Obama's "Finish the Job" Talk Sets Stage for Afghan Troop Surge

President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for a massive troop surge in Afghanistan.

But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead "stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor.

Obama announced Tuesday that he plans to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, and there is a growing consensus that he will agree to dispatch roughly 34,000 U.S. troops to the country.

The president says he plans to use his December 1 "finish-the-job" speech to signal "resolve to the allies while not signaling open-ended commitment to the American people."

Translation: There will be talk of an exit strategy -- with reassuring references to "benchmarks" and "off-ramps" -- but no exit strategy.

Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said.

But there is likely to be significant resistance to what many Americans -- some of whom serve in Congress -- see as a plan to steer the country deeper into a quagmire.

As Obama's intentions began to clarify Tuesday, anti-war activists stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the troops home.

In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699, which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, HR 2404, which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy.

Tom Hayden, the former California legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the country during the next six months."

That's right.

Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans.

And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, Described Afghan President Hamid Karzai as an "unworthy partner" for the U.S., in a statement that indicated deep discomfort with an expansion of the U.S. commitment toprop up Karzai's regime.

Perhaps even more significantly, Congressman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, bluntly declared that: "On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement."

Obey and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, are proposing a war surtax on the wealthy to pay for additional troops. "If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well," says the man who will have a significant say with regarding any move by Obama to expand the occupation. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people who have to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war."

Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable.

Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan. If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

The Obama administration won't be happy with Obey.

But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting.

And his warning is stark and necessary one.

Comments (134)

1. The Obamanation sure knows his timing! Wait 90 days, then pretend to act intelligently. Great ploy.

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/24/2009 @ 11:09pm

2. NICHOLS: "But Obey knows the numbers when it comes to budgeting."

   Did I miss his bill(s) seeking Congress to pay for this year's $1.4 Trillion deficit? Must be! I better pay more attention to fiscally conservative Dems gods like Obey.

   Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 11:10pm

3. NICHOLS: "And there are rumblings from top Democrats in Congress."

   Hey, John, you made a mistake! Shouldn't that be "And there are rumblings from top Republicans in Congress" who are on record saying "The War is Lost"?

   BHO's political advisors need to be taken out and shot....Magic should make this announcement, if in fact 30k+ troop increase is planned, before Thanksgiving....would be appreciated by the troops and civilians deployed in Afghanistan as well as take the suspense out of the military families whose members would be affected.

   Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 11:17pm

4. "Did I miss his bill(s) seeking Congress to pay for this year's $1.4 Trillion deficit?"

   suddenly, conservatives are so obsessed with having to pay for things.

   but when it came to:

   a) the iraq war

   b) the bush tax cuts

   conservatives didn't really care how they'd pay for those things......

   but now they're oh so concerned. LOL.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 01:03am

5. Do any of you obama supporters feel like shit at this point? He was a weak, ineffectual Senator in Illinois and he is an even bigger liar as a president. We need to elect a TRUE DEMOCRAT who puts people first!!!

   Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/25/2009 @ 05:41am

6. Tiger2Lover: You need to put electoral pressure on Obama to turn him into a TRUE DEMOCRAT. Don't just elect somebody to a lawmaking position and leave them be. Write letters! Send e-mails! Organize, protest, pressure them! That's what creates great legislation like the New Deal! This is partially why the fringe-right is given too much attention on too many issues: because they are organizing!

   Politics ain't some magic-bullet scenario where the perfect candidate comes along, you vote him/her into office, and everybody goes home happy (This is what too many 3rd party and Nader supporters believe.) It is a CONSTANT BATTLE, requiring you to fight for the ideals you care about on issues of great importance. It's work, but it's good work and must be done!

   So until we all do our part to pressure Obama to create the future we want to see, let's stop with all this complaining about never having a "REAL DEMOCRAT" in office and focus our energy and making the Democrat we've got now into a "real" one!

   darladoon: cogent as always.

   Posted by badreligionlover at 11/25/2009 @ 07:54am

7. "Finish the Job"? What "Job" would that be exactly? After 8 long years I still have never heard anyone state exactly what that is.

   I do know that I have heard that the cost of sending one soldier to Afghanistan for one year costs 1 million dollars. And with a little math sending 34,000 troops to Afghanistan for one year is going to cost 34 Billion. With the troops we have there already that should amount to about 150,000 troops total. So about 160 Billion dollars a year to keep 150,000 troops there.

   At that rate the only "Job" I can see that we have to finish (which is like shooting a dead horse) is to destroy our economy entirely. Not to mention the lives of generations of Americans.

   Thanks, Mr.Obamabush. Just what we needed..

   Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 08:07am

8. darladoon: cogent as always.

   Posted by badreligionlover at 11/25/2009 @ 07:54am

   One clueless person complimenting another clueless person's cluelessness.

   Now that is funny

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 08:07am

9. With the troops we have there already that should amount to about 150,000 troops total. So about 160 Billion dollars a year to keep 150,000 troops there.

   At that rate the only "Job" I can see that we have to finish (which is like shooting a dead horse) is to destroy our economy entirely. Not to mention the lives of generations of Americans.

   Thanks, Mr.Obamabush. Just what we needed..

   Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 08:07am

   We have approx 68,000 there now, not 116,000 as you suggest.

   And the FY2009 expenditure was about 60 billion.

   The FY2009 US budget was 3.1 Trillion.

   Afghanistan= 1.9% of US budget for FY2009

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 08:15am

10. I guess healthcare for Americans is out of the question now, Right? That will have to wait until we get that "Job" done in Afghanistan.

    Especially since we are going to have many more soldiers coming home in body bags who will no longer be able to support their families, (being dead and all) And many more soldiers coming home with severe mental disorders who will likely go ballistic at some point and murder their neighbors or families, or maybe even your neighbors or families.

    Not to mention all the wounded who will need artificial limbs and rehab for all those blown off body parts. Oh yeah! And also the ones who will be coming home with severe drug problems and most likely stressing out our criminal justice system (It costs about $40,000 a year to house prisoners).

    Just an extra cost or two for getting that "Job" done.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 08:21am

11. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 08:15am

    Please spare me the bullshit this morning Anti.. I'm not in the mood.

    Here, read this link:

    http://gobnf.org/i/ra/economic_costs.pdf

    I don't need to be splitting hairs on the cost of this debacle. That was not my point.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 08:40am

12. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 08:15am

    You counting "contractors" - both in your manpower and costs, reverend?

    Even if you limit it to U.S. troops, the accounting is so bad that there is no way to get a reliable figure on costs. Current estimates have it at about $500,000 to $1 million dollars per additional soldier.

    As for current budget expenditures, you may have heard we are in a Depression? And spending 2% of our budget in a war in Afghanistan isn't going to help with that problem and is a rather poor use of resources.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/25/2009 @ 09:03am

13. Politics ain't some magic-bullet scenario where the perfect candidate comes along, you vote him/her into office, and everybody goes home happy (This is what too many 3rd party and Nader supporters believe.)

    very good.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/25/2009 @ 09:03am

14. Climategate!

    Climategate!

    Climategate!

    At the very least, you should be able to belch out a column blaming the hacking of the CRU on Big Oil.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2009 @ 09:18am

15. Climategate! Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2009 @ 09:18am

    Find a new toy to play with Troll? Good. But Heavens! I see you have soiled your britches in all the exicitement. Now be a good little Troll a go wipe your hiney..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 09:34am

16. Here is the link to a video for your Happy Thanksgiving!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC23baURfUQ

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 09:43am

17. Obama is quite clearly unable to stand up to McChrystal. Ray McGovern had a great article in which he made the case for firing McChrystal. There's absolutely no reason why Obama should be cowtowing to a mediocre general.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 09:46am

18. 'I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said.'

    Ya think?

    Can't wait for this "flowery" speech of deception.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2009 @ 10:01am

19. There's absolutely no reason why Obama should be cowtowing to a mediocre general.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 09:46am

    But he sure is good at bowing.....check out some cartoons of Michael Ramirez showing our Bower-in-Chief!

    Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 10:06am

20. We must honor our commitment in Afghanistan or we may isolate ourselves from allies in the War on Terror, i.e. Pakistan. Pakistan has taken on the Taliban in a huge risk to themselves. Americans must remain at the border until the Pakistanis have rooted out the Taliban. If America were to leave today, Pakistan would have a harder time taking on the enemy that we have created for them and insisted they fight. We owe it to Pakistan to stay the course. Leaving now would damage Americas reputation in the world as a partner against Tyranny.

    Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 10:06am

21. There's absolutely no reason why Obama should be cowtowing to a mediocre general.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 09:46am

    All Generals are Mediocre when they are not fighting a real War. This is an Occupation. And an illegal one at that. The Military should only be used to address an imminent threat and only be used as a last resort. This interference in the affairs of a soverign nation should be condemmned not only by the population of the offending Nation. But also by the world at large.

    But according to the polls 50% of Americans support it. 49% don't support it. But that 50% that do, make us all War Criminals. This entire nation of psychopaths should be tried as War Criminals. Because that's what we are.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 10:09am

22. John Nichols:

    "President Obama plans to foolishly announce on December 1 his decision with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for a massive troop surge in Afghanistan."

    ~At least that's the way it appeared to my eyes on first glance.

    Just recall the feelings of that November morning in 2000 when the American political scene went nauseous, and then the same feeling repeating itself in Sept '01 and then early '03 as this country worked furiously to seal its fate as just another has been empire.

    Barack Obama is now the new nausea.

