White House Pushes Back Against Cheney

I guess this officially means that Cheney left a mark, huh?

Obamz, Biden and Gibbsy seem to forget that Biden was in the Senate for the entire of Bush’s term and Obamz was there for four. What did THEY do for our troops in Afghanistan except for campaign on the need to increase the troop size in Afghanistan which they are both now bactracking on.
Biden was chairmen of the Armed Services Committee and Obamz was chair of the sub-committee. DId we see one report, one piece of legislation from them calling for a troop increase? Nada, Nope Never.
In fact Obamz voted against EVERY troop funding request.
Last Obamz chaired the Sub-committee on NATO. HAs the press forgotten that Obama failed to hold ONE HEARING on NATO/ AMERICAN troop presence in Afganistan?
These bozos were in the Senate for all or most of the Afghanistan war what did they do for eight and for years?

““It’s a curious comment,” Gibbs said, arguing that “the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan. Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president’s, for more than eight months, a resource request filled by President Obama in March.”
Gibbs was referring to a troop request by Gen. David McKiernan (Ret.), whose retirement Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested and received in May.”
Awesome….
______________________________________
Mr. Halliburton is a self-serving hack.

“Cheney’s argument doesn’t make sense given that he didn’t fill McKiernan’s request for troops to go from the then-level of approximately 35,000 to 65,000, but is criticizing President Obama for taking time to contemplate increasing the level from 65,000 to 100,000.”
___________________________________
Right wing hypocrisy again – the willingness to lie and distort information about our troops for political gain.

Here’s a way to clear this up: Let the White House de-classify the situation report that was given to them by the Bush administration. Come on, Mr. Nobel, let the truth come out, you coward.

It seems that all Barack Obama does is pose for the cameras.

Wow Cheney and Republicans love using our troops for Politcal games. Funny coming from a man who he and Bush started the War in Afghanistan ignored it. and invaded Iraq and spent all of our money and Resources in Iraq not to mention 911 happened on his watch so my advice to Cheney he should shut his pie hole!Because thanks to him and Bush we are in the mess we are in.

Here’s a way to clear this up: Let the “White House de-classify the situation report that was given to them by the Bush administration.”
ROFLMAO!
Ever notice how Cheney hides behind classified material that when its declassified shows him to be a liar?
By all means repeat the pattern of stupid, eventually the right wing will get it.

“In Cheney’s defense, he was trying to keep Afghanistan at status quo just a bit longer so President McCain would be able to play with it and cover his tracks appropriately.”
*chuckle*

“Here’s a way to clear this up: Let the White House de-classify the situation report that was given to them by the Bush administration. Come on, Mr. Nobel, let the truth come out, you coward.
RAT Poison | Oct 22, 2009 2:10:45 PM
No administration, Democrat or Republican, would put our troops in danger by releasing such information just to score a political point. That report surely includes a list of critical weak spots to watch and risks we can’t counter yet – the critical topline items for the Commander and Chief’s todo list. I’m sure Obama would rather ‘lose’ the argument (as would McCain).

Man he was a nightmare for 8 years and is still coming out of the closet at night. What a disservice to the country this man has been and continues to be. It is all about himself.

BTW, there have been over 300 civilians (men, women and children) that have been killed by Obama’s drone attacks in Pakistan since Obama took office.

“at this point i would hope politicians would stop pointing fingers at each other and do the right thing.”
wow | Oct 22, 2009 2:23:08 PM
While I think Cheney is just playing his bureaucratic respect games into retirement, I do believe that the majority of Congress on both sides of the aisle and the White House agrees with you. But there is a real question as to *what* the right thing is – keep them in harms way to fix Afghanistan once and for all, or pull them out of an unfixable mess and use bombs and missiles indefinitely as needed to knock down Al Quaida infestations. It is not a simple question.

I would agree with every leftwing statement made on this site today IF Obama had campaigned on “Yes, Bush and Cheney took their eye off the ball and I, Obama and my administration, are pulling all troops out of Afghanistan the day I take office”….wait for it….he in fact said, “I will focus on Afghanistan.” 11/07/2008 as well as issued orders for two more brigades sent to Afghanistan on February 17, 2009…And now, he is pulling back that has caused record US casualties for August of 2009, blaming anyone Republican from the prior administration for his missteps…Someone needs to remind our grand Commander that HE BOUGHT IT, through his campaign promises and issued orders, AND NOW IT’S HIS AND HIS ALONE TO FIX IT…AND HE CAN START BY LISTENING TO HIS COMMANDERS AND HIS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE…or concede he has no earthly idea what to do AND BRING OUR PEOPLE HOME….man-up for Gods sake, your the President and follow your own advice for your hesitation is costing lives……….

Weird how Obama’s dithering only started when fellow democrats started calling for withdrawal, timetables and no troop increases.

Shorter Gibbs: So what if Obama is dithering? Cheney dithered longer!

“Weird how Obama’s dithering only started when fellow democrats started calling for withdrawal, timetables and no troop increases.”
Axey | Oct 22, 2009 2:39:36 PM
Weird how you’re blatantly lying. Fellow democrats were calling for withdrawal when Obama started his doubling of our troop count back in February. Feel free to google it up.

Remember the Office of the President Elect? There was a website, and a podium, and an official emblem and everything.
I wonder if they talked about anything in there.

It’s strange how hawkish non-veterans are.
Cheney had 5 chances to meet his military obligation to this country and didn’t feel “the call.” He’s a typical coward living vicariously through the braverly of our troops. Can you say “Armchair General”?
It’s sad that this country elects craven cowards like Cheney to high public office and then allows them to send others to their deaths to convince themselves they are “tough guys.”
Cheney, of course, is morally and intellectually bankrupt…a typical Republican.

===Shorter Gibbs: So what if Obama is dithering? Cheney dithered longer!===
I’m confused. I thought Cheney rushed us into a needless war? That is what I got from this little comment (and O’Donnell helpfully filled in the blanks) “I think we’ve all seen what happens when somebody doesn’t take that responsibility seriously.”

“I’m confused. I thought Cheney rushed us into a needless war?”
____________________________________
Yes, you are confused. Cheney rushed us into a needless war in Iraq – and dithered on Afghanistan.

