:30 pm 1:30 pm

“What these people need is safety and education.”
Afghanistan needs a strong military to defend itself.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm

It’s interesting to watch the cult on here creating their own reality. Truly inspired by Bush/Cheney, they have a predetermined mindset and choose whichever ‘facts’ prove them right.
Irrelevant comments aside, my guess is that the people of Afghanistan probably want a democratic process but are more interested in feeding/clothing their families, having shelter/water, and having safety.

Posted by: MIguy | March 28, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm

Sigmond: Pakistan has a strong military. How’s that workin?

Posted by: MIguy | March 28, 2009, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm

All the strings of the militency in pakistan and afghanistan goes back to soviat invasion.After their withdrawl from afghanistan, pakistan needed these militants to fight the insurgency in kashmir against the indian troops.Thats why Pakistan’s intellegence agency ISI supported these militants to achieve their goal after americans achieved there.So, the solution is solve the kashmir problem and these militants will lose support in pakistan from ISI and people of pakistan and cross border insergency will be stopped and we can see a peaceful Afghanistan in the future.

Posted by: kamil shah | March 28, 2009, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm

Jake, Your reporting is bringing back some credibility to ABC News.

Posted by: Fran | March 28, 2009, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm

“Sigmond: Pakistan has a strong military. How’s that workin?”
Do you think Afghanistan can be a peaceful society and free from being overtaken by taliban and al queda without having a military to defend them?
Ask yourself the question: Why do countries have a military? Why does Pakistan have a military, for example?

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm

Most of the people in these backward
countries hate the US. Especially the muslim’s who consider us infidels.
Rmember the Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9-11??? Noe we are going to pledge millions to help rebuild them??
Obama/Clinton/Pelosi/Reid are all taitors!!! This is the worst administration in the history of our country.

Posted by: Oblahblah | March 28, 2009, 1:58 pm 1:58 pm

“Obama/Clinton/Pelosi/Reid are all taitors!!! This is the worst administration in the history of our country.”
Mr. Oblahblah Why Iraqis hates you??? why they are throwing shoes on your president??? hunderends of thousands have died since iraq invasion.I am sitting right now in a place in Pakistan not far more then 50 miles where yesterday a suiside bomber blew himself in a Mosque…it never happened before.. its all the ramnants of Afghanistan war…
I believe the amount of money which americans have spent in iraq and afganistan war still without capturing him if that would have been the head money on Osama he would have been behind bars long time ago… poor nations :)

Posted by: kamil shah | March 28, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm

The US has committed repeated human rights violations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US needs to be held to international standards. At what point will these massacres end and the Geneva conventions be upheld?
Instead of dealing with consequential issues – such as the millions of people living without rights in our US apartheid state – our president is dabbling with mass murder.

Posted by: sean | March 28, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm

“Why Iraqis hates you??? why they are throwing shoes on your president??? hunderends of thousands have died since iraq invasion.”
You prefer Saddam Hussein and his regime?

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm

since afghanistan mainly denies rights to women, obama doesn’t care if there is a democracy.
now , if it really really rich people who might donate to him, he’d take another stand
(AIG and Freddie Mae– Obama was their #1 recepient

Posted by: realityville | March 28, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm

Political and economic” development is fine as long as Afghanistan has a military force sufficient to protect itself from a return of Taliban and Al Queda, which would no doubt again use Afghanistan as a base. What is the likelihood of an effective Afghan military in the next ten or so years?
****************************************
Oh come on I’ve debated with with you before, you know as well as I do that there are 4000 troops goinmg there to train a 400,000 Afghanisatn military. Sonmething left out of this report, that focuses on the word Democracy.
Read it again:
The following steps must be done in concert to produce the desired end state: the removal of al-Qaeda’s sanctuary, effective and democratic government control in Pakistan, and a self-reliant Afghanistan that will enable the withdrawal of combat forces while sustaining our commitment to political and economic development.” (Emphasis ours.)

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm

It’s odd that Obama does Like to use words like Human rights, democracy & freedom…..
Has never used these in relation to Middle East….
Hmm..

