On Afghanistan, President Obama Presses Pentagon for More Information Before Making Decision

This is pathetic. Soldiers in Afghanistan are twisting in the wind while Obama seeks a plan that ensures that only George Bush could be blamed for its failure and removes Obama from any responsibility.
It’s too bad we can’t go back a year to when Obama had all the answers.
BTW, has Obama gotten Osama yet? He said it going to be so easy….

Dither dither dither dither.
Cheney was right.

I understand Obama wanted to be “sure-footed” in making such an important decision.
But the time for dithering is over. He cannot leave our men and women fighting in Afghanistan without proper cover and leave them “out to dry”.
Obama: PULLL THEM ALL OUT NOW or SEND MORE TROOPS!!!!!

How pathetic can you get? This Prsident puts on a “Photo Op” w/both the Ft. Hood tradegy & Veterans Day, then heads off to Asia while “making this decision?” Here’s my logic. 1)No leader I know of would praise his young volunteers as our country’s greatest generation to turn around the next day and kick ‘em the teeth. Just take a look at how FAST he wants Health Care to pass — but our soldiers on the ground warrant dithering. 2) If he keeps this up, the American public will give up and tell him to “bring them home” and Obamma gets a pass to blame Bush for all of Afghanistan.
Obamma — you have awoken a sleeping giant. America, we must start Impeachment proceedings NOW.
Relative of an Arlington Cemetery occupant.
Obamma, you have awoken a sleeping giant. Time for impeachment of this jerk.

It’s a relief to see a president actually think through the problem. For the people saying 40,000 troups or pull out. It’s that mentality that gets us into trouble.
First off ask yourself some questions:
Do we need to be fighting the Taliban?
Do we have a government partner?
What is the endpoint?
What is our goal?
Do we want to rebuild afghanistan and pour billions into the country that progress can never take root in?
It’s abundantly clear that Afghanistan is dire and the best solution is to pull out but continue to have Al Qaeda quarantined in Wazirstan.

Seeing this through the eyes of a father who’s son 21 year old son, is on this 2nd deployment in Afghanistan. I relize the importance of this decision, but Obama, give these men and women who are fighting for our freedom a decision. Yes or No!!!!!!!! Their lives are depending on it. Make a stand.

No one argues that he should not be
thoughtful on his decision. This has
been going on since August. His indecision
shows this is a political decision, not
a conviction driven decision. He is the
one who called this the right war and this
should have been the emphasis all along.
His “thinking and pondering” makes this
country look weak and he looks like a
person who has no leadership qualities
and proves again he is in over his head.
He should be back in Illinois where
voting “present” on things was acceptable. Your not in Ill. anymore
Toto.

C’mon folks, don’t you know that what Emperor O’Babble wanted was for someone to bring a white flag to the meeting as the perfect solution ?

Dithering ….. BO …… BS …… Cannot decide ….. when it comes to supporting soldiers …… weak ….
indecisive ….. great for terrorism…

some idiot says ****This is what happens when you send a boy to do a man’s job. The Presidency is no job for an inexperienced rookie. This country is in deep trouble.**** So you have a problem with actually thinking through a problem before jumping? It’s your kind of thinking that got us into this mess to start with. Thank God you and your kind are out!!

Many of you here are sitting criticizing Obama when he is doing the right thing. Many of you have no idea what the situation of Afghanistan is or anything about the geography of the county. Afghan has very few major cities. Most of the population are in tribal and small villages within Afghanistan. The dilemma here is that the the current Afghan government favors the northern alliance, not that most of you know who that is, but hasn’t worked on partnering and forming alliance with the tribes that make up most of the population. Obama wants the Afghan government to put forth more effots on consolidating the country as one. Right now the people in the country are fragment into different factions. Many of these have no say or power in the created afghan supposed constitution. What are we suppose to do send more of our soldier over there to die. We need to solve the problem at the source. The Taliban are winning over people more and more each day by saying that they have no representation which is true. Many of you have no idea what your talking about which is sad. Why not read a book or something? Learn the geography of the country the actual situation taking place before making stupid comments.

“So you have a problem with actually thinking through a problem before jumping? It’s your kind of thinking that got us into this mess to start with. Thank God you and your kind are out!! ”
BP I think the problem is Obama told us before he was elected that he had a plan. It is now obvious that after almost a year, he never did. He lied about being ready to lead and people will loose their sons because of it. Had he not campaigned on the premise that he already had a plan and knew what to do, this wouldn’t be so bad. People had faith in his word and now we realize his word isn’t worth much. He turned out to be nothing more than another lying politician.

If your neighbors house is burning, and people are dying, how long should you think about it before doing something?
What type of hose to use? Full Review
Which fire company to call? Full Review
How many people to man the hoses? Full Review
No! You just do it.

A knee jerk reaction is what got us into the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan. I compliment President Obama for THINKING BEFORE ACTING, especially when lives are involved. For those of you urging immediate action, what would you do? The truth is you have no idea. There is too much at risk to take another shot in the dark.

John – I agree. I think he should wait until AFTER 11/2012… after all, if he doesn’t get re-elected, then it isn’t his problem any more, and he will have avoided making ANY decision. He can then blame Bush… again….

I compliment President Obama for THINKING BEFORE ACTING, especially when lives are involved.
Posted by: John | Nov 12, 2009 12:09:33 PM
John, consider how much time and information the President has ACTUALLY had:
- Access to the same public information as you and I since we entered Afghanistan
- Time to run for the Senate and win
- Time to be a U.S. Senator and most likely had access to more detailed information about Afghanistan
- Time to campaign for the Presidency and win
- Time for his transition period and to be proclaimed the most prepared President ever by the media
- Over a year since winning the election to formulate a plan for Afghanistan
- Since taking the oath of office, complete access to everything
- 10 months as acting President
How much more time and input does he need? He has had time to do everything else – which has been well documented over the past 10 months – and we are to believe the war in Afghanistan – the necessary war – and the protection of our brave soldiers is a priority for him?

