Obama Backs Out on Promise: Troops to Stay in Afghanistan After 2014

[chance1]

The reason we can't just "get out", which probably most people at this point would agree would be a desirable thing to do, is because Bush launched us into a war with no clear objective and no exit strategy, so the choice now is leave and let it collapse into something worse than before, or stay. That's "ownership" of the situation, and the reality. I don't see Obama not dealing with it on those terms nor do I see where you have basis to imply he's not. We have two undesirable choices and ultimately if you are going to point a finger at anyone as to why that's the case, it's no one but Bush. Deal with it.

i get it

running for office and doing it are diff

many of pres. obama's war policies are similar to gwb - for good reason

so i don't give obama shit on iraq or afghanistan

that's part of the job ...... inheriting stuff

as for afghanistan, whomever remains is in deep doo doo - it's benghazi x a ton

the president should "deal with it" better as should u - as it relates to "this is mine"

it's really that simple

[xbuzzerx]

many of pres. obama's war policies are similar to gwb - for good reason

Sure they're similar when you overlook the fact that Obama inherited two poorly implemented, poorly conceived, poorly executed wars with no exit strategies in place, and Bush started them.

I like this attempt at parallelism between their choices in the situation.

[chance1]

Sure they're similar when you overlook the fact that Obama inherited two poorly implemented, poorly conceived, poorly executed wars with no exit strategies in place, and Bush started them.

I like this attempt at parallelism between their choices in the situation.

pres. then senator obama was against the iraq surge

as a senator his understanding was limited

as president he allowed petraeus to surge in afghanistan - talked him into it - a mistake

it's not easy

but he's much more like bush as pres. then he was as senator

he's picking people to die - personally

he's kept gitmo open

he's like bush

it's not parallel

it's =

[TX-Beau]

Can't feel as manly about drone kills is the subtext I get here.

Yeah, can't belittle the suburban commandos. Who drive home from the office at 5pm to mow the lawn after advocating sending in real soldiers to die so war can be "personal."

[xbuzzerx]

pres. then senator obama was against the iraq surge

as a senator his understanding was limited

as president he allowed petraeus to surge in afghanistan - talked him into it - a mistake

it's not easy

but he's much more like bush as pres. then he was as senator

he's picking people to die - personally

he's kept gitmo open

he's like bush

it's not parallel

it's =

Gitmo is still open because of Republican obstructionism.

Please, start dealing with facts and not with the honey syrup you drank at Fox.

[chance1]

Gitmo is still open because of Republican obstructionism.

Please, start dealing with facts and not with the honey syrup you drank at Fox.

LOL

whatever gives u a chubby

"if only pres. obama could do what HE really wants"

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/26/habe...against_obama/

[xbuzzerx]

QFT.

As I said, asking for proof and EVIDENCE must indicate some sort of hatred towards republicans.

And I would hope that one would READ the articles they post before shooting themselves in the foot.

That's because truth has a liberal bias. Just look at academia and wikipedia. Bunch of liberal hogwash, all of it. You're better off with pure gut belief and the things you always thought and never changed your mind about, regardless of stupid facts.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL

whatever gives u a chubby

"if only pres. obama could do what HE really wants"

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/26/habe...against_obama/

Obama faced more filibusters than all other American presidents combined.

Deal with reality.

[JayHawk]

Lets see if i can sum all this up....

You are an apologist.

Obama's fault.

Stop being mean to Bush.

Obama's fault.

You just don't know cause your a drinker of cool aid and stufff.

Benghazi.

Stop being a meanie that is my job.

Obama's fault.

hey look I have said nothing on topic but it is Obama's fault and nobody understands like me........

Signed Haiku Master........

[TX-Beau]

...Signed Haiku Master........

Well, technically a "haiku master," would get the meter correct.

[xbuzzerx]

Yeah, that blind delusional patriotism but when Obama is President he's the one that's always wrong... it's just anti-intellectualism.

The right wingers on here (who I will leave unnamed) tried to make Benghazi a political issue and it BACKFIRED MASSIVELY. They ended up with egg in their face... kinda like that putz John McCain who had to admit he was wrong.

Oh do you mean this garbage they tried to make an issue only under Obama?

[JayHawk]

Well, technically a "haiku master," would get the meter correct.

Well he is our only Master so he is the best at what is here at JUB... it is a regional title....

[JayHawk]

Oh do you mean this garbage they tried to make an issue only under Obama?

I likey... first time I have seen it here....

[xbuzzerx]

Yeah I didn't get it from here, I'm politically active elsewhere as well. But yeah them trying to turn this into a big huge doomsday political issue was L O L. Especially when the Republicans had consistently blocked more budgeting for embassy security.