Posted by: Frida | March 28, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm

Every time I look at Obama, I am reminded of the following words from Abraham Lincoln: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Posted by: Janet | March 28, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm

“Oh come on I’ve debated with with you before, ”
I’m not saying we will not train an effective Afghan military. I’m stressing the importance of doing so. To leave them with less than that would be disastrous. To do so will take many years and will probably be more difficult than Iraq because of lack of large military to begin with, unlike Iraq.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm

Barack Obama worked hard to help elect a man named Odinga in Kenya. Odinga wanted to impose sharia law, a system that denies most legal rights to women. Why would a man with two daughters not have a problem with a legal system that denies women equal protection?

Posted by: Janet | March 28, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm

I see the liberal loons are now going after Michelle Bachmann with their personal attacks. Isn’t that what they did with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin – try to destroy their personal reputations? Paint them as incompetent, racist, stupid, etc. I really don’t understand how a party that’s supposed to champion the working man, and supposedly the working woman, can consistently attack women who are only trying to shatter the glass ceiling.

Posted by: Janet | March 28, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm

Sigmond wrote:
Sounds like Obama has decided that when bin laden is killed or captured, he will quit, saying he kept his campaign promise.. Never mind that someone will follow bin laden and Afghanistan will return to Taliban rule and once again a safe haven for al Queda, which will continue it’s effort against the US and the world.. Obama has already lost the war with this policy.
***************************************
What you said was that Obama Already lost. That is what you said.

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm

“What you said was that Obama Already lost. That is what you said.”
Yes. That’s what it sounds like to me.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm

Sigmond : “You prefer Saddam Hussein and his regime?”
We prefer Peace and justice ….. we dont want bloodshed.The point is Americans brought blood to iraq thats why shoes are comming they have lost hope in the Americans give them hope give them money to develop themselves or just to improve your image.

Posted by: kamil shah | March 28, 2009, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm

“they have lost hope in the Americans give them hope give them money to develop themselves”
They just wanted Americans to give Saddam money and he would help develop the country? Iraqis preferred that?

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm

“Every time I look at Obama, I am reminded of the following words from Abraham Lincoln: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
Der CHANGEling’s turning into a less engaging Bush.
Are the gullible geese who installed Him going to let Him get away with this?
When the fascists took over in Germany, many Europeans came to the US. Now that they’ve taken over in the US and UK, where will Americans emigrate?

Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 28, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm

“Democracy” has never been a “priority” in Afghanistan.
And except for prevailing in fixed elections, it’s never been a priority for the “Obama” organization, either.

Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 28, 2009, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm

Dear Leader Zero and the Not-My-Congress are trying their best to eradicate capitalism and democracy in the USA. Just look at the “Card Check” lie of a bill. The whole point of that is to eliminate the private vote, in order to deliberately intimidate and threaten workers into joining liberal labor unions. Same with Oprompter’s digital brown-shirts that post here. They have to create hate against decent women, such as Governor Palin & Michelle Bachmann, in order to keep all the government-schooled serfs on the Democrat Plantation.
So why wouldn’t they try to de-emphasize it in Afghanistan? The liberal democrats in the USA are directly comparable to the Taliban in Afghanistan. They, like Dear Leader 0bama, are all bullies and cowards. There’s nothing a liberal hates more than freedom, truthful democracy, and individualism.
OBAMA = FAILURE

Posted by: JD | March 28, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm

THE OBAMA REGIME WILL FAIL,WATCH AND SEE.HE NEEDS TO WAKE UP AND REALISE THIS HE IS NOT A GOD,MAYBE THE OPPOSITE WAY AROUND LEADING US TO DISASTER. MY WORDS ARE NEVER PRINTED HERE ANYWAYS.

Posted by: Joeray | March 28, 2009, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm

Sigmond : “They just wanted Americans to give Saddam money and he would help develop the country? Iraqis preferred that?”
Why Mr. Bush started war in Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan… all they are saying is its all mismanaged war.I am Pashtun the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and on the other side of border in pakistan. Its a Pashtun saying ” Never put your feet on two boats “.

