Obama: 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan by summer

De Je vous all over again.
How is this change from Bush as promised?
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The fascist liberals care about nothing but money. Something paper pratically worthless, that can be reprinted, yet liberals don't give a crap about people that will die, who have No Hope... and... No Change...

The Party of Death, Taxes, Immorality and Greed...

The WarMongers of Hateful Liberalism

OBAMA LIES... SOLDIERS DIE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Liberalism is a Disease and a Mental Disorder...

The Arm and Hammer Poison of Liberalism

Uncle Bobby From Way back wrote:

De Je vous all over again.
How is this change from Bush as promised?
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

....bush didnt give the terrorists a timeline to work with... u cant tell the enemy/opponent youll quit after the 7th inning ..... they must think we will never give up...... now THIS is sounding like another viet-nam....same pol. party in power, they dont fight to win, they fight to "tie" .... we need to win, if we dont know what that is, then we cant lose, we know what that is....remember all the 90's attacks.....?

Florida wrote:

The fascist liberals care about nothing but money. Something paper pratically worthless, that can be reprinted, yet liberals don't give a crap about people that will die, who have No Hope... and... No Change...
The Party of Death, Taxes, Immorality and Greed...
The WarMongers of Hateful Liberalism
OBAMA LIES... SOLDIERS DIE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Liberalism is a Disease and a Mental Disorder...
The Arm and Hammer Poison of Liberalism

That is the method employed to confuse and deceive. Make the populace believe that white is black and white is black while they justify their dirty deeds.

So for all his speeches and promises leading up to the election, Barack Obama has become what he fought against. Barack Obama has become the new George W. Bush. Spending billions of dollars to send thousands of troops away from their families to fight and die in a pointless war over oil. Shame on you President Obama, you turned out just like all the others. Makes me feel sorry for all the Americans who honestly believed this man could change America. He's just another greedy war monger using the ghosts of 9//11 as an excuse to cause even more death and misery. Shame on you, President Obama.

Turning Point: Couric Rips Obama

Katie Couric may be best known for her unflattering interview with Sarah Palin. But her nightly news broadcast this past Monday night may be an indicator that the big liberal media are now turning their guns on Obama.

Couric said on “CBS Evening News” that Americans are growing “disenchanted” with Obama and are openly questioning his credibility.

“Is the honeymoon over?” anchor Couric said at the beginning of her correspondent’s report.

“Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from healthcare to unemployment to Afghanistan.

“His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.”

Correspondent Chris Reid chimed in:“The president is getting battered on everything from the economy to foreign policy. Some polls show Americans are increasingly questioning his credibility.”

The report asserted that while Obama talks about dealing with unemployment, which is over 10 percent and expected to rise, he has developed “no new ideas” for dealing with the problem.

CBS also cited a poll showing that only 14 percent of Americans believe Obama’s claim that healthcare reform won’t add to the budget deficit, and only 7 percent believe that the stimulus has created any jobs at all.

The report also criticized the president for being “indecisive” on Afghanistan, and for returning from his recent Asian trip “with little to show for it.”

An expert was quoted as describing his trip as the “amateur hour,” as he did not line up agreements with foreign countries before venturing abroad.

The WarMongers of Hateful Liberalism

OBAMA LIES... SOLDIERS DIE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Liberalism is a Disease and a Mental Disorder...

The Arm and Hammer Poison of Liberalism

Obama's decision makes little sense to me except as political high-wire walking. Sending troops to Afghanistan so that we can take them out of Afghanistan sounds a lot like destroying the Vietnamese town to save it.

I understand those who speak of signaling that we will leave by a certain time. But everyone knows that we cannot sustain an effort abroad for a long and indefinite time, with mounting casualties and costs. The fact is that Afghans live in Afghanistan; we do not. Moreover, my "law" of foreign wars is that we do well when we fight wars in countries with a similar cultural or social dynamics, not in countries with a different ones. Thus, we won both the war and the post-war in Europe and Japan( central government, growing industry, etc.) in WWII. But we lost in Vietnam and will lose in Afghanistan.