Is a darn shame this so called President is afraid of his own shadow,he can not make a decision,maybe his prompters were missing in the meeting.? I say let get our boys out of there now bring them home.This war has been going on long before Bush and will continue to go on. Why deal with a bunch of Muslim extreme nuts there,let them hang themselves,who cares. Get our men out now Mr Presidente simple solution.What have you got to lose you have done enough damage already.

Lets see Bush and Cheney, and the GOP war machine, Failed to win the Afghan war in 8 long years due to their incompetence and mismanagement.
Posted by: brian | Nov 12, 2009 12:05:50 PM
Too funny. Now that the Iraq war is showing great progress it’s all about the Afghan war. Way to go brian. As some people here love to say, “think for yourself brian instead of just parroting liberal talking points.”

the military leaders have expressed that mr. obama has time to reflect further and make the right decision, because troops could not start flowing until next year. why are you so freaking opposed to the man trying not to lock us into and open-ended confrontation that will indefinitely put our young men and women (perhaps your young man or woman) in further harm’s way? mr. bush, in a huge photo op, declared, banner’s and all, ‘Mission Accomplished’. kind of jumped the gun a little, eh? why would you push mr. obama to jump the gun when he knows, per his military leaders, that he has the time to make the best possible decision? it is evident that he cannot make the right decision to please our far right bretheren….send more troops? wrong. send less troops? wrong? prop a corrupt government? wrong. get involved in their government? wrong. the worst part is, he cannot lead this nation as long as we keep whining at each other like spoiled children. this is not our father’s world anymore (i say that as a 56 year old whose father was a part of ‘the greatest generation’). god i wish it was, but if you don’t recognize that today’s world is about the size of a golf ball, and that everything affects everything: financially, racially, spiritually, you name it. without casting aspersions on the previous administration, the simple truth is that there are a lot of huge problems on our president’s plate, and i guarantee he is trying hard not to repeat mistakes. you and i don’t carry this weight, we sit at our computers and call him and each other names. give the man some time on this issue, unless you know more than the military advisors who have not once used the word ‘procrastination’ in reference to mr. obama’s deliberate attempt to get it right.

Do you think he can hold out for three more years before he sends help?? This way he can campain he did not during his past administration

I suggest you do some independent research rather than regurgitate that long-debunked liberal tripe.
Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 12, 2009 12:32:19 PM
LOL. I suggest you do some independent research rather than spin the circumstances into the best possible light for the wrong side of the argument, turning a vaguely valid point or two into total malarkey.
Exaggeration and sleight of hand is tricky, sure, you get points for that–but doesn’t make your post accurate. Unless you’re going to make your case with a firm grasp on truth or facts, save the lectures about tripe for the gullible and misinformed.
Wanna highlight “foolish talk” ? Here ya go:”At this point, I think it’s clear he was just saying whatever he needed to in order to get elected.”
The choices available when it comes to both Afghanistan and Iran are excruciating– and a lot of us appreciate thoroughness.
Nice posts, William Joseph, dowell, J Carson and bp :>)
Sure that’s just your opinion– but if you’re going

Obama is brilliant: he promised he would not send troops into harm’s way unless it was absolutely necessary, and he is keeping that promise by making the whole upper echelon of the Pentagon work their butts off and earn their keep before the ranks are sent to do the work. This is so much smarter than just giving the generals (and the defence industries) what they want whenever they want it.

Now we have to wait some more? I am sure the soldiers dying in Afghanistan will understand. Obama is moving independents back to the republicans 52%-30% and this after only 10 months cant wait to see what he can do by the 2010 elections. At this rate Republicans might actually get the Majority back. Way to go Mr. President!

Can you imagine where our nation would/would not have been if BHO had been Commander in Chief instead of FDR during WWII?

dowell: “. . . can you say ‘Mission Accomplished’?”
Yes, I can, and it was. The mission Bush spoke of was the “major combat operations” to that point. You know, the part where we invaded Iraq and took control of the country. This wasn’t to say we are done and are coming home. If that’s what you understood, you were sadly wrong. Bush felt it appropriate to pat the back of our fighting men and women with a job well done. Why don’t you go back to your count-down with Keith and let the reasonable among us continue serious discussion.

to ‘G’
don’t talk to me about photo ops. can you say ‘Mission Accomplished’?
Posted by: dowell | Nov 12, 2009 12:43:51 PM
***
No kidding… I was actually going to add something on my last post semi-related to the photo opp thing about a great article I read about the President at Arlington yesterday– but I got distracted and the last line makes no sense. Anyway…
Check out “My solemn meeting on Veterans Day with President Obama at my friend’s resting place in Arlington” at Daily News. It’s by James Gordon Meek.
He says something about if others who complain about Obama and photo opps could have seen him there and looked in his eyes, they’d choke either see him differently or choke on their own bile.
Or was it their own vileness?

“”"”making the whole upper echelon of the Pentagon work their butts off and earn their keep before the ranks are sent to do the work. This is so much smarter than just giving the generals (and the defence industries) what they want whenever they want it. “”"”
Posted by: Penny – Canada
Actually, for the general’s, strategy is common knowledge, but transferring that knowledge into something Obama can understand (due to lack of military experience) is where they are having their problems. All of the questions he asked are directly related to the Iraq war. How and when we will train and turn over the country to their forces will go almost exactly as it did in Iraq. The Afghani’s are more illiterate so we can expect some extra time due to training. NOBODY can give an exact exit time as we really do need to KILL the enemy first to create such an environment needed to ensure training is not interrupted. Now send the freekin’ troops or pull out completely!

Allycat 521: “. . . spin the circumstances into the best possible light for the wrong side of the argument, turning a vaguely valid point or two into total malarkey.”
Pointing out facts is not “spin.” It’s spin to act like Saddam had nothing to do with al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 which is what the poster I was replying to claimed and what most on the left claim. It’s just not true.
And, I like how you’ve decided what the “right” side of the argument is without acknowledging facts to the contrary. Do you mind pointing out what’s “vaguely valid” versus “total malarkey?” Sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to me. I’ve referenced facts, you’ve referenced your heavily-biased opinion. Those serious about the issues care about the facts.
Allycat 521: “Wanna highlight “foolish talk” ? Here ya go:”At this point, I think it’s clear he was just saying whatever he needed to in order to get elected.”"
So, Obama is the “hope and change you can believe in” then, huh? That’s not what many on the left-wing are saying.

Obama is the “hope and change you can believe in” then, huh? That’s not what many on the left-wing are saying.
Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 12, 2009 1:29:41 P
THAT is what follows for you from what I said? You don’t see the leaps of logic? You don’t care?
Jump and flap!!
LOL!!

By HELENE COOPER
Published: February 17, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Tuesday that he would send an additional 17,000 American troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer, putting his stamp firmly on a war that he has long complained is going in the wrong direction.
At least for now, Mr. Obama’s decision gives American commanders in Afghanistan most but not all of the troops they had asked for. But the decision also carries political risk for a president who will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
American generals in Afghanistan had been pressing for additional forces to be in place by late spring or early summer to help counter growing violence and chaos in the country. Of the 30,000 additional troops that the commanders had initially sought, some 6,000 arrived in January after being sent by President Bush.—————
These troops should have been sent a long time ago. After those 6000, it stopped. Now, take a look at the date of the report. February, which means the troops began deployment and then when Obama was sworn in it stopped. Truth be told.

Allycat 521: “. . . the last line makes no sense.”
I would argue much more than the last line makes no sense.
Allycat 521: “You don’t see the leaps of logic? You don’t care? Jump and flap!!”
I just simply can’t understand what you’re saying. I’ve brought to the table easy to understand facts, and you’ve brought biased opinion and unintelligible non-sense. I’m done wasting my time on you.

“Pointing out facts is not “spin.” It’s spin to act like Saddam had nothing to do with al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 which is what the poster I was replying to claimed and what most on the left claim. It’s just not true.”
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
I
raq had some limited contact with Al Queda operatives but not the Atta one of the 9/11 hijackers as Cheney the proven liar stated.
Saddam main support of terrorism was paying bounties to suicide bombers families.
A despicable business but not on par with say arming or creating terrorist orgs like Iran or Syria.
So where are all the WMDs?

“The dem controlled congress would not fund the war the last two years of Bush”
What an utter and complete lie.
Which funding bill for Iraq or Afghanistan was not approved by Congress?

RyanC,
Imagine for a minute that the US policy under Bush was ‘containment’ of Saddam.
Where would we be today?
Would Saddam still be under UN sanctions? How much money would he have made in 6 yrs from oil at $100 a barrel?
Do you think he would have sat around and let Iran go nuclear?
Even Libya was able to buy the technology to make the bomb…Saddam wouldn’t? He feared Iran more than the U.S.
Iraqis are more technologically capable than you think.Read the Duelfer Report.
This President could have ‘inherited’ worse.

This president has no convictions. He
wants to rule based on whats good politically for him and his liberal
friends. That spells danger for this
country. You know, its all about him.
His cocky and self-assured ways and words
give me no comfort. If this political life
does not work out for him, next stop
Hollywood as I would think he would win
an Oscar. He has quite an actor. He is
an iceman.

BS – Obama can not make a decision out of fear of a Muslim backlash; he is not supporting our troops in Afganistan as the General asked in August 2009 for reinforcements; that was 4 months ago. Obama is a weak sister; our enemies know this and so does our US troops; how sad.

Democrats funded the war in Iraq during Bush’s last two years.
In fact they spent more on everything than Bush proposed. Obama was a big part of that spending. Obama voted for all those budgets which he whines about “inheriting.”

Our president is dismissed by world leaders.
He looks inept and out of his league.
Like Carter, he will make us feel like a 3rd rate country.
I voted for Carter as an idealistic student. I was shattered when he lost re-election.
Today, I wish he never existed.
Obama will be the same for todays youth.

Wow, this is like watching a Shrek movie only in reverse with the Obama asking are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet? Man talk about an administration that cannot operate without Polosi telling what way to walk and talk.

what a radical concept by Pres Obama, wanting a strategy to achieve winning a war, but when and how to leave,….. wow, amazing republicans never thought of that, but then, they just like to start wars and keep them going forever for their defense buddies and to make some macho political statements

“In fact they spent more on everything than Bush proposed. Obama was a big part of that spending. Obama voted for all those budgets which he whines about “inheriting.”"
So the Democrats spent more on the war effort than Bush wanted?

I really wish Obama would be supportive of the troops in deeds. Thst is the problem. Without giving them proper support, he is just leaving them hangng.
I know it doesn’t matter to moonbats who just want to retreat, but to the mainstream, it looks like he just doesn’t know what he is doing.

Posted by: TX_MBell | Nov 12, 2009 2:23:31 PM
———————————-
my 21 year old son sent me this yesterday…I still hold out hope for the future :)
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”-Winston Churchill.
I feel like this is specifically demonstrated in the last election.
“So what do you think of Obamas choice of Sarah Palin as VP?”-Reporter trying to trick someone. That person responding, “I absolutely love his choice, they will do great things! “

If you seriously cared you would use a different tone in all your discussions. Actually you don’t even sound like the same person.
pasting lines out of context is your little group of bloggers m.o. not average folks like me.”
Who are you talking to?
This guy?
“This president has no convictions. He
wants to rule based on whats good politically for him and his liberal
friends.”
This guy?
“Our president is dismissed by world leaders.
He looks inept and out of his league.”

I CANNOT WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION!!!! IF OBAMA’S LIPS ARE MOVING HE IS EITHER SMILING FOR THE CAMERA OR LYING!

Obama is the worst president in American history

Here’s a disgusting Republican…he fits right win with some of the posters here
“Yesterday, Colorado State Sen. Dave Schultheis (R-Colorado Springs) caught fire for posting a tweet saying President Obama “is flying the U.S. Plane right into the ground at full speed.” He also included “Let’s roll” in the tweet, the rallying cry made famous by Todd Beamer’s reported use of it aboard United Airlines Flight 93 before thwarting 9/11 hijackers.
Schultheis is now defending the language — and saying he didn’t intend to make a reference to that particular flight.
“‘Let’s roll.’ It’s a comment people use all the time any more. ‘Let’s get going. Let’s move on. Let’s make major changes,’” Schultheis said according to The Denver Post. “I can see it now. But, you’re busy doing jillions of things during the day. You sometimes don’t analyze every single word.”"
So is he a complete moron or just sleazy?

the difference ryan is that you are personally attacking the blogger. they are speaking about policy or a government official.

OBAMA STANDS BY WHILE AMERICANS DIE!!!

So is he a complete moron or just sleazy?
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 12, 2009 2:55:24 PM
***
That’s the question I ask about too many folks these days.

“Ryan C– You would be doing better if you linked oil prices to speculators than Iraq.”
Yes and the speculators did so based on our invasion of Iraq and the subsequent interruption of oil from that country and fear of destabilization of the region.
Or are you stating that oil would have risen to $100+ a barrel had we done nothing in Iraq?

Ryan C – you are right and further more -”What would Saddam be doing today if he was still in power in Iraq?” He would be building nuclear weapons to keep up with his neighbor Iran and fellow dictators in North Korea and China without any fear from this weak president Obama from stopping him. Thank God Bush/Cheney had that foresight to remove Saddam from power.

this nastiness is counterproductive.
Posted by: wow
————————————–
so why do so many republicans and ‘tea partyers’ continue to call Obama .. ‘hitler’..
Posted by: YO | Nov 12, 2009 2:38:30 PM
______________________________________
I think that is counterproductive too.
I think many people are not happy with the way government is taking over so much of our economy and becoming more intrusive in our lives. They are afraid that we are becoming more and more socialist or even fear we could become a fascist country. Hitler to them represents that fear.
I would hope people could relay their concerns in a more productive way.

As I sit here and read all the emotional, knee jerk reactionary comments, all I can do is sadly shake my head. 95% of you only “react” to “soundbites” from the media and never think anything through. For once we have an intelligent leader who will not allow the military industrial complex “to just have their way”. A leader who will make a long term decsion, not a short term one. A leader who wants a plan for a hugely important decision that is cost us huge amounts of money AND American lives. And all many of you can do is offer your emotional, knee jerk comments. I’ll take this type of a leader over the ignorant dimwit we had for eight years any day.

“Do you believe, when a nation is at war, the war and military should be the top priority of the CiC?”
yes and after 7 years of not paying attention then rushing head long into military engagements, I am glad Obama is taking the time to figure out what our strategy is going to be.
6 years Afghanistan festered while Bush paid attention to fixing his folly in Iraq.
You’re screaming about him taking 4 months to decide on a complete strategy.

“”"”Or are you stating that oil would have risen to $100+ a barrel had we done nothing in Iraq?”"”
Posted by: Ryan C
Tensions with Iran and a nuke program helped speculator spike prices last year, it had nothing to do with Iraq. Terrorists threats to pipelines spike prices all the time. I would say those dots are not connected with Iraq at all.

Personally, i think the strategy could be accomplished in the following manner:
Based on the strongholds the US and allies, current have,
1. they could maintain a perimeter, strongest at the furthest points.
2. Replace allied soldiers in every district, from the inside out. As Afghan soldiers are trained, they will take the place of the allies while the Allies are pushed further and further to those established perimeters. This will ensure that the ally soldiers are safe and the in-training Afghan soldiers don’t face immediately front line conflict.
3. While this is going on, infrastructure builders can be inside the safe perimeters repairing roads and buildings and establishing schools and training facilities.
4. Time line can be determined by how successfully the Afghan soldiers are trained and can maintain their posts.
Is this far? or and I dumb about something…

hope all you people who voted the “feel good racial vote” learned a lesson, you proved you were not racists, but that you are idiots and have probably destroyed our country.”
I love the racist right wingers who think people voted for Obama based on his race.
Don’t worry, the same number of folks who voted for Obama because of his skin colors likely equals the numbers that voted against him because of his skin color (both of which are a small percentage) so it all balances out.

And honestly YO the left did that to Bush also. The radical fringes on both sides always seem to bring out the worst in us.

“Tensions with Iran and a nuke program helped speculator spike prices last year, it had nothing to do with Iraq.”
And the speculator spike would not have been possible without the earlier spikes related to the invasion. Because now the market just kind of shrugs its shoulders at $20 swings when 10 years ago $5 was a big deal.
Again your contention that oil prices rising had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq is laughable on its face.

“”"”Of course Iran and North Korea developed their nukes on Bush’s watch as a bulwark against US invasion.”"”"
Posted by: Ryan C
How’s it feel to lie Ryan? Iran “is developing right now. NK was in 6 nation talks and began dismantling one reactor. AFTER Obama came into power, NK balked and then wanted bilateral talks instead. Why would they do that? Maybe they thought under Obama they could get more?? NK didn’t have to make nukes, they just bought them. Iran has the missile capability but not the nuke yet. You say they are building it to counter our invasion? Iran stated theris were for power gen only, not as you stated…Oooops! NK has always stated they are wary of an invasion, but at least Bush had them at the table and IAEA was there to watch their initial closing of the plant.

Wasn’t it “fun” to make history last November? Electing an inexperienced-but-cute black guy with funny-looking ears to the Presidency?
Now we’re all living (and dying) with the aftermath – it’s a lot like a hangover, don’t you agree?
He’s supposed to be the Commander-In-Chief, but he looks a lot more like a Pelosi finger-puppet to me, ‘cept she’s got her fingers in some real funny places…
Hey, Obama!!! Where’s that “plan” for Afghanistan that you spoke of PRIOR to the election??? Oh, so, you’re now just makin’ it up as you go??? SURPRISE!!!! Not!

Of course the options are limited in Afghanistan. That’s what happens when you divert resources to Iraq, making the primary war – secondary! Those blundering buffoons, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, have made today’s situation very difficult! What would it be like today had we stay focused – instead of pursuing Bush’s personal war?? When you have a “recovered” alcoholic for president, anything can happen – and did in the last administration! The “Corrupticans” have created a real problem for the Obama administration!

Obama looks spaced-out, like his mind is elsewhere. I know he’s a PUPPETTE, but gees……….

“One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda.” – Douglas MacArthur

Ryan C: “So the waves of violence and bombings, the lack of electricity and clean water, the armed gang patrolling their neighborhoods, basically the 3 years after invasion that the Bush admin had no plan for. That was all a country under control? BTW is the Iraq war over?”
Yeah, Saddam left his country in pretty poor shape. Once we invaded and deposed Saddam, we controlled the the country. Elections were held, the insurgency was stomped out, and democracy prevailed. We will continue to play a security roll there for some time, but yes, the war as represented by major combat operations is over. You really should pickup a history book sometime.
Ryan C: “”I said to that point. Try to follow along.” So you were lying then.”
A, no. At that point, major combat operations had ended. We invaded the country and took control of it. I’m not going to continue to repeat myself. Especially, to someone who continuously denies the very well documented and undisputed facts.
Ryan C: “Ohg no I was well aware we were going to be in Iraq for a long long time.”
Then why do you continue to misrepresent the “mission accomplished” moment when it was nothing more than an acknowledgment that the push to invade and take control of Iraq had succeeded. That wasn’t to say it was all secure and we could return home. To make Iraq stable required the insurgency be wiped out and the democratic process needed to take place. Since our military has been allowed to do just that, we have slowly been able to send troops home. War can be long and unpredictable. It’s a good thing we had a president that was willing to sacrifice his popularity for the good of the people. If Democrats had their way, we would have left Iraq and terrorists would have taken over. Tell me why we should have listened to you again?
Ryan C: “. . . declaration to the end of major combat operations less than 3 months into a long war and occupation all the stranger.”
It’s only strange to those who, for political purposes, intentionally misinterpret and misunderstand the meaning of Bush’s declaration. For the rest of us, it was an informational declaration meaning our troops did well in deposing Saddam and his regime.

Yeah, Saddam left his country in pretty poor shape. Once we invaded and deposed Saddam, we controlled the the country. Elections were held, the insurgency was stomped out, and democracy prevailed.”
That happened before May of 2003 when Bush said Mission Accomplished?
BTW the insurgency is still around.
“You really should pickup a history book sometime.”
But the fairy tales you write are so much more interesting.
Ya know when we weren’t in Iraq for 7 years but just 3 months and that the insurgency did not explode in fall of 2003 for the next 3 years but was stomped out that previous spring.
So in your version of WW2 do we go straight from Pearl to the VJ day?

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” – George S. Patton

“”"it was an informational declaration meaning our troops did well in deposing Saddam and his regime.”"”
Posted by: Anonymous
Careful, the very next post will say “Iraq was a useless war and waste of money”. It’s a sound bite used on a regular basis. I was in Iraq and I can only hope there is a day when someone like Ryan C would just say thanks and good job. All the bickering about “useless wars” is ridiculous and looking in the past. I was in the service and did not vote for Bush in his 2nd term because of Afghanistan, but we can still make it right. I also believe 10 weeks with the assessment and absolutely nothing done is not acceptable. Let’s hope there is a decision soon.

Apparently, the need for cannon fodder will not get a blank check approval from Pres. Obama who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of our military which is in direct contrast to a former president who sent them in harm’s way without proper equipment, adequate medical facilities and very little training in urban warfare. Thinking people see too much of Vietnam in Afghanistan and know from that foreign policy debacle that enough is more than enough and getting out should be a priority before more of our warriors are killed in vain. We’ve been through this before and nearly 60,000 names on black granite in DC should mean more to us today than the sport of war did in the 60′s and 70′s. They all died, needlessly, and today, we see Communist merchandise in stores being sold wile Americans are out of work. The criminal government in Afghanistan can prop itself up without the US suffering any further bloodshed.

so many statements to remember from the previous administration:
was always partial to this nonsensical one..
‘the iraq war will pay for itself’

RyanC, you are right…the mission wasn’t accomplished when Bush proclaimed it was…that was a HUGE political mistake and I don’t think the a civilian CIC should don a military uniform and fly onto a carrier…that was bad form, at minimum.
But what is your point- the war turned based on the President’s commitment to see it through (despite objections from this President it wouldn’t work), Iraq is no longer a totalitarian dictatorship invading its neighbors and supporting terrorists, not to mention the people’s freedom and, Iraq may just be able to take care of itself without US troops.
Why object to success, even though it dragged on for yrs and there is plenty of blame to go around?

Fallujah was a major combat operation as was the surge
Posted by: Ryan C
correct,..
only those who seek to deny historical fact would not understand that point

Anonymous: “A, no. At that point, major combat operations had ended. We invaded the country and took control of it. I’m not going to continue to repeat myself.”
Ryan C: “98% of the casualties (our soldiers and their civilians) occurred after he said Mission Accomplished.
Fallujah was a major combat operation as was the surge.”
The problem there, Ryan, is that Fallujah and all those casualties you speak of happened in the future. Since the future hadn’t happened yet, and the mission to depose Saddam and his regime is the mission he was talking about, it was perfectly accurate to describe that mission as accomplished. You really have to try to not understand.

ROTC —- It is almost as good as
“this $1.2 trillion health care bill will be deficit neutral”.

BTW… 288 AMERICAN soldiers have been KILLED since Obama raised his right hand…. 76 in July, 77 in August, 70 in September, 74 in October…
MAKE A DECISION, MORON!!!!!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: I feel bad for the troops more than anything else that it diminished what they did accomplish.
From Wiki:
Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier’s 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying “It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew.”

Cindy: “I’m proud we finally have a president who isn’t worried about the popularity contests . . .”
If Bush was so worried about popularity, he would have surely pulled out of Iraq after nearly everyone in the country lost their stomach for it. Instead, he “stayed the course” at the price of his and his party’s popularity. The Democrat take-over of the legislative and executive branches is a testament to that. I’d rather have a president willing to risk it all for the security of our nation, than the spineless, fool of a president we have now who seems to be waiting for the right political alignment before rendering a decision. I’d rather have the “decider” than the “seller.”

Great Leader!, Pentagon submits numerous strategies,, but BO rejects them all, Why doesn’t he tell the Generals EXACTLY what he wants. He took office in Jan and still can’t decide what strategy to use in Afghan?? Kids are dying while Nero fiddles!!

you can’t compare iraq and afghanistan. iraq was/is a relatively modernized country, afghanistan is relatively unchanged from ancient times. there is no way to win control in afghanistan considering the fact that there are hardly any cities there to begin with. if the plan is to keep troops there forever in an effort to minimize the influence of al qaeda and the taliban, then say that’s the goal. but we’ll never exert any actual control over the country or the people…it’s simply impossible. quite frankly, i’m not even sure it’s possible to do much on anything there…it’s pretty much a hopeless situation.

sentinel, they’re all corrupt…democrats and republicans…don’t fool yourself into thinking that obama and biden are any different from any other set of self-aggrandizing gasbag politicians.

“”"I’m happy President Obama doesn’t let pressure from the media push him into a decision as important as one he is about to make. “”"”
Posted by: dan
Again, you’re right. Obama is using political popularity as his guide.

dan – You said “I am glad we have a President that uses his brain to make decisions and wants’ ALL the information before he makes a decision…”
Gee, maybe you’re right… he could make this a doctoral thesis, study it for the next 4-6 years, spend LOTS of money on research, and then report back to “We the People” (and the dead soldiers waiting by the phone for an answer), and likely earning an “honorary” Ph.D. to put next to his “honorary” Nobel Peace Prize.
ROTFLMFAO!!!!
You Obamanauts KILL me!!!

“The problem there, Ryan, is that Fallujah and all those casualties you speak of happened in the future. Since the future hadn’t happened yet, and the mission to depose Saddam and his regime is the mission he was talking about”
So declaring Mission Accomplished was ok because how could Bush foresee the insurgency.
The right wing idiocy is quite stunning.

Now, compare that to any other war in history! Iraq 1 will probably come out on top and then….?”
So 4000+ dead is no big deal because its low historically for war.
I guess the right wing is back to minimalizing casualties after the very recent and very obviously insincere interest in casualties in Afghanistan.

“Right, the Battle of Fallujah became part of the “securing and reconstructing” that Bush spoke of while declaring major combat operations over as related to the deposing of Saddam and his regime. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to educate you and the others here confused about this.”
ROFLMAO!
The dishonesty really is inherent to the right wing ideology.
Regardless of actual facts they just give you the Bush story line.

Ryan C: “So 4000+ dead is no big deal because its low historically for war.”
Not at all. We just keep things in fair perspective and don’t blow things out of proportion to suit our politics. I know that’s foreign to those on the left, but us conservatives are a principled bunch.

“Once again, no. Declaring major combat operations over as related to the deposing of Saddam and his regime was okay because it was true.”
So Neville Chamberlain proclaiming he had achieved peace in our time was true because at the time he said it the world was at peace and we should ignore what happened afterwards.
Just like we should ignore major combat operations undertaken in Iraq post May 2003 because Bush said Mission Accomplished.
The right wing idiocy is plumbing new depths.

gingerprice | Nov 12, 2009 3:21:23 PM posted: “I hope all you people who voted the “feel good racial vote” learned a lesson, you proved you were not racists, but that you are idiots and have probably destroyed our country.”
Common ginger, anyone who voted for Obama is an idiot and a racist who has probably destroyed our country???
I’m curious, have you read anything about the long history of warfare in the quagmire called Afghanistan?
Did you know McChrystal has a credibility problem?

I think it may be time to bringthe troops back. Obama is clearly so incompetent that his poliices will get them all killed. Once we get this dope out of office and get a real president, we can send the troops back over to finish the job.

We won. American power succeeded in defeating tyranny once again.
Can the President just say it once?
Posted by: J House | Nov 12, 2009 4:31:29 PM
____
Should he stand in front of a Mission Accomplished banner while combat troops remain in Iraq?
(And yeah, okay, I don’t want to diminish what WAS accomplished but the right has a way of harping on how tone deaf they believe our current president is. Some of us can’t forget how tone deaf and incompetent and warmongering that last one was– despite the fact that right doesn’t want us to mention him. Plus as Ryan posted White House alleged that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship, who did not have the facilities for producing such a banner. Afterwards, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy’s idea but White House staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN “We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up– and so on. Spin and malarkey)
Back on point, from what I recall the end of combat troops in Iraq is scheduled to be August 2010, yes?
You want Obama to chest-thump and declare victory before then?
Most people weren’t really into the last President’s faux tough guy schtick.
This is war, not a Texas high school football game.
Let’s wait till most of our troops are out of the country to declare victory– and even then shouldn’t we be a little modest in our chest-thumping? The world is watching, and while I hope ultimately the Iraqis will be better off, and I don’t miss Saddam Hussein, we shouldn’t have declared war on Iraq in the first place.