“I’m confused. I thought Cheney rushed us into a needless war?”
The needless war was Iraq. Afghanistan is where we should have focused our efforts all this time to wipe out bin Laden. (Remember him?)
Cheney is a five-time deferment coward.

Obama and his fools all the way to the blithering Gibbs should really have better things to do than bash Cheney and Fox News every day. Lets see the unemployment figures are back, horrible, they are trying to push us into a socialistic health care program, and turn our nation upside down destroying everything that has made our country great. History will look back on this and all of you who are not doing anything to save the US as we know it will be blamed!

Present!

You all need to quit crying about the past. Obama has an easy decision and I believe he will send the troops in. If it worked in Iraq, it will work in Afghanistan. Why you might ask? Because the only way to truly win a war is with an overwhelming force. Obama is taking the political ramifications of this too seriously. Hey Obama, it’s that 3 AM call and you are not answering it. Send in the troops or pull them all out.

===Cheney rushed us into a needless war in Iraq – and dithered on Afghanistan.===
Cheney was president?
Axey | Oct 22, 2009 2:52:47 PM
Sure seemed like it at times. If I recall, Bush wasn’t even allowed to brief Congress without a Cheney escort.

Hmm the democratic good stuff eh?
Lets see.
The Senate must soon increase the national debt limit to above $13 trillion — and Democrats are looking for political cover. ROFL from what the press and everyone lies is cowers in fear from the Obama hit men.
And Obama doesnt know what to do in a real war where he has to make a choice.
Can we have a DO OVER? This election did not go right. Now that we see the real Obama I would even take Clinton..
Naive and destructive to the American way of life the Clintons were not but Obama has his henchmen are.

Actually, the Afghan strategy for the last 5 years worked fairly well with a minimum of U.S. casualties for the size of the country. The aim was to deprive bin Laden’s terrorists a safe haven in Afghanistan, which has essentially happened. For what it’s worth we have a fuctioning government in Kabul as a base for anti-terrorist operations.Afghanistan has always been a terrible place for nation-building.Now, to do more will require an exponential increase in troops, treasure, time and sacrifice.Success would still be questionable and would depend on firm support from the American public, which just isn’t there. In sum, we have done the best that we can do without a massive increase in bodybags, Didn’t we go through this in the 1960s? Didn’t the Soviets go through this in the 1970s?

The Soviets went through it in Afghanistan all right. So did the British.
Even Alexander the Great found that he could not win. In Afghanistan, Alexander the Great was not so great.

To: Nephron: Actually, the Afghan strategy for the last 5 years worked fairly well with a minimum of U.S. casualties for the size of the country.—- Are you kidding me? Canadian military have been on the ground in the most dangerous region – Kandahar province – from the start and have seen the situation degrade and Canadian casualties mount rapidly in the last 4 years! They have been asking for a change in the US strategy of integrating troops in villages along with the afghan army, but the US strategy has been to stay on base, then launch attacks, having no permanent presence on the ground amongst the population. I don’t rail the US troops, just the US strategy.

Cheney was no longer Bush’s brain in the 2nd term. Or wait. Was Rove the brain? I forget.
Axey | Oct 22, 2009 3:13:47 PM
The inability to tell is part of the problem. No one thinks Reagan made all the calls, or Clinton (although he was prone to wonkish micromanagement), but it was clear who was delegating the tasks.

“No wonder Gallup has him dropping at a cataclysmic pace.”
____________________________________
Nonsense . . . and did you not notice the topic of this news blog is Cheney’s comments on Afghanistan and the White House reaction?
Try reading and thinking rather than just trotting out the same old rubbish every day.

Look for the Cheney supporters in the Media along with Fox News to act as if 7 years ago never happen it was the Clinton years. Fox News is already saying the Stock Market rebound is because of Bush/Cheney. The Recession was caused by President Obama even if the Recession started in 2004 when Bush/Cheney were in office. Tapper is doing his best to get on Fox News by spreading the proganda and it just might work as Dobbs is doing the same thing. Just think Govenor Bush invited the Taliban to the US as his special guest. Cheney is scared the pipeline he has drilled to steal oil from Afghanistan could be in trouble if there is a new President. Notice how for 8 years poppy’s have been doing better every year while Bush/Cheney were in office. Looks like Bush got some good drugs which might explain his Bushisms and so called pretzal fake mishap. Cheney’s only interest is oil and Halliburton which is doing very well dealing with Iran. It was to funny to heard Bush/Cheney call Iran the axis of evil while Cheney got a deal for Halliburton in Iran and the American people and the Press believed the lies for 8 years. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me and you bet the American people were fooled for 8 years as the GOP continues and many are still played for fools.

No one does hypocrisy like Darth Cheney. He let Afghanistan deteriorate, and didn’t staff it as the generals requested. He dithered and let Bin Laden get away, as well as Al Qaeda and the Taliban regroup. He dithered on Afghanistan for 7 years!
Not only is he dead wrong but he consistently attacks the policies of our wartime president, though he called for hands-off Bush. He is showing a stunning lack of class and courtesy in this continuous bashing of an administration that replaced his only 8 months ago. At this point he shouldn’t get the press he gets but should just be regarded as a regular contributor to Fox News. Maybe he can buddy up with Hannity.

With all of the comments about Bush and Cheney, I would almost expect they were still in office. The Iraq surge decision was more difficult than this as they, in a sense, set the precedence. It worked, so the only question is will it work in Afghanistan? Our strategy, on the other hand, should have been worked on since day one. It was Obama who called Afghanistan “America’s War”. He manned up to accept our highest office, he needs to man up now.

Good thing we don`t have an emergency or crisis situation where we would need the President to make a quick, smart, correct decision…
Next Obama will whine that he could not make a decision on Afghanistan because people were talking bad about him.
The White House needs to spend less time building its domestic political enemies list and more time solving problems. But then today`s Democrats would rather whine than make a decision they would have to answer to.

If I were McChrystal, I would have resigned in protest due to Obama’s lack of support. Obama is bordering on treason against our troops in Afghanistan.
lfrichar | Oct 22, 2009 3:26:07 PM
Are you daft? Lack of support? In 9 months Obama has replaced the General in charge, doubled the number of troops (who are still in the process of deploying in some cases), stepped up diplomatic activity in several realms, and is working to set an exit strategy (why their election situation is so important). Taking more than a month to decide on changing the strategy in a 7 year old war and double our troops AGAIN is not treason, it is the minimum we should expect of our Commander in Chief.