    Heckuva job, Barry.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:13am

23. "...This entire nation of psychopaths should be tried as War Criminals. Because that's what we are."

    ~Chaos

    I feel your pain, Cap'n. But I wouldn't quite paint the entire nation as war criminals.

    We're dealing with the old problem of human nature(s). Kinda like the juicy phrase from A Clockwork Orange, "The old in 'n out" to describe sexual intercourse.

    We're only a 200,000 year old species --give er take a few 10,000 years. I think we could use some improvement pretty quickly though, before we manage to inflict a little more "shock and awe" on the entire planet.

    "Shock and awe" as a term for war, imagine that.

    I sincerely hope the next serial killer nicknames himself the "shock and awe" killer for a proper frame of reference.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:24am

24. Leaving now would damage Americas reputation in the world as a partner against Tyranny.

    Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 10:06am

    We don't need any partners in Tyranny. We do a damn good job of spreading Tyranny, all by ourselves.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 10:26am

25. Chaos at 9:43 am.

    Thanks for that tender moment. Much appreciated! And obviously inappropriate for a numb society.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:30am

26. Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 10:09am

    No doubt that this war was illegal from the start. God knows I've made that point before. But the illegality aside, the fact of the matter is that Obama has been whining about the deficit while he passes a $680 billion defense spending bill (with a supplemental of up to $50 billion waiting in the wings). Any sense of responsibility to the American public, let alone the Afghans, requires that you make the first step towards ending the war and fire the bastard McChrystal.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 10:31am

27. Link of the day:

    tinyurl.com/yboqgzs

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:32am

28. "Any sense of responsibility to the American public, let alone the Afghans, requires that you make the first step towards ending the war and fire the bastard McChrystal."

    ~N Kurland

    Amen, brotha.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:34am

29. No plans but to spend more money on a lost cause. Get out and get out now!!! Obama is NOW declared an awful President. So much for hope and change.

    Posted by notsleepy at 11/25/2009 @ 10:35am

30. "One clueless person complimenting another clueless person's cluelessness. Now that is funny"

    translation: bush destroyed the country

    Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 10:37am

31. This is a good thread for us true lovers of our nation to commiserate and share our sorrows and, I hope, appropriate anger.

    It'd be beautiful if the usual assholes would leave this thread alone today.

    Not holdin' my breath, of course.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:40am

32. Who cares about We the People?

    Reelection is the only key (unless you also believe Pentagon elements would have Obama killed, if he ordered an exit).

    Watch the last Bill Moyers show ... the concerns of LBJ & his men in '64-'66 are the same as now ... reelection.

    Posted by sloper at 11/25/2009 @ 10:42am

33. .....now they're oh so concerned. LOL.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 01:03am

    Aren't you usually more concerned with the future than the past?

    Don't you think hindsight would be better used to prepare for the future than just rehash for the fun of it?

    Shouldn't the future be of higher importance than the past?

    These are rhetorical.....

    Jethro Tull's "Living in The Past" aptly applies here, to YOU and the dwindling number of (still) Bush-deranged Magic Loyalists.

    Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 10:43am

34. But I wouldn't quite paint the entire nation as war criminals. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 10:24am

    In reality, according to the polls 49% of us are not war criminals. I struggled with that wide brush for a moment.. But then after all we do live in a Democracy of sorts. And one of the negative aspects of a Democracy is that even a significant minority must take responsibility for a slightly more significant majority.

    We are a sick country and many of us could be considered insane. An insanity plea might be our best defense. If tried we would be considered sick instead of criminal. What we are sick with and what caused this mass hysteria would make an interesting debate.

    At the very least we need supervision. But who can supervise? We are a nation that spends 54% of GDP on a military. It's very difficult to supervise something that you can't control. Kind of like a 5'3" single mom trying to supervise her suddenly 6'4" steroid injecting adolescent psycho son.

    I don't mean to take the analogy to far, which I may have already done. But I just want my point to be understood.

    We are an out of control country. We are a sick country. We need help.

    I'm saddened. And I just want to leave this dysfunctional family, that sadly is my country.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 10:50am

35. "Aren't you usually more concerned with the future than the past?"

    ok, let's just forget that bush started TWO wars........and........CUT taxes.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 11:03am

36. "It'd be beautiful if the usual assholes would leave this thread alone today. Not holdin' my breath, of course."

    ~b kool at 10:40 am

    "....Jethro Tull's 'Living in The Past' aptly applies here, to you and the dwindling number of (still) Bush-deranged Magic Loyalists."

    ~Happy the Fool at 10:43 am

    That didn't last long....

    Hey Hapless,

    Jethro Tull --actually Ian Anderson and Co.-- gazes upon your miserable countenance with sadness and disgust.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 11:05am

37. happy calls us "loyalists" while missing the near unanimous frustration we are currently demonstrating with obama.

    happy is less annoying than most conservatives, but he's still annoying.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 11:08am

38. But he sure is good at bowing.....check out some cartoons of Michael Ramirez showing our Bower-in-Chief!

    Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 10:06am

    Seriously, is that really what passes for relevant political news nowadays? The bow is a merely an affirmation of the fact that he's unwilling to change the country's tone towards the Saudis. I care much more about what the actual relationship constitutes. It would be physically impossible for me to care less about Obama bowing than I already do.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 11:19am

39. Lose-lose for Obama...

    the Left will hate it...

    the disengenuous Right, if Obama gives them EXACTLY what they say they want....will still bitch and complain about it.

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 11:20am

40. "We are a sick country and many of us could be considered insane....We are an out of control country. We are a sick country. We need help.....I'm saddened. And I just want to leave this dysfunctional family, that sadly is my country."

    ~Chaos at 10:50am

    I completely empathize with you, Chaos.

    I think the phrase by the philosopher David Hume is appropriate here, (paraphrased) "Most care far more for the fate of their little finger than for the fate of untold thousands in a country beyond their gaze."

    We are an out of control country, of course, but all is not yet lost and there is the self-correction alluded to by Chalmers Johnson in his book, "Nemesis". Namely, bankruptcy.

    I also agree that it's gettin' to the point that many of us are well into the planning or considerations for leaving. And who could blame them?

    We are an increasingly f#cked up society. But it kinda makes sense when you consider that America was conceived in genocide over hundreds of years and hasn't yet been able to come to grips with the legacy.

    At least Germany and Japan have apparently been humbled by their--admittedly, more concentrated-- crimes.

    It may take this country a little more desecration and destruction before we collectively feel anything approaching the appropriate reprehension, unfortunately.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 11:23am

41. I had said long time ago and it is still true today that the toughest task will be to stay the course and deflect the efforts of those (such as people in the "Peace" movement) who want to give up before we have won this war.

    We are in a war against Islamic terrorism. This is a different war than any other we have ever been in before.

    1. The way the enemy has attacked and fought us is different than all the conventional wars of the past. The enemy has re-written the rules.

    2. The makeup of the enemy is undefined and elusive. The enemy does not contain specifically identifiable nations, but elements around the world who are not even all connected in unison with each other, not always even in some kind of defined organization let alone a nation.....but sharing a common hatred of us and any others not like them, and a common goal to kill us and spread Islamic fundamentalism, establish a world caliphate, and make all bow to Sharia law.

    3. This war will last a long time most likely and will contain battles in places we don't even know about yet.

    4. It is not possible to declare a timetable for this war .....not possible to say when it will end....

    5. We won't even know it is over until it appears obvious after some period of time that the threat of Islamic fundamentalism has disappeared.

    6. Pleas for "peace" from the "peace" movement always include capitulation on our part and no demands made of the enemy. The "peace" movement niavely assumes we are to blame for "making them angry" and if we just give up and embrace "peace" all will be wonderful and good.

    7. There is no easy answer other than to keep fighting...giving up is not an option...then the enemy wins.

    8. Sanctimonious libs want to give up and will condemn me for my comments.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:24am

42. Sjchermak, your comments are helping to me to draw a rough parallel to the way the Vietnam war was painted. Simply claim that we were attacked and then define resistance to outright aggression as acts of terror.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 11:28am

43. frustration we are currently demonstrating with obama. Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 11:08am

    It runs much deeper than mere frustration with me. Now it is evident that our only recourse, if we truly want to save our country, is total civil disobedience. Frustration is something I feel when I hit my finger with a hammer while hanging a picture.

    Now I am really mad, and I feel like I have been betrayed to the very core of my being. I'm livid. Not frustrated. And I'm pissed to a point I cannot explain.

    I need to count to ten. More than once.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/25/2009 @ 11:29am

44. "2. The makeup of the enemy is undefined and elusive. The enemy does not contain specifically identifiable nations, but elements around the world who are not even all connected in unison with each other, not always even in some kind of defined organization let alone a nation.....but sharing a common hatred of us and any others not like them, and a common goal to kill us and spread Islamic fundamentalism, establish a world caliphate, and make all bow to Sharia law. "----Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:24am

    Okay, then, SJ...tell us....specifically....

    how do we defeat such an "elusive" and "undefined" enemy....ever?

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 11:31am

45. b_kool_66,

    Stereotype standard comments from you....you do not know what you are talking about.

    America has come to grips with past flaws to a greater degree than any other nation on earth ever has.

    When America was born not all were equal, many were denied the full participation in society.

    We Americans, on our own, because of the freedom that some had and our system of rule of law dealt with it ourselves. We granted participation to all people. We undid the wrongs that existed when this country began.

    No other country on Earth has as diverse a background as the U.S. and no other country on Earth as accomodated that diversity like the U.S. has.

