This smells like disaster. Did we learn nothing from the Brits and the Soviets' foolishness there?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/182650

As more troops are sent into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, a key ally in the war on terror has given local autonomy to supporters of the Taliban. Secretary Clinton better be on her way to Pakistan!

What a truly shocking move deserving of a new thread. He only talked about his plans for Afghanistan, what, every day for more than a year during the campaign?

Yes, Hillary to save the day.

Where are all the anti-war protestors on this one?

Yeah, that's why some (one?) of us voted for Cynthia McKinney. Liberal Dems will fancy-ass their way into loving this "good war."

Sorry, I guess new threads should be saved for "Michelle Obama, style icon" and such.

It is too early to see whether Obama can convert his self-proclaimed "progressive" Christian values into policy, which will guide a strategy consistent with those values, and result in similarly consistent tactics; something that has arguably not been done by past invaders of Afghanistan. We shall see.

One might draw a slight analogy to the Bosnian War where the US inserted itself with clandestine activities at first but then lead a very public and UN-sanctioned coalition to neutralize the primary aggresor, then Yugoslavia.

Remember that the arch-villain behind events that lead to that war, Slobodan Milošević died in prison during a trial by an international tribunal.

There may be a much more difficult path to such a conclusion in Afghanistan, given that the so-called war on terror has been framed as a largely religious battle by militants in both the east and the west, and that the primary instigator for the hostilities is an international terrorist rather than the president of a country. However these do not preclude the possibility of Obama having more success than we have in the past 8-years conflict.

I too am skeptical about our chances in Afghanistan. I just would have expected you to draw the line somewhere at making new threads to trash Obama, especially on a topic as well-worn as this one. The lack of responses to your weekly whines should tell you something. Maybe make an "Obama Isn't Left-Wing Enough" thread to throw all of them in one place.

EXACTLY!!

I didn't realize that a policy couldn't be debated if we knew about it in advance! Very "Democratic."

Many of the Obamaniacs were creaming themselves 3 weeks ago about executive orders that had been promised in advance -- like the (future) closing of Guantanamo, while many of the Bush detainee policies (as opposed to prison LOCATIONS) appear to be unchanged.




That most Dems *refuse* to criticize the prez, or to defend his most Bush-like moves?

Well, I strongly support President Obama, worked for his election, voted for him, and think he's doing a great job overall, but I do also strongly disagree with some of his actions or non-actions, like:

=kissing the GOP's ass only to get kicked right back in his when they all refused to support the stimulus bill (even though according to Arlen Specter more than a few secretly *did* support it--why aren't the dizzy media reporting this?)
=his failure to support Congressional Democrats' plans to investigate the W administration for its multiple crimes
=his support of the Bush administration's "state secrets" argument in that CIA detainees' lawsuit
=his support of the Bush administration's indefinite detention of terrorist subjects arrested far away from a battlefield
=his failure to conclusively end the worse aspects of the extraordinary rendition system
=his bullying of the UK to force its silence on critical evidence in a terrorist lawsuit
=his failure to speak out forcefully against the notion of Social Security and Medicare as "entitlements" and to allow the GOP and conservative Democrats to demagogue on this
=his slow move to support nationalization of the major banks to address the banking crisis, even though all of the leading, non-administration, highly regarded economists (Krugman, Roubini, Stiglitz, etc.) have been urging this
=his appointment of so FEW WOMEN, and comparatively few Latinos to top posts in his administration

I don't know how this Afghanistan move is going to turn out. I don't support it, and I want him to rein in Petreus and the others in the military (Keane, etc.) who are Bushites. But I'm willing to give him qualified support on this, at least for a short period of time. It doesn't look good to me, but one thing that has assured me for the most part about President Obama is that he is willing to admit he's wrong, and change course quickly if what he's doing isn't working.

I guess that means I'm not an Obamaniac, or maybe I am. All I know is, Cynthia McKinney, whom I have supported, would have been a disaster as a president, but I'm glad she was there so people who wanted someone to the left of Obama had someone to vote for. Either she or Obama is a striking improvement of W-saster in Chief and his various wannabe successors, McCain, Palin, Romney, Giuliani, etc. Not a single one of them still appears to grasp BASIC ECONOMICS. Just imagine how much worse we'd be right now had any of them ended up in office.

