TPMDC
Obama Issues New Orders On Afghanistan
Christina Bellantoni | November 30, 2009, 11:13AM
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
President Obama huddled at 5 p.m. Sunday with his top military and national security team, issuing orders for the Pentagon to implement his plan for sending more than 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that Obama "issued orders" from the Oval Office to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. David Petraeus, Adm. Mike Mullen, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Gen. James Cartwright and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Before that meeting he spoke via phone with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"The president communicated his final decision on the strategy ... and issued orders on the strategy's implementation," Gibbs said.
Obama also will be in "close consultation with our friends and allies throughout the day" because the administration believes the war "is a shared international challenge."
The president has called foreign leaders Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He will call Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown today. He also is meeting privately with Australia's Kevin Rudd today at the White House.
Australia has sent more troops to Afghanistan this year to a level the U.s. is "quite pleased with," Gibbs said, and Obama is not planning to ask the country for more.
Obama will formally announce the troops decision tomorrow night in a speech from West Point Military Academy.
The White House refuses to offer guidance on the exact number of troops who will be sent to the region, and Gibbs told reporters Obama is not being "overly specific" in his calls with world leaders to keep the circle of people who know tightly secure.
Gibbs said at 6 p.m. last night Obama spoke via secure video teleconference with Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry from the Situation Room to lay out his decision. He will tell 31 members of Congress tomorrow at 4:45 P.M.
Obama is still working with Ben Rhodes of the NSC team on the final version speech.
Late Update: The Pentagon used its Twitter feed to solicit thoughts from citizens: "Lots in the news today on Pres. Obama's Afghan speech tomorrow. What points and/or issues do you think he should highlight?"
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
theWalrus
November 30, 2009 11:34 AM
This is a terrible, tragic decision by President Obama. It will be distressing to listen to his address and hear the same rationale that Bush fed us. With this move, Obama puts his stamp of approval on the phony, concocted (but highly profitable) "war on terror".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 30, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to theWalrus
He kinda did that when he campaigned on escalating in Afghanistan. Did you think he was just joking?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
November 30, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to FreeRider
Well he was just joking on Iraq, NAFTA, the rule of law, Wall Street regulation... Who could have known more war in Afghanistan was the one big promise he intended to keep?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:37 PM in reply to Why oh why
Really? He was joking on those other things? When did he say, for example, that he would end the war in Iraq precipitously?
Sometimes I think people mixed up Obama and Kucinich somewhere along the way. There really isn't any other explanation for some of the ideas about what Obama is supposed to have promised.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:42 PM in reply to jenesq
I have never liked Kucinich. And no, I did not confuse the two.
Obama has thus far proved a disappointment. Yes, he has kept his promise on Afghanistan.
We might live with that if he were living up to his other promises.
You're doing him (and us) no favors by continuing to praise him regardless of what he does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to again
I'm not praising him "regardless of what he does." I'm looking at what he has done--within a realistic context of (1) what his campaign laid out as his agenda and priorities; (2) what his overall approach to the "art of the possible" has always been; and (3) what it takes to get some of these things done (eg, legislation is a long and ugly process that the executive has limited influence over)--and I have concluded that he is doing a pretty damn good job.
The problem is that there are too many instant-gratification types out there who seem hellbent on denouncing Obama for not pushing through his entire agenda in an imperialistic (and totally unrealistic) fashion...the same people, ironically, who hated Bush for abusing executive power and being unwilling to listen or compromise on anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to jenesq
that might fly if he hadn't chosen Geithner and Summers.
or if he'd make half an effort toward the transparency he promised.
I didn't expect a miracle, but I did expect a President with a damn pulse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:53 PM in reply to again
Those kind of irrational, overwrought pronouncements don't give you any credibility whatsoever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:55 PM in reply to jenesq
irrational overwrought pronouncements? Like calling anyone who dissents an "instant-gratification type"?
Right...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 30, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to again
He's made more than "half an effort" toward transparency. You think transparency means publishing state secrets in the New York Times. No other White House has released its list of visitors. No other WH has put a site like recovery.gov to show where the money is spent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 1:01 PM in reply to FreeRider
We could go on all day like this, but I don't think someone like "again" is actually interested in debating facts. I've seen too many of that type--they are fixated on outrage and will cling to anything that feeds it, rejecting all else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 30, 2009 1:03 PM in reply to jenesq
You're right. They pick something they don't like and foam at the mouth about it while ignoring all the other stuff.
Geithner & Summers? Puhleeze.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 30, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to jenesq
He's better than Bush. There, are you happy? You seem to be the one making the blanket judgment that Obama always makes the best of all possible decisions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to AJM
heh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Camino
December 1, 2009 8:04 AM in reply to AJM
hahahahahahaah good point!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 30, 2009 8:06 PM in reply to again
Obama accomplishments
Signed on October 28, 2009
Hate Crimes Bill
Signed on October 28, 2009
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
Signed on October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
#
Signed on August 06, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Extension
#
Signed on June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
#
Signed on May 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
#
Signed on May 22, 2009
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
#
Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
#
Signed on May 20, 2009
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
#
Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
#
Signed on March 30, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Signed on March 20, 2009
Small Business Act Temporary Extension
Signed on February 17, 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
*
Signed on February 11, 2009
DTV Delay Act
Signed on February 04, 2009
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
*
Signed on January 29, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
November 30, 2009 1:20 PM in reply to jenesq
"When did he say, for example, that he would end the war in Iraq precipitously?"