Julieterra: “Getting quagmired in Afghanistan is a real concern. Does it not seem that the focus is shifting to Pakistan?”
Afghanistan is already a quagmire and a meatgrinder to boot.
And, proportionally, there have been more civilians killed by Obama’s drone attacks in Pakistan (January 2009 until now), than there was from Bush (from 2006 until January 2009). Obama is amping it up in Pakistan – no doubt about that.

you seem to have so much fun attacking the past administration. it’s not their problem anymore. obama needs to use that mop and use it soon and use it wisely.
this administration is very crafty in the art of deflection.

To: Ifrichar: Manning up is not throwing in more troops in a bad strategy. It is devising strategy and THEN send the necessary resources to accomplish it. Does any of you commenting this topic have a clear idea of what SUCCESS is in this mission? What would need to be accomplished in order to say “Our job is done, let’s go home!”? At the start, it was eradicate Al-Qaeda, find Bin Laden, get the taliban out, bring security and rebuild infrastructures, train police and army to work with a stable democratic government. What has been done in the last 8 years? The US squandered the immense support they had from their allies and a majority of the Afghan people when they divested from Afghanistan to go into Iraq. That support was the most important tool the US had to accomplish their mission. It needs to be rebuilt from scratch if any success is to be had.

“Cheney’s argument doesn’t make sense given that he didn’t fill McKiernan’s request for troops to go from the then-level of approximately 35,000 to 65,000, but is criticizing President Obama for taking time to contemplate increasing the level from 65,000 to 100,000.”
________________________________
Cheney’s hypocrisy for political gain.

Awwwwwww
Tough month for Obama.
He and pal Hugo Chavez are both tanking in the polls.
Looks like socialism,
high unemployment, attempts to stop free speech, and massive gov’t takeover isn’t too popular.
Take a hint Barry and Hugo–people enjoy their freedom!

You promised Obama.
You said our troops would have everything they need to fight the war in Afghanistan.
Did that promise have an expoiration date too?
Lives are at stake–stop voting “Present”.

Bush said in early 2008 that he didn’t want to committ the next POTUS to Afghanistan, and would leave options open — I think that’s fair, and not “sitting” on troop levels for 8 months — The reason AQ and Taliban have revived so strong now was the success in Iraq — forcing them out! — The situation was not so dire just 12 months ago!

treblig56 —- At the start, it was kill the terrorists and expel the Taliban, not rebuild anything (well, maybe except what we blew up). The only difference now is Taliban and Al Qaeda are trying to join forces. The Obama appointed General has completed the assessment and given his recommendations. Now, can you tell me who in DC is more qualified right now to give that recommendation? Thsi is politically motivated and the way we lose wars. Authorize the deployment WHILE having the strategy session and later you can call off the deployment if necessary as it will take at least 6 months to get them in place. What is NECESSARY right now is the General, Commander of NATO and US forces NEEDS troops or he has openly admitted we will fail. In saying this, he has actually bolstered the opposition and we need troops ASAP.

“Looks like . . . attempts to stop free speech, and massive gov’t takeover isn’t too popular.”
___________________________________
Speaking of which . ..
Honduras . ..
Nice way to lead up to a ‘free’ election in November.
In September, Honduras (through Executive order) suspends the right to free speech, freedom of the press, the right to organize and meet, the right to free movement, rights to privacy in one’s own home, and protections against arbitrary detentions ceased to exist in Honduras.
Executive Decree PCM-M-016-2009. Check it out.
And the right wing has the nerve to support this. I’ve always known the right wing – in the right circumstances – loves suspension of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly – and all those other ‘liberal’ values.

This just in!!! —– While naive Obama wants to negotiate a “nuclear wepon free world”, the Ruskies have been cheating on the START treaty and have been developing multiple-warhead missles again — they must have ROLLED on the floor laughing when Obama pulled defensive missles from eastern Europe!! — What a naive bufoon Obama is!!!

Cheney is worse than limbaugh,he’s acting like the sitting vice president.
Why didn’t cheney won the the bloody war in the first place??and now he has the nerve to criticize our President Bam.Cheney is the lowest of the low.Go to Afghanistan yourself mr.cheney and fight it there with your evil rhetoric,for crying out loud.Oh Mr.cheney,you don’t even know the meaning of CLASS….

I understand why the white house feels that they have to respond to a moron like Darth Vader…I just wish they did not have to take the time to respond when there are so many things that need to be done with cleaning up the messes he and “W” left behind. We need to quit bleeding ourselves (financially, human loss of life wise and image wise) in countries that obviously do not want to change. Neocons, imperialists and supporters of the military industrial complex just do not seem to get the drift.

Julieterra — Why do you think Bush was applying some pressure on the Ruskies! — They’ve been cheating for several years! — So Obama comes in and thinks he can “change” the world — “lets cut out all nuclear weapons” — Sheeeeesh!!! — A couple of smaller countries are doing everything they can to GET nukes — and Obama is going to be SOOOOO naive as to get rid of all of them????

Cheney is right in one sense. With Iraq pretty much gift-wrapped for Obama, its time to either clean up Afghanistan and stabilize democracy there … or, bring our troops home. If we’re there to just be policemen, bring them home. If we’re not willing to treat the Taliban as an enemy, bring them home. If we’re not willing to take out Al Queda whereever they are … bring them home. However, if we bring our troops home without finishing the job, the next attack on America will be forever known as Obama’s tragic foreign policy blunder.

to: Ifrichar: What did you think I was talking about rebuilding? Football stadiums? My point is that you need a working strategy before you commit more troops. Gen. Mc Chrystal assessment of the CURRENT situation is accurate but he is not the strategist, just the one following orders. There is more to this conflict than the day-to-day operations. Obama will send in troops, but he has to have a PLAN that involves the Afghan government and other political partners, or else, 6 months from now, the next assessment will ask for more troops without any clear goal in sight.