As it is quite obvious to all, the reasons for going to war in Iraq, i.e. weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's tenuous links to al Qaeda, proved to be wrong, and the bungling of the then-Pentagon leadership and an inept Administration that thought that it could prosecute a war without thinking about the aftermath of occupation and nation-building showed gross negligence and ineptitude on the part of the Bush Administration. The leaders of both parties n Congress and the overwhelming majority of members of Congress supported that decision. And the media failed to question the evidence presented for that war.

Obama, while an elected state legislator, did not support that decision.

The war in Iraq, despite what the Bush administration said, diverted our attention from focusing on the original intent of going into Afghanistan, to topple the Taliban government that actively supported those responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers, the attempted destruction of the Pentagon, and the downing of United Fight 93, i.e. al Qaeda, and to bring those responsible for those attacks to justice. Obama was never against that.

As events unfolded in Iraq it became a theatre of the war on terrorism. The Surge has worked in Iraq, thus allowing Obama to redirect attention to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurrgent and the Karsi government, long given carte blanche by Bush & Co., has proven to be corrupt. Moreover, Pakistan, a key ally in the war on terrorism, a nation into which the US has poured in untold billions in aid for that effort, now allows Taliban supporter local autonomy. The Pakistani government turns a blind eye to al Qaeda in its midst, and at times gives passive assistance to these same terrorists. Pakistan is about to implode!

And Osama bin Laden is still at large!

Let me lay my cards out. I knew several good people who died on 9/11. I want to see those responsible for their violent deaths brought to justice. As a gay man, I want to be able to go into the middle of the town square and be able to kiss whomever I was with smack on the lips. There may be parts of this country where I would receive disapproval and perhaps scorn. I am denied the right to marry another man. But the Taliban would kill me. They crushed gay men under piles of rock. Bravo, Mr. Obama, for getting us back on track! Clinton, as secretary of state, needs to focus on this. Leave the economic issues to Geitner!

Hopefully Iraq will remain on the current low boil, with the occasional assassination of a political figure around election time, but history in the region does not support that. Democratic elections in both Lebanon and Gaza gave us results neither we nor our primary middle east ally Israel, either expected or were pleased with. Moderating Iran might stabilize Iraq, and the middle east, eventually. The best that can be said about Iraq is that our former president is no longer determining policy there. He seemed more capable of forcing defeat from the jaws of victory than Barney Fife on Mayberry.

Geithner has been very adamant about preserving the current market system in which he seems to have as much faith as Obama does in his religion. Both may stumble on their ideologies if the economy does not respond to their efforts as they expect. Obama says he is willing to try something new if the current economic remedies (TARP, TARP II? and the recent stimulus bill) do not "work". But how do they define "work"? Is it just enough to gain greater majorities in Congress in the midterm elections? Hopefully they will eventually realize that they need to make savings, wherever they are, into investments; and halt the ability of capital to race around the world to seek the cheapest labor and resources to exploit, without an international regulatory body to, first, impose transparency and, second, insure that wealth works rather than being hoarded by those who do not need to spend it to stimulate growth.

I am very skeptical that the Surge in Iraq "worked." Paying cash money to insurgents not to blow sh*t up -- which the commanders didn't even tell Bush about til they started doing it -- that (temporarily) seems to have worked.

Most of the people responsible for 9/11 are dead or in detention. The Swat Valley in Pakistan looks like it may be a more vital anti-US terror base in the future than Afghanistan.

Of course, I believe the US has been a major terror-funding state in the world for generations; many of you probably disagree.

Here are a few links to articles and editorials on the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq on which to base an opinion:

The Economist

The Washington Post

Council on Foreign Relations

A Canadian Perspective

The View from Seattle

I've tried to present a diversity of opinion.

Many responsible for 9/11 have yet to be brought to justice. And, yes, the Swat valley is a center of anti-US terrorism, which deeply impacts Afghanistan!

