Obama Has Spoken; Now, Let's Have a Debate

President Obama delivered a carefully-constructed and nuanced call Tuesday night for the extension of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Obama came to the wrong conclusion about a military adventure that should be coming to a conclusion, rather than ramping up. But Obama's attempt to find a middle ground between anti-war forces and supporters of a Iraq-style occupation at least recognized that the debate over Afghanistan has many sides and many players.

At times, Obama seemed so tortured in his attempt to placate both those who want to send more troops (he's dispatching an additional 30,000) and those who want a bring-the-troops-home exit strategy (he says they will start coming home in 2011) that his speech had the ring of Greek tragedy – or, perhaps, "fall of the Roman Empire" history.

Unfortunately, there has been nothing artful about the media coverage of Obama's speech.

Most of the coverage has followed the predictable patterns of the post-September 11 "war on terror" era.

Compromise, even bad compromise that keeps the U.S. involved in a quagmire, is portrayed as rational, and probably necessary, while blunt calls for rapid withdrawal or all-out war are dismissed as outside the realm of reason.

So it is that we are left with in murky-middle moment where prominent Democrats rally, for the most part, to back the president even when he embarks on what House Appropriations Committee chair David Obey, D-Wisconsin, refers to as a "fool's errand," while prominent Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, whine that the president is not doing enough.

In fact, the picture has more shades of grey than the pundits would have us believe.

There remains substantial Democratic discomfort with Obama's plan to surge tens of thousands ofd additional troops into what – despite all that talk of an exit strategy – is sounding more and more like an endless war of whim. One hundred members of the House, the vast majority of them Democrats, have now sponsored Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern's call for the development of a formal plan to bring the troops home. In the Senate, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders make no secret of the fact that they believe the president is making a mistake, as does House Appropriations Committee chair David Obey, D-Wisconsin, the author of the "fool's errand" characterization.

Perhaps even more significant, however, is the fact that there is a good deal of division within the ranks of the Republican caucus, particularly in the U.S. House. Not every member of the Grand Old Party is banging on Obama for taking too long to do too little in Afghanistan. In fact, some key congressional conservatives are echoing the call of liberals for a "Bring the Troops Home" plan.

The first cosponsor of Jim McGovern's resolution was North Carolina Republican Walter Jones Jr., who says of the Afghanistan occupation: "We're trying to police the world. Every great nation prior to America that tried to police the world has failed economically. That's why I tell people that I'm a Pat Buchanan American. I want to stop trying to take care of the world and fix this country. Our problems are so deep that there is no easy way to fix them."

Jones has repeatedly gone to the floor of the House to deliver calls for an exit strategy, as has his fellow "old-right" conservative, Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Among the other stalwart conservatives who do not merely reject a surge but who are outspoken in their advocacy for the development of a plan to withdraw U.S. forces in Afghanistan are California's Dana Rohrbacher and Tennessee's John Duncan Jr.

They were joined on the eve of Obama's speech at West Point by an unexpected Republican dissenter, Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who used a speech Monday at the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah.to declare: "Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home."

Chaffetz, a pristine conservative by just about any standard, says Obama's surge strategy makes no sense.

"We're talking about having nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. If the mission is to root out al-Qaida, we do not need to risk the lives of tens of thousands of troops to fulfill it," the congressman, who has traveled to Afghanistan and met with the top generals on the ground there, argues that: "If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home. … I am opposed to nationbuilding. I do not believe it is the role and responsibility of the United States of America to be involved in every aspect of the globe."

Chaffetz announced his stance prior to Obama's speech because he did not want to be seen as just another Republican critic of the president. And he did so with a seriousness that merits attention, issuing a detailed assessment of the conflict and of his views regarding more serious threats facing the United States.

The Utah Republican is not an anti-war firebrand – he wants out of Afghanistan; but if the U.S. is going to maintain a military presence there, the congressman suggests that it might as well go all out militarily.

Chaffetz is trying to push the envelope, maybe even to open the debate up – within his own party and beyond its boundaries.

That's something Obey is trying to do with his talk of a "war surtax."

One is a conservative. One is a progressive.

One is a Republican. One is a Democrat.

But these two members of the House, and a good many of their colleagues in both parties, are offering every indication that they are ready for a real debate.

And that debate is what is needed. Indeed, hte best news from Tuesday was the signal, sent before the president's speech by progressive Democrats (including Senator Feingold and Congressman McGovern), and a few conservative Republicans, that efforts might be made to block funding for at least some aspects of the troop surge.

No matter how Congress might eventually decide the issue, that's a discourse and a vote that Congress should embrace.

The executive branch is not supposed to define the discussion about war.

Presidents, according to the Constitution, are supposed to engage in a dialogue with Congress -- the legislative branch that was empowered to check and balance the executive precisely because the founders wanted to "chain the dogs of war."

Obama laid out an agenda Tuesday night. Now, the Congress should start debating whether it wants to go along with that agenda. And the media should cover that debate – not just as Democrats versus Republicans, or liberals versus conservatives. It should pay attention to all the scope and character that is on display.

This is the essential discourse of the republic – the discourse that James Madison, the father of our Constitution imagined, and demanded, when he warned more than 200 years ago:

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both.

No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it.

In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them.

In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.

The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

Democrats and Republicans both like to claim Madison as their founding father.

So be it.

Let's be Madisonian.

Now that the president has spoken, let's have a real debate about whether he is right -- and about whether this nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Comments (100)

1. I'll go ahead and be the first rightie here to say I don't think the stopwatch clause is a terrible idea. It sends a message to the Afghan army/government that they are going to get their asses handed to them shortly if they don't step up their game.

   Conversely, they may instead negotiate a de facto truce with the Talibs behind our backs.

   While our exit, and the almost imminent Taliban takeover will be a humanitarian disaster for Afghans, especially women, I'm not entirely convinced that they will make the same mistake again re AQ. The Saudi suicide nerds have not been finding warm receptions in their travels among indigenous Muslims lately. The Talibs felt a debt of gratitude to OBL, but that may be paid up by now.

   Posted by gangpapist at 12/01/2009 @ 9:00pm

2. NICHOLS: "At times, Obama seemed so tortured......"

   That's a pretty good observation, John!

   Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 9:03pm

3. NICHOLS: "The Utah Republican is not a anti-war champion – he's not above suggesting that if the U.S. is going to remain in Afghanistan, it might as well go all out militarily."

   This is along my line of reasoning....with the drawdown in Iraq, and if the Afghan War is the Good War that BHO wants to fight, we "might as well go all out militarily" or close to it; say at the least, the minimum of 40,000 troop option McChrystal outlined.

   It puzzles me why Magic set the level at 30,000?????

   He made no mention of constraints on deploying more, as was the case when the Iraq War was raging and our armed forces were stretched thin and decisions were then made to up the size of the standing Army & Marines. Then, why not give the minimum level that his own hand-picked general wanted?

   Personally, I suspect his not granting the 40,000 wanted by the general, is to send the signal to his Far Left flank, that he does NOT kowtow to the US military and......cheer up, he is NOT BUSH ;~)

   Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 9:18pm

4. Obama was clearly on message tonight in recalling the history and 98-0 and 440-1 votes to authorize war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and the 8 years of doing nothing by Bush/Cheney that has created a number of security risks if we simply withdrew immediately.

   "Responsible" withdrawal should be applauded by all progressives tonight despite our dislike of war, as getting it right so we don't have a more serious problem down the road will not only help Obama but will help the progressive movement stay on course for at least eight years.

   Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 10:11pm

5. .....help the progressive movement stay on course for at least eight years.

   Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 10:11pm

   Had a few stiff drinks, huh? Hehehehehe.....

   Had to convince yourself the Messiah did the right thing, huh?

   It had to be brilliant for Magic to announce a withdrawal date before any additional forces enters battle, huh?

   Man, BHO is just so fricking SMART.....nobody can understand him, LOL!

   Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 10:18pm

6. Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 10:11pm

   '"Responsible" withdrawal should be applauded by all progressives tonight despite our dislike of war, as getting it right so we don't have a more serious problem down the road'

   Though I'm leaning towards immediate withdrawal for non-prog reasons, I will support the CICs attempt at "responsible" withdrawal, as the consequences of failure could be dire.

   Here's the problem, if we are to withdraw responsibly on the timeline that the Pres has proposed, we're going to have to compress a whole lot of ass-whipping into a short time frame. You might have to un-dislike the war-making a little bit for about 18 months, or the exit won't look too responsible.

   Posted by gangpapist at 12/01/2009 @ 10:49pm

7. The core of the new strategy is predicated on sending 30000 troops to hold Taliban in check, while we train the Afghani army and eradicate the corruption which plagues the Karazai government. The method of choice to tame Taliban, in the new strategy, is to bribe some Afghani tribal forces to fight Taliban and push them out of their strongholds.

   Notice that we are asking Karazai to shape up and fight corruption, while we are engaging in payoffs and kickbacks on our own term. This is exactly what happened in Iraq. We engaged in the same blackmail, trying to bribe the "awakening" forces to turn on Al Qaeda in Iraq; all while asking the Iraqi government to exhibit transparency and restraint in handling the billions in reconstruction money. It was only a matter of time before the "Awakening" ran out of cash and turned against us again. At the meantime, the Iraqi government took a page from our cash mismanagement scheme and helped themselves into blundering the billions of Dollars allocated for Iraq's reconstruction projects.

   It wasn't long ago when George W. Bush was pontificating about constructing a grandiose Jeffersonian Democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, it is our ultimate objective to bribe ourselves out of there, leaving behind ten of thousands of dead and wounded Americans. As for the trillions of dollars wasted on these senseless wars; this is not an issue that we should care the least about. First, the money was all borrowed from the Chinese, and second, it is our kids who should worry about paying it back.

   Posted by CripThink at 12/01/2009 @ 10:58pm

8. Methinks the Nobel committee, along with multitudes of Americans and others around the world, may well be having some second thoughts about this man and his presidency, as if they did not already have cause enough to do so.

   Posted by feinfein at 12/01/2009 @ 11:02pm

9. Did Obama mention the pipeline? No? Then he left out the most significant reason for our being in Afghanistan.

   But he did mention cancer, we all heard that ... the most trite, worn-out cliché, always a red flag indicating the proferred thoughts to be thoughtless.

   Obama is a captive to the Pentagon & its allies. And so are we now, until this disaster becomes too big to deny any longer, by which point the US will be bankrupt & a pariah among nations.

   Posted by sloper at 12/01/2009 @ 11:03pm

10. feinfein ...

    Boy, did you get that one right. Peace prize? Like Kissinger's.

    Posted by sloper at 12/01/2009 @ 11:05pm

11. It is simple enough, he made these political campaign promises, YOU voted for him, and now you whine?

    Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan "As Obama removes our combat brigades from Iraq, he will send at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent. He will also provide our armed forces with the reset capability that they need. He will replace essential equipment, and he will ensure that our men and women in uniform get the care and support they have earned."

    Work to end NATO restrictions on forces in Afghanistan Some countries "contributing forces are imposing restrictions on where their troops can operate, tying the hands of commanders on the ground. ... As president, Obama will work with European allies to end these burdensome restrictions and strengthen NATO as a fighting force. An increased U.S. commitment to the NATO mission will substantially strengthen our hand in asking for more from our European friends."

    Train and equip the Afghan army "Barack Obama will strengthen the training and equipping of the Afghan army and police and increase Afghan participation in U.S. and NATO missions, so that there is more of an Afghan face on security."

    Increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion Barack Obama would increase U.S. non-military aid to Afghanistan by an additional $1 billion to $3 billion. "This aid would fund reconstruction, police and army training, embassy operations, and local projects including efforts to impact the lives of ordinary Afghans and to give farmers alternatives to growing opium poppies. The aid would also be tied to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country."

    Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 11:13pm

12. .Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts "As president, Barack Obama would condition U.S. military aid to Pakistan on their making progress to close down the training camps, evict foreign fighters, and prevent the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base to strike inside of Afghanistan. ... Obama also will increase aid to Pakistan for development and secular education to counter extremists."

    Are leftist now admitting they were WRONG in supporting the Obamanation or just you did not expect him to keep his campaign promises????

    Strange how none will answer the question?!

    Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 11:14pm

13. "Are leftist now admitting they were WRONG in supporting the Obamanation or just you did not expect him to keep his campaign promises???? "

    problem with your question:

    obama is not a "leftist"

    Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 11:27pm

14. Strange how none will answer the question?!

    Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 11:14pm

    Bigpasture,

    The "Leftists" are inclined to appoint a brilliant strategist, like you, who seems to have all the answers to get it done.

    In your proposed BS strategy, you left out one thing: When are you going, or send your kids, to fight in Afghanistan?

    You don't seem to be much different from you idol DICK Cheney; others should go fight your wars, while you seek your fourth deferment.

    Posted by CripThink at 12/01/2009 @ 11:30pm

15. Posted by CripThink at 12/01/2009 @ 11:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You shoot off your mouth without reading that these points ARE the Obamanations campaign promises that YOU apparently voted for!

    Only DarlaLOON came off looking dumber!

    Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 11:42pm

16. Of course - congressional debate. That's another dimension of the president's decision: cons trying to ma7ntain their delegitimization of him, while disagreeing with libs and agreeing to more or less the surge he's announcing.

    Posted by winyahn at 12/02/2009 @ 12:14am

17. Those sleep deprived cadets nodding off sure brought back memories. In Vietnam they lost 3 to 4 million people, we lost 58 thousand and we quit and went home. Its sad but 58k was our number, they could have lost 10 million and they would have kept fighting. War is about killing the other guy(because he is going to kill you if you don't) until there is no one left to kill. Do you think our boys in WW I or II were thinking about building democracies or training police? I was about kill'n. I still remember my dads friend with a big metal hoop filled with shriveled ears of japanese soldiers that he had killed. My dad said thats what happens when you friends are killed right next to you. It kills me to say this but the VC soldier was a better than the US soldier, thats why we lost, protest at home and Presidents planning bombing runs from the oval office is B.S we had 300,000 troops there.

    All you guys on this blog are talking about politics. Let me boil this down for you, soldier against soldier.

    In one corner you have the guy who didn't want to work at mickey d's in his A/C cooled barracks playing nientendo and down loading apps to his/her I phone. His opponent in the other corner a guy in a cave with a Coleman lantern reading the koran and eating bugs

    Our soldiers are not ready for this

    Posted by ricktatham at 12/02/2009 @ 12:44am

18. why is bigpasture frothing? does he have rabies?

    Posted by darladoon at 12/02/2009 @ 12:53am

19. A few observations before turning in.

    Barack Obama didn't really have any choice in announcing this semi-surge. It's a travesty that he waited three months to decide something of which he really had no other choice.

    Gen. McChrystal wanted 40,000 troops. He got 30,000. Twenty five percent were cut as a political consideration.

    Obama made it sound like this is America's call to action to get the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan under control once and for all. In the next sentence, he announces that were leaving in eighteen months anyway.

    My view of this speech is that is was very weak. Obama certainly is no FDR or Winston Churchill. If I were one of those Cadets in attendence, I would have been bored to tears. Only their youth and their respect for the CIC gave them rise to applaud a couple of lines.

    Iran has got to be feeling a little crowded, what with our troops to their left and their right and the Persian Gulf to their south. Is it possible that the real reason for the build up in Afghanistan is not solely to crush the Taliban but to have our troops strategically located to advance on Iran after Israel goes in with the bombers?

    The left has to be completely disheartened after this speech. Even though Obama announced that the troops will begin their withdrawal in eighteen months, everyone knows that's bullshit. It will take at least six months to get them there in the first place. Does anybody think that we will train an Afghani army in one year that will be capable of carrying the fight? I don't. Especially with the terrain, lack of roadways, mountains and overall impossible conditions to fight a war quickly.