Did I miss anything? Is Ryan C still fighting the Bush administration? Wah Wah sniffle sniffle. Well I want to talk about how its all Clinton and Gore’s fault! They stood did nothing about Osama even after the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the first World Trade Center attack, the Khobar Towers etc etc. It was all Clinton’s fault and the limp wristed, weak knee’d liberal left wing pansies!

Allycat, from my read, it doesn’t appear the President has much of a chest to thump…
My point was, ‘what does the President want in Afghanistan? If he isn’t there to ‘win it’, then get out and quit endangering our troops for what would be nothing more than political posturing.
He asked his commanders for a strategy, and troop levels to support it…they delivered months ago and here we are.
NOW WHAT? The can has been kicked down the road for months.

Did we not surge in Iraq? Did we not train Iraqi’s? Did we not turn over all major areas? I don’t think we need to invent the wheel here. We definitely have a good template to start from.
Posted by: lfrichar | Nov 12, 2009 4:25:57 P
you can’t compare iraq and afghanistan …
Posted by: davidfrat21 | Nov 12, 2009 4:54:08 PM
I agree with David, as I think most people do. Per TNR (Steven Metz):
Americans are an impatient people, and their military perhaps more so. The military culture is geared toward quick and decisive action rather than protracted deliberation. It seeks clear victory rather than threat management. This is the reason that counterinsurgency itself–a process that takes years or decades and often leads to an ambiguous outcome rather than clear victory–is particularly difficult for the American military. But there is no operational reason for a rapid “surge” of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. In Iraq, there was a window of opportunity which would have closed had the Bush administration not taken advantage of it. All of Iraq’s communities were desperate for a change, so the “surge” of 2007 was the right action at the right time. There is no such closing window in Afghanistan: Nothing suggests that a major increase in the U.S. military presence would capitalize on an opportunity which might not be available later. Time is not running out. In fact, much of the pressure for a troop increase in Afghanistan is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq. The popular notion is that the Iraq troop “surge” was largely or solely responsible for snatching victory from impending defeat, and this could be replicated in Afghanistan. Neither part of that contention is accurate. The decline of the Iraq insurgency came from a “perfect storm” of conditions, not simply the American troop increase. And, more importantly, Afghanistan is so different in so many ways from Iraq that simply applying the Iraq formula would be ineffective.

but liberating 25 million people is no reason to go around invading countries, I understand.
And going to war and putting to death tyrants who ethnically cleanse their own people is wrong (unless the Europeans go along, like Serbia/Milosevic, than it is ok)
And promoting a democratic nation in the M.E. is complely contrary to U.S. ideals in the world, post WW2, so that is wrong.
You live in an alternative world, sport.
No wonder you voted for this President.
He must have the same model/version chip in his head.
Perhaps they can tune it to emote sympathy when he speaks of the fallen.

“but liberating 25 million people is no reason to go around invading countries, I understand.”
No, it isn’t.
Not when 100,000 of those citizens die because of the decisions WE made, not them.
Our priority in the national security interests of the United States and liberating Iraq was not even close to that.
“And going to war and putting to death tyrants who ethnically cleanse their own people is wrong (unless the Europeans go along, like Serbia/Milosevic, than it is ok)”
Umm the Europeans were desperate to stop the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavian republics.
They begged for our help but we stayed out it until it rumbled up again in
And as I recall right wingers and hardcore anti war lefties (think ANSWER) both blasted the actions undertaken there with right wingers screaming that it was not in our national interest.
So spare me the humanitarian reasons for going to war when they are offered so insincerely.

“Clinton and Gore’s fault! They stood did nothing about Osama even after the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the first World Trade Center attack, the Khobar Towers etc etc.”
Most of the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing were hunted down and are now spending the rest of their lives in SuperMax.
The USS Cole was determined to be the work of Al Queda in early 2001.
And in response to the embassy bombings, Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on suspected terrorist camps.
Right wingers laughed at him for wasting money.

“Thank you for pointing out the obvious to those who don’t get it or won’t admit it.”
It really is frightening that right wingers follow the Iraq war in only two phases, the invasion to Mission Accomplished then the Surge and victory.
Its like jumping from Pearl to the Missouri and pretending the was no hard slog along the way.

RyanC, you want it both ways…going to war to stop a tyrant who ethnically cleanses is ok when the ‘Europeans beg us’ (I ‘beg’ to differ), but not in other cases.
And, you’re ok with leaving Saddam there, to again poison gas the Kurds (that is, unless the ‘Europeans begged us’ to stop it).
What a hypocrite and worse, a really lame argument.
Please, take a debating course and remove your circular logic.

“RyanC, you want it both ways…going to war to stop a tyrant who ethnically cleanses is ok when the ‘Europeans beg us’ (I ‘beg’ to differ), but not in other cases.”
What ethnic cleansing was happening in 2003 that we needed to invade to stop?
I happen to think stopping ethnic cleansing is in our national interest and I was dismayed when we failed to intervene in Rwanda and during the original Bosnian-Serbian war. I guess the difficulty in that is ethnic cleansing usually takes place in the midst of civil war and is hard to verify before much damage is done.
But the sad fact is Saddam raw brutalization of his people had already happened and in fact most of the mass graves we found were from the Shia uprising in 91 if not older.
“And, you’re ok with leaving Saddam there, to again poison gas the Kurds (that is, unless the ‘Europeans begged us’ to stop it).”
Again that happened in 1988.
When Saddam was tight with Reagan and Rummy.

Still dithering, huh, Barry?? Maybe if he’d devote more time and attention to the matter vs. running around trying to accomplish everything and accomplishing nothing (other than bankrupting us and losing jobs), he could arrive at a decision. He’s scattered! Yet another foreign trip with photo ops all along the way (even while refueling in Alaska). He’s proving how inept and weak he really is. After all, his favorite vote when he was the Senator from Illinois was “Present”. And this inexperienced bozo is our president and CIC? God help this country!

