Administration Sources: President Obama Weighing Four Strategic Options for Af/Pak*

Unfortunately, no logical decision can possibly be made as long as the strategic direction of US military objectives is decided by corporate interests who continue to use our military budget as their own private piggy bank.

The 5 options:
1. Dither.
2. Retreat.
3. Surrender.
4. Failure.
5. Blame Bush

“Mr. Obama said, ‘And I want to make sure that we have tested all the assumptions that we’re making before we send young men and women into harm’s way . . . .’ ”
NEWS FLASH: Our young men and women are already in harm’s way, and our general is asking for reinforcements!!
UPDATE: And check Ft. Hood!! The enemy is attacking our young men and women in America, already!!!

Eni-Meeni-Myni-Mo? Oh, never mind.

TParty$USA – “UPDATE: And check Ft. Hood!! The enemy is attacking our young men and women in America, already!!!”………and what sources do you have that this is a case islamic terrorism…..?
or this a typical conservative LIE to get people to rush into another stupid war decisions….Mr Bush took 2.5 years to come up with his “surge”…..by this yardstick, Mr Obama has another 2.2 years to think this one through…
something tells me he will not wait as long as Mr Bush.

Here’s a strategic option……GET OUT!

mjishernameo – “It’s not that his priorities are skewed, it’s that his priorities put us all in danger. His priorities are killing our troops, his priorities are bringing down the economy, his priorities are taking away our freedoms…..”…….wow, where do I start…
lets, see, first – virtually all economists (on both sides) agree, that Mr Obama and economic advisors saved the financial markets from collapse – proof? my Nasdaq linked investment account is up 40% since February !
second, so you have lost all your freedoms? can you source a single freedom you have personally lost by a bill signed into law by this presdent…I can name a dozen you lost under the “Patriot” Act, that was put in place by the GOP…
Third, name a single war policy that he has put in place that has caused a single troop death..you seem to forget that Mr Obama gave his general MORE troops than they were asking for in March for Afghan….and none of the things those General promised happened….so he is right to take some time on this, this time…and question them hard, as he is….
So what say you, my friend…?

defense of my comments:
prioritires are putting troops in danger,
This delay has not only had a very negative impact on troop morale, it leaves our troops without the additional boots on ground they need. The troops not only fight the enemy, they keep the good guys safe
Bringing down the economy: The rushed stimulus bill was nothing short of a pay off to his croonies, did NOTHING to stimulate the ecomony and has once again left small businesses scrapping to get by. Loans are tied up, the consumer is too frightened to open their wallet because of his philosophy of increasing fed government over the private sector.
My freedoms: lets see…secret deals on the bills that most americans don’t want, no transparency, ignoring the constitution with forcing Americans to buy insurance less face possible JAIL TIME, publicly announcing an “enemies list” of those who disagree with the ONE…..and there is more to come. the second ammendment is in danger.

You mean Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize wasn’t enough to get the enemy to stop pointing their weapons at U.S. soldiers?
This guy is a one term joke of a loser, just like Carter.
Is saying that “racist?”

Being indecisive is a policy. Apparently
there is no urgency in taking care of
this one way or the other. This is
not a leader. I would not trust this
guy to manage my lemonade stand.

“”"”" I asked you to name a single bill that this President has signed into law that took away any of your freedoms…Mr Obama does not even have a Senate approved Bill on his desk yet…so try again…what freedoms have been takem from you that Mr Obama signed into law…”"”"”
Posted by: indithinker
Funny, your defense is “inaction”. Obama has the capability to pass almost anything he wishes and hasn’t passed anything yet (of any significance whatsoever). He has continued many of Bush’s policies and lied about Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Proof: Our troops in Iraq have exactly 7 months to be out according to Obama’s 16 month plan (logistically impossible at this point). Obama labelled Afghanistan “Americas War” and hasn’t made any significant move after saying he would pull our troops from Iraq to bolster Afghanistan. Obama said Gitmo would close in Jan 2010 (logistically impossible) and was even voted down for funding because of a lack of planning (by his own Dems). His foreign policies, or lack of, are a joke. If you don’t believe his delays on troop decisions are affecting our troops morale, you couldn’t be more wrong. I have 2 nephews in Afghanistan right now and the troops are not as happy as you would believe. They are turning their attention towards Obama himself and not happy with his policies over there. My sources include many fighter pilots, C-130 gunship personnel, Marines on the ground and aircraft maintainers. Typically, Democrats are seen as weak to the military and this delay is “a buzz” all over the place. And yes, that affects troop morale.

