Dec 1, 2009 10:52pm
The Words Not Mentioned
EmailBack in March, in his first major speech on Af-Pak, President Obama did not mention a "democratic" Afghanistan as one of his goals.
He did, however, say the return of Taliban rule would mean, among other things, "the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls."
The issue of rights for women and girls was not mentioned this evening.
–jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Other missing words: victory, win
Posted by: Max | December 1, 2009, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm
I remember reading a book by Richard Wurmbrand, who spent time in communist prisons for his faith. I was struck by his report that many of the prisoners talked about their hope that America would come and rescue them. America? Why, stuck in a prison in eastern Europe somewhere, are you thinking of America? Why not France or Britain, or your own countrymen?
Fact is, much of the world did, and does, look to us as defender #1 of human rights and freedom. We should be honored, and humbled but not ashamed. And we shouldn’t forget it.
Posted by: David | December 1, 2009, 11:12 pm 11:12 pm
Golly whiz…we got to see Obama, live,
on TV! Who cares what he said, or didn’t say? It was OBAMA, live, on TV!
TIVO was invented for moments like these.
Posted by: grizzlybare | December 1, 2009, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
Obama is going to do whatever it takes to keep us safe.
As long as it doesn’t take over 18 months.
And he’s worried about the cost of keeping us safe because it will leave our kids in debt. Forget about how his wild reckless spending has saddled future generations with massive debt.
He’s rediculous.
Posted by: tyler | December 1, 2009, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm
Anyone who bothered to look at Obama’s actual record in office (yes, he had one thousands of votes long in IL) isn’t surprised by this. He is a realist that trends towards the center in action. That’s how he took the law requiring videotaping of confessions from having little support in the IL senate and a promised veto to passing with a wide margin, being signed by the governor, and hailed by both parties as a success years later.
The plan he has laid out makes sense, and I admire his ability to recognize not only the mistakes of the previous administrations but also his own (by acknowledging the success of the surge he opposed in Iraq).
Posted by: jhw539 | December 1, 2009, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm
Obama is going to do whatever it takes to keep us safe.
As long as it doesn’t take over 18 months.
tyler | Dec 1, 2009 11:16:16 PM
I take it you don’t consider the men and women of our armed forces, who have been parked in the ‘graveyard of armies’ for the last 8 years, “us”. Because they sure aren’t kept safe by being put under fire in an aimless and futile attempt to build a nation out of that tribal muck.
Posted by: jhw539 | December 1, 2009, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
How did we win the Cold War without firing a single shot? The Russians went bankrupt and after becoming broken, balkanized and seperated into different states. America is following this entire game plan, point by point. What do Presidents or elections matter if the policy NEVER changes? How is this differen’t from John McCain’s strategy for Iraq? Oh right, it Aint! This is PATHETIC!!! Epic FAIL!
Posted by: jafo | December 1, 2009, 11:52 pm 11:52 pm
Why hasn’t Obama caught Bin Laden ?
Posted by: nat turner | December 1, 2009, 11:56 pm 11:56 pm
He is a realist that trends towards the center in action. That’s how he took the law requiring videotaping of confessions from having little support in the IL senate and a promised veto to passing with a wide margin, being signed by the governor, and hailed by both parties as a success years later.
Posted by: jhw539 |
Tales from the storied legislative past of our president.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | December 1, 2009, 11:59 pm 11:59 pm
Why hasn’t Obama caught Bin Laden ?
Posted by: nat turner
he’s working on it,
remember, Bush/Cheney/Rummy gave Bin Laden an 8 year head start to escape capture,
but they loved using him for their ‘orange alerts’…..
btw: did you buy your duct tape and plastic sheeting ?
Posted by: YO | December 2, 2009, 12:11 am 12:11 am
How did we win the Cold War without firing a single shot?
Posted by: jafo
maybe, because both the Soviets and the Americans fought proxy wars all around the globe instead of the direct conflict that almost happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis,
review your Viet Nam, South American conflicts and see who sponsored which side……
Posted by: JC | December 2, 2009, 12:16 am 12:16 am
Obama signalled to the enemy that he’s coming in for a short period, then leaving.
All they have to do is wait it out a bit more, ‘thanks for the heads up, Barry’ they’ll say.
Then Obama can leave just in time for the 2012 elections and say ‘well we tried our best but it was too expensive and took too much time to win’.