    And at the same time Americans have reached out to assist others in the world to a much greater degree than any other nation in history ever has. America provides aid to others and has come to their assistance in their times of peril.....in some places in the world the freedom people enjoy now was purchased with American lives.

    And America is a open book where people are free to comment about life here and criticize life here without threat of imprisonment or death. Americans know about the warts in our past to a greater degree than people in other countries know about their pasts. Other societies do not obsess about their flaws the way we do.

    You say Germany and Japan have come to grips with their past....not true at least in the case of Japan...Japanese schoolchildren are not told much about the wrongs their nation brought upon the world in the 30's and 40's.

    There may be a lot of problems now but if you review American history there have been plenty of other times in the past full of problems.

    You are a sick warped negative leftist....America is alive and well.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:37am

46. And what a great Thanksgiving we'll have!

    First, a healthcare bill that will make insurance companies insanely rich, and now a plan for escalating the conflict in Afghanistan that will make contractors insanely rich.

    Hmm, the Dems plan on taxing the rich to pay for a war that will untimately cost both Americans and Afghans tens of thousands of lives - I don't see the party line in that way of thinking.

    It cost the Soviets 14,000 dead, 35,000 wounded and what the military dosen't like to mention is that there were over 470,000 Soviets sick. American's will pay at least that price - the Soviets were in control of the Government when they invaded.

    Yep, Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

    Posted by JustOneBobofMany at 11/25/2009 @ 11:39am

47. "...the toughest task will be to stay the course and deflect the efforts of those (such as people in the "Peace" movement) who want to give up before we have won this war.We are in a war against Islamic terrorism. This is a different war than any other we have ever been in before...."

    ~SJ "Dum" Schmack

    I'm breaking my general rule of thumb to not respond to the cripplingly ignorant, but Schmack, this is not anything new by any stretch.

    England, and Europe more broadly, have dealt with terrorism for many decades without resorting to overseas occupations to "solve" their problems. That any significant slice of America buys into the "war on terrorism" is a measure of how brain damaged this society is.

    Thanks for providing the "type" here for Nation reader's observation.

    I recommend surgery followed by heavy sedation.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 11:41am

48. nkurland,

    You say (trying to prove similarity between now and the circumstance of Vietnam)

    ".........Simply claim that we were attacked and then define resistance to outright aggression as acts of terror...."

    Claim we were attacked?

    nkurland, find J&R Computer World...then go across the street, walk through St. Paul's Chapel, go out the other side and look across the street from the Chapel.

    If you do this, then tell me what you saw. (or I should say, didn't see)

    Claim we were attacked?

    It is blatantly obvious.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:42am

49. Hmm, the Dems plan on taxing the rich to pay for a war that will untimately cost both Americans and Afghans tens of thousands of lives - I don't see the party line in that way of thinking.

    Posted by JustOneBobofMany at 11/25/2009 @ 11:39am

    The war surtax is motivated by fiscal concerns. But that being said its also politically savvy. By instituting the tax the administration is able to placate deficit hawks and the diehard Obama supporters who are now able to claim that a change has occurred whereby we still escalate the war (no change there) but now its paid for with a progressive tax. In any case, it seems to be a sign that the Democratic party is digging in for the long haul.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 11:47am

50. b_kool_66

    Europe is dealing with terrorism by capitulating to Islam and making it unnecessary for the terrorists to have to attack anymore.

    The people in those countries are pre-intimidated.

    Islamic immigrants are moving into Europe with no intention of assimilating, and have in many ways demanded Europe change to their specifications.

    You can get into LEGAL trouble there for writing publically things that criticize Islam.

    Spain was an ally in the war on terror. The terrorists bombed Madrid and the Spaniards complied a few days later and voted a government in that took Spain out of the war on terror.

    Europe's way of "dealing" with terrorism is something we can do without.

    There apparently was only one Tony Blair, who dealt with it differently.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:48am

51. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:42am

    Where's the proof that we were attacked by the Taliban?

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 11:49am

52. So excuse me, claim that the Taliban attacked us.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 11:49am

53. "...You say Germany and Japan have come to grips with their past. [This is] not true at least in the case of Japan. Japanese schoolchildren are not told much about the wrongs their nation brought upon the world in the 30's and 40's."

    ~Schmack

    And this country has not come to grips with the fact that the atomic bombings were not at all necessary. Of course you'll go ape shit and repeat the usual dogma about those damned slope heads and how they would have never given up until millions and gazillions of 'mericans were killed in the invasion of Japan.

    The reality is that extensive documentation exists supporting the fact that Japan was on its knees prior to August 6th, 1945 and the emperor was ready to surrender --we had broken their code and had the primary source material. You could read it in James Carroll's masterful, "House of War" if you honestly cared to enlighten yourself.

    As to whether or not Japan has actually come to grips with its crimes in WWII, I haven't done enough reading to flesh out my own opinion on the matter with a significant degree of confidence.

    But one things for damn sure. I wouldn't look to you, Schmack, for anything approaching objectivity on the matter --or any other matter.

    Peace out, Yingyang.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 11:54am

54. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:42am

    Just out of curiousity, what state do you live in? Because I for one grew up a mere half-hour outside the city, yet never felt the need to invade a country that had nothing to do with September 11.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 11:56am

55. As for current budget expenditures, you may have heard we are in a Depression? And spending 2% of our budget in a war in Afghanistan isn't going to help with that problem and is a rather poor use of resources.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/25/2009 @ 09:03am

    Question for you.

    What dollar amount to preserve our freedom is too much for you?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 12:03pm

56. To intelligent, curious readers here:

    I give James Carroll's "House of War" my highest recommendation for those who wish to gain a pretty good understanding of how we got to where we are now in a one volume treatment.

    The Pentagon is our Temple of the Bomb, and its birth was in the crucible of "the good war" where America first inflicted "shock and awe" barbarity from the belly of a bomber --first with carpet bombing, and then with the mother of all bombs.

    History will never forget that it was the US that first unleashed the doomsday weapon. If we were truly humane, we'd be in long term mourning for the disgrace of that act. Instead we continue to inflict needless pain and death on thousands, if not millions, who bear us no ill will.

    At least they didn't at one time.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:04pm

57. b_kool_66,

    The Weekly Standard (yes it is a Conservative publication) has discredited the contentions you make regarding Japan and World War II.

    Japan was not ready to surrender, dig up the material out of their archives and you enlighten yourself.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 12:05pm

58. nkurland,

    1. binLaden at one point was based in Afghanistan.

    2. We invaded Iraq to prevent a future September 11. That day some woke up to the fact that we need to stop future September 11s from happening. We need to take action BEFORE they occur.

    3. Pre-emptive war IS ok when it stops would would be massive death, misery and human suffering. We did not attack and stop Germany in the 30's, even though Chruchill warned everybody what was to come. The war came anyway, and so did the Holocaust. We were WRONG for not listening to Churchill.

    4. You know these things already, but as a lib you do not understand them.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 12:11pm

59. Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 10:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

    thassa one big domino.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/25/2009 @ 12:12pm

60. No doubt that this war was illegal from the start. God knows I've made that point before. But the illegality aside, the fact of the matter is that Obama has been whining about the deficit while he passes a $680 billion defense spending bill (with a supplemental of up to $50 billion waiting in the wings). Any sense of responsibility to the American public, let alone the Afghans, requires that you make the first step towards ending the war and fire the bastard McChrystal.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 10:31am

    Where's the proof that we were attacked by the Taliban?

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 11:49am

    It's been posted many times you idiot. But jihadist loving suicidal nutcases like yourself just keep ignoring it so you can attack the US instead.

    I'm sick marxist nutcases like you and the damage you have done to this country.

    You and your type make a person want to vomit.

    From the Executive Summary of the 9/11 Commission Report

    <After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a "preliminary judgment"; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them.>

    http://tinyurl.com/yldgqzt

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 12:15pm

61. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 12:11pm

    Where's the evidence that the Taliban was involved in the planning or execution of the September 11 attacks. You've yet to provide the proof. Your first point implies nothing of the sort. And points 2-4 are completely irrelevant and baseless.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 12:17pm

62. America's security and defense is the top priority in any scenerio. Without a secure nation, we'd be open to all sorts of foreign influence. In other words, we would regress to pre-Declaration of Independence days.

    Republicans have been saying forever that this is not the time to be adding trillion dollar entitlement programs on top of the ones we already have. They're so right.

    We must always be ready to fight if we have to. Domestic policies are secondary and should be. This current President needs to get the country's priorities, not his own, in order.

    There exists a divide in this country that is getting ever wider. On one side we have the conservatives, the majority, who believe in a strong defense and on the other, we have the liberal establishment the minority, who just happen to have the president's ear for at least three more years, who could care less about national security. That is, until the enemy comes knocking on their door.

    These are people who blame America for 9/11. These are people who think the likes of Bill Ayers is a hero. These are people who, when they hear scum like Rev. Wright scream, "God damn America", they reply, "Right On Brother." These are people who would spit on a returning soldier returning from war. It doesn't matter that this soldier may be a democrat, they'll spit on him anyway. Hell, they'll even toast marshmallows over the open flame of a burning American flag.

    This is a real danger in our society. When these kinds of groups of people can get someone in the Oval Office who thinks like them, we are all at peril.

    But do not despair, we still have the reason of talk radio and Fox News to keep the country sober and hopefully on it's toes to protect against that element of society that is un-American.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:19pm

63. "The Weakly Standard (yes it is a Conservative publication) has discredited the contentions you make regarding Japan and World War II."