===The inability to tell is part of the problem. ===
Bush was president. That he took advice from someone doesn’t mean that person was his ‘brain’ and the ultimate decision was on Bush’s shoulders. Just as I won’t blame Rahm or Axelrod (even though Axelrod is sitting in on war meetings) for whatever Obama ultimately decides. As Bush said, he’s the decider. So is Obama.

julieterra –Who was in charge in 2001?—- START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. START remains in effect between the U.S. and Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine These latter three have disarmed since becoming independent nations in the wake of the break up of the Soviet Union. It expires December 5th of this year and is being negotiated.

Fox should open a news newtork in Afghanistan and Pakistan and ask Limbaugh,Hannity and Beck and maybe Cheney’s to attack Taliban and Al qaeda.Why soldiers and weapons..their shouts itself is good enough for taliban and bin laden to commit suicide.

treblig56 —- Strategy, kill or capture Al Qaeda and Taliban if they continue to merge. Rebuild only what we blew up. Their government is too corrupt for us to change anything. We aren’t there as friends, we are there to kill terrorists. cna you tell me any circumstance where we would not require more troops except for a full withdrawal? I spent over 20 years in our military and know when a General says “we will lose” if he doesn’t get the resources, you react quickly to that assessment. We are not good at nation building, much less one that relies on drugs for its’ GNP.

To:Axey 1)I was responding to someone else. 2)Read my other posts and you will understand that though McChrystal’s assessment is accurate, a cange in strategy is necessary before committing more troops into a bottomless pit.

START was instituted in 1991, not 2001 and Bush (despite the great success of START you [lfrichar] cite) refused to renegotiate it as its expiry date approached in 2009. The direction out of that is ‘sorry, from now on anything goes, we will not sign a treaty. We will do whatever we want.’
This was all too typical of Bush’s behavior.

julieterra – Please don’t try and change what I wrote. START was initiated by Reagan in 1982. But, I didn’t mention when it was started, only when the final numbers were tallied. It just so happens it fell under Bush’s term. Now, because it is expiring on December 5th 2009, we are renegotiating it. Where did you get your information that Bush eliminated it?

“”"”"”Bush cancelled the START treaty – thus introducing an ‘anything goes’ reality. “”"”"
Posted by: julieterra
Please, I would like to see proof Bush cancelled it. If he did, why are we negotiating it now? You all just can’t seem to get off Bush. He is gone and Obama is in there following in his footsteps, or worse in some cases.

HaHa……where has this Madman been in the past 8 years? COUNTING THE STOLEN IRAQI MONEY AND ‘DITHERING’ IT OUT TO HIS ‘BUDDIES’………….This is the same NUT that said “Scooter Liddy” was a good, honorable and decent man. Yeap, so honorable he OUTED Valarie Plame, a CIA operative

“”"”Ifrichar: When you blow up half a country, send in troops, oust their government, you have to make sure before leaving that you set conditions not to have the same pro-terrorist government get right back in. BTW, the only positive in the Taliban is that they cut heroin production by 90% when in power.”"”"
Posted by: treblig56
While I agree with your assessment, I don’t agree much has changed except for the numbers of Al Qaeda and their meld with Taliban. Still have their corrupt government (doesn’t matter which Prez), still have the bad guys there, still going to need more toops. Again, what circumstance, other than a withdrawal, would not cause us to raise our troop level for victory? Biden came up with a half brained idea of drones nd special forces only. I guess he thinks we can trust somebody to actually protest them huh? Well, we tried to ask NATO and UN to watch our backs, they agreed and failed. That is part of the reason we are back there.

to: Bill: Merriam-Webster defines warmonger as: — one who urges or attempts to stir up war. — Now you know.

Why would anyone take advice from Cheney? He was wrong about the need to go into Iraq, wrong about changing our stance against torture, wrong about putting aside the Constitution on numerous occasions, and wrong about not supporting our troops fully in Afghanistan, which is why our troops are still there, eight years later.
Historically, I’ve never known a vice-president to, so loudly and often, criticize the new administration.
Cheney takes being wrong to a whole new level.

“”"”ABC & CNN are good news sources …. if you just want to get the facts & not listen to endless personal opinions …. in your face as facts. “”"”"
Posted by: Linda
Why, because Obama goes to them? Tell me please, why won’t Obama answer any questions from Fox News. Every news station has their opinion shows, including CNN and ABC. I am just curious as to what you might call news (ie Jones or ACORN). Then I would ask why it took so long for the other news organizations (not opinions) to pick up on wither story?

Ifrichar: Please, do not try to make Rove’s point that the failure in Afghanistan is NATO’s fault. NATO has supported the Afghan war from the get go, hoping the USA were as committed to it as they were for the reasons they went in the first place. They never were in Afghanistan to mind the store while the USA were divesting resources to Iraq. Had they been asked to take care of Afghanistan to free up resources for the war in Iraq, nobody would have sent in troops.

I guess debating and a middle ground in this discussion is fruitless. There are nuts from both sides of the political spectrum indicating their hatred for the other. Great discussion thats way off topic.
If US Soldiers are getting killed because of a dire situation them remove them from it or throw resources at it so they can protect themselves. If they are just doing a routine and getting the same flack from the Taliban as always then its a status quo and nothing gained – so why stay there. If you want to “Nation Build” give that task to the governments in the area as they have the most to gain (and the US to lose). If the governments in the area don’t care and the locals agree to taliban rule let them have it – but bomb the heck out of it again and again until they are almost extinct should they ever strike at the US again. Even bomb some Pakanistan areas if they cannot control the nut jobs in their country.

“Please, I would like to see proof Bush cancelled it. If he did, why are we negotiating it now?”
I think julieterra must be confusing the ABM treaty with START.
“- President Bush said Thursday the United States has notified Russia that it intends to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, starting a six-month timetable for withdrawal and opening the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense system.”
But it should be known that the Russians abandoned START II right after those actions.

Ifrichar..I agree with you.Obama should face Fox just like he face ABC and CNN or NBC.Having said that I dont think he needs to face Beck and Hannity but he can very well show up on Chris Wallace show or Greta’s show.He is very much angrey with some people in the fox news for sure.I dont agree with you for saying what they are saying is news wrt Jones and ACORN.How often did you see talking about Ensign ; How often you see them talking about Haliburton?How often you see them talking about Black water saga?Dont tell me that they are doing news.But again Obama as a president should learn to suppress his anger and face the challenge.he doesnt have to deal with those who spits nonsense in the name of news.

