Comments on: Obama’s Dithering Puts Troops (and Nation) at Risk

By: Miss H

Miss H — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:25:12 +0000

This video, made by a friend of mine, says it all about Obama’s concern for our troops in Afghanistan:

The Phone is STILL RINGING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9unwjgXSA30

By: b mathews

b mathews — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:52:37 +0000

maybe he can just vote “present” as he has done 132 times before , though he is hardly ever present in the WH. in retrospect that might be a good thing since he doesnt know what the hell he is doing. the only thing he knows how to do is campaign but by the next election people will be so sick of listening to his lies and b/s and seeing him on tv 24/7 that we will all go deaf and blind if we have to listen to anymore of it. i can only wonder what achievements jack squat obama will campaign on.

By: crk62

crk62 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:14:31 +0000

i don’t think you understand what the word “pander” means.

By: Sassy

Sassy — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:59:25 +0000

Thomas,I really understand your agonizing!
The Russians eventually dumped their troops there and left them practically starving.
With the bombings in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it is apparent that these maniacs will keep coming.
Sadly, we have two choices…keep retreating or stand our ground.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:24:43 +0000

“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan. Ahmed Wali Karzai said in an interview that he cooperates with American civilian and military officials, but does not engage in the drug trade and does not receive payments from the C.I.A. “Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it,” a senior American military officer in Kabul said. Like most of the officials in this story, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the information.

Why is Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn is the ONLY named source in this article by the NYT ;Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen? Why are these "secrets" coming out now? The timing sucks and I am wondering what this says about the growing divisions within this administration. Combine this with the other NYT artcle;

President Obama’s advisers are coalescing around a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday... Mr. Obama has yet to make a decision, but as officials described it, the debate is no longer over whether to send additional troops but how many more will be needed to guard the most vital parts of the country. The question of how much of the country should fall under direct protection of American and NATO forces will be central to deciding how many troops Mr. Obama will dispatch.

. What a un-believable mess BOO is making of this. it is clear the political considerations are taking presendence over the needs of the our forces deployed. I would thought that this country would have learned about urban warfare by now. Apparently not.

By: CentralMass

CentralMass — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:12:58 +0000

Edited: It seem (to me) that it is that same crowd of naysayers driving this “put the brakes on McChrystal” campaign. They want to prove that they were right with their diplomatic surge argument.”

By: CentralMass

CentralMass — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:10:25 +0000

It seems like back when they gave the reins to General Petraus in Iraq, all the naysayers who said the surge would not work came out in force to claim that it was the diplomatic surge, not the miltary surge that made it succeed. Yet if my interpretation of that plan is accurate, both component were part of the plan from Petraus, one of the leading experts on counter insurgencies.

Though the key component was having a substantial prolonged troop presence in the effected neighborhoods so that they could build trust with the locals and provide the required security to let the diplomatic efforts work. Efforts largely conducted by the same troops.

It seem (to me) that it that some crowd of naysayer driving this “put the brakes on McChrystal” campaign. They wan to prove that they we right with their diplomatic surge argument.

By: Thomas Sears

Thomas Sears — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:41:47 +0000

Strikingly….frighteningly ……deja vu Viet Nam. Dithering, controlling without reference to the leadership actually on the ground. It simmers down to an embarrassing final decision point; get out or expend the necessary force. The USSR was unable to make headway even though they had over 120,000 troops in country at times and used a ‘scorched-earth’ policy frequently. Are there lessons to be learned in their experience…I believe there may be.

Alternative thought: What the hell is that piece of ground worth to our country anyhow? In the long run….what the hell is it worth. Does anybody really care if that area has a nuclear weapon? They use it….they fry in their own backwash! Sorry….just thinking. So we lose a bunch of people who can help us out of our conundrums about Windows or IE….and Dell has to find some other $0.50/hour slave (hopefully one who can speak English intelligably)…..what else does that region have to offer? Hell, they even have to construct their own beaches!!!

By: IndianaDem

IndianaDem — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:29:09 +0000

I don’t object to the accumulation of fairly-gotten wealth. What I object to is plutocracy. The founding fathers didn’t rule because they were wealthy. Nor did they intend a system allowing the wealthy to create in themselves a new, de facto aristocracy, who could bend the rules of the game to their own increasing advantage.

What would the founding fathers have thought about the sort of wealth and power represented by the distribution numbers up above? I’m not sure.

By: Sassy

Sassy — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:46:47 +0000

There is a flaw in your argument, in my opinion.
The founding fathers had wealth.
They did not live in log cabins or sod huts, but this country offers those who have less the opportunity to succeed.
Philanthropy is alive and well here, and some of the wealthiest do the most!

By: IndianaDem

IndianaDem — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:38:55 +0000

I’m not sure that anyone who looks at the current distribution of America’s wealth, understands that the top 5 percent currently holds 95 percent of the total, and concludes that something might be a bit wrong with the picture should automatically be labeled a Marxist.

Somebody is not a Marxist just because they think graduated taxes and higher taxes for the rich are a reasonable idea. Particularly in light of the fact that deficits have been run up year after year to finance enormous tax cuts heavily weighted to favor the wealthiest.

What label should we put on those whose rage about deficits suddenly commenced around the time Obama entered office, and blame it all on a “Marxist” president the laziness and greed of the poor? The bottom 60 percent of Americans own less than one-half of a percent of the wealth of the nation.

By: J.J. (The P.U.M.A.)

J.J. (The P.U.M.A.) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:42:22 +0000

The very first alarm bell I had last year was when I found out Obama had voted present 132 times in the Illinois State Senate. At the time I concluded that Obama was not willing to stick his neck out politically because he had no core political beliefs.

I now believe that he does have a set of core beliefs. (See Karl Marx). But I think this decision has him paralyzed. Dithering is the right word for what he is doing. Under pressure people return to form.

By the way, the new picture of Larry is a big improvement. In the old one he had a Moe Howard Haircut. Now he looks like a guy who used to fly CIA planes in and out of Nicaragua.

By: candymarl

candymarl — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:36:49 +0000

Then he can straddle the fence and still try to appear as the “anti-war” candidate.

Many on the far left weren’t just against Iraq they were against Afghanistan as well. Obama adding troops may prolong or intensify the war. Not good for an “anti-war” Nobel Peace Prize winning President now is it?

By: Ferd Berfle

Ferd Berfle — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:26:14 +0000

The delay is hurting our military preparedness. Which part of that don’t you understand? He vacillates, yaps his fool head off contributing enormously to greenhouse gas emissions, and you’re here asking obtuse questions.

Wow.

By: Ferd Berfle

Ferd Berfle — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:21:53 +0000

Hey, the club is getting bigger.

It sure is oldmediatype, it sure is.