    What I believe we'll see is a deterioration of ground conditions that will result in more troops and much more time.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 01:13am

20. Your country has vigor recently about the need for education through informed debate; good luck to you on Afhanistan and tap the average Afghan for information about what success looks like for them.

    Posted by mapleleaf at 12/02/2009 @ 01:22am

21. Why Obama flips-flops on Afghanistan, civil liberties, sound banking regulations, etc…?

    How could the man so blatantly reneges on almost every commitment he made during the Presidential Campaign?

    The Future of Freedom Foundation published an enlightening article by Andy Worthington, who takes us into sobering details of the failure of Barack Obama to live up to commitments he made to Americans.

    In "Idealists Leave Obama's Sinking Ship" Worthington describes in some tantalizing details how a clique of politicians, ex intelligence officials, Judicial and military officers are determined on maintaining a grip of fear, war, and deprivation of civil liberties hanging over America.

    Unfortunately, this environment of fear has hypnotized most Americans and turned them into tools in the hands of this powerful clique, who use them to pressure Obama to back off making the principled decisions.

    http://www.fff.org/comment/com0912a.asp

    An eye-opening article of power and cowardice!

    Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 02:22am

22. Heard one of your generals, missed his name, on radio today. (He said he advised GW on the Afghanistan invasion). He was interviewed by an Aussie journo.

    He said Obama, who sought his advice, is making the right choice and he thought the Bush type surge had a better than even chance of succeeding in Afghanistan and we should know in 12 to 18 months if it was likely to work. The journo asked, what if it it doesn't succeed then? He said then don't try to contact me.

    The other point he made was that Obama despite his qualifications is definitely in for the long haul. He said think in terms of years.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 05:10am

23. Maybe I'm missing something here. It seems like the only time a nation should go to war is if it's directly threatened. Then if we decide to go to war, we should do so to win. That means pulling out all stops and winning which means huge casualties against the enemy and showing zero mercy until the other side says uncle. If the U.S. is not willing to go all of the way, we should stay the hell out and not do this at all. We aren't the world's police and we can't afford it. We have evidently learned nothing from Korea, Vietnam or Iraq.

    We're still a bunch of driveling idiots marching to the drumbeat of a blood thirsty military industrial complex. They don't really want to win any wars, but do want to keep things at a slow boil all of the time to justify bankrupting the nation with stupid mindless and outrageous defense budgets.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 06:43am

24. #

    Maybe I'm missing something here. It seems like the only time a nation should go to war is if it's directly threatened. Then if we decide to go to war, we should do so to win. That means pulling out all stops and winning which means huge casualties against the enemy and showing zero mercy until the other side says uncle. If the U.S. is not willing to go all of the way, we should stay the hell out and not do this at all. We aren't the world's police and we can't afford it. We have evidently learned nothing from Korea, Vietnam or Iraq.

    We're still a bunch of driveling idiots marching to the drumbeat of a blood thirsty military industrial complex. They don't really want to win any wars, but do want to keep things at a slow boil all of the time to justify bankrupting the nation with stupid mindless and outrageous defense budgets.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 06:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Bingo. Eisenhower was right, as was usual. He warned us. What now? That remains to be seen, but it's clear that it won't be done on our own terms by people with our country's best interests at heart. More than likely we simply won't be able to afford it anymore, eventually, and other economic powers will rise in our stead. Our reputation and credibility shattered as a nation. Not to mention our economy. That said, legitimate endeavors like Afghanistan will be overrun by the same effect you mentioned and simply blend into the back drop of permanent warfare. Which is what I believe we are seeing in the President's decisions.

    Posted by Milhaus at 12/02/2009 @ 07:01am

25. grr kill, grr..

    grrr..bribe..kill...

    Like Chris Rocks take on OJ, I understand, I just don't condone.

    Totally expected this decision from the "Marxist Leftist Anti-War" President. Just goes to show how clueless the BP's, HAPPYS and Anti's of this country are about who Obama is. Well, at least they will be happy about more war spending, while they whine about spending on domestic concerns.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2009 @ 07:51am

26. feinfein ...

    Boy, did you get that one right. Peace prize? Like Kissinger's.

    Posted by sloper at 12/01/2009 @ 11:05pm

    Nope...

    like ALGORES.

    Pure politics...

    Did I hear the bus crunch the bones of the Progressives(far left) last night?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/02/2009 @ 07:52am

27. Over the next few years many attempts will be made to make this Obamas War. He has definitely assumed ownership of the next phase, but we must NEVER ose sight of who got us into two messes in the ME, and who left Obama HUGE messes in Iraq, Afghanistan and here at home...

    the right wing fringe of the republican party and the Leader they abandoned when THEIR policies failed to deliver.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2009 @ 07:54am

28. Crabwalk, every president inherits a crisis.

    Ever notice a tendency among liberals to act like Vietnam was Nixon's war, rather than Lyndon Johnson's?

    And my goodness, how many times did The One use the word "I" last night?

    It's all about him...

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 12/02/2009 @ 08:33am

29. According to an article in Der Spiegel (a criticism article), the cadets were told before Obama's speech to "respond enthusiastically".

    Revolting. If you don't agree with what you are hearing, you sure as heck shouldn't be told to respond as if you do.

    Ah, ah, stop right there. You do not need to tell me that troops might have been told to do something similar during the Bush years. If I condemn it here, I must be consistent and condemn it there.

    Okay, I do. It's just that polls throughout the Bush years had Bush pretty popular among the troops. He garnered the majority of soldier votes in both his elections. Soldiers do not generally need to be told to "respond enthusiastically" to a leader who is an unabashed booter of Americanism, victory (a word and it's synonyms Obama studiously did NOT use last night), and the military.

    They do need to be told to respond enthusiastically when it is clear the speech is going to contain much they would not cheer without first being ordered to do so.

    But as the Der Spiegel writer observes, the reception was still lukewarm. Obama should've given this speech from the Oval Office, by himself, with no captive cheering section under orders to "respond enthusiastically". But political calculations are political calculations...and this was theater.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 12/02/2009 @ 08:50am

30. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 06:43am

    I'm a little confused as to why so many on the left expected Obama to bug out of Afghanistan. Didn't he promise to take Afghanistan seriously during the campaign? Were you folks asleep during each and every speech where he said that Afghanistan was the 'good' war?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:02am

31. Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2009 @ 07:54am

    Could we just stipulate, CRABBIE, that as far as you are concerned, everything bad that happens durign the Obama Administration is Bush's fault? That way we could save at least several dozen posts a week from you, which would decluttter the board substantially.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:03am

32. Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 01:13am

    Kind of all over the place, aren't you, gunny?....like some other of our right-wing friends?

    First, supporting the troop increase...then attacking Obama for a bad speech....then saying it's a good thing we are "crowding Iran"....then saying it's the left who is disappointed in the speech and troop increase....then telling us the troop increase won't work.

    The Left and some others are disheartened with the troop increase...but you guys on the Right seem a bit confused. Have to support the increase, because that's YOUR solution...but have to attack Obama for doing it because, well, he's Obama.

    Maybe once Beck and Limbaugh are finished today....we'll get a coherent message from the Right.

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 09:06am

33. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 12/02/2009 @ 08:50am

    "But as the Der Spiegel writer observes, the reception was still lukewarm. Obama should've given this speech from the Oval Office, by himself, with no captive cheering section under orders to "respond enthusiastically". But political calculations are political calculations...and this was theater."

    Of course it was theater. In Liberaland, it's all about making your own reality. In Liberaland, everyone loves Obama, therefore everyone must applaud enthusiastically, even if they must be told to do so. You haven't figured that out yet?

    Good lord, man, haven't you been following the Kabuki theater that Obama's policies toward Iran have become? They're laughing at him and us, and the only people that don't get the joke are the liberals in American who think Iran is 'dealt a blow' every time the UN issues another sternly worded resolution. LOL

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:08am

34. 'Obama is a captive to the Pentagon & its allies. And so are we now, until this disaster becomes too big to deny any longer' -- sloper

    .

    4 July 2007 -- CounterPunch.org -- Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank

    '...The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator. ...