We need to find better ways of preventing terrorism and support for terrorism in the first place, and to fight it in suitable ways which do not involve conventional forces in large numbers for long periods of time. If a country like Pakistan has a government which cannot recognize the threat to its survival and take steps to protect itself, nothing which we can do can save it.(Just get the nukes out and destroy the nuke-making facilities.)

In Afghanistan, we should be supporting anti-Taliban warlords, not a central government, which has never existed as a national presence. In return, we should (secretly) secure the right from that government to intervene in covert operations against terrorist training camps, etc. The stakes are such that the continued heroin-based economy is less of a threat than the terrorists.

BTW, I posted a detailed criticism of Obama's presidency as a filing one on my blog several weeks ago. If you want to read it, go to LCSN, opinion, blogs, and my blog icon. I followed it a while later with a discussion of Sarah Palin. Enjoy them.

bryand wrote:

So for all his speeches and promises leading up to the election, Barack Obama has become what he fought against. Barack Obama has become the new George W. Bush. Spending billions of dollars to send thousands of troops away from their families to fight and die in a pointless war over oil. Shame on you President Obama, you turned out just like all the others. Makes me feel sorry for all the Americans who honestly believed this man could change America. He's just another greedy war monger using the ghosts of 9//11 as an excuse to cause even more death and misery. Shame on you, President Obama.

What are you talking about? Obama clearly stated that as he drew down troops in Iraq he would increase troops in Afghanistan...didn't you watch any of the debates of Obama and McCain? They both stated that they would increase troop levels in Afghanistan. If the Taliban gets control over Afghanistan, they'll give Al Qaeda a safe haven and we'll be right back where we started from. This war will not be over until Al Qaeda has been eliminated. That needs to be done through economic sanctions against nations that support terrorism, diplomatic unity, and military means.

This is ridiculous. Liberals are complaining that Obama isn't liberal enough and needs to end the war in Afghanistan. Conservatives are complaining that Obama is too liberal and shouldn't have put a timeline on Afghanistan. I saw Hannity last night complaining that Obama is only giving Gen McChrystal 75 percent of what he asked for. When one of his "Great American Panel" members, Dana Perino, claimed that generals throughout history have always asked for more than they actually need, Hannity swiftly cut her off and changed the subject to Pakistan. You people should all just quit your whining and complaining and let the president do the job we elected him to do. If you don't like his performance then vote for the other guy in 2012. It's as simple as that.

I find it completely ironic that several teabaggers have posted the non-sourced Cutie Katie story. I thought she was one of that 'state run' media Druggie and the rest of the hate merchants are always railing about.

Roadrunner LC - Your posts 8 & 9 are spot on. It is amazing how the 7 1/2 years of total failure and complete failure in Afghanistan is so conveniently forgotten by those responsible and their sycophants.
They simply walk away from the building they set on fire and then complain that the new fire chief hasn't gotten the remodel done yet and won't get it right anyway.

Vick sends in dogs to fight while he watches. Your new mama obama sends in humans and does the same. Both are cowards. (bush too)

Fight to win and not be politically correct. Collateral damage? Oh well. Win and leave at all costs. I am retired military with friends still in. It's a farse. You don't warn the enemy that you are about to attack to spare possible civilian lives. It's a friggin joke of a war.

Fight wrote:

Fight to win and not be politically correct. Collateral damage? Oh well. Win and leave at all costs. I am retired military with friends still in. It's a farse. You don't warn the enemy that you are about to attack to spare possible civilian lives. It's a friggin joke of a war.

I'm glad you're retired. Your attitude of winning at all costs is as old as WWII. Just invade the country kill everyone in sight and then announce "mission accomplished" and leave??? Why do you think we had such a hard time with the insurgency in Iraq? Don't you realize that collateral damage such as civilian lives and torturing prisoners is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and the Taliban? I certainly hope that the current military leaders are much more intelligent than previous military leaders were.

Roadrunner LC wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm glad you're retired. Your attitude of winning at all costs is as old as WWII. Just invade the country kill everyone in sight and then announce "mission accomplished" and leave??? Why do you think we had such a hard time with the insurgency in Iraq? Don't you realize that collateral damage such as civilian lives and torturing prisoners is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and the Taliban? I certainly hope that the current military leaders are much more intelligent than previous military leaders were.