“”So… is Gibbs suggesting the Bush Admin was correct to sit on a request for additional troops; or was it wrong then and wrong now?”"
No he is saying cheney’s a hypocrite

Jay —- I watch many different news sources and you are right, Obama needs to face them and he needs to tell his administration to quit whining about them. But, Fox did cover Blackwater and Haliburton. I am talking about their news not commentaries which many people seem to mistake for news. Obama has appeared on O’Reilly, so why not speak to their news? Gotta go. Bye

To trebling56:
Go to Google. Type the word in the search bar, then click enter. For the word “warmonger” you will be given a link at the right for a definition. Look from top to bottom there after you click on it.
Warmonger: One who advocates war or warlike policies or stirs up war.
Both Bush and Obama have their name written right nezt to that definition. Both meet the definition, whether you like it or not. Keep your head in the sand all you want, though.
Now YOU know.
BTW, please look up the word “shill,” as in being a shill for ANY administration. I am not a shill for either. It sure looks like you are.
I have called it evenly for both administrations (Bush and Obama’s). Both have lied through their teeth and I have shown this.
You ignore that warmonger Obama is warmongering in Pakistan (more civilians have died there proportionally as a result of his drone attacks than under Bush). You ignore that Obama is keeping us in a quagmire in Afghanistan, amps it up by secretly sending in 13,000 more troops there, won’t bring the troops home from Iraq when he said that he would (drags his feet), and sends some of them to that quagmire. BTW, warmonger Obama now has more troops in Iraq and Afghaniostan than there were under Bush. Warmonger.
You also ignore that Obama lied about ending the use of indefinite detention (Gitmo), lied about ending warrantless wiretapping and lied about ending signing statements.
No one should shill for Bush, Cheney OR Obama. You need to learn and practice that.

“During the campaign last year, Obama was the one saying troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan were more important than war in Iraq. Now he changed again.”
Barbara , Obama never said even now war in afghanistan is not important and he has not changed his strategy.In fact first thing he did after coming to office is sent more troops to afghanistan and that too without minimising the troop level in iraq war which was a war waged with no common sense.Now mcrystal asked for more troops..Obama never said he wont sent more troops ; he only wants mcrystal to come up with a solid backing of his demand and a word that such a move will improve the situation in the country.Every man has a right to ask questions .You even ask question to god at times why no questions to mcrystal?Dont you know the same policy of not askign why to Donald rumsfeild got us into Iraq war?History is a good lesson.

To bp:
Obama is dragging his feet on getting us out of Iraq. We will not leave there when he said that we would when he was running for president. Instead he sends some of our troops to Afghanistan instead of sending them home.
From January 2009 until now, Obama’s drone attacks in Pakistan have proportionately killed more civilians (men, women and children) than were killed there under Bush from 2006 to January 2009.
Obama is now outpacing Bush and will ( in a similar amount of time) exceed the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan during the Bush administration from 2006 until Januray 2009.
Liar Obama is also not ending warrantless wiretapping like he said he would, is not ending indefinite detention (for 50 people at Gitmo) like he said he would, and the ACLU is suing to see just what the heck is going on at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
Get YOUR facts straight.
Bush was a warmonger and so is Obama. Both lied through their teeth, too.
Recognize that.

I think that cheney should keep his mouth shout as he and bush#2 had created this cesspool and adding his two cents isn’t required. This administration is correct in reviewing all options that are available to them and the recent polls have cited that the American People are disgusted with this war and they want the troops out of there. If it wasn’t for bush family,cheney,rumsfeld,rice rove,and libby etal we would be in this mess and the economy would be in the crisis that we are experiencing right now. cheney the neocons and the conservatives should all go to hell. President Obama is going an excellent job and he should get all troops out of these two wars.

Cheney sure didn’t “dither” when it came to his military service.The draft dodger kept accepting those deferments.If he’s in such a hurry, let his daughters join the military and serve.

Cheney should be unplugged.

Let me guess, Fox is now promoting that Obama has had more war deaths then that last 8 year President? GO GIBBS!

Ken: Obama hates no one not even you. Hate is not in his nature…you got the wrong person and the wrong party. He does not want to see any more men die and was against war from the start. He will make the right decision when he decides and not when Cheney decides. He who ignored Afghanistan for many years. He needs to understand he is not in power anymore and Obama does not listen to him like Bush did.

Posted by: Mike in Costa Mesa | Oct 22, 2009 5:30:45 PM: “ The reason Bush did not fill the request for troops in the fall of ’08 was because they were in the midst of their full blown strategy analysis on Afghanistan.”
This year Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the United States has faced difficulties in the Afghanistan conflict because the Bush administration did NOT have a “comprehensive strategy”. Mr. Cheney’s re-write of history continues.
You may recall, Mike, that by 2004 the Bush /Cheney administration had already let OBL escape from Tora Bora and started a 2nd preemptive war in a country that bore only a minimal connection to the 9/11 hijackers while blindly ignoring their funding source (Saudi Arabia).
So compared to this history, you say the Obama administration is a bunch of LYING disingenuous hacks? LOL.
The only thing Cheney “owns” is a place in history with a 60% national disapproval as he skulked from office.

Mr. Chenye had all the time he needed to end a war he started in Afghanistan, now that the new administration is finishing of the job Cheney neglected for seven years, he is now letting out his frustration on the very man doing the right thing to protect America which he failed when he was in charge. What a way to vent one’s frustration, always by blaming the desent guy for all problem one creates.

The fact remains that obama has lost almost 400 trrops in 10 months while around 400 were lost in 8 years of bush cheney. All Obama can do is talk and pose for cameras.