indithinker—– The DOW already dropped like a rock and now the rich will get richer because of the bubble they are creating now. With the health care package, the dollar will tank even further. And you say my “amateur attempt at economics”? You try to link our economy to the DOW. The only possible link is when the DOW rises, we the people have a little more confidence which, as you know as a self proclaimed “economist”, is huge for any possible recovery. At the risk of wasting time, not all economist believe Obama’s stimulus saved the financial sector, but he certainly paid off alot of campaign donators. Can you explain how some banks, in such dire need of money, are now showing record profits in such a short time? I get it, you back Obama 100% and I am happy for you, but don’t expect all of us to agree. I truly believe, as many economists do, that when you owe so much money, you don’t spend even more. We will be bailing out Chrysler AGAIN in the near future.

indithinker said “”"”"”"where did I say that the “stimulus saved the economy”…..I said no such thing. I said the policies the administration took to stabilize the financial markets (unfreezing credit)….this is what virtually every economist gives the admin credit for preventing the collapse of the financial markets…”"”"”"”.
What is the difference between “save the economy” and “preventing the collapse of the financial markets?” If it was strictly the “policies” that stabilized the financial markets (unfreezing credit) Obama HIMSELF said it didn’t do as he expected! So I guess the money was strictly to pay off his banker buddies? If Obama was qualified to run a koolaid stand, you would be first in line to drink it. Oh, I didn’t vote for Bush, so your little blurp about Bush means nothing to me. Obama has been President now for almost 10 months and we have a whole new set of problems we need to get through.

It appears to me that John Kerry may be giving Obama advice. You know the guy who called us baby killers, The guy who teamed up with Jane Fonda and may have been responsible for more lives in Vietnam. Good choice Obama. Show the stupidity of this administration

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10.

Illinois Newspaper: Remarks of President Barack Obama A New Foundation ….. The market will continue to rise and fall. Credit is still not flowing nearly as easily as it should be.

It still amazes me how die hard Democrats just won’t admit that their party had nothing to do with the wars, economy or the housing debacle. Do you not see any fault in both parties? If everything the past administration did was wrong, should you not be able to cut funding and stop both wars with a super majority? Obama has continued with many of the past policies, in effect, he lied about many things.

The President has decided to vote “Present” on this like he did in Illinois,meanwhile ABC cheers.

dither dither dither dither

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Nov 10, 2009 9:42:05 AM
Thanks for the update. It’s nice not having to go over to the site myself. I can just catch up right here. Now if you could somehow get my coffee for me, then we’d really be cookin’!

