Most of my left leaning blogging friends are angry over President Obama's decision to send 30 thousand more Troops to Afghanistan. I don't like it either.
There lies the rub. A main talking point of President Obama's campaign was getting out of Iraq, which I wish he would hurry up and do, and putting the focus on Afghanistan.
My first thought about this was that it was a cowardly pander to the republicans. Just as far too many Democrats caved during the lead up to the Iraq invasion. None of them wanted to be branded as "soft on terror." Perhaps President Obama didn't want to have the same label.
But the more I thought about it today, it is a bold decision politically because this is pleasing to a group that isn't going to vote for him no matter what he does. And his supporters during the election stand a good chance of abandoning him in 2012 if this doesn't work quickly.
Strategically, I disagree with this decision. I don't have much faith in the generals since 2003.
But Obama is keeping his word to put the focus on Afghanistan. That in itself is refreshing. That a President is keeping his word. Please remember this in 2012 my left leaning Brothers and Sisters. We've seen the alternatives the republicans offer.
33 comments:
Yes, Now that we are finding out that we had Osama Bin Laden in the palm of our hands back in 2001 but we could not capture him because that would take away from the chances of the Bush Adminstration being able to sell us on going into Iraq....
Now, eight years later we have all but given up on Osama Bin Laden and are now attempting to prop up a REGIME that the Bush Administration put into power...
Can we just go into Pakistan grab Osama Bin Laden and then bring everyone home?
He hasn't made his speech yet, has he? So we don't know exactly what he has in mind. If he's thinking of a "surge" with the aim of withdrawing reasonably soon, and sticks to it, then I guess it ain't all bad.
I campaigned for and voted for the man in the WH knowing that he consistently said during his campaign that he would put the focus on Afghanistan.
But I still don't like it.
We should have enough Troops to do that when Obama sends them TAO. I just hope Obama doesn't take the Bush ploy and come up with a new reason every day for bullshit.
I don't like what seems to be happening either but as Stimpson says, let's listen to the speech.
Well, you guys anyway. I have to work tonight.
Well, I will miss the speech because I will be in mourning for the fact that TRUTH101 has to work...
Besides I know so many conservative bloggers who I can read in the morning who will tell me exactly what OBAMA really meant to say...
So, I will just wait for that education...
God, I think they oughta stuff a bomb up TAO's arse, and drop him ass-backwards on top of Bin Laden.
Leslie,
If the bomb is going to be stuck up my 'arse' then shouldn't they drop me 'arse-backwards'???
Just saying...
One other thing...is 'ass-backwards' kind of like face first?
Of course you could always just give me a nine iron....
TAO: That was a bit harsh - and rude. I aoplogize.
However ; )to me, an arse is an ass is an arse . . .
One thing. I've never missed a presidential address regardless. Partly out of respect for the office, but also "to know." I don't always agree with the Democrat and I don't always disagree with the Republican, but I wouldn't know if I didn't watch.
Leslie,
We had our chance to capture Bin Laden in 2001 and we backed off because we didn't want it to interfere with our secret plans to invade Iraq, which the British are now letting us in on.
After 8 years we are doing nothing but attempting to prop up a corrupt regime in a ungovernable country.
While our future threat builds its self up in Pakistan...a country we bribed for the last few years with billions.
So, basically what options does Obama have? What can he say?
We can "WIN" this one? Win what? What did we "WIN" in Iraq?
I cannot help but feel sorry for Obama, and I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled a "Palin" (quit in the middle of his term) because the reality is the last administration just about screwed up everything they could possibly screw up....and the folks that are all so mouthy about everything that is wrong today with Obama were the biggest bunch of cheerleaders for the incompetence of the last eight years...
I am sorry...I cannot listen to someone struggle trying to present a logical argument for something that is utterly absurd.
...tomorrow I am sure that Fox News will have Dick Cheney on ranting about what Obama is doing wrong!
That is just icing on one damn absurd cake....
TAO: I think I've been misreading and, thus, misinterpreting your comments. I'm only slightly dumb but always in a hurry!