Ken Said: “The fact remains that obama has lost almost 400 trrops in 10 months while around 400 were lost in 8 years of bush cheney. All Obama can do is talk and pose for cameras.”
======================================
LOL… Again!! Fox News/”right-whiner” rhetoric.
Ken, either (1) you don’t know how to look up data for yourself…or, (2) you just believe everything that Fox tells you…(I suppose both are the case.)
Here are “the facts”:
(1) Since 2009 there have been 420 casualties (U.S. and coalition)…and 25 of those occurred in January when Obama wasn’t even President.
(2) Between 2001 and 2008, there were 1,045 casualties in Afghanistan.
Ken…put down the Kool Aid, turn off Fox, and learn to do your own research before regurgitating right-whiner rhetoric…hehehe.

kt…that’s the problem… “The Taliban” is NOT a country.

Just when I think republicans can’t get more absurd. This is about troops in 2009 anyway. It makes no difference at the moment if they take some time on this. Then you have a little election issue.

I see that Hugo Chavez’s approval numbers have fallen to Obama-like levels.
And I’m hugely gratified that when the White House tried to exclude Fox from the network pool that was to interview Kenneth Feinberg today,, the other networks refused to proceed without Fox. The White House relented.

kt…you CLEARLY have no clue what you’re talking about, and are just blurting out the little you’ve been able to comprehend from the Fox network.
Please do me a favor…please, please, pretty please…stay registered as a Republican.
Thanks.

Does anyone believe that the last administration did not had contingency plans ? come on !! This adminstration is flawed and their only resort is to attack the other side. Can anyone tell me other than giving money to the rich and the labor unions what has this administration has accomplished ?? nothing, nada, zero. Blaming the other side is easy when you are in trouble bu that is if you are a kid. This is a community organizer playing POTUS

The president has sent more troops in 9 months than Cheney in 8 years…He is addressing this problem with the correct attitude. When he has the facts and the promise from someone in authority in Afghanistan that they will have our soldier’s backs….he will send the men. Until then, no. We would be sending our men to an area where there is no one person in charge and we do not know if they will be on our side. He may just pull them out of Afghanistan and send them to Pakistan which is were most of the taliban are housed. The ones doing the fighting now are rebels from Pakistan and maybe it is there idea to get us out so I think I would rather have a president who knows the facts ….not send us into some place like Bush with no weapons of mass destruction and say there is. Different president…different priorities and Iam pleased with this one.

I think Cheney simply MUST have been the original model for Rick Moranis’ character in Mel Brooks’ “Spaceballs”.
“I see your Schwartz is as big as mine. Let’s see how well you handle it!”
“…now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.”
Time for Cheney to get “jammed”, the smucker! Pure RASPBERRY for him!

I personally had heard enough out of cheney’s mouth after his first month in office. He is a liar, the devil incarnate and needs to go to jail for outing Plame. Time for him to shut his trap and disappear.

I have friends in Afghanistan, fighting,
going thru a lot of crap trusting our government to do the right thing. If you put us on harm ways you better give us all the support we need.Bickering and partisanship just waste lives in the battlefield. A minimal amout of force sent sporadically just does not work. A large and well equipped force will finish the job quickly thus saving lives and large amounts of money.I guess to the POTUS is more important to run a political campaign than be the Cmdr in Chief.

Parallex View ..if you are not a soldier , you should not talk about things that you don’t know.Just because you are a family member does not makes you a soldier. I’m sure your son sees things more different that you.

CHENEY is playing politics with our troops, our economic nightmare, and the constitution. None of which he cares about. OIL is the only thing he cares about. He is a traitor and a war crimnal who needs to shut up.

“I have friends in Afghanistan, fighting,
going thru a lot of crap trusting our government to do the right thing. If you put us on harm ways you better give us all the support we need.”
__________________________________
President Obama increased the number of troops in Afghanistan from 35,000 to 65,000.
This was after 7 years of dithering by the Bush/Cheney administration where both Al Qaeda and the Taliban were allowed to regroup. We’re seeing the results of their inaction now.
Unfortunately the neo-cons had an obsession with Iraq and squirmed 9/11 reaction into an attack on that country, leaving Afghanistan on the back burner to slowly simmer to a boil.
Cheney has no moral authority left to be blathering away.

Who is in charge of the White House?
• Rahm Emanuel?
• Valarie Jarrett?
• Robert Gibbs?
• Mr. David Axelrod?
• Michelle Obama?
• The three dozen czars?
It may be that there are way too many cooks in the kitchen that is causing indecisiveness to take over! It is evident that they (collectively) have ZERO COMPREHENSION OF THE RESOURCE OF TIME – IN RELATION TO COMBAT! Emanuel is peddling the notion that they have to wait to see who is going to win during the November 7 revote. For Pete’s sake, whoever wins will be pro American. Think Team Obama is more afraid of their LEFT WING than they are sworn enemies of the USA! Pray tell: WHAT WAS OBAMA TALKING ABOUT LAST MARCH WHEN HE ANNOUCED THE NEW AFGHANISTAN POLICY – WITH MUCH FANFARE AND PRESS?? WHAT HAPPENED? COLD FEET??
This idea of taking on all who disagree with them is sophomoric at best, and IS NOT PRESIDENTIAL. If the White House takes a look at the Gallup and Rasmussen polls of October 21, they will be adding at least 50% of the US population to their ‘ENEMIES’ LIST’!
Think the only reason Team Obama is mad at Fox is that it was the only news agency doing its job: it outed Van Jones, and ACORN embarrassing the Administration for not having done its home work, or, worse yet, tried to slip a couple of real losers by the American people!! Could it be that Team Obama is fearful that Fox could uncover other truths that would become INCONVENIENT??

Cheney is the ultimate coward. Seven deferments. Corrupt and evil. And he thinks he has the right to run his arrogant, corrupt mouth! His legacy is a corrupt failure. He is the ultimate hypocrite!!

I suggest that Obama takes as long as he wants to make his decision. While he is doing this, he should send troops as requested to protect our fighting men/women. Once his “strategy” is made he can keep, transfer or bring them back home. This way a lot of soldier lives would be saved while he works on his strategy!

The new ABC/WaPo poll shows that 33% of Americans strongly approve of the way Obama is handling his job. 29% strongly disapprove. IF ABC/WaPo were to play the Rasmussen game, they would give Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +4. His overall approval rating is 57% approve, 40% disapprove.
The Ipsos/McClatchy poll from earlier this month also included “strongly” and “somewhat” categories. 30% of Americans strongly approved and 23% strongly disapproved. That would equal a +7 on Rasmussen’s Index. Obama’s overall approval rating was 56%. Overall disapproval was 40%. Ipsos/McClatchy was tied for most accurate pollster in the 2008 national Presidential election results.