And while acknowledge the role past US administrations have played in funding regimes with gross human rights abuses and so-called "freedom fighters," we are able to exercise our right to protest the actions of those administrations and replace those administrations through peaceful means, something the Taliban and others like them deny to their own people.

I read off of Reuters he was planning on moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

That's quite a laundry list of disappointments, fantomas -- I admire your honesty. I wonder why most of the other Dems STILL seem obsessed with the now-irrelevant Sarah Palin, instead of examining chinks in their hero-president's armor?

Uh, because maybe they realize like me that he's human; that he hasn't been in office an entire month; that he is still doing a great job; and they want him to succeed.

Maybe they're also just taking a break after having been ignored for most of the last eight years despite all the signs that the disaster-in-chief who was in office was horrid and getting worse by the day.

I can recall all the mockery that I and others endured when we called into question the ginned up Iraq War. It was like this on every issue with W, until about 2006, which is when the right-wingers on here mostly went silent. But the media still are carrying the water for their beloved W.

You are implacable, but I respect it. Obama is never going to please you, he is always going to be doing something wrong in your eyes. But don't gainsay those who still have a few stars in theirs.

As for Palin, she'll be back, so people better keep talking about her crazy *ss!

You object to all the positions you listed and he's "still doing a great job"? That's quite a grading curve.

Well, your guy dropped the Presidential curve down a crapload of notches, Billy Boy. You guy finally admitted that he made a mistake a month before leaving.

Our guy admitted to a mistake his first month in office.... what a f**king concept!!! Stating truths and telling people things they may not want to hear!!!

This topic is something that has been known, and although it us unfortunate, if your guy hadn't gotten us into Iraq in the first place, the work in Afghanistan would be 4-5 years further along. YOUR GUY had years, our guy has had 4 weeks.

That's quite a grading scale you have, Billy Boy.

Yes. He's tackling the major problems this country faces head on, and doing so quite capably. He has appointed outstanding people to Cabinet positions, and they appear to be doing their jobs well. On the foreign policy front, he is starting off well. In terms of his relations with the Democrats in Congress, he is doing pretty well, and got the stimulus bill passed, and will soon have a housing bill to sign. Most of his executive orders, along with his Cabinet's administrative changes from Bush administrative policy, have been very good.

You are implacable and hate him. Just admit it. It's your right. He can't do anything to please you. That's fine. He's doing a very good job overall.

I am not and never was a Bush supporter, you bloody cretin. If Al Qaeda had hit the White House while he was in it, i would've [redacted].

I do not hate Obama. He's just another imperial, war-mongering US president, like all of them.

Hey, hey, hey, there Bill W. Kick is sure no "bloody cretin" just because he has an opinion different than yours. I do not appreciate the name-calling. I have noticed with just about every one of your posts, that you have been uber-critical of Obama. You also seem to enjoy a sort of passive-aggressive bickering when cornered on your bias. Knock it off. It is not only silly, it is un-American. If you dislike Obama that much, then move. I am sure Canada or Mexico would take you. The four to eight years will fly by if you are not consumed by your own bitter juices.

That wasn't the reason -- for about the third time in the last year on this board, someone assumed I was a Bushite on zero evidence ... except that I'm no Obama fan, and thus obviously I must be a dirty right-winger. Typical kneejerk "liberal" move -- as is your "love it or leave it" Archie Bunker act, millerbeach.

Bill W, you have just become the 3rd person I get to ignore on this board.

Ummm- your posts in the past have primarily been liberal bashing. Yet strangely devoid of just as strong of criticism of the Bush administration. What is one to assume?

Anyways- you create to much damn drama and negativity. To keep it simply, your posts lack insight and are frankly boring and rehash of no original thought.

Congratu-f**king-lations!

You're braindead.

I'm a leftist; look it up someday.