Visit my blog. The first post will give you something to laugh about. The second will give you something to think about.
TAO: Visited your blog and am I ever embarrassed - painfully so. Left comment after your Thanksgiving post. I think I'll die if I ever run into you here.
Leslie,
I got my masters from Vanderbilt so I lived in Nashville for awhile...
I tried to visit your blog but I can't get access...
You need not worry, I have been married to my wife for 26 years now and she doesn't understand me either....she just thinks I am an asshole and I am the price she pays for some sin she committed in a prior life...
I'm not angry, just disappointed. 10 years in Afghanistan, and that's IF we begin withdrawing in 2011?? If you think that is ridiculous you're "doveish", according to Chris Matthews (I'm watching Hardball right now).
I agree with what Tao wrote, except for not being surprised if President Obama quit. I don't think that is even a remote possibility.
I believe bin Laden is dead. We could have captured him at Tora Bora, but bush let him go because he thought it would help him politically. The loss of bin Laden would have put a damper on the fear mongering.
BTW I've lived in TN for about 5 years, although I've only been to Nashville a couple of times.
"Strategically, I disagree with this decision. I don't have much faith in the generals since 2003."
So, you don't have any faith in President Obama? For most of a year, they have been his generals now.
W-Dervish said: "I believe bin Laden is dead. We could have captured him at Tora Bora, but bush let him go because he thought it would help him politically."
The first part made sense (there's always something odd about Osama's video/audio releases), but the 2nd part is pure nuttery that belongs as a footnote in some "9/11 Truther" screed.
You're grasping at straws in a vain attempt at contrarianism Dmarks.
The generals didn't all of a sudden become a pack of Pattons and MacArthurs just becuase Obama is now their Commander in Chief.
Well, I read Obama's speech this morning...
It was definitely a home run type of speech and one that requires a rethinking and a debate of exactly what this country is all about.
So far all the right leaning blogs have come up with the following as a response "...too much Bush bashing..."
Last time I check Bush was responsible for our current failed strategy in Afghanistan, in fact I think calling anything related to Afghanistan 'a strategy' is way too polite.
Since we entered Iraq, Afghanistan has been nothing more than an afterthought...
Whenever you turn anything over to NATO you are washing your hands of it...
THAT IS A SURE SIGN OF A FAILED STRATEGY...
That is not "bashing Bush" but rather calling a spade a spade...
You can expect the right to be critical. Afterall, they supported the program for years but now that it's out of their hands, they're worried that something from the other side might work where they failed.
Already the former Vietnam veteran, who spent his whole time as a POW, is criticizing the time limit. I heard a rumor that the president put the limits in place to tell Afghan. to get their act together.
TAO: Fixed that little problem, so you should be good to go. I've switched the post order but you'll figure it out.
W-D: TN is a lovely state. Returned several years ago after living out west. It wasn't until I volunteered for Obama that I learned I wasn't the only liberal around. But it still gets lonely, thus the blog.
I watched the speech and then read it. I think Obama's policy is a mistake and I oppose it for mayr reasons that I discussed in my editorial, but like you Truth, I do not deel betrayed, nor do I reject the man.
Yes, dmarks, I know that you think examining the facts and reaching a conclusion based on those facts is "pure nuttery". You've expressed that opinion to me a number of times.
In regards to what happened at Tora Bora, The Guardian.uk says: Rumsfeld let Bin Laden escape in 2001, says Senate report (11/29/2009).
This would be the SECOND time the bush administration let bin Laden escape. The first time we could have caught him was before the bombings in Afganistan began! The Taliban offered to capture and turn him over to us, but bush declined! The offer was made twice and twice bush refused.
From CNN.com: U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden (10/7/2001)
From the Washington Post: Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden: [Talks] with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice ...continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden... President Bush summarily rejected [the] Taliban offer to give up bin Laden... (10/29/2001)
My conclusion (and I don't know how the hell any other one could be reached) is that the bush administration wanted bin Laden to remain free. Because bush wanted to attack Iraq. It is well known that he wanted this even before he was "elected" president.