Here’s what Cheney was REALLY saying…
“Obama! Without you sending more troops to secure Afghanistan, I can’t get more military contracts for my buddies in Kellog-Brown & Root (KBR), and my buddies in Halliburton can’t continue their plans to run an oil pipeline through that country…Will you hurry it up Obama!”
LOL!

I see the dirty blood-stained hands of Cheney behind 9/11 and the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. All of these serve only one goal: the interests of Halliburton. It is this guy who caused all these tragedies.

ABC/WaPo and McClatchy/Ipsos poll “Americans.” Rasmussen polls “likely voters.”
take your pick as to which polls are more significant.
And tell me again a year from now.

Real Clear Politics:
“Barack Obama has suffered the worst third quarter decline in his public approval rating of any elected president in the post-World War II era.
Obama’s average quarterly approval rating has slipped from 62 percent in the second quarter to 52.9 percent in the third quarter, according to Gallup polling. That 9 percentage point decline is twice the amount of any other post-war elected president. Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan saw their standing decline 4 points between the two quarters. No other elected president has declined more than 4 points since 1953. The third quarter began July 20 and ended October 19.”
If the goofballs think he’s doing fine, that’s sure OK with me. A year from now we’ll get a conclusive reading from the electorate. We right-wingers are waiting very eagerlyfor that day. How ’bout you goofballs?

Ken: All NATO allies including Canada where I live, and a vast majority of Afghans were in favor of the 2001 military operations. The same people felt let down when the US committed 150 000 troops to invade Iraq under blatantly false pretenses, instead of affecting the same troops to pursue aggressively the Taliban and AL-Qaeda, rebuilding what was bombed, and training Afghans to protect their own country. Since then, NATO and the Afghan people have all but written off the US promises of a safe Afghanistan free of terrorists. Canadians who have been there since day-1 will retire in February 2011 after 5 years of asking the US for reinforcements and a change in strategy in what they saw as a failing war. WE, Canadians, lost 130 lives shoulder-to-shoulder with US troops, only to be failed by the Bush Administration. I hope Obama can turn this thing around, but should he fail, it will be the Bush administration’s failure by squandering of all goodwill and support it had before turning coats and going after Sadaam against all credible evidence and all advice from his allies in Afghanistan.

If the goofballs think he’s doing fine, that’s sure OK with me. … We right-wingers are waiting very eagerly for that day.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 22, 2009 10:34:00 PM
***
Here’s an interesting tidbit for you, from a recent Public Policy Polling poll –
Barack Obama leads hypothetical contests against four possible 2012
opponents by margins ranging from 4 points to 20.
For the seventh consecutive time PPP has run this poll Mike Huckabee comes the closest to Obama of the GOP hopefuls. He trails the President 47-43. Speaking to the current
weakness of the Republican field Huckabee is the only GOP contender with a positive net favorability rating and even then it’s only +4, at 33/29.
The second strongest candidate is Mitt Romney,who trails 48-40.
Sarah Palin continues to be seen unfavorably by more than half of the population. 51% have an unfavorable opinion of her to 36% looking at her favorably and she trails Obama
52-40.
For the first time PPP looked at Tim Pawlenty and he’s a blank slate to most of the country, with 72% of respondents saying they have no opinion of him. Reflecting that anonymity he trails Obama by the widest margin, 50-30.
—

I find it disturbing that most every post containing concrete, verifiable facts, not poll numbers, or opinions of people around the world implicated in the Afghan War are never answered, but only partisan subjective opinions from both sides are discussed.

“Where on the RCP website can we find this culled average? I have asked this question four times before, and you ignore it. Why? Is it true that you have just been slapping the RCP label on your own selective calculations?”
(a) Go to the RCP website and look at all of the polls that make up their average. Each is identified as to whether it polls adults (“A”), registered voters (“RV”), or likely voters (“LV”). Add the numbers up, and divide by the number of polls. I hope you don’t find this too taxing.
(b) You may find this hard to believe, but I don’t read all of the questions you ask. I have not answered it before because I have never seen it.
(c) No. (See (a), above.)

“This was after 7 years of dithering by the Bush/Cheney administration where both Al Qaeda and the Taliban were allowed to regroup.”
False. Nancy Pelosi announced in April, 2005 that the war in Afghanistan was over.
Al Qaeda had declared Iraq to be the central front of the jihad against the West. Bush beat them there, and they are now a democratic ally (which Obama “inherited” despite his opposition to the victorious strategy). Although Obama opposed the surge there, if he has learned anything he should have learned not to trust his pacifist instincts where the lives of our troops are at risk.

I find it disturbing that most every post containing concrete, verifiable facts, not poll numbers, or opinions of people around the world implicated in the Afghan War are never answered, but only partisan subjective opinions from both sides are discussed.
Posted by: treblig56 | Oct 22, 2009 11:20:04 PM
____
It IS disturbing (though I participated by responding). But if it makes you feel better, I’ve been reading your posts and as far as I can tell I largely agree with you, X-Republican, CenterOne, julieterra and some others. I appreciate your posts.
I think all this right winger whining about “dithering” is b.s. They’re like the boy who cried wolf right now. It’s become impossible to take them seriously on pretty much any issue, to the detriment of the country. I wish they’d get serious, and get real. For example, how absurd is it that Cheney and Libby won awards. But I digress…
One problem I have on this topic is that my knowledge base regarding war isn’t nearly as strong as my knowledge base concerning other issues so I like hearing what people with any real life experience have to say.
My impression all along has been that we’ll get an announcement specifying the end goal prior to Thanksgiving so that the new troops deployed can arrive early in Spring, the end goal will be different from what it was in March, we’ll see a troop increase, our strategy will still be more counterinsurgency than counterterroism and so on– but I’m also caught up in trying to read the tea leaves present in what Obama said during his NBC interview. Things like
“I think it is entirely possible that we have a strategy formulated before a run-off is determined, we may not announce it.”
Afghan strategy “is not just dependent on military forces. It’s also dependent on how well we’re doing with our civilian development efforts. How well we’re doing in stemming corruption. So, this is part of a comprehensive strategy, it always has been.”
What was stunning to me about McCrystal’s report was how much the situation had deteriorated– and I don’t think it’s odd that a thorough policy review was needed as we went into Afghanistan’s winter, but before we’d need to announce deployments so troops could arrive in spring.
The choices in front of the President are really excruciating. No matter what he does, he’s going to get a lot of heat. Of course, all I’m trading in opinion and speculation here. Until I hear and read what the new strategy actually is, it’s hard to weigh in. But I did find an article in WaPo about success in Helmand very interesting (“In Helmand, a model for success?”) Anyone have thoughts on that?
End of ramble (but at least it’s not a polling tangent.)