    The Illinois-based company also helped Obama's 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper's, "[Exelon] is Obama's fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default." ... The atom lobby must certainly be pleased....'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/02/2009 @ 09:14am

35. Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 09:06am

    "but you guys on the Right seem a bit confused. Have to support the increase, because that's YOUR solution...but have to attack Obama for doing it because, well, he's Obama.

    Maybe once Beck and Limbaugh are finished today....we'll get a coherent message from the Right."

    Again, MASK, as is your wont, you project your own pathology on those you disagree with. It may be all about politics and partisanship with you, but it is NOT that way for us.

    We don't generally disagree with Obama's actions because he's a lefty-liberal Democrat. We disagree with lefty-liberalism because it's stupid, and leads to stupid decisions.

    I support Obama's decision to remain in Afghanistan, and he has been consistent on this point all along. Why you seem surprised at this is for you to answer.

    The only criticism I have to offer with respect to Obama with regard to this issue is he has decided to split the difference, which could quite possibly lead to disaster. You can't have half-a-loaf when it comes to war. You are either all in or all out. You are dealing with peoples's lives here, after all.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:22am

36. Mask, you're a dumbass. The conflicted thing comes from the fact that "we" are not conformists. Personally, I think we should bug out, but I'll support the CIC and hope his plan works.

    If you guys turn the KSM trial into a hate-America circus, effectively feeding the sharks while our troops are in the water, I'll call you fifth columnists, just a heads up.

    The truly craven thing about you is that there are multiple righties around here who are against the surge. A chance for consensus. A consensus that if it got its wish, would I guess in your little brain save myriad innocents from the evil US MIC. But you're not interested in that. Instead, you'd rather ignore the fact that this is not a left/right issue any more, and score points like you always do making snarky comments about Limbaugh.

    Are you really, really sure you would welcome the day that the evil neocons deadly hijinks came to an end? That would deny you your source material.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 09:52am

37. Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 09:52am

    Yes, MASK is a dumbass. He's fundamentally unserious. It's all a kind of parlor game to him. He never asks himself the hard questions, just wants to know which team is winning.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 10:11am

38. Of course it was theater. In Liberaland, it's all about making your own reality.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:08am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --fade in to scene...crowded air craft carrier, president disembarks from a fighter jet, in a flight suit. Gives speech, with cameras rolling showing only water in the distance behind the carrier, that war in Iraq has been a success. "Mission Accomplished" banner flies. carrier is actually near the coast in San Diego.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:15am

39. The only criticism I have to offer with respect to Obama with regard to this issue is he has decided to split the difference, which could quite possibly lead to disaster. You can't have half-a-loaf when it comes to war. You are either all in or all out. You are dealing with peoples's lives here, after all.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --funny then that Bush's generals never requested more troops. If there were no term limits, and if Bush had won a 3rd term, when was he finally going to give it the "full loaf" and "win" in Afghanistan?

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:17am

40. How could the man so blatantly reneges on almost every commitment he made during the Presidential Campaign?

    Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 02:22am

    Well, since he didn't renege on Afghanistan, isn't last night's decision something to be cheered by his supporters/voters?

    And for the bulk of the Right, a small uptick in approval in so far as his handling of this Good War?

    Posted by Happy at 12/02/2009 @ 10:18am

41. Good lord, man, haven't you been following the Kabuki theater that Obama's policies toward Iran have become? They're laughing at him and us

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:08am

    Pontificus,

    The only people laughing at you, apparently without you noticing, are Goldman Sachs, Exxon, the Insurance Companies and the Big Pharmas.

    Why the f*ck is Iran's nukes, assuming they get some, is big deal to you? The Chinese, who are our economic competitors, have them, the Indians have them, and the Israelis have them. Even the Pakistanis have nukes with our seal of approval. If and when the Iranians will have their nukes, it will be to secure their existence and ward off our repeated meddling in their internal affairs, not to be foolish enough to use them on us.

    The real danger, which fellow like you seem not to notice, is the chronic unemployment that is afflicting Americans and is eroding our standard of living. It is your friends at the Multinational Corporations, not Iran, who exported our jobs to China and India while being rewarded by your tax dollars by their servants in Congress.

    45,000 to 100,000 Americans are dying annually for the lack of access to health care; a problem that is created by the deceptive and antitrust-exempted health insurance industry, not Iran.

    It was the Israeli Lobby and Big Oil who got us involved in the Iraq war, not Iran, and the only gainers from that war are Halliburton, Chevron, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex.

    One wonders what a fellow like you does in his spare time, other than watching the Balloon Boy on Fox News.

    Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 10:39am

42. The cool part about all this is that while you decry him as a murdering imperialist, you guys will begin the infancy of a rift between blacks and the Left. You might not know this, but most blacks, like most whites or Hispanics or whatever, have almost nothing in common with you guys. Sure, plenty of black people may disagree with the surge, but the majority, like everybody else, won't think of Obama as the current occupant of the eternal American hitler machine. Because only you guys are ingenius enough to think that way. The rest of us are a diverse rainbow of human stupidity!

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 10:45am

43. The rest of us are a diverse rainbow of human stupidity!

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 10:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --that rainbow's gonna get less brown in the next couple years...

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:49am

44. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:17am

    "--funny then that Bush's generals never requested more troops. If there were no term limits, and if Bush had won a 3rd term, when was he finally going to give it the "full loaf" and "win" in Afghanistan?"

    The answer is obvious to all those with a brain, and many without, and I know you don't really want to know, but I'll answer you anyway.

    Bush couldn't commit fully to Afghanistan because he was busy winning in Iraq, which, you apparently haven't noticed, has been done. If Bush had had a third term, he would have 'surged' in Afghanistan just like he did in Iraq, and won that too. Please commence your mindless babble.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 11:05am

45. Well, since he didn't renege on Afghanistan, isn't last night's decision something to be cheered by his supporters/voters?

    Posted by Happy at 12/02/2009 @ 10:18am

    Indeed, and to your delight, he kept the Bush Policy on Afghanistan. Can we conclude that that you are willing to open your heart now and forgive Obama for speaking against the Israeli settlements, Happy?

    Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 11:08am

46. I still remember my dads friend with a big metal hoop filled with shriveled ears of japanese soldiers that he had killed.

    a charming example of why this was a racist war. I have never heard of anyone keeping ears of German soldiers they had killed.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/02/2009 @ 11:09am

47. The answer is obvious to all those with a brain, and many without, and I know you don't really want to know, but I'll answer you anyway. Bush couldn't commit fully to Afghanistan because he was busy winning in Iraq, which, you apparently haven't noticed, has been done. If Bush had had a third term, he would have 'surged' in Afghanistan just like he did in Iraq, and won that too. Please commence your mindless babble. Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 11:05am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --we "won" in Iraq? when? what date do we celebrate V-I day? and why are we still there again?

    and why didn't bush order more troops? if we're incapable of fighting two wars, and if AQ/Taleban (or whoever) is such a threat to our national security...why put them on hold to fight a different war?

    enjoy...

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 11:31am

48. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 11:31am

    When did we 'win' in Iraq? I think most reasonable people have concluded that at this moment, Iraq is essentially 'won'. When, exactly, that occurred, you can decide for yourself.

    "and why didn't bush order more troops? if we're incapable of fighting two wars, and if AQ/Taleban (or whoever) is such a threat to our national security...why put them on hold to fight a different war?"

    Actually, you answered your own question. The military did not have the resources to 'surge' in both Iraq and Afghanistan at once. Bush had to prioritize. He did. What do you not understand about that?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 11:50am

49. Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 09:06am

    There you go with that reading comprehension problem again.

    Be specific on the parts you don't understand and I'll use smaller words so you'll get it.

    Just to summarize:

    The left is not happy today because their president didn't announce a total withdrawal. Darladoon must be breathing into a paper bag.

    The right is only partly happy because enough troops aren't being sent to get the job done efficiently and with minimum loss of life and once again the President has given an embarrassing speech.

    Independents like myself are wondering why a President can come off sounding so weak on details like troop strength and timelines yet sound presidential in his rhetoric. But at least he's not running like the left wants him to.