I seem to read a lot of comments from all over the web that say Obama is inept in dealing with real issues and one in particular is Afghanistan. I thought he had a plan, that the Iraq war was the wrong war and Afghanistan war is the right war, he was not going to mess around, and he was going to go get Osama, when did this change? It changed because he knows that his Democrat buddies are not going to back him on this one. It changed because if he makes any decision he will not be able to blame Georgie. It seems to be his MOTIF, to NOT make a decision on Afghanistan. I guess he is finding out that campaigning and actually doing something are not quite the same. I am stressed by his lack of understanding on many issues, Economy/falling dollar, health care reform, Military/National Security, and fiscal responsibility, I do believe we are headed down the road of no return, and it is getting more ugly every day.
God Bless America

To all the naysayers about President Obama’s leadership, I say I am glad to call him my president and believe he is an exemplary, prudent leader who was handed a number of bad situations by conservative neo-con wacko’s and free-market cowboy’s with no sense of the future or the real cost of their actions.

tough when you can not vote present.

Maybe Obama can talk the enemy into surrendering!

What do you do when you can’t occupy a country that is too big, and can’t negotiate or rule a country that can’t be ruled…
A sane person realizes the financial and human cost is not worth it and backs away from certain disaster.
An insane person tries to move an immovable force, costing human lives and prosperity in the process.
Do the insane miltary brass want a war so they can get promoted. Sure!
Does Obama have the courage to make the right decision and reverse a self immolating foreign policy that he didn’t create… That is left to him, and him alone…

BRING EM HOME!!! WE’VE HAD ENOUGH.

I Voted For Experience. I Voted For The Maverick! Ya’ll got what ya’ll paid for!And Your All Stuck Till 2012.

dithering part deux

No one wants to talk about Americans dying for nothing except the call to war with lies not prosecuted. Not to mention bushes tax break for the wealthy, Regan showed them how to borrow money for tax shortfall 3 trillion when he left office, chaney bush picked up where he left off we are in dire need of money and borrow is our cry, manufactures have made an economic giant out of china, I’d trade them this war we cant win for there economy, inter net said 49% tax short fall this year, more borrowing, how long?
necessitous men is what dictators emperors war lords are made of Just what I fought against WW2, I sure didn’t fight for wealthy tax breaks and astronomical DEBT it will break a country ask Roman Empire, Latest Russia, spent all there money in Afghanistan, 26 years not a winner.

What’s wrong with this picture?
We didn’t have the time to think about the Stimulus bill, we have to pass it without thinking or even talking about.
We didn’t have time to read the Cap & Trade bill before it had to be passed in order to prevent global catastrophe.
The Senate didn’t even have time to write their version of Nationalized Health Care, before passing it out of committee.
But when it comes to rubber stamping a General’s request for permission to succeed using a strategy that was agreed upon last March, the White House is still dithering, three months after that request was made. A nobel prize, and attempt to get the Olympics for Chicago, numerous campaign appearances, and a lot of great “date nights” and overseas trips for the First Family were evidently more important than supporting our servicemen in combat.
So when did we re-elect Jimmy Carter?

supporting our servicemen in combat.
Posted by: ragnar
just curious, why didn’t Bush send more troops when he received the request..
guess he was Jimmy Carter too….

===========================
Not only is Obama smarter than Wall Street, the automobile industry, the insurance industry and the healthcare industry. Now he’s smarter than every general in the United States military.
===========================
WOW!! All this from a junior senator with less than 2 years of federal government experience.
If the private sector put a CEO in position with less than 2 years experience, we’d say that was nuts.

There must not have been a “Surrender with Apology” option for Obungle to chose.

When the President, who served in Congress 2 years before becoming president, actually believes he knows more than the Pentagon and blows off their recomendations, there’s a BIG problem. It’s called arrogance. Obama obviously wants to be in control over any and everthing. Said state of affairs. This is not the hope and change people thought they were getting.

Obama will be a one term president because he is helping illegal aliens and wants amnesty for them. The majority of the American public do not want amnesty. Furthermore, I think this administration has been to do with the resignation of Lou Dobbs (CNN). The reason? Because Lou Dobbs told us the thruth about illegal aliens and other issues as well. For these issues and the current economy, Barack Obama will not be reelected. I will not vote for Barack Obama.

He is so full of himself
and arrogant, but surely no evidence
he should be that confident because he
comes off as such a dufus.
________________________________
Yet another example of insult and name calling as intelligent political discussion.

Mike From carolina how about this! We Are At War” Make any since? We Are AT War and they WILL come to America again because this president will show them he is a coward just like Jimmy Carter and desk job Clinton

I am not sure we even know who the enemy is anymore. First it was Sadam
then the different groups that struggled
for power after Sadam was gone, then
the Taliban, and then the groups in
Palistine, and then…… I thought
we were suppose to be after Bin Laden?

Good God Almighty !!
When fighting two(2) wars at the same time, one must have first priority for troops and supplies. Wasn’t WWII fought this way and WE WON with the help of OUR ALLIES !
Stop looking for benchmarks for success–This is War !
The only benchmark that really count is the death of our enemies or total surrender. So.
Stop looking at Afghan as Vietnam. It will be helpful to look at that Police Action some 60yrs ago, that has not ended. The Korean War is still alive today and slowly growing stronger.
President Obama DOES NOT have the hearts and mind (real support) for our brave fighting soldiers in todays military.
Obama’s hesitancy is only destorying our troops morale and a distrust among our allies toward the U.S.

“Just like Vietnam. Yes I am a veteran. The politicians ran the war and ignored the in theatre commanders…”
Doesn’t matter. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Pakistan are not “wars” that are going to be won through military action. You can’t conquer Afghanistan – that’s been proven over thousands of years.
The “war on terrorism” is not a military war it is a political one. We have to defend ourselves from terrorism while finding a way to disenfranchise the enemy from their power base.
Just killing guerrillas is not sufficient to stop the threat, you have to cut them off at the source – persuade people that the enemy is does not represent them. Or more importantly that we are not their enemy.