Posted by: Joe White | December 2, 2009, 12:26 am 12:26 am
Posted by: Joe White
LOL…
ask ‘W’ why he didn’t win the war, tough guy
Posted by: Rapture Boy | December 2, 2009, 12:31 am 12:31 am
Words definitely not missing?
I, me, me, me, me, I, I, I
Posted by: Huh? | December 2, 2009, 12:56 am 12:56 am
The Right came out swinging last night immediately after the President spoke with sharp criticisms about the tone and the content of the speech. Their main criticism was that the President spent more time talking about our exit strategy than he did about winning. There were a lot of specific criticisms as well and worth debating as this initiative is rolled out. Naturally there were criticisms from the President’s own party as well but, by and large they were supportive in the name of compromise. All agreed that this was a tough speech that spoke to a wide range of listeners all with their own agendas.
Bottom line for me is that if we are going to do this – namely, finish this war – then let’s do it and do it so there is no doubt that we took care of business. I am sick of the indecision and half measures. I thought that the President took his sweet time to work through the review of this war – and, to my mind, it should have been a top priority when he took office (say, over his pitch for the Olympics at least) but I appreciate that he needed the review period to be sure that we had a full understanding of the parameters and have a clear end game. I also understand that he wanted to wait until the Afghan elections were over (even though, I think that is incidental in many respects). This was a speech from a President that is in the middle of the hardest part of governing and it doesn’t appear that governing is necessarily his cup of tea (say, over campaigning). The good news is that he picked a strategy. It may not satisfy the right or the left but it is his and he is the boss. All I want is to get in there, do the job and bring this to a measurable conclusion.
Since the course is plotted what we need more than anything is to stop dilly dallying around go in there – both to Afghanistan and Pakistan kick ar*se and take names. War is a tough thing but if you are going to do it then, by Gawd, let’s do it right.
Posted by: Lone Star Rules | December 2, 2009, 7:10 am 7:10 am
“Since the course is plotted what we need more than anything is to stop dilly dallying around go in there – both to Afghanistan and Pakistan kick ar*se and take names. War is a tough thing but if you are going to do it then, by Gawd, let’s do it right.”
Agreed. But we need a lot more soldiers. We have a lot of unemployed young people. We need a draft. That’ll solve two problems at once.
Posted by: Justin | December 2, 2009, 7:21 am 7:21 am
By setting a time line he invalidates the counter-insurgency strategy.It only works if you are in it for the long haul; the whole idea is to get the local population to trust you and to furnish the security to develop institutions that can have long-term effects.If he is not willing to do that the coming increase in deaths will be pointless.I doubt that there is much domestic support for the long commitment that his strategy needs to be successful.Unfortunately he is not much of a leader so I don’t see how this is going to work.It is just another “kick the can down the road for 18 months” plan .
Posted by: Nephron | December 2, 2009, 8:22 am 8:22 am
Justin writes ” But we need a lot more soldiers. We have a lot of unemployed young people. We need a draft. That’ll solve two problems at once.”
____________________
Probably not a bad idea but this President is unlikely to go to there – in fact, given the time it took him to come up with a strategy it would take several thousand light years before he would or could make that decision. We have a a good stream of volunteer’s right now so it is probably not needed. In fact, I have been encouraging my 21 year old son to join the Navy, there was a 12 month waiting period before he would get into Basic after he was accepted. Th Air Force was about the same. The Army was quicker but still had a waiting period.
The other thing that has become characteristic of this President is that he says things like ‘Gitmo will be closed in a year’ and ‘this needs to be passed or unemployment will go past 8%’ and, well, let’s just say, those are overly optimistic in the scheme of things (those pesky details of governing get in the way of good copy).
My bet is that 30,000 will morph into 40,000 once the ‘realities of the situation’ make their mark. This 18 month timeline sounds good too but, again, future explanations like ‘we didn’t realize the depth of the difficulties in Afghanistan and Pakistan so we are being forced to stay longer’ are all real possibilities if not dead cerain eventualities with this President.
I have come to believe that the “change we can believe in” really means “the change in the program once the realities of the situation raise their burly heads.” I guess there is some kind of intellectual statute of limitations on “changing the deal” for this Administration; once they have satisfied the faithful with the party line it is nothing to change course as reality sets in.
The bizarre part is that the mainstream press almost invariably gives them a pass on this tendency – it makes me laugh. Fox jumps up and down on this ‘change in the program as reality sets in’ with some regularity but only persuades the rest of the press to even point it out every now and then. It is like there are two frequencies for the press these days: Fox and everyone else. I like the tension between them – it is like when Home depot and Lowe’s set up across the street from each other, the consumer wins – in this case, news watchers win.