Posted by: kamil shah | March 28, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm

“But who is “willing to kill innocent people to achieve their objectives there?”
How do you know these people were killed “willingly”? What would be the objectives achieved by the US “willingly” killing innocent civilians if that was what they were?
War is a messy business and accidents and mistakes happen.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm

“all they are saying is its all mismanaged war.”
Yes. All wars are hard to manage and most mismanaged. Have you ever seen a well managed war?
“Never put your feet on two boats” is a good saying.
What will you think if Obama has one foot in Pakistan, one foot in Afghanistan, and has to put a third foot in Iran to stop Iran from getting nukes? Never put three feet in three boats? :)

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm

kamil shah:”Its strange Obama is not popular in his home country”
He is quite popular in the US (as are most presidents this early in their first term). There is a loud minority that seems to irrationally hate him, but they do not speak for most Americans (as the last election made very clear – a higher percentage of Americans voted for Obama than for any first term president, ever).

Posted by: jhw539 | March 28, 2009, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm

“Americans should thank Obama for rescuing americans by starting negotiations with the iranians and offering them a new begining..’
Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?
Obama has said he will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and has said “all options are on the table, including military force” to prevent Iran from acquiring these weapons..
So far, Obama has not accomplished anything with Iran other than send them his greetings. His foot is about to step on that third wobbly boat.
Time is running out for Obama and Iran and decisions will have to be made soon. Obama’s third foot is about step onto that third boat, no?

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm

Sigmond :”Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?
Obama has said he will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and has said “all options are on the table, including military force” to prevent Iran from acquiring these weapons..”
Mr. Bush said that saddam had WMDs. the exact words were ” he has it”.But there were no WMDs which Mr. Bush then confessed that it was a big lie.Months before leaving the office Mr.bush said that Iran is days away from developing nukes…… again propaganda.The thing is if Iran wants the nuclear technology for peaceful means and for civilain use then there is no harm in it….which Obama is thinking right now…may be.

Posted by: kamil shah | March 28, 2009, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm

“Have you ever seen a well managed war?”
What Der CHANGEling’s up to in Afghanistan and Pakistan isn’t “war”, so much as robo-assault.
That He’s now adopting Bush’s “they want to kill us” rhetoric is another bad sign among many.

Posted by: Pants on Fire | March 28, 2009, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm

“Mr. Bush said that saddam had WMDs. the exact words were ” he has it”.But there were no WMDs which Mr. Bush then confessed that it was a big lie.”
Mr. Bush relied on the intelligence he was given which proved to be innaccurate. There is no evidence he deliberately lied – just opinions from his political opponents.
It is not only Bush who claims Iran is building nukes, but the International Atomic Energy Commission, Euro countries, etc. Why are there sanctions on Iran?
Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons? (2nd request)

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm

Think about it. In democracy, power flows from the bottom up. The error of the Bush administration was in trying to imposed democracy from the top down. Look up the Weimar Republic. Post WWI Germany, with at least some democratic institutions in the previous century, could not make democracy work and fell back into dictatorship. In the same manner, it looks like post-Cold War Russia is headed for a camouflaged Putin led dictatorship due to a botched transition from Communism. The bes we can hope for in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to introduce enough flexibility into their societies that they can evolve toward democracy. After all, in the 350 years since Anglo-American democracy began with English Civil War, we reverted to undemocratic tricks such as holding American citizens in solitary confinement without trial or legal representation merely because Ashcroft, and then Gonzales said that they were bad guys. Don’t expect Near Eastern countries with no history of democracy to make the jump in a few years.

Posted by: Jim H | March 28, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm

Calling Afghanistan a country is being generous. If not for organizations like the Taliban, the concept of a central authority is laughable in that part of the world. The poverty and desolation create tiny tribal communities that have no real reason to join up unless they are being invaded as a whole.