I'm so glad you saw the light, sir. A few more years in Mesopotamia should be enough to create a vibrant democracy.
But did you really vote for Obama despite his irresponsible promise to withdraw "one or two brigades a month" from Iraq, starting in February 2009? Or did you assume then that he was just joking?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
magurakurin
November 30, 2009 9:01 PM in reply to Why oh why
We're fucking leaving Iraq. What part of gone by the end of next year can't some people get their mind around? Did people actually expect that all those soldier and their millions of tons of equipment and material could be removed from what reamains a hostile battle enviroment in a matter of weeks?
Really fucked up problems often are only resolved with really fucked up solutions. That's fucking life. George Bush is the guy who fucked the world in the bung, maties, not Barack Obama.
But go for it. Primary Obama, drive him out of office and then see if you can get someone 1\10th as liberal as Obama into the American presidency. Hey, I wish America was more like Sweden, but it ain't and if you think you can do better than Barack Obama, go for it. But don't come here whining about how Presiden Palin is fucking your world black and blue after you lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
November 30, 2009 12:16 PM in reply to FreeRider
No, I didn't think he was joking and I found his remarks then very distressing. I was hoping that once in office, faced with the grim realities of the situation, he would temper the rhetoric and use more common sense. Oh, well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
November 30, 2009 12:42 PM in reply to theWalrus
It looks like he did see the grim reality and made a decision based on information he didn't have as a candidate and info that none of us will ever see. You have every right to disagree with his decision, but no one should ever imply or accuse the president of just doing this for kicks or no good reason or to appease the GOP or to appease Wall Street or whatever reason the Left wants to use to minimize this incredibly complex and difficult decision.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:45 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
Doesn't sound like you have any friends or relatives who will be deployed, do you, VivaAmerica?
Matthew Hoh knows far more about the military and its limitations than Obama, who never served. And Matthew Hoh's decision was far more sound.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to again
I do. And I sure as hell would rather see them in Afghanistan pursuing what I hope will be a clearly articulated strategy than all the time they spent in Iraq for no good reason.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to jenesq
I trust Matthew Hoh's judgment above yours.
And I surely doubt that with your sanguinary attitude you have anything or anyone to lose in this fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to again
Well, I do, but obviously you can't comprehend that anyone could have a different opinion under those circimstances. That's fine, because I sure don't need your seal of approval.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 30, 2009 1:03 PM in reply to jenesq
According to research done during the Vietnam War, if a peace family had a son drafted they turned hawkish while he was at war and remained hawkish if he died, if he returned alive they reverted to their initial pro-peace position. It is much too hard for most people to contemplate the possibility that their child's life is being risked for no good reason.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to AJM
I wasn't hawkish when they were in Iraq getting shot at every single day. I will still active against that war. So spare me your nickel psychology about a totally different situation in a totally different era.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 30, 2009 1:39 PM in reply to jenesq
Data are.
You consider your single sample as more telling -- this is irrational.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 30, 2009 8:13 PM in reply to again
Fortunately for Mat Hoh all he had to do was resign because he didn't like the situation.
The president doesn't have that luxury. He has to make the tough choices. I don't like this choice but I do know he has far more information at hand than we do. I will anxiously await his address to the nation tomorrow night. At least from what I have read, he wants an exit strategy. I can't and won't believe not for a second that he is sending more troops without much thought. You can dislike him if you want, but I believe he is a decent man of great integrity and does want to change things. Give him a chance
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 2:02 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Why do you insist that criticism of the President indicates dislike of the President.
I think he's an impressive man, who, once in office, appears to have lost his spine in the face of very powerful entrenched interests.
Sadly, it is people like you who back the power of those entrenched interests by failing to hold the President to his promises.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 30, 2009 1:01 PM in reply to again
If Obama weren't sending more troops to Afghanistan, the fact that he had not served wouldn't matter. Now, it's a cheap shot a president with whom you disagree.
Also, please tell me why serving in the military automatically gives you superior strategic military vision.
Rumsfeld served.
FDR never served.
McClellan served. Lincoln did not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 30, 2009 8:15 PM in reply to again
Do you have friends or family ready to deploy? Were you this concerned when we sending soldiers to Iraq?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 2:03 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Hell yes to both questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
November 30, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
So much for transparency.
It's only incredibly complex if you make it that. It's not complex. We should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday, issued a formal apology to the people of Iraq for invading (and destroying) their country, offer reparations, and work diplomatically with the Pakistani and Indian governments in an attempt to apprehend the few remaining criminals responsible for formulating the 9/11 attacks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to theWalrus
Obviously you don't know much about the history of the region if you think that we can work solely diplomatically with Pakistan to resolve this situation. Afghanistan is not Iraq. It's not Vietnam. It is its own set of circumstances and difficulties, and unlike the other countries mentioned, a real threat to the United States was based there and will thrive there again if we don't create some means of stopping it. And by that I do not mean simply crushing the threat militarily, because that is just as idiotic as doing nothing. But there must be some semblance of stability in that region in order to create the kind of infrastructure and services that will prevent outsiders from being able to exploit the region as a recruiting base for terrorists.
I mean, the Taliban got a foothold there because 1) they provided day-to-day stability to people who desperately craved it and 2) they used ideologically-driven schools to exploit people who simply wanted their kids to have a hot meal and learn to read. That information is not from some right-wing nutjob...you can find it in almost any work about Afghanistan, including "Three Cups of Tea," which was written by a peace activist. If we leave right now, that's what will fill the void.