[chance1]

Al Qaeda is dead btw

Ooops

[Kulindahr]

This is absoloutely spot on. The US needs to remain in Afghanistan until Afghanistan can get those oil pipelines online that would certainly replace opiate production. Republicans are complaining? They started this whole war, and as far as GITMO that's something the republicans blockd from being closed.

And as far as Iraq, the US wanted out of that failed republican venture as fast as possible. It explains all the arms sales to the Iraqi government right now.

Republicans started the Afghan war? No, the Taliban did, by launching Osama at us.

How is oil gong to replace opium production? The tribes will see the country improving, but they'll still like the idea of having more to spend for themselves.

The only way to replace opiate production is to pay them market rates for growing useful crops.

[Kulindahr]

Consider Afghanistan's environment alternate crops is not an option.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...anted=all&_r=0

They'll have to mine these minerals and build an economy around that.

If opium poppies will grow there, so will many other crops.

[T-Rexx]

Obama lied about the 2014 complete withdrawal. No word on when, if ever we will ever withdrawal.

Aren't you the guy who used to complain that there even was a specified 2014 withdrawal? Did you not say that such specificity as to when we would leave made prosecuting a war there impossible? Did you not say that the Taliban would just hunker down and wait for the withdrawal date, to re-emerge?

Now, do I understand that you're complaining that you got what you wanted? But what you wanted you now think is unacceptable?

And, am I correct in assuming that if there is a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, you will return to your previous position of opposition to that?

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Yes, I was one of those guys. However, since a date had been set and I haven't seen much in way of a reason for the war from the President -- most people have no idea why we are there now, including myself -- I supported the 2014 withdrawal. I hate to see any more of our troops and coalition troops killed for no reason.

No, I do not want to go back . . . only reason would be to drop a nuclear bomb on the country.

[Jack Springer]

Oh do you mean this garbage they tried to make an issue only under Obama?

Was there a weird video that no one had seen about Mohammed that Bush blamed for all those attacks? Did those embassies and consulates continually beg for more security? Did each of those countries just go through a civil war and no have a stable internal military or government?

[Laufey]

No, I do not want to go back . . . only reason would be to drop a nuclear bomb on the country.

The plus side of that would be that it confirms that the world should be most afraid of the US instead of countries like Iran.

[Kulindahr]

Yes, I was one of those guys. However, since a date had been set and I haven't seen much in way of a reason for the war from the President -- most people have no idea why we are there now, including myself -- I supported the 2014 withdrawal. I hate to see any more of our troops and coalition troops killed for no reason.

How about "We're there to keep the barbarians who launched Osama bin Laden at us from taking over again"?

No, I do not want to go back . . . only reason would be to drop a nuclear bomb on the country.

Oh, yeah, that would be productive....

[xbuzzerx]

Was there a weird video that no one had seen about Mohammed that Bush blamed for all those attacks? Did those embassies and consulates continually beg for more security? Did each of those countries just go through a civil war and no have a stable internal military or government?

All of that is completely irrelevant since not you nor any other Republican CARED about what happened at those embassies since there wasn't a Democrat to blame for it. And again-- Republicans blocked increased budgeting for embassy security. Let that permeate your skull. Republican. That means your party. You are doing the equivalent of watching someone trip someone else and then pointing and saying that person sucks at walking. Only your party is doing this with issues that affects people's lives and safety for the sake of partisan pettiness and you are supporting it. What does that tell anyone about your moral fiber?

[xbuzzerx]

^^^

Yes, I was one of those guys. However, since a date had been set and I haven't seen much in way of a reason for the war from the President -- most people have no idea why we are there now, including myself -- I supported the 2014 withdrawal. I hate to see any more of our troops and coalition troops killed for no reason.

No, I do not want to go back . . . only reason would be to drop a nuclear bomb on the country.

Btw if Loki shows back up this is exactly the mindset I referred to before and he acted a bit surprised that I mentioned.

[Jack Springer]

The plus side of that would be that it confirms that the world should be most afraid of the US instead of countries like Iran.

Don't take all comments so literal.

[Jack Springer]

All claims about the Obama administration that have been debunked a thousand times over. Maybe one should listen to McCain and back off... the political profitting off Benghazi has backfired seriously.

I believe the Obama Administration is still investigating. If they've produced their report -- please share.

[xbuzzerx]

I believe the Obama Administration is still investigating. If they've produced their report -- please share.

Are you sitting and waiting on the reports of those embassy attacks mentioned in the poster above? I'm sure you're not, I just ask it rhetorically.