    ~Schmack

    'Nuf said. I don't have a problem with "conservative" publications, just really stupid ones that repeat the standard shibboleths --good word, shibboleths...you should look it up, Schmack.

    American Conservative is a better conservative rag.

    Anyhow, I declare Thanksgiving Day 2009 a national day of mourning based on what Obama is sure to do.

    One more thing.

    You heard it here first. Obama will switch parties in 2012 and run as the "moderate" Republican nominee.

    The Dems will run with their usual who-fuckin-cares candidate.

    Now's a great time to make your emigration plans.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:20pm

64. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 12:15pm

    That little excerpt you provided does not provide proof that the Taliban was involved in the September 11 attacks, nor does any of the summary of the 0/11 commission report.

    And yet, despite your inability to back up the most basic prowar argument its the fault of alleged "marxists."

    "Hi, my name's logic. Have we met?"

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 12:26pm

65. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 12:03pm

    Do you actually support President Obama on this issue? What about the war tax on the rich to pay for it?

    Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 12:32pm

66. What dollar amount to preserve our freedom is too much for you SINCE I, ANTISOCIAL, HAVE JUST DROPPED MY "LIBERTARIAN" POSE -- THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AS PHONY AS A TIT FULL OF SIXTEEN GALLONS OF SILICONE AND/OR GEORGE W LOSER'S LAFFABLE CHARADES OF "PATRIOTISM" -- IN ORDER TO GUSH OVER UNLIMITED GOVT SPENDING AND AUTHORITY, IN ORDER TO STAMP OUT THINKING PATTERNS OF WHICH I DISAPPROVE IN OTHER NATIONS VIA MASSIVE, LIMITLESS STATE MOBILIZATION.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 12:03pm

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/25/2009 @ 12:36pm

67. Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 12:26pm

    The Taliban housed AQ and Bin Laden during the planning of 9/11. Afghanistan was a safe haven for terrorist. The Taliban didn't produce 9/11, just provided support for our enemies.

    Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 12:40pm

68. grayson 12!?

    the american people are sick an tired of these foreign entanglements.

    fortress america sounds better and better every day...

    1. get off the oil

    2. keep a few strategic bases around the world until we can get off the oil. use those bases to launch devestating but limited attacks against real enemies. hit, kill, take captive for trial, compensate the locals and then get out before they really learn to hate us and we waste a buzillion $ bleeding.

    3. stop meddling. cease sticking our obnoxious noses in every stinkhole and recoiling in horror when we get a bloody nose. let barbarians kill each other (better than killing us...). let wealthy nations defend themselves.

    4. build good fences and skynet - reapers and eatrs and kick-ass video gamers and a few good men and women, backed by a well ordered militia, quickly mobilized in times of dire need...so we'll not be forced to out-breed barbarians.

    5. support science and scientific research - pure research, applied research, and application of the products of research to solve problems and avoid foreign entanglements best avoided, or to prosecute foreign policy with as little loss of life as possible.

    6. fix our own house and conquer space, because there's bugger all down here on earth...

    not saying don't contribute, don't make honest efforts...just saying its time we led by example, actions...

    and the best example we can provide is to CEASE OUR OBNOXIOUS TROUBLE MAKING MEDDLING!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

69. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 12:03pm

    "What dollar amount to preserve our freedom is too much for you?"

    A question much like: "Does your mother know you beat your wife?" However, it is another useful reminder of your character or lack thereof.

    The problem is that you cannot argue that our presence in Afghanistan preserves "freedom". It doesn't.

    In fact, the money that we borrow and spend in needless conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Central America, Vietnam, Korea, etc. is more a threat to our way of life and "freedom" than anything going on in Afghanistan.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

70. b_kool_66,

    You say (about the Weekly Standard):

    ".....'Nuf said....."

    I guess so....standard comeback from the left...when you can not dispute something some institution (such as a magazine) has published, you just declare the magazine invalid to start with!

    Why would I be making emigration plans, with Sarah Palin coming on board as President of the United States on January 20, 2013?

    I don't possess America hate and loathing of my own country like you and nkurland do. Why would I want to leave to begin with?

    Being a citizen here is the only way I would be able to help vote next-President Palin into office. Why would I want to leave?

    Just because you want to leave, does not mean everybody else wants to or should.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

71. "4. You know these things already, but as a lib you do not understand them."

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 12:11pm

    One of the most rapid and wild-eyed of the rightwing ideological garbage pickers who has on occasion appeared here is BARRY-IQ-25. Like SJ, BARRY is a rigtwing freak who energetically hammers his deep-seated rightwing inferority complex to the mast for all to witness -- and to grimace at in pain that such creatures must endure a profoundly "challenged" child's mind in an adult's body.

    Taking his cue from Beck, BARRY has confessed to us that he is sad and nostalgic about the September 11 era having seemingly passed. Sad, he says. Which is another way of him saying...that he "misses" September 11. Sick sick stuff, eh? But BARRY said it.

    SJ, if you can clear that microscopic vessel of a mind of yours for a moment of your anxieties over black voters who tower over you intellectually and your apologetics for Rush's unvarnished chauvinism, answer us this:

    Does it disturb or trouble you that on the rightwing, people like BARRY who are your fellow travllers, feel such nostalgic affinity for September 11? Or...do you share BARRY's depraved, inhuman and unAmerican breathy gruntings on this issue?

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/25/2009 @ 12:50pm

72. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

    "Being a citizen here is the only way I would be able to help vote next-President Palin into office."

    Your delusional to think that Sara Paling would ever be the President of the United States of America. Look at what she did in the NY congressional race. She lost a 100+ year Republican seat in the house to the Democrats. Stop lying to yourself, it is more healthy for your state of mind. Perhaps that is what is wrong with you.

    Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 12:53pm

73. Does it disturb or trouble you that on the rightwing, people like BARRY who are your fellow travllers, feel such nostalgic affinity for September 11? Or...do you share BARRY's depraved, inhuman and unAmerican breathy gruntings on this issue?

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/25/2009 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    of course they loved it. made 'em feel manly and powerful, and in that they had stolen almost all power and dominated the media...

    they came VERY close to total obverse democratic fascist power.

    of course they long for those days when the mass of american people were ignorant, trembling toadies, easily manipulated by well timed "boos", before it all collapsed as a direct result of their vaingloriously stupid ideology.

    the business plot of 33 came close to instituting fascism but the stolen election of 00, the three decade campaign to alter laws and buy up all media, and the sociopathic satano-aynrando will to dominate came closer...

    this is how it works when the wolves are set to watch over the sheep.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 1:00pm

74. enough. stop. change.

    CEASE OUR OBNOXIOUS MEDDLING!

    we have no "manifest destiny" to squander our wealth and resources around the globe trying to fix every eff up, trying to civilize every barbarian blighted shithole, spreading our obnoxious system to those who want it not...

    we have no call to insinuate ourselves forcefully everywhere, and we even have no obligation to run around trying to deal with the results of our meddling iniquity since it appears to me that every time we try to do so - we eff it up even more...

    in the 50's we and our mentors, the brits, overthrew a democratically elected regime in iran when it threatened to nationalize oil reserves.

    in 1979 we paid for our meddling, and have been paying ever since...

    from 1848 until today we have been involved in an almost continual process of affecting regime change in latin america, arrogantly considering it "our sphere of influence" or even more tellingly, "our back yard", nine times out of ten, if not ten out of ten, sideing with the most vicious, violent, wicked authoritarians and wannabe fascists over anyone we smeared as socialists for opposing anything resembling our business interests.

    STOP MEDDLING, AMERICA. RUIN WILL RESULT.

    CLEAN UP OUR OWN HOUSE AND WALK THE WALK DOWN THE PATH OUR FOUNDING FATHERS IMPERFECTLY BUT NOBLY SET US UPON SO LONG AGO.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 1:10pm

75. Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 12:40pm

    Except for planning, material and logistical (ie, any) support. Nice try.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 1:21pm

76. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 12:15pm

    And quite frankly, I think I speak for most members of my generation when I say that we're all sick and tired of you boomers gorging yourselves on the public treasury as wars are launched for the benefit of business. None of us really feel like paying off YOUR debts for the rest of OUR lives just so we can protect your precious Walmarts against some non-existent threat. So suck on that wingnut!

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 1:28pm

77. obverse democratic fascism

    obverse - although fascism is an inherently undemocratic set of ill defined beliefs, it relies upon a worshipful view of one's nation, and a glorification of those elements of a nation's history in which her people take much VAINGLORIOUS PRIDE. to separate "freedom" and "democracy" from our shared mythology would be downright "unamerican"

    therefore the obverse democratic american fascist is forced to tearfully and fiercely babble about "liberty" and "freedom" and "democracy" even as he/she works tirelessly to destroy all in reality. they try to build a tyrannical "majority" of half ignorant and confused teabaggers and pop culturally lobotomized "go-with-them-people-who-seem-smarters", partly by viciously demonizing scapegoats (like libruls or more laughably, "socialists") in classic cowardly fascist manner. BIG LIE...SWALLOWED MORE EASILY.

    also, as opposed to classical european fascism, instead of a government co-opting business, here its certain segments of the private sector who buy up and control government - obverse...

    democratic - see above. part of national mythology, so they struggle to maintain a farcical sham of a democracy, a veneer behind which they hide and corrupt. its so easy to say one is democratic, one believes in the concept, to maintain a veneer, and in fact destroy such by running down the "gubbamint" and encouraging self destructive cynicism in the mass of marching morons...

    fascism - nation worship, military adventurism, vainglorious and touchy pride...wiki the term...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 1:32pm

78. Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown, And things seem hard or tough, And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft, And you feel that you've had quite eno-o-o-o-o-ough...

    Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour, That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned, A sun that is the source of all our power. The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see Are moving at a million miles a day In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour, Of the galaxy we call the "Milky Way".

    Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars. It's a hundred thousand light years side to side. It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick, But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide. We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point. We go 'round every two hundred million years, And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions In this amazing and expanding universe.

    (Animated calliope interlude)

    The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding In all of the directions it can whizz As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know, Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is. So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, How amazingly unlikely is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 1:41pm

79. Btw Larry, we'll just file this latest claim of yours along with the others, such as "we didn't provide support for Saddam's gassing of the Kurds" or "Robert Baer's main area of expertise was not the Middle East."

    Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 1:51pm

80. Nothing makes me sicker when absolutely stoned out of their minds like fools like b_Fool_66 spew nonsense like the bomobs dropped on Japan weren't necessary.

    Asshole, the only reason that those bobms weren't dropped on our cities is because we developed them first. If you think for one minute that Hitler or Tojo wouldn't have used them on us you're, well, stoned of course.

    Do us all a favor here. Go hook up with Darladoon and drop some acid, plenty of it.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:59pm

81. Do you actually support President Obama on this issue? What about the war tax on the rich to pay for it?

    Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 12:32pm |

    yes I do support Obama on the war in Afghanistan and the entire region.

    No, we don't need a war tax. the cost for the effort in Afghanistan is only about 2% of our budget.

    We could though reduce some of our budget mess by cancelling the unconstitutional aid to education-that would meet all of the 2009 Afghanistan requirements and 60% of the 2010.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 2:05pm

82. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:24am

    1. The way the enemy has attacked and fought us is different than all the conventional wars of the past. The enemy has re-written the rules.

    --As noted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2009 @ 11:41am, Europe has seen such un-conventional wars, whether by groups seeking national independence (e.g., from Britain or Spain) or radical change (from Imperial Russia in the 19th Century to Germany and Italy in the 1970's). But so has the U.S., waged by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction and, at a far smaller scale, Puerto Rican and Black nationalists 80-100 years later. The international hijacking wave of the 60's-80's also schooled the powers that be in un-conventional warfare. Such experiences formed the intellectual basis for those establishment "realists" who wanted to treat AQ as criminals rather than as soldiers in a "war." I seem to remember the right celebrating Margaret Thatcher for doing just that to the IRA, contra international law.

    2. The makeup of the enemy is undefined and elusive. The enemy does not contain specifically identifiable nations, but elements around the world who are not even all connected in unison with each other, not always even in some kind of defined organization let alone a nation.....but sharing a common hatred of us and any others not like them, and a common goal to kill us and spread Islamic fundamentalism, establish a world caliphate, and make all bow to Sharia law.

    --What you have just described sounds a lot like the network between the "crazy" (and cop-infiltrated) left groups of the 60's and 70's (Red Brigades, Baader Meinhof, etc.), national liberation groups like the IRA and some countries (Libya, Syria, Iraq). Of course, the neo-cons wanted to invade them, too.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 2:15pm

83. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 2:05pm

    So you are suggesting that this country stop giving aid to American school children so we can fund the War? Why is spending on war good and spending on education and health bad? It is unreasonable to think we should have money before we spend it?

    Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 2:15pm

84. As you can see from my typos above, I get really upset when America's defense is questioned and even moreso when our troops are not appreciated. It makes me type too fast and mistakes are made. Apologies.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:16pm

85. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    well, i'm ok with bcool, of course, but i think the two nukes dropped on japan were probably the most compassionate thing we could have done. and wise...

    1. without the real, horrible, visible results of hiroshima and nagasaki, i wonder how many people would have realized how dangerous these things are. we still almost went to nuclear war at least twice during the cold war, and my faith in people's judgement tells me i'd not be here typing had hiroshima and nagasaki not occured.

    2. most estimates of the loss of life that would have entailed operation olympia (the conventional invasion of the japanese home islands) indicate that the loss of life and damage to infrastructure would almost certainly been far worse than the two nukes. many doubt japan's recovery and post war economic miracle would have been possible had we conventionally invaded.

    3. my dad might have died and i would never have been born. he fought in the european theater, in italy, and had it not been for fat man and little boy, he'd have been in a landing craft assaulting japan. he was very glad when the news hit of the a-bombs.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 2:16pm

86. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 2:05pm

    How do you feel about selling war bonds to finance the effort against terrorism similar to those that were sold during WWII?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:18pm

87. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 2:16pm

    My father also fought in WWII as a member of the famed 9th division that saw major action in North Africa, Italy and later France.

    Younger people in this country have no idea of the sacrifices of that generations. Nowhere is it taught in our schools to the level that it should be except in higher education. That's why productions like this pass weeks, WWII in HD on the History Channel and in movies like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List and in the upcoming 'The Pacific', a Speilberg and Hanks collaberation, similar to 'Band of Brothers' but instead concentrating on the war with Japan, are so important and should be required viewing in every school in America. But we wouldn't want to upset the little darlings would we?

    There is no question, except from people with no sense of loss, that the bombs were the right remedy at the right time and in the right place.

    Our current President is taking so long because that's how long it is taking to educate him and wean him from his weak-kneed liberal tendencies to go soft at a time when the phrase, 'Stay the course', was never needed more. I just hope the his education from all the military people and state department experts serves him well and helps him sustain the courage to do as he himself said, "Finish the JOB."

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:28pm

88. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:24am

    3. This war will last a long time most likely and will contain battles in places we don't even know about yet.

    --Not to dismiss the various crimes of our fellow imperialists, or to deny the right to self-determination, but it didn't take the deaths of hundreds of thousands for the IRA to be borught to heal, and bourgeois Spain hasn't bombed and occupied the hell out of its Basque provinces, so why should the "War Against Islamic Terrorism" require such strategies and tactics on the part of our masters.

    4. It is not possible to declare a timetable for this war .....not possible to say when it will end....

    --But is it possible to declare a timetable for ending an occupation, one that is counter-productive for the U.S. and world elite and immoral and dangerous to the American and international working class.

    5. We won't even know it is over until it appears obvious after some period of time that the threat of Islamic fundamentalism has disappeared.

    --The capture and imprisonment of the leadership of AQ would have made this obvious without the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan generating both popular fury and new volunteers day after day.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 2:30pm

89. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:24am

    6. Pleas for "peace" from the "peace" movement always include capitulation on our part and no demands made of the enemy. The "peace" movement niavely assumes we are to blame for "making them angry" and if we just give up and embrace "peace" all will be wonderful and good.

    --Apparently the peace movement includes conservatives like Pat Buchanan, CIA operatives like Michael Scheur and libertian foreign policy "realists" like Justin Raimondo. Like these folks, many liberal and left-wing opponents of AQ were in favor of treating them like criminals (even though the far left would prefer workers tribunals to the bourgeois courts). I will grant you that the platitudes of too many pacifics do make me want to vomit.

    7. There is no easy answer other than to keep fighting...giving up is not an option...then the enemy wins.

    --So hunt AQ down like we hunt down international drug dealers and some of the more notorious "terrorists" of yesteryear.

    8. Sanctimonious libs want to give up and will condemn me for my comments.

    --Even if I were not a Trotskyist, I would find your ignorance and stupidity jarring. If I were a conservative politician, I would find you useful for stirring up a mob. If I were a conservative intellectual, I would weep for the state of the movement. And if I were a member of the ruling class, I would mark you down as a useful idiot.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 2:38pm

90. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i agree with much, but no longer support open ended nation building in barbarian hellholes or anywhere else, for that matter.

    like i said above, maintain powerful bases in strategic places, use them to project power on a limited time basis, and then get out.

    if the specific barbarians who are targeting us return, we return, take care of business, and quickly leave.

    if we want to support enemies of our enemies with financial aid, hardware, training, logistic support...fine, if really needed.

    otherwise i reject the idea that everything scary or sickening that happens on the other side of the world is our business or as great a threat as those who profit one way or another from such hysteria try to scare us into thinking and therefore supporting.

    i believe our involvement in every stinkhole makes things worse regardless of our intention.

    the next few decades may see world of misery and privation and violence.

    we would be wise to look to our well being and prepare wisely.

    we cannot save the world the way we are behaving now. we may not be able to at all, but unless we cease our meddling we will pay.

    and though i respect the military in general and most of those who serve, i DO believe what mr. eisenhower warned us about IS a prime driving factor in these questionable martial adventures and is ultimately parasitic, wasteful, and dangerous to our safety, security, economic well being, and our "freedoms"...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 2:41pm

91. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 2:05pm

    How do you feel about selling war bonds to finance the effort against terrorism similar to those that were sold during WWII?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:18pm

    I don't have a problem with that if we could actually guarantee that the Democrats wouldn't use the money for something else-like health care.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 2:43pm

92. us about IS a prime driving factor in these questionable martial adventures and is ultimately parasitic, wasteful, and dangerous to our safety, security, economic well being, and our "freedoms"...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    ie - "unamerican"

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 2:44pm

93. "No, we don't need a war tax. the cost for the effort in Afghanistan is only about 2% of our budget. "----Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 2:05pm

    So as long as it's "only 2%" and war....