It is unfortunately true that we may or may not be able to resolve anything in a country that has been based on warring factions for a very long time and that does not really have the infrastructure to support a centralized government, but if the Obama plan includes a combination of military and nonmilitary actions that might put them on a better path, I think we owe it to ourselves and to them to listen to what he has to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maven81
November 30, 2009 1:23 PM in reply to jenesq
You are being extremely naive. Has it at all occurred to you that maybe Afghanistan has a different definition of stability then you do? Thinking that an installed central government will bring stability is exactly the kind of mistake the Soviets made. It's quite possible that they prefer to live autonomously in small factions. It's also possible that they don't want your definition of democracy either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to maven81
I never thought for a minute that an American-style democracy was possible there, or that an American-style centralized government was the goal. Indeed, that was one of my biggest beefs with the Iraq "strategy" under Bush--thinking that our political system and values are universally desirable and/or possible.
What Afghanistan needs is some kind of stability in order to be able to serve the basic needs of its population for infrastructure and education, because that in turn will lead to a chance for some kind of non-radical political stability. How that will happen is an open question, but I am willing to listen to President Obama's plan before condemning it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 1:31 PM in reply to maven81
By the way, I think that things like the availability of roads, schools, and access to basic services like medical care is a pretty universal definition of "stability," and pretty much everyone worldwide wants those things, regardless of the context in which they live.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maven81
November 30, 2009 1:47 PM in reply to jenesq
Well then you must surely be aware then that the soviet propaganda machine in the 80s said exactly the same thing. We're just here to build roads, and schools. We're helping our Afghan brothers step away from religious fanaticism and establish a stable secular state. Funny how the Afghans did not welcome them with open arms... Face it, no matter how you look at it we will be seen as invaders. Even invaders with genuinely good intentions will still turn the local population against them. And it won't matter if you can build infrastructure because they will still despise you.
It is not our job to build roads and schools there, it is theirs. And by your definition of stability Iraq would have been much better off with Saddam still in power since stability obviously does not equal freedom.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
November 30, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to jenesq
I guess that depends on your definition of "stability". You obviously don't know much about human nature. The United States would do well to drop its irrational & narcissistic desires to force democracy upon the rest of the world. 1] It's far from perfect and 2] what works here won't really work elsewhere. Each country is unique.
Actually, I know a lot about the region. No empire has been able to "tame" it and probably never will. I have to agree with maven81 - your thinking is naive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to theWalrus
Bravo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 30, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
Just like we ought to have respected the military decisions involved in Vietnam?
The Left were opposing that, correctly, from the outset.
The peace groups in general investigate a great deal more thoroughly and disseminate more information than the MSM do. A clear-eyed citizen -- not looking through partisan blinkers -- and not lobbied to death by the Military Industrial Complex actually has a much better shot at judging correctly that the powers that be have demonstrated over the last several decades.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 30, 2009 8:09 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
Amen to that. Also, the economy tanked two months before the elections. Ya think that might have changed things a bit???? Let's get real here
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 2:05 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Unfortunately, that should have changed things a bit, but it didn't.
The fact that the economy "tanked" as you put it is not a reason to send 30,000 more troops into the graveyard of empires.
Please use some common sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
November 30, 2009 11:54 AM in reply to theWalrus
Let's actually hear the rationale that Obama gives us before condemning it, shall we? He certainly spent long enough thinking about it that I'm willing to listen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 12:02 PM in reply to Xantar
No rationale could possibly justify the massive waste of lives and resources he is going to authorize.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eggroll
November 30, 2009 11:35 AM
Please help me here. Did Obama just screw the pooch -- or not?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:42 PM in reply to eggroll
Why not listen to what Obama has to say and then decide. The Michael Moore types would not be satisfied by anything less than a complete and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, but that POV is not necessarily grounded in facts or reality of any sort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to jenesq
I'm no Michael Moore type. Thank you very much. I could give you a laundry list of factual errors in Sicko and capitalism. (e.g. continually referring to ten billion that Goldman received. Try over 50 billion that GS received from the government, of which it returned only ten billion.)
But I am a Democrat.
You should stop dismissing every taxpaying American who has watched a depleted military personnel struggle (while billions are funneled to contractors who don't have to abide US military law.)
Let's take care of this country first. We need a jobs program to propel us into a more energy efficient future so we don't have to send our people to Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agostage
November 30, 2009 11:39 AM
This is no surprise. Obama has been consistent on this front since before his campaign. I think some progressives dreamed up a different version of Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
November 30, 2009 11:47 AM in reply to agostage
They thought he was just trying to look tough on national security in order to win the election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
November 30, 2009 11:53 AM in reply to VivaAmerica!
cosign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 30, 2009 2:29 PM in reply to mjshep
Me co-sign too!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
November 30, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to VivaAmerica!
I, for one, always thought he was serious about Afghanistan and it always worried me. Still does, as I'm sure it does him and everyone else.
Another thing one has to take into consideration is that dove-like candidates morph into hawk-like presidents once they have taken the oath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
And that is pretty much what his campaign aides implied he was doing, but like the rest of his campaign, it was just another instance of deceit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 30, 2009 12:12 PM in reply to oleeb
Huh? Got a cite for that? Maybe it's just my Kool-Aid soaked brain editing history, but there were no winks or nods I was aware of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:18 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
No kidding. People will go to any lengths, including "he said it, but he didn't really mean it!" to justify their outrage that Obama is doing what he said he was going to do with respect to Afghanistan. This kind of garbage, perhaps crystallized in Michael Moore's "open letter," is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.