    When Bush made his surge speech, there was no reference in timelines except to say that the troops will be there until the job is done.

    All Presidents recognize that national security is job one. He made too many references to domestic concerns just to blow smoke up the collective liberal/progressive ass.

    Iran can't be very happy knowing that within the next several months they'll be surrounded. I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 11:50am

50. sitting in islamabad reading all this stuff is surreal quagmire it is and obama sending more troops after we voted for him to get out - bizarre !

    1) its OIL from the central asian reserves for china/russia - if no us pipleline through af/pak corridor 2) obama promised pull outs yet first day in the oval couldron and generals tell him "ok to promise all this stuff - another to know we run this thing here and in the past forty years buddy we have spent several trillions building the bases and the national security hamma hamma - so play ball 3) scared as hell about 240 million plus af/pak poor uneducated - undernourished - weary of war people with a nuclear arsenal saying "what is there except more war and more foreign boots" lets do it !

    think ahead a decade from now ...

    there is something surreal about it all and we know so little about these real-time events ....

    Posted by hothamid at 12/02/2009 @ 11:59am

51. Looks like The Reptilians managed to install their New Silver-Tongued Boss without so much as a hitch.

    Meet the new reptile, same as the old reptile. (no offense to snakes intended.)

    Posted by DejaVu at 12/02/2009 @ 12:02pm

52. The left is not happy today because their president didn't announce a total withdrawal. Darladoon must be breathing into a paper bag.

    --who's the enemy in Afhanistan?

    The right is only partly happy because enough troops aren't being sent to get the job done efficiently and with minimum loss of life and once again the President has given an embarrassing speech.

    --why didn't bush increase troops in afhanistan when he was president? he has 7 years to "win" ... yet he left the job to another president.

    Independents like myself are wondering why a President can come off sounding so weak on details like troop strength and timelines yet sound presidential in his rhetoric. But at least he's not running like the left wants him to.

    --you're a partisan hack, that's why you're questioning a president who's sending in troops to get the "job" done that the president you voted for dithered on for 7 years.

    When Bush made his surge speech, there was no reference in timelines except to say that the troops will be there until the job is done.

    --why would he mention timelines? he never wanted to leave. he knew he'd look more "presdiential" as a war-time president to dolts like you.

    All Presidents recognize that national security is job one. He made too many references to domestic concerns just to blow smoke up the collective liberal/progressive ass.

    --god forbid we focus on our own house!

    Iran can't be very happy knowing that within the next several months they'll be surrounded. I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

    --kill more brown people!

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 11:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 12:05pm

53. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 11:31am

    I think most reasonable people have concluded that at this moment, Iraq is essentially 'won'. When, exactly, that occurred, you can decide for yourself.

    --according to you when did we "win"? what date? or at least what month in what year?

    Actually, you answered your own question. The military did not have the resources to 'surge' in both Iraq and Afghanistan at once. Bush had to prioritize. He did. What do you not understand about that?

    --if groups in Afhganistan were/are such a threat to our liberty--why not increase troop levels? why risk letting this go on?

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 11:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 12:07pm

54. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:15am

    Yeah, great. Keep going back in time and point out all the GWB mistakes. The most obvious was his lack of understanding of what it would take to secure the peace in Iraq. He had to use valuable resources and lost a lot of unnessary lives by trying to fight the war on the cheap, because of poor planning. For that he gets low marks. I hope Obama isn't making the same mistake.

    But he gets high marks for his initial response and for listening to McCain and Petraeus and ordering the surge which was highly successful. He handed over a plan to Obama to increase troop strength in Afghanistan which Obama obliged in February.

    Now this is Obama's war to win or lose. I hope that if he is going to send those young men and women, that we saw last night, and who were ordered to be cordial to the CIC, to their deaths, he will have the will to execute this war to it's honorable finish.

    He has a chance here to be a great President. If he wipes out the Taliban and Al Qaeda and brings this chapter of tyranny to an end in the world, (get OBL), he will go down as a successful war President. However, if he listens to the far left and goes all weak-kneed before the job is done, his legacy will be simply that he was the first President of mixed blood to be elected President.

    The looks on those cadets faces said it all last night, the ones who weren't dozing that is. They had a look of concern. It was because of the mixed message they were hearing. Go fight but you only have eighteen months so try not to get killed before that.

    BTW, Obama, by adding these troops and beginning the escalalation that will probably have to supplanted with further deployments, insured his re-election. War Presidents always get re-elected.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 12:09pm

55. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 12:05pm

    I've answered some of your questions in my above post but here is some further detail:

    --who's the enemy in Afhanistan?

    The Taliban and Al Qaeda

    --why didn't bush increase troops in afhanistan when he was president? he has 7 years to "win" ... yet he left the job to another president.

    He did in transition. He recognized that the surge was needed to win in Iraq while at the same time preparing strategy to last into Obama's Presidency, recognizing that Afghanistan would take another decade to finish the job. Obama's increase in troop strength in Feb. was on the advise of the Bush Administration. Obama doesn't understand that when we are at war, domestic challanges take a back seat. This goes against his liberal psyche.

    --why didn't bush increase troops in afhanistan when he was president? he has 7 years to "win" ... yet he left the job to another president.

    See above.

    --you're a partisan hack, that's why you're questioning a president who's sending in troops to get the "job" done that the president you voted for dithered on for 7 years.

    See above.

    --why would he mention timelines? he never wanted to leave. he knew he'd look more "presdiential" as a war-time president to dolts like you.

    See above.

    --god forbid we focus on our own house!

    See above.

    --kill more brown people!

    Kill the enemy, whatever color they are.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 12:18pm

56. Last night, Obama just recited what everyone else told him too. He tried to make everybody happy. Impossible.

    He read very well off the tele-promoters but he lacked real emotion, the kind that was unmistakable in speeches given by Winston Churchill and FDR. Obama inspired no-one last night. It was all plastic and phoney.

    I feel really bad for those young troops and their families who will have to make the sacrifices when their CIC doesn't have his heart in their mission like GWB did.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 12:23pm

57. hey urmy,

    I think I'm more "brown" than Ahmadinejad and I'm a white guy. At least half of Israelis are "browner" than good ol' Mahmoud too. I met blond-haired blue-eyed Iraqis when I was there on, um, business. A friend of mine that's a Marine helped quell the violence in Liberia, fairly swarthy people there.

    I know you like the Iranian system of governance but that doesn't mean anybody critical of it is down on brown. The WOT is basically a brownish military from a brownish country attempting to deter wackoes, some of whom are brownish, from detonating themselves in our brownish cities and killing our brownish citizens.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/02/2009 @ 12:25pm

58. Yeah, great. Keep going back in time and point out all the GWB mistakes. The most obvious was his lack of understanding of what it would take to secure the peace in Iraq. He had to use valuable resources and lost a lot of unnessary lives by trying to fight the war on the cheap, because of poor planning. For that he gets low marks. I hope Obama isn't making the same mistake.

    --if we're still posting here when there's a republican president I'll be sure to remind you obama's "mistakes" are off limits. p.s.--how often was clinton raked over the coals over 9/11 by conservative commentators?

    But he gets high marks for his initial response and for listening to McCain and Petraeus and ordering the surge which was highly successful. He handed over a plan to Obama to increase troop strength in Afghanistan which Obama obliged in February.

    --he had 7 fucking years to "win" in Afghanistan. but he gets "high marks" for passing the baton? your standards are low.

    Now this is Obama's war to win or lose. I hope that if he is going to send those young men and women, that we saw last night, and who were ordered to be cordial to the CIC, to their deaths, he will have the will to execute this war to it's honorable finish.

    --meaning what? what's "victory" look like?

    He has a chance here to be a great President. If he wipes out the Taliban and Al Qaeda and brings this chapter of tyranny to an end in the world, (get OBL), he will go down as a successful war President.

    --how will we know when they're "wiped out"?

    However, if he listens to the far left and goes all weak-kneed before the job is done, his legacy will be simply that he was the first President of mixed blood to be elected President.