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

It still amazes me how die hard Democrats just won’t admit that their party had nothing to do with the wars, economy or the housing debacle. Do you not see any fault in both parties? If everything the past administration did was wrong, should you not be able to cut funding and stop both wars with a super majority? Obama has continued with many of the past policies, in effect, he lied about many things.
Posted by: lfrichar | Nov 10, 2009 10:00:26 AM
***
That first sentence is quite a doozy– but I’m sure you didn’t mean it as written. We could “admit” we had nothing to do with it, of course, but that would make us no better than Republicans and a lot of conservatives — i.e wholly truth-averse and willing to distort,cherry pick and exploit the living heck out of absolutely anything (polls, quotes, history, statistics, facts, truth, religion, children, minor mistakes, tragedy.) While nobody’s perfect, progressives and liberals tend to be more honest than all that.
As an aside, IMHO, anything “super big” — political parties, business, government, religion, movements, lobbying groups, charities– tends to crack and let corruption seep in as power and wealth accumulate and the desire to hang on to that wealth and power leads to diminishing returns on the talent at the top– the best no longer rises to capacity but rather gets repressed so the power-holders don’t have to relinquish anything. Point? Of course, both parties have problems. I hate the two party system. But right now the Democrat party holds me a bit captive as there is no way in heck I want the GOP in power again– or a conservative idealogue.
As for War– I was all in when it came to going into Afghanistan after 9/11. While I’m typically against warmongering, I am all for national security– a strong defense. But I protested the Iraq War. There’s nothing inconsistent about that. I had a list of Democrats I wrote to and was disappointed in– gravely disappointed in. But here’s where the limited, cut and dried, black and white thinking of many conservatives is very annoying. Once we started the war, do you just pull out? We’d already put the Wolfowicz doctrine into play and destroyed so much there. IMO, we had to fund the troops, and finish the job without turning the war into a permanent occupation.
I’m glad that the President is following the agreed upon time table for pulling out of Iraq and leaving the country more stable. I’m not the least bit sorry Saddam Hussein is gone. I hope many wonderful things for the Iraqi people now that they’re free of a crazy tyrant. But I do deeply regret that we went to war under false or inaccurate pretenses. I do regret that we forgot our own principles and engaged in torture. I do regret the billions wasted by defense contractors. I do think Bush was incompetent, and Cheney is warmonger. I do think the war was bungled till Gates and Petraeus took over. And I’d prefer a more deliberate approach in the present by this President than the one Bush-Cheney took.
As for housing and the economy and jobs, I can’t believe conservatives can’t see beyond the plank in their eye.
Oh wait, yes I can. the plank is pretty big– but thanks for pointing out the tiny specks on our side. (rolls her eyes and cringes a little.)
Given the complexities in the world, your question is extremely disingenuous, black and white and anti-intellectual.
On another note, thanks for asking about Afghanistan, Jake. All along I’ve thought we’d hear around Thanksgiving, a little before and that we’d send troops, but at the same time there’d be an answer to the timetable and end goal questions. We’ll see…

The one question I don’t see being asked – can we actually win in Afghanistan without occupying the country for 50 to 100 years in the British Empire mode of governance?

Interesting note on Iraq.
TP: In 2008, Tim Shorrock reported for Salon that while “working inside America’s ’shadow’ spy industry, George Tenet, Richard Armitage, Cofer Black and others are cashing in big on Iraq and the war on terror.” Now, the Financial Times reports today that even more Bush administration officials are eyeing profits in Iraq… (see Zalmay Khalilzad, former US ambassador to Baghdad, and Jay Garner,the retired general who led reconstruction efforts immediately after the war)

Think about it, we’ve already increased the troops by over 40,000 in the last 18 months and the violence is worse. Why?
Posted by: Lydia | Nov 10, 2009 12:08:51 PM
You think we are the first to experience this in Afghanistan? Ever hear of a little country called the Soviet Union?
Here’s my idea. Set up a basic defense system in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban from returning (couldn’t it be done without interfering with the citizens there?). Protect the citizens while you rebuild the country. Forget about the mountains. Keep using the drones for training camps. We’re so sensitive about being an “occupying force” yet we’ll stay there for 10 years trying to be proactive against the enemy and putting our brave soldiers in harm’s way because of it.
I have no military background so I could be all wrong, but heck neither does the President!

And yet, compounding the stupidity, tone-deafness and insult, it’s not that hard for one to recall that Bush, when he was younger and not employed anywhere, passed up his chance for a lovely, moving romantic fling with danger in the jungles of Southeast Asia.
Posted by: Alyson | Nov 7, 2009 9:42:29 PM
I saved these excerpts just for you Alyson, the Allycat. Enjoy!
Bernie Goldberg, August 25, 2009
A “Lost” Fact in the “Rathergate” Mess
“The story was about how the young George Bush got preferential treatment during the Vietnam War; how he wangled his way into the Texas Air National Guard back in the 1960s to avoid service in Vietnam; and how he was able to do it because his father was a big-shot, a United States Congressman from Houston. The story portrayed the Bush as a slacker. Others have said it portrayed him as a “cowardly draft dodger.””
…
“Until now, the controversy over the Rather/Mapes story has centered almost entirely on one issue: the legitimacy of the documents – a very important issue, indeed. But it turns out that there was another very important issue, one that goes to the very heart of what the story was about – and one that has gone virtually unnoticed. This is it: Mary Mapes knew before she put the story on the air that George W. Bush, the alleged slacker, had in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Nov 10, 2009 11:27:00 AM
Gee Fascist, you didn’t post that Gallup has President Obama’s approval up another point to 54% today.
Quit slacking off.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 10, 2009 2:12:04 PM
Doesn’t matter how you try to spin it.
George W. Bush did not serve in Vietnam. Neither did Cheney.

“Experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits.”
–Barack Hussein Obama, January 24, 2009

“Gee Fascist, you didn’t post that Gallup has President Obama’s approval up another point to 54% today.”
Bush was at 51% (Gallup) in the week just before 9/11.

Bush did not serve in Vietnam, but he served as a fighter pilot during that war. He joined the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, during the Vietnam War. He committed to serve until May 26, 1974, with two years on active duty while training to fly and four years on part-time duty.
_____________________________________
Yes, as I said . . . neither George W. Bush or Cheney served in Vietnam. Spin it as you will . . ..

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

I don’t care about the poll numbers. It varies from poll to poll. But I trust my own common sense and I don’t feel right on most of OBAMA’s policies.
I wonder if his muslim background (dont forget he lived in a muslim nation of Indonesia for 6 years) will have some effects on his decision to Afghanistan.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 10, 2009 2:12:04 PM
Doesn’t matter how you try to spin it.
George W. Bush did not serve in Vietnam. Neither did Cheney.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 10, 2009 2:13:39 PM
Not spinning anything. Just keeping the uninformed informed.
“when he was younger and not employed anywhere, passed up his chance for a lovely, moving romantic fling with danger in the jungles of Southeast Asia.”
Posted by: Alyson | Nov 7, 2009 9:42:29 PM
Alyson is incorrect. The fact is “George W. Bush, the alleged slacker, had in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam.”

The FACT remains, that Bush is no longer in office.
President Obama did not volenteer for military service during peace time or war.
It is 6 weeks since the commander on the ground asked for troop support. THE commander hand picked by President Obama.
Tomorrow is Veteran’s Day, wouldn’t it be grand if Our Commander-In-Chief made an American life saving decission!
Send in the troops!
God Bless America!
God Bless our Troops!
God Bless our Veterans!
God Bless President Barrack Hussan Obama.

Twice in the last 3 years Charlie Rangel advocated reinstating the draft!
Go for it Charlie! Third time’s a charm.

Doesn’t matter how you try to spin it.
George W. Bush did not serve in Vietnam. Neither did Cheney.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 10, 2009 2:13:39 PM
Not spinning anything. Just keeping the uninformed informed.
“when he was younger and not employed anywhere, passed up his chance for a lovely, moving romantic fling with danger in the jungles of Southeast Asia.”
Posted by: Alyson | Nov 7, 2009 9:42:29 PM
Alyson is incorrect….
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 10, 2009 3:44:57 PM
Ha!
Gotta love that your is Bernard “the dictionary is liberal” Golderg. The man is bold-faced liar who shows utter contempt for his readers’ google skills. Try googling this from the New York Observer: “Bernard Goldberg’s lost fact about Mary Mapes had already been revealed publicly by… Mary Mapes, Felix Gillette:
“Before Bernard Goldberg gets any more excited about the “secret” revelations on page 130 of the 2005 Boccardi-Thornburgh report, he should really check out another page in the whole Dan Rather vs. CBS vs. President Bush saga.
Mr. Goldberg, please turn your attention to page 65 of Truth and Duty, by Mary Mapes.”
In any event, my wording was off in an effort to cut to the chase. Because you all require such precision when talking about Republican politicians (but never Dems, quite the opposite), let me rephrase for you–
“when he was younger and not employed anywhere, allegedly volunteered for a chance for a lovely, moving romantic fling with danger in the jungles of Southeast Asia, but didn’t press the point despite being well-connected and the need for soldiers. In fact,after receiving $1 million worth of free government flight training as member of Texas Air National Guard, pilot George Bush diappeared from his Guard duty in April 1972. From that point until he was discharged almost two years later, Bush went unsupervised. He refused to take a mandatory physical. He failed to show up for mandatory training sessions. He tried to transfer to a unit in Alabama that had NO airplanes. ”
Feel better?
The fact remains he didn’t serve in Viet Nam, and IMHO ( and not just MY opinion) his remarks were incredibly, incredibly tone-deaf. They stunned me, and trust me, I never ever expected much, though I did pray often for him. And the country.