[TX-Beau]

The plus side of that would be that it confirms that the world should be most afraid of the US instead of countries like Iran.

Well, last time I checked Iran didn't have as many nukes as the US, operate military bases in everyone else's countries, or have the capability to "project" military might quite literally on a global scale.

So yes, in the grand scheme of things you should be more afraid of the US than Iran - but on the other hand, we have no plans in the foreseeable future to bomb the shit out of Iceland, perhaps the state supported fundamentalist terrorist has a slightly more immediate agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you sitting and waiting on the reports of those embassy attacks mentioned in the poster above? I'm sure you're not, I just ask it rhetorically.

The moment they show up, he will claim they've been falsified.

[JayHawk]

What i wonder is the republicans cut funding and we have a stark example of what happens. So if that is the tact they want to take then why do they hold the top 2% of america prized over the rest of us? Why would they allow drastic across the board cuts to homeland security, the FBI, the FDA and every other safety program operated by the federal government?

the party of ridiculous dichotomy strikes again.....

[xbuzzerx]

What i wonder is the republicans cut funding and we have a stark example of what happens. So if that is the tact they want to take then why do they hold the top 2% of america prized over the rest of us? Why would they allow drastic across the board cuts to homeland security, the FBI, the FDA and every other safety program operated by the federal government?

the party of ridiculous dichotomy strikes again.....

Because the more you do it the more you can point and say the Federal gov't is ineffectual which is then the justification for cutting it more.

Kinda like No Child Left Behind-- defund things that are struggling, watch them do worse, then you have your argument to dismantle something public. It's sabotage.

[JayHawk]

Well the republican party has been about sabotage of the new deal since Reagan... and the current congress is definitely all about sabotage of the American people.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

I likey... first time I have seen it here....

Not to toot my own horn, but I mentioned this when the faux outrage started a month and a half ago and was dismissed by the same tremendous logic that the rest of recorded history is completely irrelevant... I suppose the fact that this sort of thing doesn't happen every other day under Obama makes it shinier fodder...

pres. then senator obama was against the iraq surge

as a senator his understanding was limited

as president he allowed petraeus to surge in afghanistan - talked him into it - a mistake

it's not easy

but he's much more like bush as pres. then he was as senator

he's picking people to die - personally

he's kept gitmo open

he's like bush

it's not parallel

it's =

As for Obama's handling of the wars being similar... I agree (as probably most on this site) that he is much too similar to Bush for my tastes. But equal is an immensely false equivalency. This great nation of ours has quite a storied history of starting wars and never ending them regardless of who is president (but I know the past doesn't count ). But last time I checked he hasn't started any new pointless wars for future presidents to carry on ad infinitum...

[chance1]

Not to toot my own horn, but I mentioned this when the faux outrage started a month and a half ago and was dismissed by the same tremendous logic that the rest of recorded history is completely irrelevant... I suppose the fact that this sort of thing doesn't happen every other day under Obama makes it shinier fodder...



As for Obama's handling of the wars being similar... I agree (as probably most on this site) that he is much too similar to Bush for my tastes. But equal is an immensely false equivalency. This great nation of ours has quite a storied history of starting wars and never ending them regardless of who is president (but I know the past doesn't count ). But last time I checked he hasn't started any new pointless wars for future presidents to carry on ad infinitum...

LOL

yes we should be thankful for that

a new low in "why the president is doing a good job"

he hasn't started a war

he had no money left after blowing a hole in the deficit

as for faux outrage .................. 4 dead americans .... help requested prior numerous times ...... no help provided day of attack ....... need i continue?

there's nothing faux about it except your faux understanding or perhaps caring

toot toot

[xbuzzerx]

LOL

yes we should be thankful for that

a new low in "why the president is doing a good job"

he hasn't started a war

he had no money left after blowing a hole in the deficit

as for faux outrage .................. 4 dead americans .... help requested prior numerous times ...... no help provided day of attack ....... need i continue?

there's nothing faux about it except your faux understanding or perhaps caring

toot toot

And here is Chance still unable to concede that not starting two wars ad infinitum is not = not starting two wars ad infinitum.

It's a pretty easy distinction man.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

LOL

yes we should be thankful for that

a new low in "why the president is doing a good job"

he hasn't started a war

he had no money left after blowing a hole in the deficit

as for faux outrage .................. 4 dead americans .... help requested prior numerous times ...... no help provided day of attack ....... need i continue?

there's nothing faux about it except your faux understanding or perhaps caring

toot toot

Maybe you should reread my post, buddy (I think you made up stuff along the way) Where exactly did I claim not starting wars = president is doing a good job? It turns out, in politics, there are often "lesser of two evils" scenarios and I was merely claiming this is one such case. I personally prefer Obama's handling to that of returning such duties to the GOP war machine... there is a distinction... especially when we claim to be concerned about the deaths of every American.