Fascist Hayena Said: “Al Qaeda had declared Iraq to be the central front of the jihad against the West.”
===================
Your statement is correct, however, it was only after we invaded Iraq with 140,000 troops that Al Qaeda made that declaration. Prior to that, Al Qaeda still considered Afghanistan their “central front”.

This war has been going on since 2003? But Obama doesn’t have a plan, and more troops are now dying because of Obama’s leadership—but yet the bots try to spin this nonsense? Hey guys, Obama sucks and the facts don’t lie, but you bots sure do.

…Obama’s average quarterly approval rating has slipped from 62 percent in the second quarter to 52.9 percent in the third quarter, according to Gallup polling. That 9 percentage point decline is twice the amount of any other post-war elected president. Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan saw their standing decline 4 points between the two quarters. No other elected president has declined more than 4 points since 1953. The third quarter began July 20 and ended October 19.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 22, 2009 10:34:00 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, and what does that imply? Let’s look at it using the Gallop data, from the same report you cite, to see if we can discern a trend.
President—-Period—-Average—Re-elected
Eisenhower—–1953——-68%——-Yes
Kennedy——–1961——-77%——-NA
Nixon———-1969——-60%——-Yes
Carter———1977——-60%——-No
Reagan———1981——-57%——-Yes
G. H. W. Bush–1989——-69%——-No
Clinton——–1993——-48%——-Yes
G. W. Bush—–2001——-72%——-Yes
Obama———-2009——-53%——?
1) Carter and Reagan had the exact same high rating. Carter lost and Reagan won reelection.
2) G. H. W. Bush had a high 69% and Clinton a low 48%. Bush lost and Clinton won reelection.
3) Eisenhower and G. W. Bush had highs and both won reelection.
On the face of it, the odds would appear to slightly favor that Barack would not be reelected.
However, G. W. Bush got a was 51% approval on August 20, 2001 and shot up to 90% on Sept 21, 2001 (a 39% boost due to the unforeseen Sept 11, 2001 attack).
So, it is reasonable to expect that Bushes would have ended up below 50% at this point in the 1st term.
Then, we are left with the realistic comparison that Gallop comes to. That is the Obama compares to
Reagan because of the similar circumstances and rating in the administrations. Both took office as the nation’s economy was in perilous times. Reagan was at 60% at six months, but his standing slipped below 50% by the end of his first year in office as the jobless rate swelled.
Looks like, if Obama gets the Health Care Bill passed, he will be a re-run of Reagan’s election destiny. If we have another terrorist attack (and I hope we don’t), he will get a boost like Bush.
Either way he would be a shoe-in for a reelection.

We do not believe that this President in particular should be lectured by Dic. In viwe of the blatantly deceptive decisions made by Dic, no one in their right minds would ever want him & his cronies making decision on behalf of the United States of America. Cheney is th type who would force people to to tell abominable lies (ie Powell) just to continue his vast deception.
Should a thorough investigation ever be held, Cheney may be exposed as the most deceptive political rat in the 250+ years of the Republic’s history.
This President is one of the very best ever witnessed in US history.
He is not perfect. But wow, he is dam excellent.
Amen

Why would the White House engage Cheney? They are smart people.. do they want to keep up this history lesson or is better than talking about what they have one their plate.. today?
I think it’s funny that Cheney can shoot a gun at their feet and they will dance wildly.. it’s surreal.

This proves that Cheney is right.
And who can blame Cheney for saying anything? Obama does nothing but blame others for everything, including that stupid stimulus failure. Nothing is ever going to be Obama’s fault.
Obama fights harder against Fox News than he does against Al Qaida. He’s more concerned about the insurgence of Fox News than the insurgence in Afghanistan.
He capitulates to Russia and Iran and gets nothing in return and then gets tough with Israel.
How sick is that?

You know what: the hell with polls. Obama will do what he needs in one 4-year term. After the Republicans smear him, I would not want him to have a second term.

More insane blabbering by the sociopath we call the ex vice president. And one more insane mess Obama has to clean up from that vice president’s administration. I would much rather have a president who actually thinks before acting rather than one, like Bush,who simply acted in a rash and dangerous manner. Strategy and analysis take time. Iknow, I know – we are not used to seeing that in a president. Don’t worry! It’s a refreshing change.

As for Cheney being a great military strategist: he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art of warfare, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier, other than that he is a great military man.

How bout that Ann Coulter, what a bimbo. She basically said in her interview this morning the people of Iraq deserved the Illegal war there because it was easier to win there. Did she ask Iraqi’s permission?

There is a good name for Ann Coulter but I can’t use it in polite society. Why would anyone listen to this woman??? She clearly is an idiot and doesn’t deserve the air time. Please get her off the air so the rest of the female population can hold our heads high. Seriously, what idiot employs someone so clueless or better yet which idiot made the decision to put her in front of a camera and spout her nonsense???????????

gwen….”Obama leads the hypothetical….” That’s fine by me, Obama can lead the “hypothetical country” in 2012.. Who says libs don’t have a sense of humor…LOL…LOL…
BTW treblig56…Obama campaigned on the Afghan issue in 2008, he and he alone accepted the challenge of taking on the Afghans, it is now his “Iraq” or “Vietnam” “I will focus on Afghanistan….Nov 7, 2008.” Not Bush/Cheney…He could have had the option of pulling out troops as a a newly elected President he chose to increase troop strength Feb/2009 issues orders two more brigades to region….It is now his war….