I'm interested to hear what President Obama has to say on his Afghanistan decision. I have always had mixed feelings about this war and an appreciation for the very complicated situation in that region. I also always knew that Obama intended to pursue this war, and now I am willing to listen to his strategy, which I hope will address non-military endeavors in Afghanistan as well as a troop increase.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to jenesq
why don't you read Matthew Hoh's resignation letter instead of Michael Moore's?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to again
I did read it, as a matter of fact. I believe he made many valid points. But I am also willing to concede that Afghanistan is such a complex situation on every level that his POV is only one of many that need to be considered, and I am also willing to hear Obama's strategy, which I hope will contain a lot of non-military endeavors of the type that will strengthen the Afghan infrastructure and provide the kind of stability that will prevent outside radicals from using poverty and despair to recruit followers (as the Taliban did with their foreign-funded schools).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:01 PM in reply to jenesq
And we will pay for this military misadventure HOW?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DedicatedDiva
November 30, 2009 4:08 PM in reply to again
Did you ask that question about Iraq?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
December 1, 2009 1:53 AM in reply to DedicatedDiva
Hell yeah. Are you presuming that I, a 9-11 "survivor" (although what, exactly, I survived is questionable - what was worse, the smoke and crap I inhaled, or the paranoiac patriotism that followed with that National Guard descending on the city right before hordes of flag waving americans who had always hated New York decided to visit us) thought that we should go into either Iraq OR Afghanistan?
My failure to support either misadventure did not win me any additional friends back in New York in the months and years after 9.11. In fact, it cost me some of my more conservative friends.
So the answer is, yes, I did question the cost. But first I questioned the common sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 2:03 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You are exactly right about the kook aid, uh, I mean kool aid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 30, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
I thought he was serious. I also thought he would have us in war in Pakistan within two year. I voted against him despite being a life long Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to agostage
His campaign postion was a very modest addition of troops and nothing even vaguely resembling an open ended escalation with 30,000 troops as the first stage. This is only the beginning. More will be sent and more will die as a result of his lack of courage in standing up to the warmongers of Washington.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 30, 2009 12:10 PM in reply to oleeb
Where did you see the words "open ended escalation" in anything that's been reported?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 2:06 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Because that is what it is. He will, of course, lie about it in his speech so people like you will continue worshipping his graven image. You'll see. Once you harness yourself to escalation it is impossible to get off. Johnson knew it going in and so does Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 30, 2009 3:09 PM in reply to oleeb
And where, pray tell, is he going to find the troops for this gigantic escalation given that we no longer have a draft, a resulting army with millions of soldiers, or the political will to either pay for such an army or reinstitute conscription?
I know it won't be either a consolation or convincing to you, but the bottom line is that in a world where we only have ten divisions in our army--all of them worn down by Iraq, this escalation on top of the prior one, will come close to being the most we can possibly do. That in itself might be an argument against doing it in the first place, but the possibility of further escalation much beyond that number is foreclosed by the simple reality that we don't have many more troops to spare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
diachronic
November 30, 2009 8:44 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
This is the dismal truth that Obama will try to cloak in his grand rhetoric.
By the time his speech tomorrow is through, his credibility will be in the same state as the Army.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MrMasterson
November 30, 2009 11:47 AM
"....when we should have been focused on the war in Afghanistan...."
Sounds like somebody can check one of those boxes on SNL's campaign promises kept board.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cazart
November 30, 2009 11:55 AM
On the surface, it seems like the worst choice out of a bunch of bad choices. The only bright spot I can think of is that I've heard local militias are forming here and there...maybe this gives them the extra push they need. But overall, I'm less than thrilled.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 12:00 PM
How sickening that a man so smart has done something so stupid and tragically violent. He will go down in history as a man of no political will whose decision on Afghanistan helped destroy what was once the mightiest democracy on earth. One wonders how he can possibly justify this blood soaked decision to himself when he knows as well as anyone that there isn't the slightest chance of "victory" even if we stayed there for a hundred years. I hope someone decides to challenge him in the primaries.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
November 30, 2009 12:01 PM
Just as LBJ doomed his presidency by escalating the Vietnam war, Obama is dooming himself to becoming a single term president. Get ready for the first woman president to take over in 2013, with First Dude in tow. I wonder how the housing market is in Canada.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
What nonsense. Even if Obama is a one-term president, which I doubt, that does not mean Sarah Palin is going to get elected. The only people who like Sarah Palin politically are the teabaggers and assorted right-wing fringe...that is not a political majority by any stretch of the imagination. Normal people only pay attention to her for the entertainment value. There is a zero point zero chance of her becoming President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:43 PM in reply to jenesq
That's what I said about Bush in 1999. I was younger then. My father continued to worry.
The worriers were right.
And with massive unemployment, I don't think a Palin presidency is totally out of the question. Unlikely, yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to again
Palin makes Bush look like a supergenius. Having been a voter for decades, I'm old enough not to underestimate the stupidity of the electorate, but Palin clearly crosses the line between the possible and the impossible. Plus, let's not forget that Bush actually lost the 2000 election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to jenesq
Wow, that must mean that Bush wasn't in power for eight years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 1:13 PM in reply to again
Don't be a dumbass. Bush was certainly president for eight years, but he didn't exactly have a huge popular mandate. Palin has even less appeal than Bush, because she's too crazy for the big money fiscal conservatives who supported Bush. That ought to be self-evident, but I guess not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to jenesq
calling others a dumbass certainly speaks to your intelligence...