    Larry will drop his "principled stance" on deficit spending.

    We've confirmed what you are, madam....now, we're just haggling on the price!

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 2:49pm

94. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 2:43pm

    Well that's a solution that is being bandied about. Of course the bulk of the money would have to come from republican and independent circles because the left doesn't think that the war on terror even exists. Bonds sold in WWII were purchased by all Americans because the nation was united in it's efforts to win the war that defined our country as the leader of freedom and the enforcer against tyranny for the next several generations.

    Maybe taxation is the better remedy so that all demographic groups are forced to pay for their defense.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:50pm

95. jfair,

    How did next-President Palin lose a 100+ year Republican seat to the Democrats?

    Scozzafava was going to lose to Owens if it had been a 2 person contest, i.e. if Hoffman had not entered the race at all.

    There were 2 libs running for Congress, the Democrat and the RINO. The RINO, Scozzafava was going to lose anyway.

    Doug Hoffman, a third party candidate, almost won the race. How often does a third party candidate almost win?

    In fact, he may well have won if Scozzafava had not dropped out. It was pretty much a dead heat in the polls, between Hoffman the Conservative and Owens the Democrat, with the RINO Scozzafava a distant third.

    It appears more of Scozzafava's votes went to Owens the Democrat than to Hoffman the Conservative. Scozzafava endorsed OWENS when she dropped out.

    Your analysis assumes that the Republican seat would have stayed Republican....but without Hoffman's entry in the race the Dems would have taken the seat....the analysis and polls showed Owens the Democrat easily winning until the Hoffman campaign gained momentum.

    The "Republican", the RINO Scozzafava, was not going to win no matter what.

    The people who lost the seat were those among the GOP leadership in New York that had Scozzafava a RINO being the GOP candidate to begin with. There was no primary or contest among Republicans in that district to be the party nominee, Scozzafava was hand picked. They, not Sarah Palin, are the people who caused the seat to be lost.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 2:50pm

96. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:37am

    We Americans, on our own, because of the freedom that some had and our system of rule of law dealt with it ourselves. We granted participation to all people.

    --"our system of rule of law!?!?!?!" Are you mad? It took a civil war to end slavery and a mass movement engaged in ILLEGAL civil disobedience to end Jim Crow.

    And at the same time Americans have reached out to assist others in the world to a much greater degree than any other nation in history ever has.

    --Setting aside military aid and U.S.-dominated financial institutions that do infinitely more harm than good, U.S. per capita humanitarian foreign aid pales in comparison to that provided by most Western European nations, Japan and, maybe, even Saudi Arabia.

    And America is a open book where people are free to comment about life here and criticize life here without threat of imprisonment or death.

    --Thanks in large part to the efforts of the left and the labor movement.

    Americans know about the warts in our past to a greater degree than people in other countries know about their pasts.

    --I'm not sure whether Americans are really more ignorant than the average Frenchman or Italian about their history, but as a whole, we are frightfully ignorant of our past.

    Other societies do not obsess about their flaws the way we do.

    --And yet scaremongers claim that just such obsessing by "native" Europeans is leading to the "Islamization of Europe."

    You say Germany and Japan have come to grips with their past....not true at least in the case of Japan...Japanese schoolchildren are not told much about the wrongs their nation brought upon the world in the 30's and 40's. --I will concede this point about Japan to you, and it is a real shame.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 2:53pm

97. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 2:50pm

    How did Republicans win such landslides in NJ and NC. Obama fatigue maybe?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:53pm

98. These are people who blame America for 9/11. These are people who think the likes of Bill Ayers is a hero.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 12:19pm

    Yup, Pat Buchanan is a BIG fan of Bill Ayers.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 2:57pm

99. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 2:50pm

    Palin's endorsement of a radical right candidate turned off the moderate majority that found refuge with the Democratic party. 100+ years of history suggest that Scozzafava would have won the race had Palin not intervened. What suggest otherwise?

    Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 3:02pm

100. If you think for one minute that Hitler or Tojo wouldn't have used them on us you're, well, stoned of course.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 1:59pm

     kool didn't say that Hitler or Tojo wouldn't have dropped the bombs if they'd gotten them first. What he said is that there is a moutain of evidence - and has been since days after the bombs were dropped, I might add - that it was not necessary to drop the bombs AT THE TIME they were dropped. The right-wing, "Our Country, Right or Wrong" version of political correctness just can't tolerate this argument or said evidence.

     Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 3:03pm

101. How did Republicans win such landslides in NJ and NC. Obama fatigue maybe?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/25/2009 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     were they landslides? probably WAS some obama fatigue, sure, but the dem candidates were not the strongest.

     i also wonder how many of those electrified by obama went back to somnambulant stupidity and inaction.

     i wonder how many african americans will get off their duffs and vote for a non african american as well.

     i wonder how many casual white racists who overcame their casual racism to vote for obama will continue to vote progressive or democratic, and not solely because obama has not duct taped up a failed system and fixed all the problems in a year, but because many are just as self absorbedly ignorant as the blacks they dislike/fear.

     but i think most folks regardless of ethnicity do understand that there were some flaws in the fashionable ideology of the last four decades.

     two steps forward, one step back...

     but we shall see soon enough.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 3:07pm

102. Finishing the job in Afghanistan is as wishful thinking as finishing the job in Vietnam was. Obama's choices are very limited there.

     Obama could continue the current expensive and dead-end policy which will ultimately lead to defeat, like Vietnam. Or, Obama can exercise leadership and design comprehensive plan for the larger Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan.

     The Anti American sentiment is so rampant in the Middle East; Afghanistan won't be the last war we have to fight there. Something has to change; America has to end its shameful support for Israel and stop embracing the current corrupt dictators of the Middle East.

     The Middle East is a vast land, rich with resources and with urgent need for human and industrial development. America can play a constructive and mutually beneficial role developing the Middle East. This will create Jobs for Americans and our sons and daughters don't have to die there anymore. To do that, America has to be liberated from the stranglehold of the Zionist lobby. The Zionists are dictating the direction of our foreign policy and are bribing our Congress on behalf of Israel. Obama's dilemma is daunting though; standing to the Israeli lobby renders him a one-term president.

     Posted by CripThink at 11/25/2009 @ 3:11pm

103. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 12:46pm

     I'm neither a multi-culturalist nor a cultural relativist, but before throwing the word "barbarian" around:

     a. Think of the Holocaust, Stalin and the European and U.S. invasions, conquests and occupations of Africa, Asia and Latin America from the 19th Century on.

     b. Read Laila Lalami's "The New Inquisition" in the latest issue of The Nation.

     Glass houses, ibbl, glass houses.

     Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 3:22pm

104. Glass houses, ibbl, glass houses.

     Posted by cka2nd at 11/25/2009 @ 3:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     oh sure..."barbarian" is a relative term and lord know "civilized" nations have done some horrible things...

     i don't equate the term necessarily with "bad", actually...and indeed of all the "civilized world" we are by far the closest to barbarism in my opinion.

     made worse by our meddlesome, unstustainable obsession with "civilizing" them...

     especially the attitude espoused by the previous admin and its mercenary minds...

     oh if we just drop in, wack the bad guys, open up a few cheap plastic crap hawking big box stores, pump in lots of american idol and dancing with the stars, teach 'em how to be just like us (because we know for certain we are the bestest, coolest, smartest, richest, most awesomnest thing since opposable thumbs), and teach 'em some good ol fashioned satano-aynrando bullshittin' skills...

     they will all be happier when they become little versions of us!!!

     yeah - i find it pretty stupid and many barbarians are far nobler than their tormentors...

     but i don't particularly care any more. i think the barbarians would be far better off if we stayed home unless invited and ceased meddling. we are not as smart as we think and certainly not as virtuous.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 3:37pm

105. "What dollar amount to preserve our freedom is too much for you?"

     (question of the day)

     it's hard to believe that there are actually people in this country who think that, by invading and occupying afghanistan, we are "preserving freedom."

     just imagine the mind of someone who believes that.

     it's hard, i know. but just try it for a second.

     only then will you fully realize why america is not only on a downwards trajectory, but also, why america is so utterly detested around the globe.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 4:16pm

106. how many people here feel that afghanistan was/is a threat to our freedoms?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 4:17pm

107. "2. We invaded Iraq to prevent a future September 11. That day some woke up to the fact that we need to stop future September 11s from happening. We need to take action BEFORE they occur."

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 12:11pm

     SJ "Blacks don't wannna vote" CHERMAK:

     Describe the Top 10 measures taken by George W "Hell No! I'm rich & I won't go, daddy!" Loser & Dick Cheney to -- as you say -- "prevent a future September 11" before the hair-on-fire warnings that preceded September 11. You don't have to include the DoJ's anti-porn and clothing-for-statues programs that were as effective as Goerge W Loser's "career" in "business" as anti-terror measures in saving Americans from mass murder.

     Just write 'em all right here, SJ:

     1. _______________________

     2. _______________________

     3. _______________________

     4. _______________________

     5. _______________________

     6. _______________________

     7. _______________________

     8. _______________________

     9. _______________________

     10. ______________________

     Feel free to add no.s 11-20 as well since you (cough, ahem) have obviously been "furloughed" from the aweseome responsibilities of the closing shift.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/25/2009 @ 4:22pm

108. cka2nd,

     What about the Civil Rights Legislation...the Voting Rights Act....