Posted by: T961585 | March 28, 2009, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

Sigmond: “Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons? (2nd request)”
As far as Nuclear WEAPONS are concerned I will say No.But Nuclear TECHNOLOGY for civilian use will be having no harm.Iran is repeatedly assuring the international community that it will not develop nukes. If i would have been given the task of finding the solution to the problem then would have suggested that americans should develop nuclear power plants in pakistan(pakistan already have nukes) and should give electricity supply line to iran on the same rate as they would have in their own country…. problem solved.

Posted by: kamil shah | March 28, 2009, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm

kamil shah: “But Nuclear TECHNOLOGY for civilian use will be having no harm.’
It is not known what Iran’s intentions are. If they are building nuclear for electricity, that is fine. If that is true, why do they refuse to open their nuclear facilities to the AIEC to simply verify that is what they are doing? Why hide something that is innocent? Then there is more peace, no?
Also, let me ask you. What do you think the reaction of Pakistani’s will be if American soldiers enter Pakistan to seek out and fight al Queda and Taliban extremists? And if some Pakistani civilians are accidentally killed doing this, what will happen, in your opinion?

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm

So far, Obama has not accomplished anything with Iran other than send them his greetings. His foot is about to step on that third wobbly boat.
Time is running out for Obama and Iran and decisions will have to be made soon. Obama’s third foot is about step onto that third boat, no?
***************************************
And has not all of these things been eveident for years now? Cheney/Bush didn’t seem to accomplish much did they? yes?

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm

Also, let me ask you. What do you think the reaction of Pakistani’s will be if American soldiers enter Pakistan to seek out and fight al Queda and Taliban extremists? And if some Pakistani civilians are accidentally killed doing this, what will happen, in your opinion?
****************************************
So far you keep pointing these things out, but when I ask you what your solution is you seem to fall back to a military solution, yet you complain about Obama Haveing the third boat, or whatever.
What would you do?

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm

‘Cheney/Bush didn’t seem to accomplish much did they? yes?’
They freed the Afghans and Iraqis from despots and helped them establish democracies. In addition, they put the Iranians in a box regarding nuke weapons. And they kept us safe.
Is that what you mean by “accomplish much”?

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm

Obama “de-emphsizes priority of democ-
racy in Afghanistan”…..while he tram-ples all over ours, here in America.
This fellow’s cockiness is not matched
by a background of accomplishment. In
fact, it is unmatched by any former
president…..except, maybe, Billy
Clinton.

Posted by: Trajan | March 28, 2009, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm

“you complain about Obama Haveing the third boat,”
Pointing out the difficult situations Obama faces is not a complaint.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm

They freed the Afghans and Iraqis from despots and helped them establish democracies. In addition, they put the Iranians in a box regarding nuke weapons. And they kept us safe.
****************************************
Then tell me why we have over 100,000 troops in Iraq and find it necessary to hbuild up to 60,000 with soem 37,000 in Afghanistan. Why then do we still this Iran problem along with N. Korea?
I think what you mean is we survived so far. It is far from over. If the threat is still there then we are not safe.
You defy logic

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm

That is 37,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm

Pointing out the difficult situations Obama faces is not a complaint.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BS Your implying that he is not doing anything, or that he is not doing enough, or that what he is doing is wrong. Yet you seem to believe that a Military solution is what is required in all three situations. Yet at the same time you imply that he has us doing too much, and can’t possibly do all three. In other words no matter what he does it will not be good enough for you. So perhaps that is what you should say.

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm

‘What would you do?”
I’m happy I don’t have the responsibility.
The one thing I would not do would be to have American troops fighting on Pakistan soil, with or without an agreement with the Pak government. That would be an enormous disaster.
I would use our troops to defend and clear Afghanistan and train their military.
I would deal with Iran before dealing with al Queda in Pakistan. Give Iran an ultimatum – Open up for inspection or lose your nuke facilities. This is a more important matter to deal with than catching bin laden for the moment. That might feel good, but there will be others following.
Beyond that, I think we have to somehow force Pakistan to get al queda and taliban extremeists. How? Don’t know.
Like i said, happy I don’t have the responsibility.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm

“I think what you mean is we survived so far. It is far from over. If the threat is still there then we are not safe.’
The world is a dangerous place and will always be that way. That is why most countries have a military to keep them safe.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm

Sigmond :” The one thing I would not do would be to have American troops fighting on Pakistan soil, with or without an agreement with the Pak government. That would be an enormous disaster.”
Obama yesterday confessed that the tribal areas of pakistan are the most dangerous place on earth.Afghans are ruled temporarily by outsiders, but these tribal peoples are never been ruled by anybody…even its own government.