This is hilairious. Bill W doesn't have his tongue buried up Obama's ass the way you and others on here do, so he MUST be a Bush supporter. God forbid you read anything on here that isn't an amen chorus - if you did you'd find that BIll W hates everyone and everything, and has for many years, and was scathing about Bush for many years. Your kind of idiotic black and white, you're with us or against us, type thinking is what the previous Administration was rightfully reviled for. Congratulations - you've become what you despised, and it only took five weeks.





<RIIIIING!> <RIIIIIING!> Hello, pot.....it's kettle.......you're black.

I can't believe I am saying this, but thanks, Munson Man.

And for the record, I love my mother, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), David Wright and Jake Gyllenhaal.

Weren't so many of us pissed when, during the last administration, Bush supporters/apologists would tell us that if we didn't like what was going on or if we didn't like/support bush that WE should move to Canada or Mexico? What a ridiculous notion!

I don't put my tongue up anyone's ass unless its love.

I am an Obama supporter, but I don't give him freebies. I don't know how I feel about the financial stimulus packages, especially because I know it won't help those who stayed within their means. The people deserve this money moreso than any banks... and because of that frustration, I couldn't even listen to his speech last night. I am disgusted by all politics.

Secondly- I am not idiotic... I am sensitive to that. I did not get to where I am at in my life without being able to assess a situation for what it is.

I may be wrong about Bill W support of Bush, but definitely not about his negativity. I find it disappointing that I am completely the target of your comments.... when unfortunately the initial Bad Billy Boy, the ultimate curmudgeon is able to amble away freely devoid of commentary....

Because we all know he's a mean-spirited misanthrope and most everybody just ignores him or goes elsewhere (as most of the baseball fans have done).

Then why are you still here, Munson Man?

Because I just ignore him, as most people do.

BTW, I was here long before you, and I'll be here long after you. Deal with it.

Munson Man knows what "most people do." Don't doubt it.

George Will has it right: Time to leave.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/will_090109.html

And now we seem headed for some sort of additional sanctioning of Iran. Which means they become more aggressive against Israel. Which means...

Hellooo! Do we need this?

Has our economy become yesterday's news?

Or is Iran just a useful distraction to avoid all that messy business about regulating worldwide greed?

Not in much of a mood to discuss this, are you, fellas?

Can you imagine the number of antiwar marches that would be in the works if President McCain had made that speech last night? Instead, libs will sit with their mouths taped shut for the next 3 years, and run right out and vote for this man again. Pitiful.

US out now. Russ Feingold in 2012.

Bill W., the man is the savior remember? He can do anything [rolls eyes]

I agree with Bill W. If this was McCain's war, the anti-war crowd would be going insane.

Obama campaigned on an anti-war platform - it was perhaps the number one reason why he won in Iowa. Now, he has been seduced by the military/intelligence crowd taking us yet into another Vietnam. I was also disappointed by his choice of venue for his announcement. the only thing missing was a large banner: MISSION TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.

Many scholars believe that the Russian folly into Afghanistan years ago led Bin Laden there. I voted for Obama because I thought that he had the guts to lead us in a new direction. Frankly, I'm bitterly disappointed (and don't even get me started on Don't Ask/Don't Tell).

And how are we paying for this?

Ugh.

Actually, Obama campaigned as a hawk on Afghanistan! (One major reason I voted Green, again.) He said of Iraq, "I'm not against wars; I'm against stupid wars."

I have no patience for the "disappointed." I saw this guy for what he was once he picked Biden and took those Wall Street millions.

From the article you site:explains why this may be a "just" use of military force.
I've never seen your mother but if you put her in that company she must be pretty hot. And no, I'm not one of your bashers. I think your judgement on the economic disaster we face has been spot on due to your general skepticism about all things right-wing. But I have to agree with the inference from a previous poster on this thread that you haven't presented a realistic alternative to the policies you criticize. Perhaps I'm wrong and if so I want to be enlightened. My criticism of Obama's policy is that it seems that it may be motivated by political pragmatism more than philosophical consistency, but I am willing to wait and see on this one - partly because I don't think we will have long to wait. He wisely (politically that is) set a very probable withdrawal in 2011 - one year before the next presidential election. And by giving general Stanley McChrystal more or less what he prayed for he may have put his most likely competition in the next presidential race on base. It's his ball.