Also, from The Daily Record.co.uk: Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair wanted attack plan nine months before war began. (12/1/2009)
As for the 9/11 Truth movement... it "is the collective name of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals who question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks". They believe the full truth isn't known and believe there should be further investigations.
I can understand why revealing the full truth would be classified as "nuttery" by dmarks. He cleary believes that if an explaination sounds truthy the facts should be ignored.
Broadly the movement simply believes the entire truth isn't known, and that more investigations are needed. Which I agree with and is the reason why I support it.
Only "some of the organizations state that there is evidence that the United States government may have been either responsible for or knowingly complicit in the September 11 attacks".
I believe those theories are wrong, and that the bush administration merely ignored all the warnings. The bottom line is we simply don't know.
I agree that the president had a tough decision to make and am damn glad he had the balls to make it. I don't want my country involved any more than most, but I support my president and trust that he has done the right thing. Only time will tell.
w-dervish said: " I know that you think examining the facts and reaching a conclusion based on those facts is "pure nuttery".
No, I reserve that assessment for fact-free leaps of imagination.
You said: "The Taliban offered to capture and turn him over to us, but bush declined! The offer was made twice and twice bush refused."
Your own link you provide shows you wrong. A trial according to the religious rules of the terrorists is hardly "turning him over to us".
"In regards to what happened at Tora Bora, The Guardian.uk says: Rumsfeld let Bin Laden escape in 2001, says Senate report (11/29/2009)."
And here also your assessment is contradicted by the story you link to, which refers to Rumsfeld's incompetance and nothing of any "letting".
"The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law."
"I can understand why revealing the full truth would be classified as "nuttery" by dmarks"
It never had. The full truth is long since known. All the bogus stuff coming out on the fringes has nothing to do with the truth.
"The bottom line is we simply don't know."
The bottom line is that we have known for years.
"He cleary believes that if an explaination sounds truthy the facts should be ignored."
I merely have standards: accept the facts, but toss out kooky assertions. Ignoring the dorky neologisms, I clearly believe that if the explanation is sound, there is even more reason to ignore the lies and flights of fancy.
Truth, not truthiness, not imaginary flights of fancy that come from the fever-dreams of those in tinfoil hats.
------------
Tao said: "Last time I check Bush was responsible for our current failed strategy in Afghanistan"
When did you check last... Jan 19 earlier this year? Because that is the last date your statement is really completely true.
Since his inauguration, Obama has embraced and adopted and made Bush's policy completely his own. It is by his own choice that we have "stayed the course", and Obama has ignored Afghanistan until very recently.
Obama has had 10 months to make changes here, and he could have made significant changes. But no.
Okay. So it was Rumsfeld incompetance that allowed Bin Laden to escape. That's good enough for me Dmarks and I thank you for the correction.
It does baffle me that Rummy, Bush and Cheney didn't want Bin Laden tried under Islamic law. Tha Sharia is some harsh shit dude. I figured if these dudes dug torture then why not some good old fashioned beheadings also.
Truth: I do cringe at Rummie... and Brownie too.
Heck of a job, both of them.
"It does baffle me that Rummy, Bush and Cheney didn't want Bin Laden tried under Islamic law."
It's pretty funny that WD faults Bush for not bring Bin Laden to be tried in one of the United States' many federal Shariah courts.
Well, once the jury finds the creeps we have now guilty we can drink a toast to American Justice.
dmarks, I'm not going to get into a protracted off-topic discussion with you again on someone else's blog. If you wish to continue disagreeing with me I invite you to post your comments on my blog, where I have created a post addressing the topic.
It is titled, "Why bush Really Invaded Afghanistan". I look forward to your accusations that I'm a nutty kook, or kooky nut.
I too agree with TAO. I supported Obama's plan to focus on Afghanistan during the campaign. However, as TAO said we now know that the Karzai government is one of the most corrupt in the world. Is that what we are fighting for now? Once Karzai was discovered to be a shame is when I fell off the Afghanistan bandwagon.