You say that Bush didn't have a huge mandate, that's fine. But it didn't stop him from taking radical action in the same way that "not winning" the election didn't stop him from taking the Presidency.
I agree that Palin is, at this point, largely a distraction. But with the unemployment rate as it stands now, Obama and the Democrats (of which I am one, having been active in the party since before I could vote) are at risk in 2010 and 2012.
No amount of denying this reality will make it go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 30, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to jenesq
46% Obama 43% Palin Rasmussen 11/24.
Rasmussen has a house bias according to Nate Silver but given who Palin is this particular statistic is very alarming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 30, 2009 8:32 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
That is such a stoopid comment I can't even believe my eyes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
November 30, 2009 11:38 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Remember this in November 2012. Then you will believe your eyes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FZ1999
November 30, 2009 12:01 PM
The system is deterministic and Obama did what he had to do to guarantee Western dominance of the Central Asian energy grid. Chances that Afghanistan ever is anything but a brutal 3rd world hole? -- Zero. Drop the COIN, secure the gas, fight turrists -- it's certainly a better plan than the neocons gave us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 12:08 PM in reply to FZ1999
It is no better because it will not be any more successful. Obama's escalation won't work and he knows it won't work just as LBJ knew escalation wouldn't work in Vietnam, but he did it anyway so he wouldn't look weak and get criticized by the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FZ1999
November 30, 2009 12:13 PM in reply to oleeb
Overall I agree. But if you think Obama has a button that he can press to stop the war, or that decisions are made by a unified sovereign, when he in fact works for the most powerful political entity ever organized, you're kidding yourself. Obama could never have stopped this war, and you and I will directly benefit from it [unless you're in a military family] by a guaranteed 'quality of living' shipped to us via Pipelanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to FZ1999
I simply don't believe that they will ever reach the point of successfully securing that pipeline. Afghanistan is a hopeless endeavor. Hopeless. There will be no benefit for anyone other than the merchants of death.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ajkrueger
November 30, 2009 12:09 PM
Thank goodness Obama was elected, so we don't have to put up with those war mongering, Republicans! Huh? Escalation! Noooo!
When we are occupying a nation that doesn't want us there, 1,000,000 troops are not enough!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
November 30, 2009 12:10 PM
I my be wrong, and I sure hope I am, but we may be witnessing the official end of our aspirations for a successful Obama Presidency or any semblance of "change we can believe in."
It's said that it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all, but it my be worse - much worse - to have hoped and had those hopes dashed, than to never have hoped at all.
By escalating the Afghan war, a glacial pace on withdrawal from Iraq, refusing to effectively regulate the financial industry, playing cozy with investment bankers by such things as refusing to even consider a transaction tax, continuing secret prisons and government secrecy, seeming indifference (except rhetorically) for the plight of the middle class, continuing tax policies that favor the rich and pushing a weak and probably ineffective but nonetheless expensive health insurance "reform" lacking any sort of meaningful public option or restraints on for-profit insurers - if it passes at all, Obama and the Democrats should be prepare for a dispirited, demoralized and unenthusiastic base that will neither donate nor volunteer nor even turn out to vote in 2010 and perhaps as far as 2012.
Not a very smart way to maintain a majority, or even get re-elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to mjshep
Well, you are wrong, but frankly I don't care at this point whether Obama gets re-elected or not.
He did not get elected to get re-elected. He did not get elected to pander to his base in order to maintain political power. He got elected to do what he thinks is best within the confines of the power of his office. He has said that he is willing to be a one-term president in order to do it, and I can respect that.
What is popular is not necessarily (or even often) what is right. And what is right is not always possible (that's the down-side to a representative democracy....Obama cannot force Congress to give him the public option, for example). But making the effort to pursue a well-thought-out strategy (and Obama's efforts are undoubtedly well-considered even if others don't agree with the conclusions) in one term is worth a hell of a lot more than two terms of political pandering.
I'm personally willing to listen to what he has to say on Afghanistan. I might even learn something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:00 PM in reply to jenesq
you might even learn something? You might have learned something by reading Matthew Hoh's resignation letter, but maybe the perspective of a decorated veteran doesn't interest you as much as the President's rhetorical skills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 1:16 PM in reply to again
I did read Hoh's letter, and I thought it had many valid points. It is one of many POVs to consider.
Funny, you sound like such a Republican..."How will we pay for this? Listen to the military personnel [well, at least the one I agree with--to hell with the others]!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:24 PM in reply to jenesq
Dear Jen,
A concern with the budget was certainly never limited to the GOP. In fact, the last GOP admin proved that it didn't care at all about the budget.
But neither was a concern with outstanding military heroes solely the province of the GOP.
I think it is YOU who are making up your own definition of what qualifies as Democratic vs. what is Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 30, 2009 1:58 PM in reply to jenesq
What part of what mjshep said is wrong? He's certainly correct as to the impact on Democratic turnout or don't you read TPM?
Josh Marshall 11/27
?A pretty staggering number out of the new Daily Kos weekly tracking poll. They asked voters, basically, how are sure are you you're going to vote next year.
The first number is certain or likely to vote; the second is unlikely or certain not to vote.
Republican Voters: 81/14
Independent Voters: 65/23
Democratic Voters: 56/40
Everyone knows there's an enthusiasm gap. You don't even need a poll to tell you. You can feel it. On the one hand you've got very gunned up conservatives, who make up an even greater proportion of the diminished GOP. On the other you've got a mix of demoralized progressives and other Dems who feel like they got the job done in November 2008 and have checked out on politics ... at least for now.