    --you want that to be his legacy, surely.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 12:27pm

59. The looks on those cadets faces said it all last night, the ones who weren't dozing that is. They had a look of concern. It was because of the mixed message they were hearing. Go fight but you only have eighteen months so try not to get killed before that.

    --you mean the troops want to be there longer?

    BTW, Obama, by adding these troops and beginning the escalalation that will probably have to supplanted with further deployments, insured his re-election. War Presidents always get re-elected.

    --that's certainly Mask's "political" argument in favor of sending more troops.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 12:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    p.s.--you're use of "mixed blood" - lame.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 12:29pm

60. part 2 (not to take the thunder out of the obama speech thread ...) heres the real time take from ibad ... deep us-centric econ crisis unraveling - an escalating useless war - hear/see people here in despair its serious stuff ! as the quagmire deepens more serious it gets ! people here want PEACE - handful of ultra jihadists left - huge majority is moderate non-war people - poverty hoplessness loss of DIGNITY causes people to wonder stay undernourished unfulfilled ... we have a huge opportunity in this adversity - see it with new bifocals - take a paltry few dollars out of the useless war megadollars draining the us and channel it for education/health /useful jobs to these people in desperate need - they are WAR WEARY ! the other side is to let these young people make a hard choice whatever that may be and ten years from now we say "wow we coulda helped" the mahatir model says it takes 20/30 years of basic education to transform an uneducated generation - he did it in malaysia - same model deployed does it for af/pak region ... beating up on pak to "do more" when it is embroiled in a dangerous civil war at the behest of the us is counter productive - its a civil war to appease the war machine in dc - masses are saying NO - we cannot kill our own people when they are simple villagers minding their own business - EVERYONE IS NOT a TALIBAN ... the solution is to stop the war - get people talking "loya jirga" style and do a marshal plan on education - health - population growth ! it can be done because people WANT hope and JOBS and EDUCATION not boots on the ground - post 2001 bloodshed is enough - when hillary visited islamabad - lahore - karachi she got a taste of how this boondoggle can be unraveled with a dexterous touch ...

    Posted by hothamid at 12/02/2009 @ 1:05pm

61. p.s.--you're use of "mixed blood" - lame.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 12:29pm

    But accurate, right?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:22pm

62. We disagree with lefty-liberalism because it's stupid, and leads to stupid decisions.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2009 @ 09:22am

    Yeah, that righty-facism has just worked wonders for us hasn't it?

    Fool!

    Posted by BlackFrancis at 12/02/2009 @ 1:44pm

63. good links on post-obama reactions ...

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KL03Df06.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KL03Df04.html

    Posted by hothamid at 12/02/2009 @ 1:51pm

64. Posted by BlackFrancis at 12/02/2009 @ 1:44pm

    Interesting how you would choose that particular quote out of a pretty good post.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:51pm

65. p.s.--you're use of "mixed blood" - lame.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 12:29pm

    But accurate, right?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:22pm

    C'mon Urmy. Show some character and admit it. It's accurate, correct?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:52pm

66. we're all "mixed blood" unless your parents are siblings--you fucking dolt!

    obama's a mixed race. indeed, call him a "mulatto"...I'm not p.c., I have no problem with that word.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 1:55pm

67. Posted by BlackFrancis at 12/02/2009 @ 1:44pm Interesting how you would choose that particular quote out of a pretty good post. Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --yeah, interesting how you choose to use "mixed blood" instead of mixed race, or interracial, or mulatto, or biracial, or half black...

    here's a hint--skin color has nothing to do with blood. educate yourself you dolt!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:00pm

68. Interesting how you would choose that particular quote out of a pretty good post.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 1:51pm

    Pretty good post? By pontificus?

    Hahahahahahah.

    Posted by BlackFrancis at 12/02/2009 @ 2:00pm

69. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 1:55pm

    Mixed blood is an expression often used as the same as mixed race. If you prefer mixed race, that's fine with me. I don't like the word mulatto. I've told you before that your insults are unwelcome. If you would like to converse with me in the future, get control of yourself.

    In any event, the first sentence in the history books will call Obama the first black President. That would be highly inaccurate. Agreed?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:11pm

70. Mixed blood is an expression often used as the same as mixed race.

    --used in the same circles where "nigger" is still popular.

    If you prefer mixed race, that's fine with me.

    --mixed race is accurate. mixed blood is not.

    I don't like the word mulatto.

    --you like "mixed blood" but not mulatto? at least mulatto is accurate--and most people who use mulatto are not using it as a pejorative. most people who use "mixed blood" certainly are (and it's not even accurate!)

    I've told you before that your insults are unwelcome.

    --how are you insulted?

    If you would like to converse with me in the future, get control of yourself.

    --what the fuck are you talking about? if you don't want to converse with me, you really think I'm gonna lose any sleep? por favor!

    In any event, the first sentence in the history books will call Obama the first black President. That would be highly inaccurate. Agreed?

    --they won't say "mixed blood" that's for sure.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:17pm

71. Can we conclude that that you are willing to open your heart now and forgive Obama for speaking against the Israeli settlements, Happy?

    Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 11:08am

    Sure!

    The One can be "speaking against" anything he wants, it's his actions as the most powerful CIC (and person) on earth, that will be the final arbiter for me.

    He spoke against the Patriot Act but his (non) action meant more, shoudln't it? LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 12/02/2009 @ 2:43pm

72. ......his legacy will be simply that he was the first President of mixed blood to be elected President.

    .......Obama, by adding these troops and beginning the escalalation that will probably have to supplanted with further deployments, insured his re-election. War Presidents always get re-elected.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 12:09pm

    Don't be that sure! LBJ chose NOT to run Re-Election....perhaps, Magic can leave another legacy as the first `war president' to lose Re-Election.

    Posted by Happy at 12/02/2009 @ 2:50pm

73. Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:17pm

    In any event, the first sentence in the history books will call Obama the first black President. That would be highly inaccurate. Agreed?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:57pm

74. The One can be "speaking against" anything he wants, it's his actions as the most powerful CIC (and person) on earth, that will be the final arbiter for me.

    He spoke against the Patriot Act but his (non) action meant more, shoudln't it? LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 12/02/2009 @ 2:43pm

    Happy,

    These are pragmatic and persuasive statements; but correctly put nevertheless.

    I am still harboring some hope, no matter how fain it maybe, that one day Obama may take Zbigniew Brzezinski's advice and stick it to Netanyahu. Say that Obama, may recognize East Jerusalem as the Capitol of the Palestinian State or reopen the files of the attack on the Liberty Ship. Will you turn on Obama then and oppose his Afghanistan strategy?

    Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 3:08pm

75. Don't be that sure! LBJ chose NOT to run Re-Election....perhaps, Magic can leave another legacy as the first `war president' to lose Re-Election.

    Posted by Happy at 12/02/2009 @ 2:50pm

    Big difference. The press was all over LBJ. This press orgasms everytime they cover Obama. We'll see.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 3:16pm

76. may recognize East Jerusalem as the Capitol of the Palestinian State Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the word you are looking for here is capital.

    capitol is that large building in Washington.

    the thing with the ship is ancient history and lacks relevance.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/02/2009 @ 3:21pm

77. Posted by EmailduBois at 12/02/2009 @ 3:21pm

    I did not know that - I learned something today. Thanks JR.

    Posted by BlackFrancis at 12/02/2009 @ 3:37pm

78. the thing with the ship is ancient history and lacks relevance.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/02/2009 @ 3:21pm

    Why volunteering to speak for Happy, unless it struck a core? I thought that the issue of relevancy is reserved for the editor. What is relevant today, besides your BS, duBois?

    Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 4:22pm

79. n any event, the first sentence in the history books will call Obama the first black President. That would be highly inaccurate. Agreed?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --why would that be inaccurate?

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 4:29pm

80. gunslinger, we go back to bush over and over again because he is in LARGE part the reason we are in Iraq and Afganistan you DOLT, that goes for the rest of you rightys too, why we keep bringing up bush, duh, 'cause he started it ALL! The financial stuff, the wars, the EVERYTHING we argue about on these blogs is because of BUSH! Get a clue.