The 9/11 attackers trained in HAMBURG and THE U.S.

Afghanistan is no longer a center of Al Qaeda activity.

In one of those compatibility surveys on the web during the campaign for the 2008 presidential candidacy for the Democratic party I scored something over 90% agreement with Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich. He still is the national figure with whose views I most closely identify - including those on Afganistan - which he brilliantly and passionately expressed in this very good debate on the USA troop increase with former Pennsylvania senator (and homophobe) Rick Santorum. Note that Kucinich mentions his support of the initial routing of the Taliban after 9/11. His other arguments that the economy is the greatest threat to our security are also spot on, as is his Middle East policy statement - a situation not at all unrelated to our current involvement in Afghanistan IMO. When he says that "America is in the fight of its life and that fight is not in Afghanistan - it's here." I could not agree more. Were he running for president against Santorum in 2012 (not an impossible scenario should the Dems bomb in the 2010 elections) I could not be happier nor Wall Street more sad.

If only those on the right could understand context and nuance.....we might actually be able to accomplish something in this country.

I'm curious, Bill W, what is the source of your "endless" stream of infomation? Fox News? Or is it simply specualtion on your part? Do you think any American is thrilled at the prospect of sending MORE troops to the death machine in Afghanistan? No. None of us are happy about that prospect. I can't say what I would do if McCain were to send more troops, simply because he lost and is not the president. I do know that the winner, President Barack Obama, is trying to do the right thing and ultimately bring an end to this war. If it takes another surge, so be it. I was for the surge that GWB did, and, as a matter of fact, despite my anti-war beliefs, felt GWB should have done it much sooner. GWB became distracted by his pretend war with Saddam and Iraq. If he had only finished what he started in Afghanistan, we would not even be discussing this issue right now. Back off Obama. He's got a full plate due to the previous administration, and he's doing the best he can without telling lies to the American public.

Wow, a "full plate" and blaming the previous administration.

That never gets old, huh?

Is millerbeach a DNC robot?

There is a huge difference between the facts and blame. Sorry you two still can't see the difference, but I am not surprised. Telling the truth and sticking to the facts never gets old.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Post a link to one of your posts here, where you supported Bush's surge, complete with time stamp and no editing. Saying you supported something in the past with no proof is pretty easy...proving it is something else entirely.

While we're at it, can we name a president that didn't have a lot on his plate?

Funny, Obama didn't campaign on his inability to multi-task while in the situation he knew he was getting into....nor did he campaign on a promise to send more troops to war. Yet, that's what we're getting, and with hypocrites revisionists apologists on this very board claiming they at one time supported Bush's sending more troops over for one of his "surges." (yeah, right) But the apologist attitude goes one further, sadly...someone on another thread used the deplorably overused "full plate" excuse saying gay rights weren't as important as all the other things on that "full plate." Yes, on a gay sports messageboard.

Sad.

What does the fact that it is on a gay sports message board have to do with anything? The fact you brought that up is sad. So another RNC "bot"cockroach comes out...thought we sprayed, but I guess it didn't work. I have no clue where I said that before on this board, if ever. If you want to do a search, knock yourself out. No one has ever answered the original question, where the endless stream of info comes from, that only Bill W. seems to know the source of...but, as usual rethuglican fashion, questions are not answered and it becomes a petty, bickering contest, and nothing is solved. No thanks, not playing. Merry Christmas!

Like usual, you ask a talking-point talker to actually substantiate their talking points and hypocrisy, and they flee in a flurry of name-calling...while hilariously and ironically claiming that it's others who don't answer the questions posed to them. Now that's good comedy. And they do it all so brilliantly while making laughable assumptions about your political stances. You question Bush, and the right calls you a commie socialist, and you question Obama, and you get the oh-so-clever third grade moniker of a "Rethuglican."

I wonder if Obama would have received the Nobel prize if they had known he was later going to commit another 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Probably...he's still not Dubya...and that seems to be good enough for many, no matter how low the bar's been set.