[excon]

Hello again:

Health care is Obama's Waterloo. Afghanistan is ours. Frankly, considering that, I think a bit of dithering IS in order... What do you think he'll do? Will he withdraw, take the middle ground, or will he become a Nobel Peace Prize winning war time president?

But, before you decide, here's a little tidbit about the, oh so honorable General McCrystal - the one who wants ONLY 40,000 additional troops. He was in charge of the unit where Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire in Iraq. The general KNEW it was friendly fire, yet he covered it up when he wrote a recommendation for a medal for Tillman. When asked about it by a congressional panel investigating the incident, he lied about it again.

Is this the kind of guy we want in charge of OUR Waterloo?

excon

[George_1950]

One thing we know about Obama: he is an ideologue. The crowd he cow-tows with isn't interested in US superiority, anywhere.

[paraclete]

Hello again:

Health care is Obama's Waterloo. Afghanistan is ours.

excon

I think you have had many Waterloo's ex but none of them so devastating as the defeat of Napoleon. He lost an army and a nation.

Afghanistan will become an inconvenience, one more time when the force of US arms will not prevail. Overwhelming force is the only way the US prevails, anything less results in defeat. McChrystal like many before him has a plan and like many before him he protects the system. The military doesn't admit to friendly fire incidents easily any more than they admit to atrocities, but it is a well know fact that you stay well away from Americans in a fire fight.

Afghanistan is a disaster on many levels and the way out is to leave. The problem is how to extract yourselves without a massacre. Usually the only way to assure yourselves of that is overwhelming victory and pacification of the country. With a country that doesn't have the political will for victory it really doesn't matter whether the leaders military or otherwise have skeletons

[inthebox]

Constitutionally which, if either, Afghanistan or expanded government interference in healthcare, is justified?

To me, national security is governments primary job. If Obama does not think that US involvement in Afghanistan is important to national securiity, then he should state that we will be out of there asap. If he thinks that victory / success in Afghanistan is important to national security then he either agrees with the general and applies this strategy, or he should let us know what other strategy would be successful, why, and apply that.

As to healthcare, what good is "universal healthcare," when 1] security is not ensured, and 2] how to cover more people with quality healthcare without increasing costs during an economic recession.

I don't think Obama has a clue on either situation, or the correct priorities.


G&P

[tomder55]

Yup ;General McChrystal will get smeared like General Petraeus was when he proposed the Iraq surge. That's no surprise . It is no secret that Jon Krakauer is and was virulently opposed to both the Afghan and Iraqi wars .

Frankly, considering that, I think a bit of dithering IS in order... What do you think he'll do? Will he withdraw, take the middle ground, or will he become a Nobel Peace Prize winning war time president?

Regarding " dithering ";I think not ;an immediate decision is in order because if the decision is to surge ,the US will have the lull in combat that happens every winter there to deploy the additional troops before the spring.

I think the "commander in chief " will both dither and in the end split the difference which will not work . Then he will have the cover to say a surge doesn't work. I think if he doesn't approve the General's plan he should provide for the complete withdrawal of all NATO troops before Spring.

or will he become a Nobel Peace Prize winning war time president?

You mean like Teddy Roosevelt ?

[speechlesstx]

I think the "commander in chief " will both dither and in the end split the difference which will not work . Then he will have the cover to say a surge doesn't work. I think if he doesn't approve the General's plan he should provide for the complete withdrawal of all NATO troops before Spring.

We now have our answer, he voted present.

[excon]

To me, national security is governments primary job.

Hello again, in:

To YOU, and to the other righty's...

However, it's not written anywhere. Our Constitution, which outlines the duties of government, doesn't say that at all. I've heard you righty's say on countless occasions, that the presidents FIRST job is to keep us safe... But, that's made up as well. In fact, if you want to know what the presidents FIRST obligation is, all you need to do is read his oath of office, which, by the way, is in the Constitution...

You may be surprised to learn that in his oath, he swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" NOT the nation, but the CONSTITUTION. If his job was to keep us safe, don't you think it would say that somewhere?

Plus, I also think you say the above so that you don't have to justify the cost of war, but you want government to justify the cost of EVERYTHING else...

The Constitutional FACT of the matter is, that health care, wars, the post office, all the way down the smallest of governmental activities, carry the SAME weight and responsibilities... Consequently, the costs of each program should demand the same accountability...

Now, YOU can support which program you like.. But to say that the primary job of government is security, is just plain not true... I'll be willing, however, to admit that I'm wrong, if you can show me WHERE in our documents your position is sustained.

excon

[tomder55]

The name 'Barack' in Arabic means : "He who dithers" or "Hamlet" .

I am actually shocked that he considered all the options and could not come up with one that suited him.
I had heard earlier this week that he has agreed to the McChrystal request. Guess that report was wrong.

Time is wasting . It takes time to deploy and now is the time to do it while the winter lull begins.

Once he picks up that peace prize his decision will be clear. He wants to 'cut and run ' but he needs the political cover first. The delay ;and restrictive ROEs will further turn to public against the effort .Then he can make his move. Over in England the public is turning because they did not see it fit to provide their troops with air-cover.
Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe warned of helicopter shortage weeks before Afghanistan death | UK news | guardian.co.uk

And of course Obama's ambassador in Afghanistan retired Gen.Karl Eikenberry gave the President the cover he needed to delay.
Mr. President, no more troops | Cynthia Tucker

Eikenberry was last seen attending a peace vigil in Afghanistan. General McChrystal is reportedly furious over Eikenberry's cables to the President. Anyway you look at it;you have a bad situation when your two lead guys in the field fundamentally do not agree on a course of action.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

If memory serves, George W. Bush dithered on Iraq. He didn't take ANY of the recommendations that were on the table. Nope, he went his own way - and you loved it.