All together, it points to very, very rough seas in 2010. "
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
November 30, 2009 4:48 PM in reply to mjshep
That is my take on current events too. I was ecstatic when Obama was elected, and much more so when he was elected with a big Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Now I wonder why I felt so good then.
Obama is head and shoulders above Bush, as a president, no question at all. But, a talking tree stump would also have been head and shoulders above Bush. We should never scale down our hopes and desires just to gain an incremental improvement, one which will be temporary unless we can elect another Democrat in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 30, 2009 12:18 PM
So I guess there's no hope that anyone decrying the decision here would deign to offer a token expression of hope that they're wrong and he's right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I not only hope he is right, but I am eager to hear what he has to say on the subject before I make any judgment about his decision. I've spent the past few months working on an Afghan charity effort and have been studying the region in order to better understand the issues involved.
And it is clear to me, at any rate, that there is no single obvious answer to the situation, and that any simplistic "end the war now!!" posturing is as empty and wrong-headed as any of Dick Cheney's insane pronouncements on Iraq.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to jenesq
" any simplistic "end the war now!!" posturing is as empty and wrong-headed as any of Dick Cheney's insane pronouncements on Iraq."
Uh, not really. Not even close.
Your type of logic throws two totally different groups into the same barrel only because they are in opposition to your position.
That's truly a specious type of logic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ESK
November 30, 2009 12:23 PM
The hyperbole in this thread is mind numbing. Obama campaigned on getting the job done in Afghanistan. And by the way this is also tied into Pakistan, its nukes, the Taliban there, India and our national security. Complicated, yes? I understand and respect the anti war sentiment here, but let's not go puking on this before we hear what he has to say. Over the past year I've been amazed at the fantasy Obama that many progressives have talked about. If you really want to know how he thinks and how he intends gets things accomplished go read both of his books. Until then stop making it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:28 PM in reply to ESK
what fantasy? he promised transparency, then gave us geithner & summers.
btw, i'm not a progressive. I'm a Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 30, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to again
He promised transparency. He didn't promise to let you pick his cabinet and advisors. Geithner and Summers have been transparent. You just don't like what they're doing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:28 PM in reply to FreeRider
Geithner and Summers have been transparent?
Do go on... tell us the details, we'd love to know.
BTW, forget that little disclosure about Geithner's utter mishandling while at the NY Fed.
Forget what Sheila Bair, Gretchen Morgenson, Simon Johnson, Maggie Mahar, Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, et alia have to say about Geithner and Summers.
Forget that Summers lost Harvard nearly half of its endowment.
Forget what Paul Volcker has to say about the administration that refuses to listen to his solid advice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ESK
November 30, 2009 6:52 PM in reply to again
The fanatasy, whether it be a progressive or Democrtic one, is that he would do pretty much whatever you deemed to be appropriate in the exact manner and proportion that you deemed necessary, regardless of what he said during the campaign. That's a fantasy because no one can do it. And by the way please stay on topic next time. The article in TPM is about Afghanistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
November 30, 2009 12:28 PM in reply to ESK
Can someone clearly describe (without political rhetoric and nonsensical slogans) just what the "job" is and exactly when it will be "done"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
November 30, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to theWalrus
He's supposed to address just those issues tomorrow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
November 30, 2009 2:27 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
And I will be listening very carefully for specific steps and goals, not just empty rhetoric. I'm not hopeful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:33 PM in reply to ESK
Amen. Sometimes progressives can be as bad as teabaggers in the sense that they are willing to imagine an alternate reality in order to justify their own narrative.
Nothing that has occurred thus far in the Obama presidency should have come as a surprise to anyone who took the time to become familiar with Obama's agenda and overall approach. I really do not know where this "fantasy Obama" originated, but it wasn't with Obama himself. (I will say that it's funny how people blasted Bush for being unwilling to compromise on anything, but who now think Obama has betrayed them personally by listening to other POVs and sometimes compromising).
Obama has been quite open about his POV as well as his willingness to compromise on issues in order to move forward...but most especially, he was unequivocal about his approach to Afghanistan (and Pakistan). Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maven81
November 30, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to jenesq
The only alternate reality here is yours, in which the Afghanistan problem actually has a military solution. Yes, I'm aware that Obama will likely say the troop increase is only a single piece of a larger multi pronged offensive that also includes diplomacy and winning the hearts and minds of the people and so on.
None of that changes the fact that Afghanistan doesn't seem to want the kind of government we have envisioned for them. Or the fact that they don't care whether you think you're trying to help them, as long as you're occupying their soil.
Yes, Obama is consistent with his position, I'll give you that, but he's also consistently wrong on this issue. Why people refuse to learn from the Soviet experience there of a mere 20 years ago I'll never know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
November 30, 2009 9:12 PM in reply to jenesq
What sense does this silly argument make? "Obama said he would do X, so stop criticizing him for doing it." The criticism isn't over his consistency, but over the wisdom of his policy. It reminds me of the "Let Reagan be Reagan" meme that helped usher in the Great Communicator's worst abuses.
If the policy is right, defend its rightness, not just its consistency past statements.
Also, many of us who voted for this president disagreed with plenty of his positions. He was by far the better candidate, but having voted for him can hardly preclude criticizing his policies.