Posted by: kamil shah | March 28, 2009, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm

kamil shah…
What would be the reaction Pakistanis if US soldiers were to enter on Pakistan soil and fight? Thanks.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm

The world is a dangerous place and will always be that way. That is why most countries have a military to keep them safe.
***************************************
Some more of your none answers with circular logic. If 1, then 2, if 2 then 3, if 3 then 1

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm

I’m happy I don’t have the responsibility.
The one thing I would not do would be to have American troops fighting on Pakistan soil, with or without an agreement with the Pak government. That would be an enormous disaster.
I would use our troops to defend and clear Afghanistan and train their military.
I would deal with Iran before dealing with al Queda in Pakistan. Give Iran an ultimatum – Open up for inspection or lose your nuke facilities. This is a more important matter to deal with than catching bin laden for the moment. That might feel good, but there will be others following.
Beyond that, I think we have to somehow force Pakistan to get al queda and taliban extremeists. How? Don’t know.
Like i said, happy I don’t have the responsibility.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I didn’t think I would ever get it out of you. Thank you I will not argue with you on that.
I would like to point out though that if all it would take is to destroy one facility, then that option maybe open even if we are busy in Afghanistan. You have to keep in mind that there are still over 100,000 troops next door in Iraq and even after the draw down there will still be about 50,000.

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm

I do not trust liberal democrats like Obama, or the liberal democrats that control the majority in the House and Senate, to have the determination and resolve to “stay the course” and defeat our Taliban and Al Queda enemy in Afganistan.
I predict we will see a “surrender” caucus being formed on the Democrat Party side of the aisles in Congress VERY SOON.
This is one time that I hope I am wrong.

Posted by: Neville | March 28, 2009, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm

Obama campaigned saying that Afganistan was the right war and that Iraq was a mistake and diversion.
I am glad that our military and the resolve of President Bush prevailed in driving the radical Islamic militant Al Queda factions out of Iraq.
We will now see if Obama , The Commander in Training, has the “right stuff” to prevail in Afganistan/Pakistan
We will also see if the Obama liberal supporters , who usually hate our military and normally have no willingness or backbone to fight the enemies of the USA, have consumed enough “kool-aid” to stand with Obamas desion regarding Afganistan

Posted by: Neville | March 28, 2009, 7:13 pm 7:13 pm

“if all it would take is to destroy one facility,”
We’d have to make some serious damage to to their nuke program. Enough that they see the wisdom and cost of not rebuilding it. There wouldn’t be any ground war.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 28, 2009, 8:09 pm 8:09 pm

If only we could get more christians to understand democracy and Freedom of Religion.

Posted by: traveler | March 28, 2009, 8:25 pm 8:25 pm

We’d have to make some serious damage to to their nuke program. Enough that they see the wisdom and cost of not rebuilding it. There wouldn’t be any ground war.
****************************************
Certainly it has been done before in the middle east. Iran doesn’t have the capability to wag war, although I believe it could hit Israel. I think if it comes to that it will be done.

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 8:51 pm 8:51 pm

We will also see if the Obama liberal supporters , who usually hate our military and normally have no willingness or backbone to fight the enemies of the USA,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You know not of what you talk!

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 8:54 pm 8:54 pm

We will also see if the Obama liberal supporters , who usually hate our military and normally have no willingness or backbone to fight the enemies of the USA,
_________________________________
Terrorism isn’t an “enemy.” It’s a tactic. We can’t fight or shoot a tactic can we? Geez.

Posted by: Michael | March 28, 2009, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm

Hmmmm Democracy….This is a word Obama hates isn;t it?