    Posted by Denise29 at 12/02/2009 @ 5:24pm

81. and why didn't bush order more troops? if we're incapable of fighting two wars, and if AQ/Taleban (or whoever) is such a threat to our national security...why put them on hold to fight a different war?

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 11:31am

    Well GW is not quite as stupid as you implicitly claim you are.

    When he found out, as most rational persons with some knowledge of the Iraq conflict have realised since early on, post 2003, that the best place to finish off al Qaeda was in Iraq why on earth would he chase them in Afghanistan?

    I notice Robert Dreyfuss suggests about a hundred of them are left in Af/Pak. Maybe divide that by 5 or 10 as anyone's guess is as good as his... or mine for that matter. He is a slow learner but not stupid or dumb.

    So where did they all go to? You got it in one... mostly to Iraq. What for? Effectively to get killed. How many? 4000 up to Sep - Oct 2006. Who says so? al Qaeda in a news release from Cairo at that time.

    I know you are a progressive American but is that sufficient excuse to act dumber than W? On second thoughts......

    For Americans with normal thought processes a pretty good reason for the world's good cop to hang around in AF/Pak is not, so much to keep the mad buggers from invading America, but rather to ensure no crazies get their sweaty little paws on Pakistan's nuke button etc, which armaments are more likely to be directed in India's direction, first up, than yours.

    Perhaps Obama at last understands that things have changed in Af/Pak since W fixed up al Qaeda in Iraq, viz the revival of the Pashtun (36 million of them in Af/Pak) insurgency with its potential for a broader and much more devastating conflict.

    Is that why he gives every indication of wanting to police that region for a long time yet?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 6:13pm

82. Well GW is not quite as stupid as you implicitly claim you are.

    --none of us can be explicitly as stupid as you are.

    When he found out, as most rational persons with some knowledge of the Iraq conflict have realised since early on, post 2003, that the best place to finish off al Qaeda was in Iraq why on earth would he chase them in Afghanistan?

    --so AQ is dead, huh? we "won" in Iraq, right?

    For Americans with normal thought processes a pretty good reason for the world's good cop to hang around in AF/Pak is not, so much to keep the mad buggers from invading America, but rather to ensure no crazies get their sweaty little paws on Pakistan's nuke button etc, which armaments are more likely to be directed in India's direction, first up, than yours.

    --fear mongering is always vogue!

    Perhaps Obama at last understands that things have changed in Af/Pak since W fixed up al Qaeda in Iraq,

    --oh yeah, they're really "fixed up" for sure!

    viz the revival of the Pashtun (36 million of them in Af/Pak) insurgency with its potential for a broader and much more devastating conflict. Is that why he gives every indication of wanting to police that region for a long time yet?

    --thought they were "fixed up"? you're a dolt!

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 6:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 6:38pm

83. When he found out, as most rational persons with some knowledge of the Iraq conflict have realised since early on, post 2003, that the best place to finish off al Qaeda was in Iraq why on earth would he chase them in Afghanistan?

    --so why does Afghanistan need any more tending lrjones? you're a dolt!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 6:40pm

84. There's no need for a debate. Debate over any of the government's policies is for the clueless. Obama's just following the orders of his handlers; by that I mean the owners of this country, the international banking cartel.

    The US will not pull out of Afghanistan in 2011; Obama will tell you another pack of lies when that time comes.

    There's no better way to make the banksters richer, and drag this country into the third world, than paying for three wars and possibly a fourth, with borrowed money, at interest. The banksters love war, it's good for business.

    His mission is to continue the the cause of The New World Order, which is to return to feudalism; there will be the aristocracy and the peasants. Where do you think your grandchildren will end up?

    None of these wars was ever meant to end; including the impending invasion of Iran. That's what's so clever about calling this a "war on terror." These wars were meant to be sustained, and they will be until our owners see fit to end them.

    The sooner you and the rest of your fellow travelers, at The Nation, realize this, the sooner we can get on with purging this country of this cancer; the Federal Reserve and its owners.

    Posted by clingenf at 12/02/2009 @ 7:16pm

85. Response to posting above: You seem confused and I don't know if you are talking about the Bush people or about the Right-Wing people. There is a very major difference in that Bush was never much accepted by the hard conservatives, and they wound up fighting thru 37 primaries for Gov, Sen, and Congress in that time.

    The situation is developing similarly with the "Far-Left" and Obama.

    Posted by balataf at 12/02/2009 @ 7:54pm

86. Progressives need to be cognizant of the political realities facing this President, and ask themselves, given these realities, how does a President extricate the U.S. from these wars? I think the way he's doing it is the way to do it. It's expensive (and bloody) but 2011 is very soon if it really happens. And, if so, what do we have? --the prospect of no more U.S. combat in the Mid-East or South Asia for the foreseeable future from then.

    I say that' s a whole hell of a lot better than the open-ended commitments in Vietnam and Iraq under past administrations.

    The politics of doing it this way is the silencing of Republican criticism (indeed, they voice support,) a mollified press, and momentum going forward to 2010 elections and for legislative initiatives. (Remember, Health care reform is not done.)

    Is this a big win for the military-industrial complex? Yes, of course, but they are going to win anyway with all that's going on in the world. The politics is on their side. The doves in Congress are not going to stop it, I don't think.

    Anyway, we can't save these peoples. We need to save ourselves, and limit our own killed and mutilated young people in the military. A target of 2011 is one way to do it.

    Posted by JSD at 12/02/2009 @ 8:04pm

87. Progressives need to be cognizant of the political realities facing this President, and ask themselves, given these realities, how does a President extricate the U.S. from these wars? I think the way he's doing it is the way to do it. It's expensive (and bloody) but 2011 is very soon if it really happens. And, if so, what do we have? --the prospect of no more U.S. combat in the Mid-East or South Asia for the foreseeable future from then.

    I say that' s a whole hell of a lot better than the open-ended commitments in Vietnam and Iraq under past administrations.

    The politics of doing it this way is the silencing of Republican criticism (indeed, they voice support,) a mollified press, and momentum going forward to 2010 elections and for legislative initiatives. (Remember, Health care reform is not done.)

    Is this a big win for the military-industrial complex? Yes, of course, but they are going to win anyway with all that's going on in the world. The politics is on their side. The doves in Congress are not going to stop it, I don't think.

    Anyway, we can't save these peoples. We need to save ourselves, and limit our own killed and mutilated young people in the military. A target of 2011 is one way to do it.

    Posted by JSD at 12/02/2009 @ 8:05pm

88. John Nichols is precisely right that Obama's speech was "tortured", confusing, full of contradictions, dis-jointed in appealing to different audiences, full of incongruities, and that his speech had the ring of Greek tragedy - or, perhaps, "fall of the Roman Empire" ---- and that's good new for the growing Global People's Movement against Global Empire!

    Obama's confusing speech last night for the Global Empire

    The key to understanding the impossibility of Obama's dilemma is that he is trying to defend a Global Empire with American blood and treasure.

    Obviously Obama will not articulate this reality, and thus his plan entails seminal incongruities, which are seen by a few, but sensed by the wider audience of Americans.

    Obama has tried to gloss over these incongruities by using the historical techniques of Empires' salesmen --- he has engendered fear by characterizing the enemy as a "spreading cancer", or ‘falling dominos' like communism --- but the real spreading cancer is the Global Empire that hired him to guilefully defend it with American blood and treasure.

    Historically, the salesmanship of Empire has always been based on promising the domestic population that they will share the ‘spoils of war', or the ‘safety of winning', in return for fighting, and paying, for imperialist adventures.

    But Obama, although a consummate salesman, will encounter increasing resistance from the American populus because of the unique incongruities of fighting and paying for a Global Empire with domestic dollars and dead, and without any benefits actually accruing to the American public.