[chance1]

Maybe you should reread my post, buddy (I think you made up stuff along the way) Where exactly did I claim not starting wars = president is doing a good job? It turns out, in politics, there are often "lesser of two evils" scenarios and I was merely claiming this is one such case. I personally prefer Obama's handling to that of returning such duties to the GOP war machine... there is a distinction.

i read it 1x
then 2x
then a 3rd time

it was the same

your last sentence said he didn't start any wars

was that a criticism?

do tell

are you a war monger

i'm confused

your point it seemed was

bush started 2 wars
obama didn't
edge obama

course he did redeploy troops from iraq - where we got thrown out - to afghanistan

oops

not such a good move

"gop war machine" ......... all we need is an organ grindr and a monkey

[xbuzzerx]

I like the "edge Obama." Like it's really easy to just accidentally start two really bad wars with no point. Oops. So Obama's got a slight edge over Bush. lol.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

i read it 1x
then 2x
then a 3rd time

it was the same

your last sentence said he didn't start any wars

was that a criticism?

do tell

are you a war monger

i'm confused

your point it seemed was

bush started 2 wars
obama didn't
edge obama

course he did redeploy troops from iraq - where we got thrown out - to afghanistan

oops

not such a good move

"gop war machine" ......... all we need is an organ grindr and a monkey

Yes... I think you got it this time around. It wasn't a very deep point I was trying to make. But that distinction is an important one... especially in context of history and our country's inability to end wars we start. And, I think that distinction is plenty is suggest:
Obama≠Bush (which is completely different from "the president is doing a good job").

[chance1]

I like the "edge Obama." Like it's really easy to just accidentally start two really bad wars with no point. Oops. So Obama's got a slight edge over Bush. lol.

Pres. Obama to his credit opposed the Iraq war - while a junior senator

Many of his Dem. colleagues did not - many of his key appointments did not

many of the dems who did not have been rewarded with better appointments and have more power since their vote FOR war

it's a long but good read


http://archive.truthout.org/iraq-the-democrats-war63120

[chance1]

Yes... I think you got it this time around. It wasn't a very deep point I was trying to make. But that distinction is an important one... especially in context of history and our country's inability to end wars we start. And, I think that distinction is plenty is suggest:
Obama≠Bush (which is completely different from "the president is doing a good job").

I'm getting the sense that you always like to be right

so ........... you're right *






* u owe me

[opinterph]

Pres. Obama to his credit opposed the Iraq war - while a junior senator

Are you suggesting that Illinois is somehow “junior” to the rest of the nation?

Or maybe you are dismissing the distinction between state and federal?

[chance1]

Are you suggesting that Illinois is somehow “junior” to the rest of the nation?

Or maybe you are dismissing the distinction between state and federal?

Neither

Any other options?

He was like senator for what a year ?

That's junior

And he was commonly referred as such

[opinterph]

I don't think you got the message, but thanks for responding.

[Kulindahr]

Are you suggesting that Illinois is somehow “junior” to the rest of the nation?

Or maybe you are dismissing the distinction between state and federal?

"Junior senator" from state X is the traditional form of reference to the more recently elected senator from that state. If Senator Ugh was elected before Senator Fugg, Fugg is the junior Senator -- and still will be, as long as the two both shall serve.

[chance1]

I don't think you got the message, but thanks for responding.

Haha

Well .....

It's not like I haven't that before here

And it's late

And in addition to my relatively new job I'm "starring" in a sales video for a sales conference where I have to portray the Matt Damon character in a sales takeoff of Good Will Hunting - my Boston accent has been inconsistent necessitating "take 6" . So I'm a bit distracted

I struggle with your humor

Pick one or more of the above

[xbuzzerx]

"Junior senator" from state X is the traditional form of reference to the more recently elected senator from that state. If Senator Ugh was elected before Senator Fugg, Fugg is the junior Senator -- and still will be, as long as the two both shall serve.

Yes but

you know.....

sometimes the junior must precede the senior

it's rule of nature man.

Take ownership of the situation. Don't blame others.

I struggle with this topic sometimes.

More at 11.

[opinterph]

If Senator Ugh was elected before Senator Fugg, Fugg is the junior Senator -- and still will be, as long as the two both shall serve.

I don't think you got the message, but thanks for responding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tates_Senators