I don't buy this idea either that at least he stuck to what he said he was going to do. That only is a good if the decision is a sound one, which it isn't. Remember how stubborn Bush was in doing whatever he thought right regardless of what Americans thought? I didn't like it then and I don't like it under a Democrat either.
I think we should bring everyone home and use those resources to focus on homeland defense. We have some of the best first responders in the world. As well as intelligent agencies. They have pretty much caught all terrorist plots before they even get off the ground.
True the Ft. Hood incident was missed but even Israel (who is tops in preventing terrorism at home doesn't prevent them all. We live in a dangerous world, which Americans have been mostly protected from by wide oceans. September 11th wasn't anything new -- maybe to sheltered Americans but not by the world's standards.
We can't afford either financially or otherwise to try and chase down every terrorist around the world. We keep fighting with the same mindset directly after the last attack such as 9/11 in this case.
By that I mean we attacked Afghanistan because it was where al-Qaeda planned 9/11. However, we've been there now for nearly a decade so I think most of the planners of stuff have moved elsewhere.
The problem now is that they can easily plan to attack us from anywhere -- even Europe and within the U.S. So fighting conventional wars in these failed states is pretty much pointless. Especially when they can easily hide in Pakistan.
What are we going to do next? Invade Pakistan? Yeah, that'll go over well. So that's the other problem. As long as Pakistan ignores the growing threat inside their own country there isn't much we can do about it.
I'm a hard core liberal who voted for Obama but I'm disappointed in him. He's failing on health care, he's failing on the economy and pulling a Bush in Afghanistan. That's why I don't get the socialist charges. Socialism? I'd just be happy if he was liberal!!
I have no problem with anything you wrote HBW. I wish Obama felt that circumstances were such that he could do exactly as you prescribe.
My position is that he has the information and the advice of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton also. I am trusting that they are doing what they think is correct. Come 2011 and he fails to start withdrawing our forces and telling the Afghans it's their turn, I may well be supporting another candidate in 2012.
"I may well be supporting another candidate in 2012."
For that, you would assume that President Obama would have serious challengers from the Democratic Party. It's not terribly often that this happens to an incumbent.
Dmarks:
We're not even talking about the Democrats here. We're tired of them and the Republicans are nearly irrelevant in my decision making on who to vote for. When we talk about supporting another candidate we're talking about a third party candidate.
And yes, that would mean Obama probably wouldn't win but the Democrats and Republicans both need a good reality check. I'm willing to let a Republican back into office then keep tasitly supporting this two party nightmare.
I don't care as much now of whether or not the Republicans get in office because the Dems are acting just like them. Wimping out on health care, escalating in Afghanistan and failing to close Gitmo. Hardly sounds like the Democrats. So I'm in a mood to shake things up.
Then you will need something different than what we have had before. The closest we have really come to a viable third-party candidate is Ross Perot, but he wigged out.
The ones like Nader, Pat Buchanan, and McKinnon don't cut it, as they fight to win over the hearts and minds of 1% - 2% of the population. That won't win an election.
Dmarks:
I'm not much concerned with winning elections at this point. I just want to vote my conscience and support campaign finance reform. Both parties are the same and I'm tired of being their lackey.
You hit the nail on the head HBW. I've been a loyal lackey a long time only to see my hopes and beliefs cast aside in the name of expediency or worse, abuse of power.
I'm not ready to say Obama is doing that in the here and now. I'm willing to be patient but my patience is at it's ebb. It's gone locally and statewide. I pray Obama can keep from losing it nationally.
Handsome B. Wonderful said... we attacked Afghanistan because it was where al-Qaeda planned 9/11. The problem now is that they can easily plan to attack us from anywhere -- even Europe and within the U.S....
Actually, 9/11 was planned in Europe. Germany, specifically. Maybe we should have bombed them?
Handsome B. Wonderful said... What are we going to do next? Invade Pakistan?
I pose that very question in my latest post, "Who's Harboring bin Laden Now?". Check it out if you're interested.
Post a Comment