    Obama's dilemma in selling and defending the escalation of war first in Afghanistan, and then in Central Asia and the greater Middle East, is the same as his dilemma regarding his escalating defens

    Posted by amacd at 12/02/2009 @ 8:08pm

89. --thought they were "fixed up"? you're a dolt!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 6:38pm

    You thought they were fixed up did you? Did that come to you in a dream? Or when you were sitting on the toilet?

    "You" obviously didn't win in Iraq. Perhaps you are a born loser.

    It is without question that King George did the dirty on al Qaeda by stuffing them up in Iraq. Think about that for...... how long do you need?

    Now Mr Loser try dreaming up what happened to all those al Qaeda operatives who weren't in Iraq prior to March 2003 but flooded the place (after W booted a fair few of them out of Afghanistan) to have a go at America's soldiers?

    That is the reason they ain't there or anywhere else on earth and why Robert Dreyfuss can say they are a spent force viz young George used a few tricks like generous welfare payments to certain Iraqi insurgents who thought killing al Qaeda's operatives and getting paid for it was a great lurk. Of course the many thousands killed required your soldiers to also do a bit of the killing.

    Don't know how many ran away or how many got injured beyond repair but I know King George's brilliant plan of luring them there (whether he meant it or not) is the reason Obama's mantra that he was going to fix up al Qaeda in Afghanistan is unadulterated bullshit and was for long before he was elected.

    The only remaining valid reason to be in that region is to ensure that things don't get out of control across the border. That the Taliban is really a Pashtun show and likely to have a lot of support in large parts of Af/Pak means that the conflict is totally different from Iraq, which was more about removing a regime and allowing that country to move to a parliamentary democracy under its own liberated energy.

    Getting anywhere with it Mr. Loser?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 8:13pm

90. You thought they were fixed up did you?

    --your words dolt!

    Did that come to you in a dream? Or when you were sitting on the toilet?

    --from reading your doltish words!

    "You" obviously didn't win in Iraq. Perhaps you are a born loser.

    --no one's "won" in Iraq. especially not you down under!

    It is without question that King George did the dirty on al Qaeda by stuffing them up in Iraq. Think about that for...... how long do you need?

    --how long does it take for your bullshit to boomerang to the northern hemisphere?

    Now Mr Loser try dreaming up what happened to all those al Qaeda operatives who weren't in Iraq prior to March 2003 but flooded the place (after W booted a fair few of them out of Afghanistan) to have a go at America's soldiers?

    --so no need to go into afghanistan! oh, wait...

    That is the reason they ain't there or anywhere else on earth and why Robert Dreyfuss can say they are a spent force viz young George used a few tricks like generous welfare payments to certain Iraqi insurgents who thought killing al Qaeda's operatives and getting paid for it was a great lurk. Of course the many thousands killed required your soldiers to also do a bit of the killing.

    --say it in aussie!

    Don't know how many ran away or how many got injured beyond repair but I know King George's brilliant plan of luring them there (whether he meant it or not) is the reason Obama's mantra that he was going to fix up al Qaeda in Afghanistan is unadulterated bullshit and was for long before he was elected.

    --FIX 'EM UP! FIX 'EM UP REAL GOOD! ... then pass the real work to another president!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 8:44pm

91. The only remaining valid reason to be in that region is to ensure that things don't get out of control across the border. That the Taliban is really a Pashtun show and likely to have a lot of support in large parts of Af/Pak means that the conflict is totally different from Iraq, which was more about removing a regime and allowing that country to move to a parliamentary democracy under its own liberated energy.

    --that parliament's working so well! how long you suggest we make sure things don't get "out of control across the border"? decades, I'm sure.

    Getting anywhere with it Mr. Loser?

    --Loser, Australian for "tough guy" talk!

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 8:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 8:45pm

92. President Obama (Dec. 1): "Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility – what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world."

    Which statement indicates not only that sincere progressives haven't got a clue what motivates Obama but also that you are right out of the reality loop altogether.

    The "common security of the world" no less, is Obama's mission, Mr. Loser.

    At least it is a better rationale than defeating the already long defeated al Qaeda, that courtesy of GW Bush.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 8:46pm

93. --FIX 'EM UP! FIX 'EM UP REAL GOOD! ... then pass the real work to another president!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 8:44pm

    Ha, Ha getting deeper into the quagmire urmydrongo.

    What is the real work you have in mind? It can't be al Qaeda W has already mortally wounded it.

    What was that about Aussie speak?

    Oh yes. Drongo : a dope, stupid person.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 9:05pm

94. -Loser, Australian for "tough guy" talk!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 8:45pm

    Nope certainly not a commonly used Australian word. I has assumed it was one of yours. Because you are not familiar with it doesn't mean, in your case, that it is not an American expression. Perhaps you are more familiar with what it is to be a born loser?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 9:17pm

95. fade in to scene...crowded air craft carrier, president disembarks from a fighter jet, in a flight suit. Gives speech, with cameras rolling showing only water in the distance behind the carrier, that war in Iraq has been a success. "Mission Accomplished" banner flies. carrier is actually near the coast in San Diego.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:15am

    Here's the difference between these types of theater.

    Bush was on that carrier to celebrate the swift overthrow of a hated dictator and his brutal regime. Yes, political theater. But it was an accomplishment and as CIC, he was entitled to bit of horn tooting.

    Just as, on a smaller scale, Obama was entitled to some credit for allowing those SEAL marksmen to take out those Somali pirates. And guess what? I was giving Obama props for that decision.

    The difference is that Bush's moment was first and foremost a celebration of the overthrow of a bad bunch of people.

    Obama at West Point was using soldiers as a cheering section (remember criticizing how Bush did that?). Soldiers who were told to "respond enthusiastically" to Obama's applause lines before the speech.

    Obama at Dover AFB was even worse. It was using 15 dead soldiers as props in an "I care about the soldiers" moment. 14 of those families specifically DID NOT want Obama or his television cameras there using their kids or husbands as a political calculation. One family out of 15 said okay, so he used it as a lawyerly excuse to shit on the other 14 families.

    I'd rather have Obama do 10 "Mission Accomplished" photo ops than one more West Point or Dover.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 12/02/2009 @ 9:31pm

96. Say that Obama, may recognize East Jerusalem as the Capitol of the Palestinian State or reopen the files of the attack on the Liberty Ship. Will you turn on Obama then and oppose his Afghanistan strategy?

    Posted by CripThink at 12/02/2009 @ 3:08pm

    We got started on Magic's degree of being faithful to his campaign promises.....and I don't believe your dream scenarios were part of what he promised.

    Even so, if he were to kick Israel in the groin, as I am sure that will make you HAPPY, it would still not have anything to do what his fulfilling his Good/Necessary War campaign promise wrt Afghanistan.

    I will not "oppose" BHO on his Good War....but this does not mean I won't jump on him, say for talking like "The War is Lost" a la Harry Reid or for not doing all he can to keep the NATO allies there with us.

    Posted by Happy at 12/02/2009 @ 10:30pm

97. Posted by amacd at 12/02/2009 @ 8:08pm

    Perhaps your delusion only exists by imagining it is possible for any nation in an increasingly integrated "globalised" world to be or to become an empire.

    Organisations like G20, APEC, NATO etc and even the often ineffectual UN make Empire a sheer impossibility.

    Maybe we could think of America as a first among equals. That sort of formulation precludes an American Empire or any other national empire in our present world.

    In both Iraq and Afghanistan America did not act alone but in concert with other nations that shared America's vision. Afghanistan of course was a UN sanctioned invasion and still in fact is a conflict in which other nations and it as well as other multilateral organisations are still engaged.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2009 @ 11:13pm

98. the difference between mission accomplished and Obama at west point, is that Bush's celebration was premature, with most of the war and more dead americans yet to come.

    the brits are holding an inquiry on the rushing into the Iraq war. we were promised a similar investigation, but got nothing. how soon they forget.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/03/2009 @ 09:42am

99. This is the first thing Obama has done in his Presidency.

    Posted by sneakysnake at 12/03/2009 @ 11:12am

100. This is the first thing that Obama has done right his entire presidency.

     Posted by sneakysnake at 12/03/2009 @ 11:16am