....good to know the left finally realizes the terrorists hide behind innocent people so they will get killed if we attack, alqeada of iraq did just what you said, so now do u know why it took so long to weed out the bad guys?... funny too hearing u bash a retired military guy, u must also be retired military too huh?... i hope todays liberals are much more intelligent than our previous liberals were..... but theyre still blind.... dont u think obama is just creating more terrorists by fighting back too? or was that just a anti-bush slogan for the left....obamas just gonna make em more mad.. oops another anti-bush slogan... now that the shoe is on the other foot, the libs think differently it seems.... i just wonder why we dont send a bunch of lefties over to sway them terrorists to be nice, id just keep sending libs until they get sick of ya's and surrender.... put their $$ where their mouths are.....

Roadrunner LC wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm glad you're retired. Your attitude of winning at all costs is as old as WWII. Just invade the country kill everyone in sight and then announce "mission accomplished" and leave??? Why do you think we had such a hard time with the insurgency in Iraq? Don't you realize that collateral damage such as civilian lives and torturing prisoners is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and the Taliban? I certainly hope that the current military leaders are much more intelligent than previous military leaders were.

...how do u feel about terrorists collateral damage? how bout their torturing us troops, amd civilians? arent they just making more marines? and make it easy for us to recruit soldiers?.... sad how the left always goes after our troops, instead of alqeada of iraq and ilk ..... the taliban didnt attack us, alqeada did, but the left doesnt know where the group "alqeada of iraq" is at..... theres a hint in there if you look real hard...

Roadrunner LC wrote:

<quoted text>
What are you talking about? Obama clearly stated that as he drew down troops in Iraq he would increase troops in Afghanistan...didn't you watch any of the debates of Obama and McCain? They both stated that they would increase troop levels in Afghanistan. If the Taliban gets control over Afghanistan, they'll give Al Qaeda a safe haven and we'll be right back where we started from. This war will not be over until Al Qaeda has been eliminated. That needs to be done through economic sanctions against nations that support terrorism, diplomatic unity, and military means.

..... were u against bush killing the alqeada guys, who were in iraq?...aka alqeada of iraq...? as u call them insurgents?

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.

This approach means, as Senator John McCain has noted, that “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”

We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out.

The Germans weren’t impressed with Obama’s strange speech last night either.
Der Spiegel reported:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the

There weren't any "alqeada guys" in Iraq until Dubya illegally and immorally invaded it. There were simply soldiers and freedom fighters trying to repel and expel an invader and occupier. The "alqeada guys" showed up to help - kinda like Davy Crockett & his bunch who showed up at the Alamo.

Simply a matter of perspective.

Tell us again it wasn't about Iraq's oil: Exxon Group Wins Iraq Oil Contract - Deal Would Pay Set Fee for Developing Giant Field With Royal Dutch Shell http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274...

indy wrote:

<quoted text>..... were u against bush killing the alqeada guys, who were in iraq?...aka alqeada of iraq...? as u call them insurgents?

Since you brought it up, Al Qaida was NOT in Iraq when we invaded them. Saddam Hussein was an ENEMY of Bin Laden AND Iran. We HELPED Osama bin Laden and IRAN by taking Saddam out for them. American forces had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora in Afghanistan but needed more troops to get him. Instead Bush pulled troops OUT of Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq so he could strut around with his stupid "mission accomplished" banner behind him.

The invasion of Iraq and the torture of detainees was a great recruiting tool for Al Qaida. The insurgents in Iraq were helped by Al Qaida and Iran. Bush's war helped make Iran and Al Qaida stronger, not weaker.

Getting Al Qaida has always been the primary objective and invading Afghanistan, in which the Taliban provided a safe haven for them, was the right thing to do. Bush initially did the right thing by driving the Taliban out and going after Bin Laden. But, by invading Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan the Taliban has regained a lot of ground and Al Queda is still active. And now Obama has to finish THAT job for him as well as the economy. Bush/Cheney SUCK!