Finally, the "job" that he wanted to "finish" was never specified, and, with al Qaida in disarray and nearly all out of Afghanistan, any job worth the price is already finished.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to ESK
What job exactly it is that he intends to get done? Neither he, nor anyone else has been specific about that. Al Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan according to military sources. Obama's campaign promises in Afghanistan were all made in reference to killing and capturing Bin Laden and putting Al Qaeda out of business. As a result, we have absolutely no business there and there's nothing for Obama to get done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 12:24 PM
How. Do. We. Pay. For. This.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
November 30, 2009 12:25 PM in reply to again
Tax cuts on the wealthy and spending cuts.
;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheOwl
November 30, 2009 12:25 PM
What scares me is, that after all his agonizing, he does not understand what he is getting himself into.
This seems to be a habit of this man's!
And what will he say to the families who's loved ones have died while he has been contemplating every navel he can find?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:35 PM in reply to TheOwl
Really? You know this how? Have you been privy to what the President has studied over the past few months with respect to Afghanistan? And are you criticizing him for looking at too little information, or considering too much? If you are going to make an unfounded, dogmatic criticism, at least have it make sense, lol.
Honest to God, sometimes people sound like teabaggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
November 30, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to TheOwl
Oh stop! You don't know what he understands. You don't agree with his decision, but don't claim to understand and know more about Afghanistan than the president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
November 30, 2009 12:43 PM
We did not get into WWII until it was too late and over 6,000,000 people were exterminated. Anyone who beieves the grave potential for further terrorism is minimal is delusional. We know Obama agonized over this decision, and I give him the full benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing and has good reason for his decision. We will know more tomorrow. Let us wait and listen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
November 30, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to RhodaA
Not to get all technical but total military dead in WWII was from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war. Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 30, 2009 2:19 PM in reply to RhodaA
Anyone who believes that our presence in Afghanistan has anything to do with fighting terrorism is delusional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
November 30, 2009 9:16 PM in reply to RhodaA
How will I be able to distinguish between a genuine belief that sending 30,000 more troops is essential to our national security and a belief that it is necessary to Obama's political survival?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
November 30, 2009 12:50 PM
How about spending the same amount of treasure and blood to build an infrastructure here in the us to become energy independent of fossil fuels.
That is the only reason we are in that goddamn place anyways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to rbeats
Really? Can you tell me more about the wealth of fossil fuels found in Afghanistan? Because I bet the people there would love to find out that they have awesome natural resources like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
November 30, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to jenesq
You are kidding me right? You have no concept of how shit moves around the globe and our strategic bases in the world ensuring how that shit moves around, all centered around our dependence on fossil fuels.
Give me a break. Either you are being a jerk, or you are just plain uneducated, and a fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 30, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to rbeats
Actually, it's the idea that Afghanistan has anything to do with "how shit moves around in the world" that's laughable, at least in the millenium or two since the Silk Road shut down. Since then, it's been a place commerce assidiously avoids if at all possible. And it's always very possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
November 30, 2009 12:50 PM
Interesting comments on this thread.
He's being consistent with what he said on the campaign trail about Afghanistan, so he's not breaking any promises there. The transparency issue? Well, we now know significantly more about who visits the White House, but suddenly, that apparently is no longer important. Health care reform is progressing, albeit at a glacial pace, but that doesn't matter, either, because no matter what is passed, it'll be a sell-out, no doubt. The fact that troops have started to move back in Iraq is also suddenly irrelevant as well.
People are pretty fickle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
November 30, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to CT Voter
"People are pretty fickle."
Yes, they certainly are.
People on this thread love to constantly move the goal posts (as do many others on the left & right). I don't know why they do this... Maybe it's masochistic... Maybe they're simply unwilling to acknowledge when they're wrong... Maybe they're just perpetually disgruntled... Maybe they just like drama... Who knows?
All I know is that, like you, I'm continuing to look at the facts. And the facts don't comport with the narrative some people here are trying to create.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
More to the point, the facts also don't comport with sending more troops to Afghanistan.
But all that is minor to you compared to denouncing anyone who criticizes Obama's frankly idiotic decision as some kind of outlier.
It's not working. You can keep saying the President is right, but he's not. BTW, have you checked the approval ratings lately?
Continuing to say there isn't a problem doesn't erase the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 30, 2009 1:20 PM in reply to again
So, approval ratings are an indicator of quality? I guess you must have looooooved Bush back in '01 when his approval ratings were through the roof at 90%, right? (For the record, I was one of the 10% who never liked him at any point).
You can't have things both ways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to jenesq
No, you are obscuring the point I made. (Intentionally, or perhaps that's an inherent limitation of people who call other people "dumb-ass" as you have done to me.)
Approval ratings are not an indicator of quality, however, they may, as I pointed out, be an indication of the risks we face in 2010 and 2012.
Continuing to deny this is perhaps comforting to you, but not to the rest of us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 30, 2009 8:36 PM in reply to jenesq
Me neither . Good posts jenesq
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
November 30, 2009 2:06 PM in reply to again
"More to the point, the facts also don't comport with sending more troops to Afghanistan."
I guess that depends on which facts you rely upon. The fact that additional troops are necessary to assist with the training of Afghan security forces is not irrelevant... The fact that additional troops are necessary to help secure the nation's borders is not irrelevant...
Additionally, if this is about money, you should be aware of the fact that the additional brigades that will be dispatched to Afghanistan are ones that were already slated for deployment to Iraq. Furthermore, longer-term funding for the troops being sent to Afghanistan can be offset by a reallocation of funds for troops in Iraq as the commitment is being wound down there.