Now, Barack the ditherer is dithering, and you hate it.

You're right too, when we have our two top dudes arguing about the right thing to do...

Besides, why do you support our troops giving their lives for a drug dealing corrupt leader?? Sounds like something a liberal would do.

excon

[tomder55]

I am not for the Afghan leader .I am for the people.

Yes President Bush considered all the options he was given and made the unpopular choice ;which turned out to be the right one.
I don't see this President making the right choice. I see him in over his head.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

If memory serves, George W. Bush dithered on Iraq. He didn't take ANY of the recommendations that were on the table. Nope, he went his own way - and you loved it.

Now, Barack the ditherer is dithering, and you hate it.

You're right too, when we have our two top dudes arguing about the right thing to do...

Besides, why do you support our troops giving their lives for a drug dealing corrupt leader??? Sounds like something a liberal would do.

excon

Oh, really?

I seem to remember several long threads here at AMHD in which we specifically stated that Bush should send more troops to Iraq... that we needed to actually FIGHT the war instead of trtying to build nations. We needed more troops and we needed to change the ROEs to allow the troops to do their jobs properly. I remember specifically saying any number of times that I though that Rummy had screwed up because he was trying to use technology to substitute for boots on the ground and we needed more troops. And every time I or Tom, or Speech, or good ol' Dennis (KINDJ), made this argument, you would argue about how messed up things were and how sending more troops would just be a waste. And when Patreus came up with his "surge strategy", we basically said that what he was proposing was what we had been saying for several years at that point.

In fact, we have been consistent across the board, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, both for Bush and for Obama.

And you have consistently been on the opposite side.

So please don't give us this bullsh!t about us having one opinion for Bush and another for Obama. It just ain't true, and there's plenty of evidence for it on the internet.

Elliot

[excon]

I am not for the Afghan leader .I am for the people.

Hello again, tom:

Notwithstanding your post, the people elected him. We either believe in democracy or we don't. If we stay, he's our guy for the near future.

It's my view, however, that we CANNOT continue to fight a war on HIS behalf. Or do you want to overthrow him and put in a puppet?? Riiiight. That'll work good for us...

excon

[tomder55]

Notwithstanding your post, the people elected him.

By all accounts he stole the election .That is why even the myopic Obama demanded a run-off.

[paraclete]

Hello again, tom:

Notwithstanding your post, the people elected him. We either believe in democracy or we don't. If we stay, he's our guy for the near future.

It's my view, however, that we CANNOT continue to fight a war on HIS behalf. Or do you want to overthrow him and put in a puppet??? Riiiight. That'll work good for us...

excon

There might be some doubt as to whether the people actually elected him, Ex, he was awarded to election on a default because his opponent didn't believe in the process.

You are correct, this dude doesn't deserve the protection of the free world, so no CIA overthrows, no puppets, this is what this guy is anyway. He is just a tribal leader who bubbled to the top, in the right place at the right time.

If I read you correctly you think the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know

[excon]

There might be some doubt as to whether the people actually elected him. If I read you correctly you think the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know

Hello again, clete:

There's PLENTY of doubt.. But our doubt changes NOTHING. He IS the Afghan president whether we like it or not. We either give up American lives in SUPPORT of his government, overthrow him, or leave.

I'll take door number #3.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

I'll take door number #3.

excon

You and me both, mate, but it appears we are the only ones with the common sense to see it. As they say, common sense isn't very common.:D

[tomder55]

Please direct me to the quote where candidate Obama was concerned about the corruption of Karzai . I don't think you can. During the campaign Afghanistan was the "necessary war" .
Back then candidate Obama promised he'd win the war because it was the "central front" in the war on terror.
He even wrote in his essay in 'Foreign Affairs ' that

We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest. Success in Afghanistan is still possible, but only if we act quickly, judiciously, and decisively.

Renewing American Leadership

In fact;back then that was the meme of the entire left .

But now quickness ,decisiveness are just words not part of his vocabulary.

[excon]

In fact;back then that was the meme of the entire left .

But now quickness ,decisiveness are just words not part of his vocabulary.

Hello again, tom:

You said the words correctly "back then". Here's two more words that you righty's don't understand either: things change.

excon

[speechlesstx]

You said the words correctly "back then". Here's two more words that you righty's don't understand either: things change.

Seems I recall tom has mentioned many times that the realities met after being sworn in clashed with Obama's campaign rhetoric. But tell me, what changed from the time Obama announced his intentions last spring to the time his commander offered his solution? Did McChrystal miss those changes and offer up an irrelevant plan? The biggest change has been in Obama from decisiveness on Afghanistan to waffling.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what happened, exactly. Maybe, in the year since the campaign, the country grew tired. Maybe, during that year, it started to look more like Vietnam. But, something DID happen. The year was not VOID of events.

Your thinking DOES mirror a neocon ideology, though. Once you start a war, you forge on ahead no matter what. In fact, it makes NO difference how the situation changes, because as an example, you'll say that we need to stay, if only to honor the last guy that died. Which, of course, is a pretty stupid reason to continue a war.

excon