Posted by: Obama and his party of clowns | March 28, 2009, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm

Between Bush & Obama, From the Greedy Conseratives to the Socialist Liberals, I fear it will be Years befor America becomes Moderately Balanced again! If Ever! Maybe that is what the “Mabus” warning is all about. The Bush/Obama Agendas & their effects on America.

Posted by: from Ohio | March 28, 2009, 9:33 pm 9:33 pm

“We will also see if the Obama liberal supporters, who usually hate our military and normally have no willingness or backbone to fight the enemies of the USA…”
No kidding.
According to a 2007 Military Times poll of active duty soldiers, 8.8% are very conservative, 37% are conservative, 38.7% are moderate, 7% are liberal, 1.4% are very liberal, and 7.1% declined to answer.
Looks to me like liberals are vastly under-represented in the military. Let’s have a military draft so that liberals can do their share fighting terror. It’s time liberals got off their behinds and put some skin in the game. It’s only fair.

Posted by: Justin | March 28, 2009, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm

“Looks to me like liberals are vastly under-represented in the military. Let’s have a military draft so that liberals can do their share fighting terror. It’s time liberals got off their behinds and put some skin in the game. It’s only fair.”
It’s convenient for right-wingers to confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq, that most ‘liberals’ opposed.
While we may volunteer to fight terrorism, right-wingers should have the courage to go fight the wars they want to start instead of sending other people to do it.

Posted by: Skip | March 28, 2009, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm

According to a 2007 Military Times poll of active duty soldiers, 8.8% are very conservative, 37% are conservative, 38.7% are moderate, 7% are liberal, 1.4% are very liberal, and 7.1% declined to answer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This proves nothing. When 18-19 years indoctrinated into the military, when they eat, sleep, train, to fight, to defend they naturally take that line of thinking. Self preservation if nothing else demands it. Somehow this is called conservatism in reality it is not, it is called serving your country. Not a conservative idea at all. Ask them about health care, the environment,abortion, taxes, you will find that they are not so conservative. Conservatism and liberalism does not hang on one aspect of society.
You would know this if you had ever served.

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm

Composition of race in the country and the military 2004
White 61.9% 64.3%
Asian 4.1% 4.8%
Black 14.3% 16.4%
Hispanic 17% 13.1%
Seems to very representative of the country. How do you explain the skewed results of the Military Times report on Conservatives serving in the Military?

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm

“Ask them about health care, the environment,abortion, taxes, you will find that they are not so conservative.”
Source please.

Posted by: Justin | March 28, 2009, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm

It’s time liberals got off their behinds and put some skin in the game. It’s only fair.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You know I really resent this statement 10 to 1 you didn’t serve. After all your great leaders Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh, Rove they dodged all responsibility. Bush joined the National Gaurd and then failed to go to meetings, but back then when I served, and bush was in the National Gaurd, it is where one tried to go if there was no other option of getting out. It was very difficult to secure a slot in the National Gaurd then.

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm

Source please.
+++++++++++++++++++
I lived with them, I served, I know.
You?

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm

How the Military Times conducted there survey:
On Dec. 10, we e-mailed a selection of active-duty, National Guard, reserve and retired military subscribers of our four military weeklies, asking them to take part in our annual poll. The respondents were directed to an independent polling firm that hosted the survey and tabulated the results. The poll was closed Dec. 17.
E-mailed?

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm

You remember the joke: What’s the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
For Vietnam Bush had an exit strategy.

Posted by: Skip | March 28, 2009, 10:49 pm 10:49 pm

The only thing the Military Times poll proved is that out of those subscribed to the Military Times, and bothered to respond to an e mail are more conservative. Hardly representitive of thwe Military at large. Not only that you indicate dhtat it was of Active Duty Military, But the Military Times clearly states that is also of Retired Military.

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 10:53 pm 10:53 pm

For Vietnam Bush had an exit strategy.
++++++++++++++++++
Yea and Rove had a boil or some such nonsense, Maybe it was Limbaugh.

Posted by: Thinking | March 28, 2009, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm

He should not Emphasize [Democracy]
Note: We live in a Military Controlled, Capitalist, Semi-Socialist, Semi Religious and Very, Very….
Secular Society…
So why Would or why Should Pres. Obama place Emphasis on…
[Democracy]
When this Country Encompasses so Much More.
Technically Speaking…
Capitalism has been Dressed Up and called Democracy …
But, Capitalism on Both Shores [America & Western Europe] has Proven to be a FAILURE….
So Pres. Obama had better take a More Tentative Approach on the Afghanistan Issue.

Posted by: O. | March 28, 2009, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm

“I am glad that our military and the resolve of President Bush prevailed in driving the radical Islamic militant Al Queda factions out of Iraq.”
There weren’t any significant Al Queda factions in Iraq until after we invaded.
-and its very wishful thinking that they are all gone.

Posted by: Skip | March 28, 2009, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm

skip
Even though Al Queda did have a presence in Iraq before the USA invaded, let us accept YOUR premise that they were not.
My point remains valid, al queda was in Iraq and liberal democrats wanted to “cut and run” and “surrender” caucus were formed in Congress by liberal democrats. (Out of Iraq Caucus)

Posted by: Neville | March 28, 2009, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm

“My point remains valid, al queda was in Iraq and liberal democrats wanted to “cut and run” and “surrender” caucus were formed in Congress by liberal democrats. (Out of Iraq Caucus)”
Where on earth have you been? The ‘Out of Iraq Caucus’ includes most of the citizens of the United States. They don’t want to cut and run, but they want out.

Posted by: Skip | March 28, 2009, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm

skip
Your posting proved my point, thank you

Posted by: Neville | March 28, 2009, 11:36 pm 11:36 pm

“Your posting proved my point, thank you”
I gotta tell you that I don’t even really know what your point was except to make more baseless saber-rattling attacks on ‘liberals’. By far most people in this country are tired of the war in Iraq for a variety of reasons and if that means that most of the people in this country don’t have enough determination and resolve for you I think its just too bad. We all have to weigh the enormous responsibility of sending people to die on foreign soil and if you want to insult those who think its not worth it, then why should they listen to you? So good luck getting those votes you want in 2010.

Posted by: Skip | March 29, 2009, 12:11 am 12:11 am

Yeah “O.”,
Capitalism didn’t actually create the strongest, most diverse and tolerant societies in the history of Man.
Dude, you need to travel and see the rest of the world. I have…during 25 years in the military. Do you want to see a failure, go to sub-Saharan Africa, go visit the former Eastern Europe and smell the stench that still exudes from their factories. Do that, then let me know how you like the US. Perhaps more pampered, spoiled, uninformed and bored Americans need to take that trip with you.

Posted by: TJ | March 29, 2009, 12:56 am 12:56 am

While I’m might not be the most moderate of commenters, I have to commend Jake Tapper for playing it down the middle.

Posted by: TJ | March 29, 2009, 1:00 am 1:00 am

The greatness of our nation has its foundation in the Declaration and the Constitution.
The assistance the USA gave to Iraq in forming its Constitution, provides them also the opprotunity to progress towards “a more perfect union”
I hope that a similar process takes place in Afganistan in the coming years.
I extend my personal thanks, like millions of Americans, to the military, that made and will make that process possible

Posted by: Neville | March 29, 2009, 1:22 am 1:22 am

My point remains valid, al queda was in Iraq and liberal democrats wanted to “cut and run” and “surrender” caucus were formed in Congress by liberal democrats. (Out of Iraq Caucus)
****************************************
That is like saying that al Qaeda is in the US. Sure they are here someplace, but actively invold in our policy?
Get real

Posted by: Thinking | March 29, 2009, 6:24 am 6:24 am

Why in hell would Obama mention Democracy in Afghanistan being he’s a Socialist?
Last year President Bush announced 12,000 to 15,000 additional troops to Afghanistan for 2009 which was criticized by almost all the Democrats but now Obama announces additional troops and he’s praised up and down.
I guess by putting down some more words like “Diplomatic Surge” makes Obama better than Bush?