     Was the civil disobedience that helped end Jim Crow ever squelched by the government like the Chinese were squelched in Tienanmen Square?

     NO.

     You proclaim "...Setting aside military aid and U.S.-dominated financial institutions that do infinitely more harm than good, U.S. per capita humanitarian foreign aid pales in comparison to that provided by most Western European nations, Japan and, maybe, even Saudi Arabia. ..."

     1. YOU CAN'T SET ASIDE MILITARY AID....American soldiers paid with their lives to help people stay free, in places like Europe, for example....that can not be "set aside".

     2. You cite U.S. per capita aid...that is government aid....when you add in all of the personal donations to private charities that Americans make, which is considerable....then that situation goes the other way...that does matter...Europeans are getting used to having their lives run by the nanny state, so they look to government to do everything for them, so therefore government is the expected vehicle for aid and thus European personal donations to foreign aid is quite small...whereas Americans do both, the government aids others and individual people donate money and other things on their own.

     3. Free speech is in the U.S. Constitution...it was not put there by the left and by any labor movement.

     4. American kids learn all about their history in school...our past is an open book, nothing is shoved under the rug.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 4:30pm

109. "Spain was an ally in the war on terror. The terrorists bombed Madrid and the Spaniards complied a few days later and voted a government in that took Spain out of the war on terror."

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 11:48am

     Look closely at this filthy, disgusting anal seepage from SJ. It speaks volumes to the sick, depraved, and twisted excuse for a worldview of the rightwing freak.

     In 2004, Madrid was attacked by rightwing fundementalists who manifestly loath the practices of human rights that present the west at it's finest. It happens while the center-right Partido Popular is in power. Almost 200 are murdered and hundreds more subjected to chilling injuries for escaping death.

     And because of these very facts, the likes of SJCHERMAK believes that it is the citizen's *duty and obligation* to support Partido Popular. Go figure!

     A right leaning government falls short of keeping the citizenry safe. One may say it fails to do due diligence.

     And as usual for the rightwing freaks, they DEMAND that failure be rewarded; no questions asked.

     Ever wonder why ANTISOCIAL characterizes Dick Cheney as hands-down the best VP in US history? Not good, mind you but the b-e-s-t for ANTI when the biggest date on his resume is ... 9-11? To ask the question is to answer it.

     The SJs and ANTIs cannot ever stop droning on about terrorism and, yes, they sound like the hungover guy who is constantly proclaiming "I DO NOT have a drinking problem!" to answer every question (and also ones not asked). That is becuase terror is their operative god. Excuse me, g*d. Failure to thwart it is, in this sicko mindset that needs to be smoked out, a "success". Sucess to be rewarded.

     This truism must be born in mind at all times in dealing with rightwing flith.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/25/2009 @ 4:35pm

110. Palin's endorsement of a radical right candidate turned off the moderate majority that found refuge with the Democratic party. 100+ years of history suggest that Scozzafava would have won the race had Palin not intervened. What suggest otherwise?

     Posted by jfair at 11/25/2009 @ 3:02pm

     You didn't follow NY-23 race close enough. Had Palin not entered into the picture at all, Owens likely would have won anyway since the split between Hoffman and Scozzi would have discouraged a bunch of non-Dem voters from heading to the voting booth

     Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 4:45pm

111. jfair,

     You say next-President Palin "scared away the moderate majority" and they found "refuge" amongst the Democrats.

     Look at the timelines:

     ==========================

     As I said in my earlier post, Owens had been leading the race...here is an article from Oct 16.

     Owens leads latest poll on Congress race: City Democrat has overtaken Scozzafava By Joe Lo Templio The Press-Republican, Plattsburgh, N.Y. Date: Friday, October 16 2009 Oct. 16--PLATTSBURGH -- A new poll released Thursday by Siena Research Institute shows Democrat William Owens leading the race for the 23rd Congressional District.

     The independent poll gives Owens, a Plattsburgh attorney, a four-point lead over Republican Dede Scozzafava and a 10-point lead

     http://www.allbusiness.com/ government/elections-politics -politics-political-parties/13223872-1.html

     ============================

     On Oct 22, Sarah Palin came out in support of Doug Hoffman

     Palin backs Hoffman in NY-23 By ANDY BARR | 10/22/09 8:49 PM EDT Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday endorsed Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava, the Republican Party's choice, in the special election for New York's 23rd congressional district.

     ======================

     In shift, GOP leaders embrace Hoffman By ALEX ISENSTADT & JOSH KRAUSHAAR | 10/29/09 5:57 PM EST

     The latest round of polling gave evidence that Hoffman is on the rise and has pulled even with, or ahead of, Owens as Scozzafava has fallen into third place. In a newly-released poll commissioned by the liberal blog Daily Kos, Hoffman is within one point of Owens, 33 percent to 32 percent, with Scozzafava lagging well behind in third place with 21 percent.

     http://www.politico.com/news/ stories/1009/28899.html

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 4:47pm

112. Posted by darladoon at 11/25/2009 @ 4:16pm

     It will be more interesting to see the response of Larry and his ilk when the scenarios described in places such as Global Guerrillas becomes the norm.

     http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

     To take one recent example from this blog, care to consider what happens when people protesting at abortion clinics start going to guerrilla sniper training at Suarez?

     http://www.suarezinternationalstore.com/ index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=907

     What about other disaffected groups? Whether you look at Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, or other examples, people will do anything when they don't have the essentials of life or have fundamentalist beliefs. It doesn't much matter whether the fundamentalism is religious or secular. It's not pretty.

     Posted by srjenkins at 11/25/2009 @ 4:47pm

113. jfair,

     I had to continue this in a second post....

     It appears when the Hoffman candidacy got attention from the national GOP and from Sarah Palin, he began to surge in the polls.

     The early evidence prior to that shows that Owens would have won. You cite 100+ years of history but overlook what was actually happening.

     Plus, Scozzafava was in some ways more to the left than Owens the actual Democrat was, she was not a typical Republican like what had represented that district before.

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 4:55pm

114. what's a flith?

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/25/2009 @ 5:06pm

115. Usually there is no purpose in responding to the rantings of Phil McCrevice, but besides the usual incoherence and nonsense, he is factually incorrect up above.

     He says:

     ".......In 2004, Madrid was attacked by rightwing fundementalists who manifestly loath the practices of human rights that present the west at it's finest........Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/25/2009 @ 4:35pm.."

     The facts are:

     ".........The 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings consisted of a series of coordinated bombings against the Cercanías (commuter train) system of Madrid, Spain on the morning of 11 March 2004 (three days before Spain's general elections), killing 191 people and wounding 1,800.[2] The official investigation by the Spanish Judiciary determined the attacks were directed by a Muslim al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist cell[3][4].......... "

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 6:21pm

116. CripThink is different than a lot of others here.

     Rather than engaging in knee-jerk America blame, CripThink engages in knee-jerk Israel blame.

     But I know CripThink is wrong.

     Not only do I know CripThink is wrong, the New York Mets know CripThink is wrong also.

     Remember, CripThink - Let's go Mets!!!

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 7:01pm

117. Why don't you guys exercise some PATIENCE and just wait to hear what the President has to say on December 1st? Obama is NOT pro-war, but there are some practical considerations that have to be handled in Afghanistan for a withdrawal to make sense.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/25/2009 @ 7:36pm

118. Remember, CripThink - Let's go Mets!!!

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 7:01pm

     Is that the best you can come up with, chermak?

     Well, Happy Thanks Giving chermak! But wait a second; am I offending you with the Thanks Giving greeting? Not unless it happened that you are an Israeli agent who is, according to Philip Giraldi, planted by Shin Bet to promote the Israeli propaganda at the Nation's Blog.

     It is very interesting reading for zealot Israeli-Firsters like you who don't read much. Enjoy it!

     http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/11/18/internet-under-siege/

     Posted by CripThink at 11/25/2009 @ 7:45pm

119. It will be more interesting to see the response of Larry and his ilk when the scenarios described in places such as Global Guerrillas becomes the norm.

     http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

     To take one recent example from this blog, care to consider what happens when people protesting at abortion clinics start going to guerrilla sniper training at Suarez?

     http://www.suarezinternationalstore.com/ index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=907

     What about other disaffected groups? Whether you look at Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, or other examples, people will do anything when they don't have the essentials of life or have fundamentalist beliefs. It doesn't much matter whether the fundamentalism is religious or secular. It's not pretty.

     Posted by srjenkins at 11/25/2009 @ 4:4

     Nice try at deception. You were probably hoping that I would not catch this attempt to misrepresent my views.

     I am consistently on record here that violence against abortion providers or anyone seeking an abortion is wrong and that anyone doing so should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 9:15pm

120. Obama is NOT pro-war, but there are some practical considerations that have to be handled in Afghanistan for a withdrawal to make sense.

     Posted by Metteyya at 11/25/2009 @ 7:36pm

     Let's see.. "Obama is NOT pro-war".. Hmmm, In a way I would agree with that statement. Since we are not involved in any wars at the moment. But I would say he is pro-occupation. After all he is deploying 30,000 more troops into a soverign nation to accomplish some mystery "Job".

     Then there is the statement, "there are some practical considerations that have to be handled in Afghanistan for a withdrawal to make sense." What sort of "practical considerations"? Sounds a bit sinister. And you don't withdraw from an occupation anyway. You just leave. No muss, no fuss. You just get the hell out of somebody elses country. Cut and dried really.

     I notice you post here fairly consistently. Are you a progressive or a conservative?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/26/2009 @ 07:54am

121. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 6:21pm

     Let's look at the record. It says all we need know.

