Obama Lays Out 'Way Forward' In Afghanistan

I thought the speech was informative and persuasive. But it doesn't matter...Obama can't seem to please anyone. This phenomenon was crystallized in CNN's lead paragraph:

(CNN) -- President Obama's timetable for winding down the war in Afghanistan may be too short for the United States to achieve its war aims but too long to hold American public support, observers said Tuesday.

I mean really, WTH? There is literally NOTHING he could have done or not done that would have made anyone happy. What he said made sense...yes, it would have been nice if all of it had happened eight years ago, but that is not Obama's doing.

Obama's biggest problem right now is that Bush manipulated public fear so much that we all view "national security concerns" with suspicion...again, not Obama's doing. Well, God bless Obama and God bless the troops who are called to serve. Let's hope they prove the critics wrong in a resounding fashion.

I know I was watching President Obama but I kept hearing George Bush's voice. Really. It was unsettling. Just what we need - a SURGE! Another in a list of Bush policies that Obama is supporting. HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE?

I don't regret voting for him but unless Obama he comes to his senses and pulls a few miracles over the next 2 years I I just can't see voting for him again. What a sad day for everyone who voted for him.

I thought the speech was informative and persuasive, especially if you were informed and persuaded by George W. Bush.

Yes, the delivery was polished and earnest, the argument well considered - on the surface, but the premises were exactly the same as drove us to disaster under Bush these past eight years. He even started the speech with a homage to Rudy Giuliani - 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.

Obama said he wants to fix this bungled war but the situation is probably hopeless, or only fixable at a cost and on a timeline we simply can not afford. The benefits of preventing what is a purely speculative danger are greatly outweighed by wasting real and valuable resources we can ill afford to squander.

What I heard was nothing more than the Bush doctrine redux - preventive warfare, and in a remote and backward nation that is hardly even a nation.

Obama sort of promised - to be determined by conditions on the ground, of course, to begin drawing the troops down in 2011. If this plan works and he actually does that it would stand as a major victory. If it doesn't, and we are still, or even more so, mired in that place in 2012, he will have thrown away his Presidency. History would indicate the the odds of his actually drawing down troops in 18 months is one in a hundred. If that.

Obama said that this is a vital national interest. I don't buy it. My take is that the more vital national interest is in getting out now and using this money to fix what is wrong right here.

"That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America's authority."

Of course we WILL protect the important folks who torture innocent and guilty alike because they are much more important than plain old commoners...

I for one have absolutely no regard for anything said by folks who have decided to protect people who can and do torture human beings... no matter WHO they are. This behavior is barbaric and subhuman and those who protect them are no better... IMHO

BTW: Doesn't anyone remember that Iraqi general who died from suffocation after (or during) torture sessions?

Utube has the very best summary of Obama's address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8-ffiYyzA

Can somebody please help me out here?

Obama: "In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror."

WHO? Who are these extremists we aprehended, in the USA, who were sent from the af-pak border to comit terror? Please, enlighten me. Who were these extremists? What were they planning? Little help here. Thanks.

" … (U)nlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan,"

Well, that's not actually true Mr. President. The United States was attacked by hijackers who were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and financed with money that came mostly from Saudi Arabia, and led by a man who is also from Saudi Arabia. But just like with Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, we have a president who chooses to mis-characterize what really happened to justify sending more troops. So in that sense, it is exactly like Vietnam.

I'll tell you, I don't know if his plan will work but that was one hell of a speech. It pulled on my heartstrings.

I see the isolationists have been out in full force. Obama is completely correct on this--and it is a correction of the Bush years, if we're honest with ourselves. The first clue is the MSM out in full cry against Obama's action--this likely means that Obama is right since the MSM has been stunningly and increasingly wrong in recent years. The MSM has only the goal of continued appeasement to the Ratings God.

I have grown accustomed to the idea that a few Americans really do "see" turbaned Islamic terrorists behind every bush. And now they are joined by the "peace at any cost" folks huddled in their closets with eyes firmly shut, hands over the ears, and changing "Give Peace a Chance" while ignoring the mayhem outside.

Afghanistan is not Vietnam. Vietnam was never personal with our involvement decided by an attack directly on America, on American soil. An alleged attack in distant waters is not the same as two icons of American commerce falling in New York City killing and maiming innocents as they fell.

Bush failed in Afghanistan. Another issue, yet again, falls to sensible Democrats to solve and to turn around. Obama knew this before he became a candidate, during the primary and general elections, and even now as a seated President. Obama still decides to do what is sensible. Bravo!

For all the obama bots here "when are you enlisting?".

My guess is most of the war mongers here are little better than their republican counterparts.

"Inhofe Commends 'Difficult But Necessary Decision'

The Chicago Tribune, a Republican paper since the 19th Century loved it.

Guess Obama reached his core audience last night, so I guess the speech was a success.

Obama on Afghanistan: "Our cause is just, our resolve unwavering." I'm sorry, but what utter, unspeakable lies and bullshit. What horror.

The way forward all right. Forward into the past.

I'll repeat what a few others have said about this.

Obama campaigned on this. He said he would continue to fight in Afghanistan. Did you vote for him anyway?

Have you spent a good portion of the last three months talking with not just military, but civilian advisers and foreign leaders? I can't imagine this was an easy decision. The fact that he has decided to send so many more troops in spite of his recent heavy exposure to the consequences tells me the alternative must be potentially far worse. Complain all you want, but unless you live over there and have seen the situation first hand, or have access to all of the intelligence and information that Obama was presented with, you can't just blithely say that he's a fool and should have completely withdrawn.

If someone can clearly show to me that us pulling out immediately will *not* lead to a destabilized Pakistan, or that a destabilized Pakistan really isn't a threat to us *or* our interests in the region, then I'd love to see the argument.

Like it or not, we're the western world's beat stick. If instability in the region is bad for the western world, and an external presence is required to maintain stability, who do you think the responsibility falls to?

What I'd like to know is where China and India are. I realize major Indian involvement wouldn't sit well with Pakistan, but they have as much or more to lose as the western world if Pakistan falls apart. They could at least foot some of the bill if our soldiers are the ones on the front lines.

China and India are on the sidelines and should stay there.

If you think the Pakistanis don't want Americans soldiers there, that sentiment is multiplied by a thousandfold towards Indian soldiers.

You want to start a nuclear conflict?

Ask India to help attack the Taliban in Pakistan.

As for them footing he bill, that is probably already happening, but the wise folks in charge of that particular issue aren't about to broadcast it. Hard enough to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistanis, if they think India will benefit, they won't help us at all.

Other wise, I agree with you entire comment, particularly this prescient paragraph;
"The fact that he has decided to send so many more troops in spite of his recent heavy exposure to the consequences tells me the alternative must be potentially far worse."

And this, too, says it very succinctly.
"Complain all you want, but unless you live over there and have seen the situation first hand, or have access to all of the intelligence and information that Obama was presented with, you can't just blithely say that he's a fool and should have completely withdrawn."

Anyone not believe the feigned falling asleep of the recruits listening to President Obama's speech was a subtle resistance to Pres. Obama? That was an organized (all white) silent protest. Their asses should be in the brig.