Posted by: t hill | March 29, 2009, 7:40 am 7:40 am

Was the reality that the USA has some Al Queda members within its border to mean that they were actively involved with our policy making? No.
During
most of the Bush/Cheney administration conducting the war in Iraq, the liberal controlled Democrat Party had the SAME GOAL as Al Queda, which was for the USA to leave Iraq.
It is true that Al queda and the Democrat Party had different reasons for wanting the USA to leave Iraq, but both had the same goal, as such, Al queda had no need to be “actively” involved in policy making, the Democrats were doing that for them, that is the “inconvienent truth”

Posted by: Neville | March 29, 2009, 8:32 am 8:32 am

Couldn’t Al Qaeda set up shop somewhere else? Weren’t the 9/11 guys Saudis and Yemens? Am I missing something? Do we think the taking this group out will change anything? Can’t they just twitter other terrorists?

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 29, 2009, 9:16 am 9:16 am

While I no longer support this administration in their bailout plan…to say that republican policies have brought us to this tipping point..Is completely on target..Republicans have morally and economically …bankrupt this country, and they have offered nothing to indicate that their previous policies are not their present and future policies….don’t misconstrue any disagreement with the presidents policies as A acceptance of republicans complete failure as a governing body

Posted by: cowgirl | March 29, 2009, 9:24 am 9:24 am

“Couldn’t Al Qaeda set up shop somewhere else? Weren’t the 9/11 guys Saudis and Yemens? Am I missing something? Do we think the taking this group out will change anything? Can’t they just twitter other terrorists?”
We are never going to defeat the terrorists by killing them all. They have a pool of a billion people to draw from. We have to fight terrorism but the only way to really stop terrorism is to forge some kind of lasting peace with the peoples of the Muslim world. To argue for anything else is to commit us to further generations of bloodshed.

Posted by: Skip | March 29, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am

“only way to really stop terrorism is to forge some kind of lasting peace with the peoples of the Muslim world.”
No one is at war with the people of the Muslim world. Most Muslims and countries that are Muslim are peaceful and oppose terrorism, so no need for making peace with anyone.
Unfortunately, terrorism will be with us a long time – probably forever, much like crime. It can only be contained.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 29, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am

“No one is at war with the people of the Muslim world. Most Muslims and countries that are Muslim are peaceful and oppose terrorism, so no need for making peace with anyone.”
You wouldn’t know that from reading the comments of many Obama critics that post on these pages. Go back and review the comments on the article about his recent New Years address. They criticize him for trying to befriend our ‘enemies’.

Posted by: Skip | March 29, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am

“They criticize him for trying to befriend our ‘enemies’. ”
Well, we do have enemies. Radical Muslims like members of al Queda, Taliban and others want to kill us and others as well as destroy western civilization. I haven’t seen anyone say the Muslim world, or Muslims in general, are our enemies. If someone says that, they are wrong. You implied that though, saying we had to have a “lasting peace” with Muslims.

Posted by: Sigmond | March 29, 2009, 11:39 am 11:39 am

TJ…
Sub Saharan Africa is not a nor has it ever been a…
[Capitalist Haven]
The Area has Never been Capitalist.
Capitalism & Greed: FAILED in America and Western Europe.
That’s a Glaring Reality !!
Have You seen all of Western Europe…
Answer: No
Not Grand at All.
Eastern Europe…
Answer: Terrible, Deplorable…
So much so that The European Union, Refuses to…
[Bail E.Europe out]
Note: Canada & Brazil Both are Thriving and Both Nations have a Surplus.
Not America and Western Europe.
The Brazilian Prime Minister called out American & European Capitalism, for it’s Failure Both Here and Abroad.

Posted by: O. | March 29, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm

I hope there is a good reason (like intelligence info. that we don’t know about) for pursuing these guys into the mountains.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 29, 2009, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm

Democracies and Capitalism are overrated anyway.
Autocracy and Socialism is where REAL liberty and prosperity are at!

Posted by: RR GOP | March 29, 2009, 11:10 pm 11:10 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.