     Washington and New York are attacked in 2001 in the most spectauclar and obscenely murderous terror assault on innocent people in world history in a conflict already that was already evident and that Clinton-Gore had been effectively prosecuting...

     ...And SJCHERMAK goes apeshit ga-ga with hearts and kisses for the sitting government of George W Loser that had *actively de-priotized* terror.

     Madrid is attacked in March 2004 in the most murderous act of terror to occur on the European contatnt...

     ...And 5 years later, SJCHERMAK is still stroking himself over the "accomplishment" of the sitting center-right govt of Partido Popular and bemoaning their electoral loss that followed (in part, for actively insulting the electorate's intelligence & lying about rigthwwing religious fundementalist alQ as the source of the murder spree).

     London absorbs a hideous terror strike in July 2005 that kills more than 50 innocent people & injures nearly 1000 more...

     ...And once gain, like a lovesick teen groupie, SJCHERMAK fawns to this very day over the sitting govt of Tony Blair, whose own security agencies were full of doubts & crits about the stupidity of unquestioned alignment with W Loser's invasions and rhetoric.

     See the pattern?

     Righwing religionists who care nothing for the sancticity of civilian lives committ mass murder...

     ...And SJCHERMAK cannot rim the governments on whose watch these crimes occur with enough vigor.

     Is SJCHERMAK merely a uesful idiot? Unfortunetely, it is probably something more sinister. SJCHERMAK loves death, loves terroism, wants to see more of it in every which way and in all directions. A sick sick sick & dangerous fella is he.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/26/2009 @ 08:38am

122. "Phil McCrevice...is factually incorrect up above."

     Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 6:21pm

     Once again, SJCHERMAK shows his true colors.

     In characterezing AlQ, I stated: "...In 2004, Madrid was attacked by rightwing fundementalists who manifestly loath the practices of human rights that present the west at it's finest... (11/25/2009 @ 4:35pm)."

     SJCHERMAK calls this "factually incorrect" (his words).

     Oh oh.

     Are we to assume that, for SJCHERMAK, alQ *is* a human rights org? That they adore western concepts of human rights and express this hardcore advcocay for human rights via...mass murder of civilians? That the series of spectacular terror attacks across this decade positions alQ as on a par with Amnesty International -- with, in his rightwinger ferverishness, bombing Madrid as "Exhibit A"?

     Once again, SJCHERMAK betrays what he really is. And what rightwing ideology is really about. Take note, all.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/26/2009 @ 08:47am

123. SJCHERMAK,

     Tell us true:

     Do you believe that Saint Sarah Palin ("Alaska First!") *really is* the POTUS *right now at this very second* because...

     1). Obama is Kenyan citizen, bin Laden's secret son, an Indonesian agent, as well as Al Gore's Manchurian Candidate;

     2). John McCain is secretly Panamanian and vowed an oath to serve Ho Chi Minh on top of it. And McCain is not really alive anyway but has been beamed into Congress by holograph ever since his final debate with Obama after which he secretly died;

     3). ACORN death squads strong-armed 70,000,000 hapless US voters into going against their will and voting for Obama and then did the same with the electoral college?

     It all makes perfect sense, right, SJ? Reams of unimpeachable evidence support this airtight theory...

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 11/26/2009 @ 08:54am

124. Obama will never finish this "job" in Afghanistan , even he deploys all the US troops there. Afghanistan is a graveyard of the Empires for centuries. The last was the soviets, but they were alone. But US will have many friends in defeat.Afghanistan is going to be Obama's Vietnam.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 11/26/2009 @ 09:11am

125. Posted by antisocialist at 11/25/2009 @ 9:15pm

     Your views, such as they are, were hardly misrepresented. Nor do I have any interest of avoiding you "catching" me - other than having to explain what was already said because you seem to willfully misunderstand what people write.

     I'm asking a simple question. Will people, like you, be consistent when these violent techniques are used by people with ideologies you support - rather than radical Islam?

     The fact that you view violence at abortion clinics as a law enforcement matter where radical Islam warrants military intervention shows there is a difference, which are likely related to your ideas of dhimmitude and what not.

     Abortion is just one example. I could have used a number of others.

     What about vigilante groups forming against illegal immigrants and using violence? What about the threat of violence - such as the people showing up at demonstrations with firearms?

     What happens when there is a right wing insurgency in the U.S. that asserts that the U.S. government is no longer legitimate and carries out violent attacks against government workers or government infrastructure?

     I know the answer to these questions, in your case. You aren't consistent in applying the same standards to people with views you support - whether you agree with what they are doing or not. But, I was talking about people like you - which I assume some of them might have a bit more integrity than you do.

     Posted by srjenkins at 11/26/2009 @ 10:10am

126. I'm asking a simple question. Will people, like you, be consistent when these violent techniques are used by people with ideologies you support - rather than radical Islam?

     The fact that you view violence at abortion clinics as a law enforcement matter where radical Islam warrants military intervention shows there is a difference, which are likely related to your ideas of dhimmitude and what not.

     Abortion is just one example. I could have used a number of others.

     What about vigilante groups forming against illegal immigrants and using violence? What about the threat of violence - such as the people showing up at demonstrations with firearms?

     What happens when there is a right wing insurgency in the U.S. that asserts that the U.S. government is no longer legitimate and carries out violent attacks against government workers or government infrastructure?

     I know the answer to these questions, in your case. You aren't consistent in applying the same standards to people with views you support - whether you agree with what they are doing or not. But, I was talking about people like you - which I assume some of them might have a bit more integrity than you do.

     Posted by srjenkins at 11/26/2009 @ 10:10am |

     More figments of your imagination.

     immigration violence, same as anti-abortion.

     If someone broke the law carrying a firearm at a demonstration, they should be arrested. If they haven't broken the law, what is your problem?

     the difference with the Jihadists vs anti-abortion or illegal immigrant examples, is that the former want to conquer and make us submit to Islamic rule, whereas the latter examples are wrongly trying to take the law into their own hands.

     The jihadist aim is a war of civilizations with the aim of overthrowing govt.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/26/2009 @ 4:09pm

127. Posted by srjenkins at 11/26/2009 @ 10:10am |

     The inconsistency is yours SRJ, not mine. There is a clear difference between illegal acts of citizens breaking the law and the clear stated war of islamic jihadists to subject the world to Islamic religious rule.

     As to your "right wing militias, unless they can convince a state or states to secede, they are not at war but engaged in acts of sedition.

     <Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

     In 1940, the Alien Registration Act or Smith Act was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. Although unused since at least 1961, the Smith Act remains US law>

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/26/2009 @ 4:16pm

128. It's funny how the msm always mentions the costs of all efforts to improve the lives of Americans but it never, ever points out the billions of dollars this country routinely blows on the military, defense programs, ect. (Does Europe really need the US to provide a missle shield to protect it? How many billions will that cost us?) All we hear, see, read about the efforts to fix a health care system that the "free market" has failed to provide in the msm cries about the costs (as if the country can continue to afford the system we currently have); yet the calls for more troops goes without comment on the money it will devour.

     I always viewed Obama's pragmatism as an asset; the man's instinct to work with others, to steer a balanced, middle course, however, will prove to be a crucial fault when it comes to Afghanistan. What can he do, though? If he pulled out of Afghanistan all the know nothings on the right would bleat for years to come about how he "lost" Afghanistan (just as the fears of similar accusations motivated LBJ in Southeast Asia.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 11/26/2009 @ 10:06pm

129. FYI: It was the corrupt, incompetent Chinese Nationalists that lost China.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 11/26/2009 @ 10:08pm

130. Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2009 @ 4:30pm

     What about the Civil Rights Legislation...the Voting Rights Act.... Was the civil disobedience that helped end Jim Crow ever squelched by the government like the Chinese were squelched in Tienanmen Square? NO.

     --At the local and state level, YES! Besides Bull Connor or the police and state troopers at the Pettus Bridge outside Selma, Alabama, state and local governments and police forces were also complicit in the deaths of civil rights workers and in both Klan and mob violence. And have you ever heard of the FBI's COINTELPRO program?

     2. You cite U.S. per capita aid...that is government aid....when you add in all of the personal donations to private charities that Americans make, which is considerable....then that situation goes the other way...that does matter...

     --Yes, it does, but "Per Capita Foreign Aid Assistance by World's Wealthiest Countries, 2002" shows that even with the third highest amount of private per capita aid, the U.S. still came in 15th our of 21 countries. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html.

     3. Free speech is in the U.S. Constitution...it was not put there by the left and by any labor movement.

     --And it would be just as meaningful as the freedom's listed in the Soviet constitution if not for the efforts of labor and civil rights activists, Jehovah's Witnesses, the ACLU and others to force the state at all levels to accept free speech and assembly, both of which must be constantly defended.

     4. American kids learn all about their history in school...our past is an open book, nothing is shoved under the rug.

     --My God, I think this is the first time I have ever heard a right-winger say such a positive thing about public schools! I only wish it were true and you weren't so naive.

     Posted by cka2nd at 11/26/2009 @ 11:40pm

131. "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes ...

     I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers....

     Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/28/2009 @ 9:00pm

132. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

     -From War is a Racket (1935) by U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Butler

     Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/28/2009 @ 9:01pm

133. some things never change

     Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/28/2009 @ 9:02pm

134. ...In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

     -From War is a Racket (1935) by U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Butler

     Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/29/2009 @ 11:45pm