So, that begs the question: What facts are you relying upon?
"But all that is minor to you compared to denouncing anyone who criticizes Obama's frankly idiotic decision as some kind of outlier."
I never called you an "outlier." And my "denouncing" was aimed at individuals who constantly move the goalposts.
"It's not working. You can keep saying the President is right, but he's not. BTW, have you checked the approval ratings lately?"
I'd love to know what makes you so sure of yourself, so sure that you're definitively right about this matter. Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us.
"Continuing to say there isn't a problem doesn't erase the problem."
Don't know what that statement's about. No one said that there was no problem... We just don't agree on what the problem is. You seem to believe that it's an "idiotic" decision by a president who didn't decide to choose the path of a citizen -- you -- who apparently possesses an omniscience lost on us mere mortals.
On the other hand, I think the problem is people like you who assume that they know all, dismiss facts that they don't like, and attack people as "idiotic" just because they don't agree with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 2:31 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
"On the other hand, I think the problem is people like you who assume that they know all, dismiss facts that they don't like, and attack people as "idiotic" just because they don't agree with them."
Let's be clear - I did not attack you as "idiotic" - I said Obama's decision was "frankly idiotic."
Can you agree thus far and then I can address your other points?
I'm totally unimpressed by how you twisted my description of his decision as an attack on other people as "idiotic."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
November 30, 2009 2:56 PM in reply to again
"Let's be clear - I did not attack you as "idiotic" - I said Obama's decision was "frankly idiotic."
Can you agree thus far and then I can address your other points?
I'm totally unimpressed by how you twisted my description of his decision as an attack on other people as "idiotic.""
Sure, I can agree with that, because I never said that you attacked me as "idiotic." I know full well that you were calling the president "idiotic." Perhaps you should carefully read what I wrote; I didn't misconstrue your words. You seem to be a smart person, so I'm sure you understand what I said. But, just to be completely clear, I could have said, "attack people's DECISIONS as 'idiotic'"... Ultimately, it's semantics. My assessment remains the same.
By the way, I think it's ironic (and a bit amusing) that you're floating around this thread condemning people for "twisting your words," when you're doing just that to others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
November 30, 2009 1:01 PM
The real tragedy is that Obama knows this is a complete waste of American lives and resources. But he doesn't have the guts to stand up to the generals, the Pentagon, and the military industrial complex, and just say no. Instead, he is going to sacrifice even more lives with a supposed 'exit strategy' that will eventually allow him to do what should have been done in the first place.
This is the "go along to get along" president. Whether it's Wall Street, the banks, the insurance and drug companies, the CIA and national intelligence hierarchy, the Pentagon - or whatever vested interest there is in Washington - this president is completely incapable of directly confronting entrenched power. Rather, he always aims at taking the easiest, least controversial course. And since it's easier to betray his own base - and even betray what he knows is right - rather than to confront or provoke all the crazies on the far right (who seem to have him completely intimidated) that's what he does. And unfortunately, that will also be the defining theme of his presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 30, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to rstephen
Yeah. Escalating in Afghanistan is easy and non-controversial. LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
November 30, 2009 1:38 PM in reply to FreeRider
Do you actually think that going along with what the generals want, and what the military industrial complex demands, is more difficult for a commander-in-chief than saying no to them? And do you seriously believe that being blamed for losing the war - as everyone on the right would certainly do - is an easier thing to do politically than putting it off as long as possible? If you believe that, you have no idea of the reality of the situation. I don't blame Obama for losing the war. Bush did that when he neglected Afghanistan for seven years to fight a war in Iraq instead. But I blame Obama for not having the courage to do the right thing, in spite of the immediate political consequences. And in the longer run, so will history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 30, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to rstephen
They weren't demanding an escalation when Bush was in office. They weren't demanding an escalation when Obama was campaigning on it.
Right or wrong, I think Obama is doing it because he believes it's the right thing to do. I disagree with him but I can't be outraged since I voted for him knowing that he would do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
November 30, 2009 6:13 PM in reply to FreeRider
I disagree completely. I think Obama knows it's the wrong course, and he knows that trying to prop up a corrupt government will ultimately fail, which is why he took so long in looking for another way out. But he couldn't find another way, so ultimately he had to do what his generals were telling him to do and hope that some of the blame will fall on them when it fails. But it was ultimately his decision and not theirs. Obama doesn't seem to realize that's what it means to be president. The public isn't going to blame the generals. The public is going to punish Obama and the Democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 1, 2009 4:56 PM in reply to rstephen
>>Obama doesn't seem to realize that's what it means to be president. >>
Excuse me but . . . fuck you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:07 PM
None of the people defending this decision (NCSteve, CTVoter, VivaAmer, JenEsq) have answered the question I first posed:
How will we pay for this?
Another question: What percentage of the cost will be military personnel, and what percentage will be contractors?
And what country is likely to loan us the money for this? China? They're wallpapering the bathrooms of Shanghai nightclubs with U.S. Treasury Notes.
Further: what is the rationale for spending more money in Afghanistan when the unemployment rate in this country is through the roof?
And lastly, how many of the people defending this decision will actually be deployed to Afghanistan? How many of the people defending this decision would be willing to send their children into this fiasco?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
November 30, 2009 1:13 PM
I like president Obama but he is making a huge, huge mistake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
November 30, 2009 1:47 PM in reply to ru4862
We all like President Obama. Which is why we're worried about how he's handled no small number of important decisions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?