Posted by: Lone Star Rules | December 2, 2009, 8:35 am 8:35 am
Women and girls are mistreated everywhere in the Islamic world. The Taliban are just worse than the rest.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | December 2, 2009, 10:29 am 10:29 am
Why, stuck in a prison in eastern Europe somewhere, are you thinking of America? Why not France or Britain, or your own countrymen?
Posted by: David | Dec 1, 2009 11:12:33 PM
Natan Sharanksy and his “dissident” friends viewed Kissinger’s detente efforts as wrong. Sharansky later wrote ‘The Case for Democracy.’
American Daily, 12/13/04:
“The author particularly credits outspoken Soviet dissidents Andrei Sakharov and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and American leaders Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson and President Ronald Reagan, for bringing about the disintegration of the USSR in a timely manner. The Jackson amendment was a critical piece of legislation in terms of hemming in an awful dictatorship and imposing needed reform. Sharansky notes: “In linking American trade policy to freedom of emigration (which would primarily help Soviet Jewry), the amendment made improving human rights in the Soviet Union a condition of its relations with the United States”.
“Senator Jackson and President Reagan were incredibly insightful. They both grasped that the Soviet Union would soon collapse from internal pressures and that it was in the strategic interests of the US to pressure the Soviets in myriad ways. As noted by Sharansky, “A regime based on fear must maintain increasingly tight control over its population to remain in power, and such control inevitably triggers a process of decay”.
Posted by: Live! From DC! It's Sat Night! | December 2, 2009, 10:58 am 10:58 am
I thought I heard a quote from Barbara Boxer wondering why we need 100,000 soldiers to fight against only 10,000 Taliban and 100 Al Queda. Anyone know if those numbers are accurate?
Posted by: Live! From DC! It's Sat Night! | December 2, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am
Rapture Boy wrote:
“ask ‘W’ why he didn’t win the war, tough guy”
Bush took the steps that he thought militarily necessary, regardless of the political consequences.
That is the right approach, IMHBDAO.
Obama’s approach is geared to please everyone, and so will probably be both militarily ineffective AND end up pleasing very few on the left or the right.
Posted by: Joe White | December 2, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
OMG, Obama is Bush Lite!
Obama, Dec 2009:
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we’re better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Bush, Aug 2007:
Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There’s no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like “boat people,” “re-education camps,” and “killing fields.”
There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today’s struggle — those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that “the American people had risen against their government’s war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today.”
Posted by: Obama's War | December 2, 2009, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
Why are the Navy SEALS being court martialed?
Posted by: cuc | December 2, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
Gingrich was on Hannity’s show tonight and he made an interesting point about the President’s speech. He said that the decision that the President made was a hard one and when he made it he knew that he was going to draw incredible heat from his Party. And, he added the far left have been hammering him all day.
He added he had nothing but respect for the depth and difficulty of this decision and saluted him for making it. Like Hannity he criticized the speech for being all about the exit strategy and there was no real rallying of the troops to pursue victory with zeal and resolve. In the end, he gave the President high marks for the ca-ca-storm he unleashed and respected him for it.
(When was the last time one of the big guns from the Democratic Party was empathetic and appreciative of a Republican and said so on National television? I’m thinking never.)
Posted by: Lone Star Rules | December 2, 2009, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm
Bush took the steps that he thought militarily necessary, regardless of the political consequences.
Obama’s approach is geared to please everyone, Posted by: Joe White |
another ‘fair and balanced’ assessment by the fringe, only republicans can make ‘real’ and good decisions……. step away from the kool aid
Posted by: Charlie Brown | December 3, 2009, 12:43 am 12:43 am
(When was the last time one of the big guns from the Democratic Party was empathetic and appreciative of a Republican and said so on National television? I’m thinking never.)
Posted by: Lone Star Rules
I haven’t checked, but I’d assume that Bush got unanimous support from the Dems post 9/11
Posted by: Charlie Brown | December 3, 2009, 12:45 am 12:45 am
cuc,the SEALs are being punished for the sins of the SEALs that killed the Somali pirates.Obama refused to authorize action against the pirates,so the on-site commander ordered action when the pirates were 20 miles from the coast.David Frum confirmed my report this week.
Posted by: Nephron | December 3, 2009, 1:51 am 1:51 am
You expect him mention “DEMOCRACY”. mmmm….
Posted by: talk from sf | December 3, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm