Why do people here think Obama won't be re-elected for being consistent on Afghan war?

[jenmito]

Have you not followed his campaign and thought he was anti-war? Because he was NOT anti-war; he was anti-the-IRAQ war. You are the only people I can see feeling he won't or shouldn't be re-elected for his position on Afghanistan. (I say this in response to a poster who claimed just today that he was "anti-war.")

For the rest of you, you know he always considered Afghanistan a "necessary" war and was for concentrating on it. To get on him NOW, being outraged by whatever he hasn't said yet, why would you declare he's going to be a one-term president for following through what he SAID he'd follow through on? He won the election with this position. I don't get the outrage.

[polichick]

1. It's about where this country is NOW - in enormous debt with way too much money going for...

...things voters don't approve of and far too little going to them. (Not to mention all the needless deaths!)

Every thinking person knows this is NOT a war of necessity - doesn't matter how he spins it.

[jenmito]

2. So are you calling Obama a "non-thinking" person? He's not spinning anything.

He held the same position from the very beginning. And he saved the economy from falling off the cliff.

[polichick]

4. I'm saying the voters are thinking for themselves and won't buy into whatever...

...pretty words he comes up with about escalating the war.

Makes no difference if he has had this position from the beginning.

[jenmito]

8. "Pretty words..."? Hmmm...a tell-tale sign of someone who never supported Obama

and never will. He hasn't changed his position. He got elected with this position. Maybe you're the one not thinking. :shrug:

[polichick]

Yeah, I only worked 30 hours a week to get this guy elected...

Fact is, he uses words to manipulate people - this time it won't work.

His position SHOULD have changed, given the situation today.

[jenmito]

21. So you were FOR his "manipulating people with words" when you agree with him

but not when you don't? :eyes:

[polichick]

63. Let's just say I'm tired of all the pretty words. Policy counts. nt

[jenmito]

64. And his policy is the same policy you worked so hard to get elected. n/t

[treestar]

113. Amen. How someone who worked that hard would be turning against him

at all and over this, is hard to give much credit to. Anyone on the internet can claim to have worked the campaign.

[jenmito]

118. Yup. Seems pretty fishy to me

that someone would use RW (or EXTREME LW) talking points/insults to describe Obama worked hard to get him elected.

[ShortnFiery]

133. Yeah, spread that senseless FEAR of getting banned unless we pass a Loyalty TEST?

Do you have any idea what you are essentially proposing?

[jenmito]

135. The more posts of yours I read, the more I realize

that you don't really comprehend half of the stuff you read. I'm just saying what I observe from your posts.

[ShortnFiery]

137. The more posts of yours I read, the more I realize

that you constantly demonize anyone who has the slightest negative critique of President Obama.

TRUISM! :-)

[Bluenorthwest]

144. I see that you always talk about other people with insinuations

and personalized comments. This is about war. People will die for this. So the priorities you have in discussing the issue are extremely telling. First things first in war, personalized snark and then we speak of those who will fall, the families made too small, the civilian deaths. After we make cracks about other people's motives. First things first, it is only war after all, way across the world, involving brown people. Plenty of room for political pettiness, it is just war, and death. As promised.

[polichick]

151. Actually, you don't seem to comprehend much - ignoring what people say...

...only to reassert the same empty-headed thing over and over again.

[Aramchek]

86. did you work to get Obama elected or to get a Democrat elected?

there is a difference.

[Clio the Leo]

117. Did you read anything he'd written or listened to anything he said...

..... during that time?

[Telly Savalas]

143. So you thought that escalating the war in Afghanistan was a good idea a year ago?

[polichick]

150. I never agreed with Obama on all things (who did?)...

...and, given the current situation, the war in Afghanistan is even more of a lost cause now.

[knightinwhitesatin]

11. Either with you or against you, huh???

Where have I heard that before?

It will come to me in a second...........

:hi:

[jenmito]

22. Where do you get THAT? n/t

[GreenArrow]

83. What was McCain's position on Afghanistan?

If anything, Obama's was more hawkish. Those of us who were against the war didn't have much of a choice where that issue was concerned, did we? Should we have voted for McCain/Palin? Of course not, those of us who were concerned about this issue voted for Obama in spite of his position on it. Obama was wrong as a candidate on Afghanistan, and now, as President, his position is still wrong, and those of us who don't agree with his position are going to continue to speak out in favor of a different direction, just as we did when Bush was in office, or would have had McCain been elected.

Don't make the assumption that just because someone voted for Obama, that he or she is necessarily in agreement with all Obama's positions.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

109. Exactly right

I knew that Obama was hawkish on Afghanistan during the campaign, he was also hawkish about going into Pakistan as well, something even McCain was against (although he went back and forth on that position, like pretty much everything else during the campaign). I voted for Obama anyway and I still completely disagree with him on this issue. Just because I voted for him doesnt mean I agree with everything he does. He is dead wrong about Afghanistan and he was wrong during the campaign. I sincerely hope that more young people dont have to die for a mistake.

I was against it when Bush did it and I am against it now. I wonder how many people who support Obama on Afghanistan, supported Bush on Afghanistan? Or is it different now because it is Obama's war now.

[polichick]

128. Same here - voted for him in spite of this issue, not because of it...

...and I would've thought he could see what a "dumb war" this has become.

[burning rain]

138. I think you're overestimating the value of consistency.

Americans in general, and Democrats in particular, are war-weary. Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 largely for not being the warmongering George W. Bush Republican Party (John McCain proved even more of a warmonger, which took some doing, but he was up to it). Democrats were out of power, so their ability to alienate their base was much outweighed by the GOP's ability to enrage it. But now that Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, they own the wars--and implementing a new Afghanistan strategy, as the president will do on Tuesday, will put his stamp, a Democratic stamp, on that war once and for all. The Republican faithful will be maximally enthused on election day simply for having Obama in the White House, and the political issue is whether the administration will alienate a crucial part of its own party's base going into 2010 and subsequent elections. I don't see any Republican beating Obama in 2012 due largely to their wretched presidential roster, but the danger is that he could win reelection on narrowly personal popularity and charisma a la Clinton in 1996, while congressional Democrats suffer due to disillusionment of their base, in Clinton's case labor alienated by NAFTA, in Obama's, peace voters alienated by Afghanistan.

[Bobbieo]

5. My thinking is he is a one term president because that is the way he wants it.

Look at the shit that poor man and his family are going through! Death threats - racism - constant criticism - the works. He has already proven himself to himself.

[jenmito]

10. You don't think he and his family knew all that came with the job?

He ran for president with all that happening already. He kept running.

[Bobbieo]

33. Once is enough!!! He's proved his point and he will be lucky to make it through the first term!!!!

[jenmito]

36. Once is enough for WHOM? You???? Who are you to say he ran to "prove a point"? Maybe,

just MAYBE he ran to change the country and world for the better!!!!

[Clio the Leo]

119. lol, well, you might want to tell HIM that......

FREUDIAN SLIP? The president of the Navaho Nation asked Obama how he can assure that administrations beyond his will work so closely with Native Americans, noting "I know you’re going to win your re-election," but expressing concern about the eventual end of Obama's term.

"Obviously the executive branch’s job is to implement law," Obama started to explain.

"So for the next eight years," he continued, drawing some cheers before correcting himself: "The next four years at least. Let me not jump the gun. For the next three years and one month that I'm assured this current position we're going to make sure we put the infrastructure and the framework in place so that a new dynamic, a new set of relationships is in place."

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/obama_opens_tribal_conference_793ae786-f64e-4a2b-9d7f-625b4c930afd.html

[Vincardog]

23. he saved the economy from falling off the cliff? No he saved the corrupt BIG Financial Institutions.

from answering for their crimes.

[jenmito]

28. Yes, he did. But you want to ignore any good that he has done.

[Vincardog]

37. Any you want to ignore the good he might have done had he not been so bent on compromising with the

radical right wing in this country. you keep insulting and criticizing those of us who are pushing him to do the correct thing. I believe those of you who want us to STFU are impairing the process returning the USA to the company of civilized nations.

It is our duty to MAKE the government do what we want it to do.

For all you Obama cheer leaders who want to do something I say "Lead Follow or GET OUT OF THE WAY".

[jenmito]

46. You have no idea what his decision on Afghanistan is. Once he explains it to us all,

THEN you can (and probably will) criticize him. The only thing I want you to STFU about is calling his supporters derogatory names like "cheerleader." :eyes:

[Vincardog]

130. Ignore just became my best friend

[jenmito]

136. Along with "ignorance."

;)

[Bluenorthwest]

145. Do you read what you write about others? And then you

complain about a word? Really amazing for a person touting consistency.

[Clio the Leo]

120. Quick tell me.........

..... by how much did the GDP shrink last quarter?

Then help me out ..... we were losing 700,000 jobs a week in January ..... now we're down to 466,000 .... I'm blonde and I dont have a calculator handy, is that more or less?

[knightinwhitesatin]

3. I don't know if he will

be a one or two term President. What I do know is that for many in the military (like me) our hopes have been dashed again. We thought that once in office, once he received his briefings, that he would come to his senses and realize what a waste Afghanistan is. Now people like me and others that stayed in the military because we hoped a Democrat would ease our burden after 8 years of a Republican misrule are even more jaded than we were before. I still want someone to explain to me why Afghanistan is worth one drop of American blood. The taliban were not behind 9/11, the Pashtun were not behind 9/11, and I know for a fact that innocent Afghani women and children were not behind 9/11. So why are we still there, and why are we escalating, and since I may be one of those doing the escalating, I am less than thrilled.

[jenmito]

7. So you voted for him thinking he'd turn into Kucinich? If not, you had no reason for thinking

he'd do a 180 on his position. HE, unlike a Repub., will give us his strategy for an EXIT plan, with benchmarks so the troops can start coming home. So he WILL be easing the burden.

[knightinwhitesatin]

9. No

I voted for him thinking that he was a thinking, intelligent man and that once he received the full picture of an TS/SCI briefing on what a mess Afghanistan really is he would come to his senses and order a withdrawal. Oh yes we will be coming home in 3-5 years (at a minimum) after thousands more of us deploy to Afghanistan and many more of us die, not to mention the poor Afghanis we will kill as collateral damage. My conscience is assuaged at only having to deploy two more times to a war zone where I have to kill or be killed.

[Oregone]

20. Good post

Sound judgment (in lieu of experience) was also a promise (or talking point)


Good luck to you

[knightinwhitesatin]

24. thanks

so I wasn't too light on the sarcasm at the end? :)

[jenmito]

25. And you now think he's NOT a thinking, intelligent man?

Maybe he's making his decision based on the briefings and intel. he's receiving! Why did you join the military in the first place?

[knightinwhitesatin]

27. Post 9/11 patriotism

3 tours of duty in Iraq and watching your best friend get killed have a way of making you realize what futility war really is. I am still waiting on why 3-5 years of more death, more innocent women and children dying and more Americans dying is a good thing? Other than he said he would do it, I have yet to hear a counter argument to the opposition to this surge. Other than the concept of "our guy said he would do it" no one is articulating a good reason why we are going to slaughter more innocent Pashtuns....

[jenmito]

30. Then why not wait 'til Tuesday when he'll TELL you his reasons?

And since you didn't address the rest of my post, I'll repost: And you now think he's NOT a thinking, intelligent man? Maybe he's making his decision based on the briefings and intel. he's receiving!

[knightinwhitesatin]

35. His reasons are nearly unimportant

Unless 30,000 more troops are going to do a "hands across the desert" and demine Afghanistan, there is nothing there worth one drop of american blood.

As to the rest of your post. Yes if he indeed is going through with 30,000 more troops after receiving his briefings, I find him less intelligent than I thought. Still smarter than shrub, but less than I was led to believe. If he is buying the crap Petraeus and Mcchrystal are selling, he is foolish when it comes to military policy. Those guys sold the Iraq surge, and my fucking best friend died because of that bullshit. Now the same crew is selling this surge to the President and guess what, he is buying it hook, line and sinker.....and you have nothing to risk by this. I on the other hand will be risking my life for more lies. I stayed in the military because I believed candidate Obama when he said he would make sure we never fought another unnecessary war again. And yes I know what he said on the campaign trail about Afghanistan, but I and others were positive he was smarter than this. That once in office his intellect would shine through all the bullshit the military brass was throwing at him.........I was wrong.

edit: for spelling

[jenmito]

40. Well, I don't believe you. You say you voted for Obama NOT thinking he'd do what he campaigned on

re: Afghanistan. You DO know he REJECTED McChrystal's plan because it had no exit strategy, right? And you have the nerve to say OBAMA'S not as intelligent as you first thought? Maybe you should look in the mirror.

[knightinwhitesatin]

43. So I was right the first time

thanks for the confirmation

EWYOAY.........

[jenmito]

49. You weren't right ANY time.

STFPAISYAYGBA. ;)

[knightinwhitesatin]

53. Just to be clear

I disagree with you but I did recommend your thread. You are not my enemy.

[jenmito]

57. Thanks, but your last post

has me doubting that.

[knightinwhitesatin]

62. I understand

political debate is a full contact sport. However I am positive we have more in common than not. Just wanted to say I have nothing personal against you and only wish you and your family the best during the upcoming holiday season.

[ShortnFiery]

70. Hey jenmito. I'm not your enemy either.

However, I'm also not near as thoughtful as people opposing your viewpoint as KIWS above.

I'm an hyper-competitive person - but I do respect you as a fellow democrat and a person who has the best of intentions.

I hope you enjoy a good weekend. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

48. That's all part of "manufacturing consent" - providing some half-baked exit strategy ...

in order to justify giving another TRILLION of our tax dollars and 34,000 more youth to be sucked into the intake of our God Almighty WAR MACHINE of death and destruction.

Come on patriotic citizen, supporting that THUG Karzai against the NEW evildoers (Taliban) is now DoublePlusGood ... why? ---> those bombs won't blow themselves up. :puke:

[Cha]

58. Yeah, it's a tough one..there's a lot more

to be considered here than your position and that in no way reflects on Pres Obama's intelligence just because you say so.

There are many other opinions that are an important part of the equation.

When are you being deployed?

[knightinwhitesatin]

61. Don't know for sure that I am

however I am in one of the few Brigades that is stateside now that is in the zone for deployment and we currently have no orders. I expect that to change after Tuesday but nothing is certain.

[ShortnFiery]

44. One of my husband's USMC friends just returned with severe hearing loss in one ear ...

due to an IED going off close to his location. Still, he told us that he was "lucky" not to have been closer and thus risking brain damage and/or massive physical trauma.

Sincere thanks for giving your perspective from one veteran to a thoughtful combat veteran. :patriot:

The following is a video of Afghanistan Veterans urging President Obama to NOT escalate the troop strength. Unfortunately, the President does not value the opinions of the LINE SOLDIERS, he only takes his orders from the ruling elite within the MIC.


http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=949

[knightinwhitesatin]

47. Thanks short

quick story.....former MI here, MOS got phased out so I reclassed. Over my years as a lurker I always looked for your posts due to you being MI. I always valued what you had to say, anyway just wanted to share.........

[ShortnFiery]

55. Too Cool!

PM me anytime. I was a LT type in MI during the early 1980s. Many people don't think that I could value the military because I'm against these occupations. However, the truth is that I was proud to have served and the excellent people who I was blessed to meet and work for/with enriched my life beyond any other experience I could have chosen as a young adult. A few have become lifelong friends.
Airborne MI ... All the Way! :thumbsup:

p.s. I forgot to thank-you for your kind words. :blush:

[knightinwhitesatin]

66. I was a dirty leg

was a 98J MOS got phased out.... no problem

[ShortnFiery]

75. You and I can still combine forces to rag on the Jarheads and Water Babies.

If you ever wish to set-off a Marine, just remind him/her that they are "the helpers" for the Navy. :evilgrin:

[knightinwhitesatin]

78. I also like telling Navy people that the Marines

are a separate Department of the Navy. When they ask which department, I tell them the Men's department......... :D

[ShortnFiery]

80. Hey, I also approve of those lovable Jarheads.

I like my privacy but it's no secret here that I've been married to a Marine (now retired) for almost 28 years.

Don't cha know? Marine and Army marriages are made in HEAVEN. :silly:


Light inter-service rivalries are seemingly endless fun ... as long as it's kept light. That's understood.

[Clio the Leo]

121. Did you come to this realization now or last spring? NT

[knightinwhitesatin]

126. I came to this in 2004-2005

I just hoped that a rational intelligent man like President Obama would come to his senses once he got the briefings. But he seems to be listening to Petraeus and Mccrazy and that pile of shit they used to sell Iraq.

[Skittles]

13. worthy of its own thread, kiws

yes INDEED

[knightinwhitesatin]

16. Thanks skittles

I joined out of post 9/11 patriotism and learned it was all a lie during my second tour of Iraq. The whole thing is a lie and now we are watching this place (I have lurked since 2004) celebrate the coming escalation. What is more disturbing is the vitriol being directed at people not thrilled about the Afghanistan surge. I can't figure out what is more disillusioning, watching a guy I thought was smart enough to see through the bull shit once in office, or watching so called liberals and progressives metaphorically tar and feather people who don't want more war.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

6. LBJ

[Skittles]

12. OMG

are you going to go on about the "good war" ??? :puke:

[Kermitt Gribble]

14. If he is not re-elected

the Afghan war will only be part of the reason. Other reasons will be lousy "health care reform", lack of support for the GLBT community, support of the patriot act, wall st bailouts, killing public education... In short, for toeing the corporate line and ignoring his base and the needs of the middle class.

[Prism]

15. There's a logical fallacy here built on the two party system

One candidate's election is not a default endorsement nor declaration of comfort with everything he or she stands for. Afghanistan received very little traction in the 2008 campaign. I'd say the number of people who voted for or against President Obama based on Afghanistan is vanishingly small.

However, with unemployment and U.S. debt skyrocketing, with the media turning the spotlight towards Afghanistan and the American people now paying attention to it for the first time in years, a lot of different political risks that did not exist before come into play. As things stand, the country is fairly evenly divided on Afghanistan. Support for war and escalation tends to lean more heavily towards conservatives, people who will typically not vote for the President no matter what he does.

The practical political effect right now is that Afghanistan escalation will put the Democratic Party through the grinder while Republicans remain relatively unscathed (Palin-induced self-destruction excepting). Is it enough to put the President's re-election under serious threat? I don't think so. There are too many unknowns to say that kind of thing with any confidence. It will, however, put another millstone around a Congress that is facing some of the worst conditions for re-election we've seen in a long while.

A President Obama with a decent Democratic majority is already a compromising centrist. I shudder to see a President Obama with an outright oppositional Congress. The greatest danger over the next three years is not 2012 chances, but the Clintonization of this administration via the loss of Congressional majorities and the attending conservative compromises.

[Oregone]

17. Consistency or not, entrenching the US in a failed war will piss people off, regardless of promises

Even Glenn Beck's 9/12 project isn't enough to bolster support for that conflict again. Especially with a war weary indebted nation


A promise fulfilled for a fucked war isn't enough to redeem a politician.

[freddie mertz]

19. Depends how it goes. It will be HIS war now.

If it goes badly, he will have to deal with the consequences.

[FrenchieCat]

26. It is the war that Folks supported when Bush was in office, and now that Obama is there, they don't.

It is a war
where he will only be allowed to act
in a time when most are lamenting
that all is already lost;
in otherwords, he starts off at a great disavantage,
not for what he did,
but for what the prior administration
before him
failed to do.

You can call it his war,
but it is this nation's war,
as every single one of our Representative in both houses of congress,
to the Left and to the Right, that we voted into office,
supported this action, except for one.

To now call it Obama's war is a fucked up thing to do....
but that never stopped anyone, of course.

[knightinwhitesatin]

29. Of course you think it is fucked up

it reflects negatively on the President. You are loyal to an extreme I will give you that.

[jonnyblitz]

31. if Obama were to come out AGAINST escalation and FOR

complete withdrawal on tuesday, FrenchieCat would all of a sudden MAGICALLY take that position. there are many here just like her, willing to excuse MORE needless death just to prop up a president they worship like he were a rock star. it's SICK. :puke:

As a fellow anti-war vet I appreciate your input. :hi:

[knightinwhitesatin]

38. No problem jonnyblitz

I have an oath to uphold and I will do my duty, but I will blame the President if I have to escort any more of my friends home. This is his choice, this is his decision, and we all have our duty to do.

[freddie mertz]

52. Really? Thanks. And where did you serve?

I fell between wars, saved by the Nixon "pullout" from the Vietnam draft in 72.

But I have lots of students who have done tours in one or both theaters.

I'd like to see that end now, or very soon.

[knightinwhitesatin]

56. Joined in 2002

was in 4th BCT 4th ID 2002-2005

Was in 2nd BCT 3rd ID 2005-2007

Was in 2nd Stryker BDE 25th ID 2007-now

Just left Hawaii, not real keen on letting the world know where I am now. Nothing personal I just like my privacy.

[freddie mertz]

60. Best of luck to you wherever you end up!

I hope you had a good holiday before leaving.

[FrenchieCat]

68. What is sick are people caring so much about what I think to the point of speculating

what I would do only if.
Why the fascination with me,
when what you say is what is supposed to be important are the "issues"?

So to me, that's what is truly sick....
this obsession to bend my will with what you see fit,
or observe as a superior what a lightweight I am
compared to your weighty intellectual grandeur.

This ain't nothing but a message board,
and you really don't know me,
even if you want to believe that you do.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

111. Anyone who spends any time on DU

knows your position on anything and everything Barack Obama. Is there anything that Obama has done or any policy decision you dont like?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[knightinwhitesatin]

67. That was actually

a compliment. Loyalty is a lost trait in this day and age. I meant no offense by that.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Thanks for telling me what your post meant....

as I couldn't have figured it out without you.

So many smart and deeply intellectual folks here....
and then, there's me.
I'm not even sure why folks continue to do anything other than to put me on ignore,
as I must be a fool compared to the great brain drain present here at any given time
to inform me as to the true meaning of life.

Join up to patriotically knowingly to gain revenge for 9/11,
and when things don't work out,
blame everyone else around you!
Cool! :thumbsup:

[knightinwhitesatin]

79. Why so serious?

I just disagree with the escalation. I must say I don't like your insinuation. I joined up out of patriotism. Along the way, I learned I was wrong and that revenge was wrong and a lie about the war was sold to the american people. I don't understand why you are taking this so seriously and personally. It's the internetz for lawd's sake........... Namaste frenchie.... :hug:

[FrenchieCat]

91. I don't take it personally, even if others do....

simply because I don't agree with their take.

It is true that I believe this President to be rational
and reasoned as to what is doable and what is not,
when those things he doesn't control are kept in sight.

Liberal means keeping an open mind;
it does not mean believing that your divine thoughts
are the only correct path
in an environment filled with landmines,
that even the best of us cannot clearly predict.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[knightinwhitesatin]

73. 5 years of lurking

finally decided to join the party. When is beach blanket bingo?

[freddie mertz]

32. I didn't support it then either.

Things have changes over there in any case.

It's not an absolute.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Think again, many of us were "ok" with a STRONG incursion into the tribal lands to get Bin Laden ...

but FAR MORE of us Liberal Democrats wanted this "assault" to be short-lived thus returning the combat troops back to the periphery (out of Afghanistan) once al Qaeda was neutralized.

Guess What? Bin Laden is DEAD and al Qaeda no longer have a foothold in Afghanistan.

There's abso-fucking-lutely NO reason for our troops to stay.

But wait? It's mission creep thanks to Orwell: al Qaeda has morphed into the mostly northern tribal native peoples known as the Taliban. And don't cha know American Citizen: We've always been at war with the Taliban. :crazy:

No, FC, most of us LIBERALS were NOT for an all out invasion of that rag tag narco-state tribal land.

[knightinwhitesatin]

41. So now we get to slaughter

Pashtun tribal members who had nothing to do with 9/11.............. I can't wait to be the first person in my squad to get me a Pashtun kill.......:puke: And for what???

[freddie mertz]

51. THAT is the problem. It is not about Bin Laden or 9/11 anymore.

It is a regional and ethnic civil war.

[Clio the Leo]

122. Isn't that a hoot? NT

[Bluenorthwest]

152. I did not support Bush's war, nor Obama's war

But of course, you do. When does you daughter deploy? Certain that she will, because your family is so committed to Obama and the war, and you must have raised her to do the right thing for her country, correct? For Obama?
If she does not join, and you do not wish her to join, your words are the words of many who would send others into danger, but not their own. That is a position I have seen for a lifetime. "But my kid's too smart to fight, he's needed in the office!" Right.
Everybody's child but mine, right? Everybody's blood but our own. Oddly, many of my uncles are vets who fought in France. Is there a pattern in that?
Have you at least told her you expect her to serve? Yes or no.

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. For the same reason LBJ wouldn't have been re-elected in 1968

I'm willing to accept that Senator Obama only had access to whatever flawed intelligence reports were made available by the Bush Crime Family, and what he said about Afghanistan in his campaign was based on those falsified reports.

But now, he's the man in charge, and should know better. And if he's still getting bad foreign policy advice (as he is in some other areas) then let's hope he gets rid of those (ir)responsible.

[Odin2005]

42. Methinks the Pacifists mistake opposition to Iraq for opposition to Afghanistan.

They are totally different things.

[knightinwhitesatin]

45. Just for the record

I'm not a pacifist. I just don't believe in throwing more lives into the Afghan meat grinder for no good reason. My own skin is in the game so I am a little more risk averse.... ;)

[jenmito]

54. So do I. I know at least ONE poster who claimed, just today, that he was "anti-war"

which is false. And she's posting on THIS thread, too, acting just as surprised that he's not.

[ShortnFiery]

87. Whoa! Believe it or not, many of us are posting our HONEST perspectives.

No, we don't want our lives publicized, but we are not LYING about our views and/or our past.

Please consider that many of us can respect President Obama yet believe he is making The MISTAKE of his Presidency if he sends 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan?

It's NOT about one man, but about THE LIVES of our troops and the innocent civilians that will be caught up in the crossfire of an escalating civil war in Afghanistan.

Beyond all else, continuing to occupy TWO Muslim Nations will only make AMERICANS less safe, both at home and abroad.

[jenmito]

94. "Whoa" WHAT? YOU posted this today, which claims Obama was "anti-war":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=15367&mesg_id=20785
He is not and was not anti-war!

[ShortnFiery]

98. Semantics? If that's the best you've got.

GAME OVER Baby! <teasing> ;)

[ShortnFiery]

90. To CLARIFY, I did believe Obama was anti-war. All Presidents should be basically ANTI-WAR.

Every HUMAN BEING should be basically ANTI-WAR, i.e., death and destruction. That doesn't make us pacifists. NO, not by a long shot. But NO war is GOOD. WWII was JUST but not GOOD and nobody fighting for their country who is less than sociopathic is PRO-WAR.

I guess that we define our terms differently.

I would go again and serve my country in the military IN A HEARTBEAT if we were at threat for INVASION an/or any other JUST REASON.

However, occupying two Muslim Countries is not JUST by any stretch of the imagination.

Finally, we are NOT AT WAR. Only Congress can DECLARE WAR.

[jenmito]

102. Then you were wrong. You can use whatever definition you want, but you know the political

definition of "anti-war" is being against fighting any war ever. Obama was for continuing the war in Afghanistan which he deemed just and necessary.

[ShortnFiery]

114. No. It's semantics. You must defend your leader no matter what. I get that.

:(

Tell me WHO is PRO-WAR?!?

People, in general are ANTI-WAR. Well, with the exception of the MIC.

However, since you are the only person who would term any war *good* (even those justified are HORRIFIC) ... it's semantics. :shrug:

[jenmito]

127. OBAMA called it "the good war." I quoted him. Yet you continue to say he was

anti-war (and changed, according to the pic you posted). The opposite of "anti-war" isn't "pro-war." But you can't understand that, OBVIOUSLY. By "good" he meant "just." You disagree. Oh, well.

But keep up the insults! :hi:

[freddie mertz]

147. Obama was and is wrong. Getting al-Qaeda and Bin Laden

Were the original goals.

I was very uneasy with invasion as a tactic to achieve that goal, but understood i at least.

The situation nine years later is completely different.

Bi Laden is in Pakistan, his group is decentralized, and we are fighting a civil was over there.

Changed circumstances call for new strategies.

I think it is best to get out.

You want to escalate.

I hope you are planning to contribute by volunteering.

[knightinwhitesatin]

155. Oh a good war

What a fucking crock of shit, there is no such thing as a good war............sometimes it is necessary like WW2 but it is never good. President Obama actually called Afghanistan the good war? Excuse me while I go vomit.

[freddie mertz]

156. Hey man, read closely, I don't think it was or ever could be a "good war"

I'm against escalation and for withdrawal.

[knightinwhitesatin]

157. Sorry still learning the forum

not blaming you.......I was just unaware that the President may have called the war a good war. No friendly fire directed at you I promise.

[shadesofgray]

50. If he's not re-elected that will be just one of the reasons. But to answer your question,

Nobody voted for Obama to get 4 more years of war with no end in site. N-O-B-O-D-Y. And if the war is not over by 2012, Obama will be in big trouble. NOBODY is going to care what he said about the war in 2008, if it is still going on, they will want it OVER and question why it isn't. There will be a whole new dynamic then.

[jenmito]

59. "...with no end in sight."

Why don't you wait 'til Tuesday night and see if he DOES have an end in sight?

[shadesofgray]

71. Why didn't YOU wait until Tuesday before you asked the question?

To even ask the question you did supposes the war won't be over by 2012. Because if it is, then obviously anything Obama said about it in 2008 wouldn't be an issue either way

[jenmito]

76. My thread is in response to many threads and posts on the subject. n/t

[shadesofgray]

159. That answer is a complete cop out. Bottom line is, if the war is still going on in 2012....

all the questions and who they are supposedly directed to will be completely irrelevant.

[Cha]

74. Gotta thank you, jenmito, for

bringing some facts to light. It's a rough situation and one that I'm sure the President has agonized over with knowledge of where there are actual terrorists breeding and not wanting to put soldiers lives at risk.:(

[Aramchek]

85. you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[GreenArrow]

88. That never stops you.

.

[Aramchek]

95. any specific examples?

or are you just full of snark?

[Thrill]

72. I expect big losses in Congress in the mid terms

Simply because after this escalation in Afghanistan and a weak health care bill. There is nothing for Liberals to be excited about. Big sweep coming for the Republicans. Not because they have good ideas but because Democrats aren't going to show up and vote.

And with a Republican Congress, nothing will get done. So its going to be hard to say his Presidency was a successful one.

[Milo_Bloom]

81. Yes, his bush like devotion to war is impressive.

He doesn't let facts and circumstances stand in his way either.

WooHooo

[knightinwhitesatin]

84. Snort............

I just spit Dr. Pepper through my nose

[MadHound]

82. Because the more and more people in this country want us out of Afghanistan ASAP

They don't want this war, they don't want a troop increase, they want us to get the hell out.

<http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm>

If he continues to drag this war on for another two years, which is looking increasingly likely, people will be outraged, and he will be a one term president. It won't matter what he promised last year, it won't matter what he said upon taking office, it will matter what is going on then, and if this tide of rising anti-war sentiment continues, and he continues to paddle against it, then he'll be swept out of office, it's that simple.

[ClarkUSA]

89. Because many here never liked him in the first place and this is their Outrage of the Next Month.

Logic never works with those who suffer from short-term amnesia and long-term bitterness. What I want to know is: where
were all these same posters' anger over Afghanistan last year, hmm??? I don't recall any. Hmm... wonder why? :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

92. "Because many here never liked him in the first place ..."

Oh yeah, by sheer genius, you've got us all figured-out now.



p.s. Ask many die-hard former HRC supporters: I was #1 Enemy on their list due to my fierce support of Candidate Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

96. I wasn't talking about you.

My memory is quite good and I remember you well from last year. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

108. OK, point taken.

:blush: ;)

[AllentownJake]

101. Can I add to that

They loved me as well.

[freddie mertz]

148. It is not even ABOUT you or the plaster saint you mistake for the president

It is about the reality of a war.

Why is it always about Obama or some other personality with you?

[burning rain]

93. Regardless of what Obama said during the campaign....

Democrats are not America's war party; we have a large peace camp, and escalation in Afghanistan will cause many of them to sit on their hands on election day or go third party. It will not work to tell them that Republicans are worse when a Democratic administration is taking actions that they loathe. And, Democrats will not draw off any Republican support to make up for the losses. Republican voters will be fired up in 2010 in any case; the only question is whether Democrats will be, too. An escalation will certainly work against that.

I'm sure almost all Democrats would have accepted a partial withdrawal of ground forces from Afghanistan, while leaving enough to secure Kabul, and controlling the insurgency in the rest of the country with air power and special forces, as needed.

[Cha]

97. Do what you have to do..Pres Obama's concern

isn't about getting re-elected but really trying to keep America and the world safer with concern for our military.

[ShortnFiery]

100. According to diplomats and former CIA operatives, the notion that escalating combat troops in ...

Afghanistan is going to keep AMERICANS safe, either at home or abroad is BULLSHIT on it's very surface.

The true culprits of 9/11 (al Qaeda) are NOT in Afghanistan and Bin Laden is long gone DEAD. Therefore, our original rationale for invasion is NIL. We should promptly pull out our combat troops.

But now, the Administration has taken it's Orwell off of the shelf and has REDEFINED "the enemy" as the rag tag natives originally from Pakistan (Taliban).

MISSION CREEP: Don't you know Patriotic Citizen, we've always been at war with the Taliban?

No we have NOT! What we are doing is inserting our troops into a CIVIL WAR (Taliban vs. The Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

Continuing to occupy Muslim Nations will make AMERICANS increasingly less safe every day we DEMAND to remain there.

[burning rain]

107. There's no "have to" here.

America's and the world's security interest would be likewise well served, and American losses in blood and treasure much reduced, by basically removing US ground forces from Afghanistan, other than those in Kabul and controlling (not trying to eliminate) the insurgency and thwarting the establishment of serious terrorist infrastructure with air power and special forces based outside Afghanistan. Escalating the ground war is no crime, but it's a mistake--and in a way, worse for being wholly unnecessary.

[Life Long Dem]

99. It's the same group of people who said...

you can't replace a sitting wartime President - during the 2004 elections.

[ShortnFiery]

103. You must be kidding? Do you honestly believe this?

Honesty? :shrug:

[NYC_SKP]

104. I think it's a common phenomenon that people thing that everyone else shares their narrow POV.

Of course, they're wrong.

But this is a human frailty.

"I know I'm right, surely most thinking people agree with ME."

I understand it, but I try not to suffer from it.

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

105. Do you really want to see human frailty?

It's what ENDLESS OCCUPATIONS are doing to our troops and the innocent refugees caught out IN THE COLD in camps within Afghanistan.

Watch the following video and then tell me that this is just SIMPLY about one's POV and "human frailties" rather than preserving our BASIC HUMANITY for ours and others?

WARNING - It's very disturbing - uncensored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQsoxtjo7E4&feature=player_embedded

[WeDidIt]

106. Because the radical left is every bit as whacked out as the radical right n/t

[ShortnFiery]

110. OMG! What you term "the radical left" were the mainstream liberal democrats of the

1970s. However, since Saint Reagan's beginning the assault on Unions and pushing trickle-down economics, our political system has morphed into a right wing duopoly.

Really? The Radical Left could be the "Socialists" of some European Parties but I assure you, there's no semblance of RADICAL in those of us who basically promote WORKER'S RIGHTS and and end to MILITARY OCCUPATIONS. I can say with a clear conscious that the above perspectives are very MAIN STREAM as they support the welfare of the vast majority of American Citizens.

[WeDidIt]

115. Mainstream liberal Democrats of the 70's lead directly to the election of Ronald Reagan in '80

and the loss of the Congress in 1994.

[ShortnFiery]

116. That's not how I viewed it at the time. Ronald Reagan did some back room shenanigans

It was the Iran Hostage Crises that LOST Carter the Presidency in 1980 as well as the MODERATE to CONSERVATIVE democrats who voted Saint Reagan into office.

[avaistheone1]

140. What radical left? Who are they?

[QC]

149. You know. Them. The ones responsible for everything bad that happens in the world,

here on our New and Improved DU, where Andrew Sullivan and Joe Klein are Oracles of Truth and Howard Zinn is a lying commie.

[freddie mertz]

146. This from the flame-baiter who called for sending 80,000 troops

In the other thread.

We don't even HAVE 80,000 troops to send without serious logistical problems, but this does not concern people who only care about stupid flame wars on internet sites.

[treestar]

112. Makes sense, as long as the bulk of the voters still see it the same way

They should be happy with this.

And the freepers better be. If they have the nerve to criticize this move it'll show what hypocrites they are. Well they are hypocrites, so they'll probably be against it now.

[NYC_SKP]

123. I find it curious that so many of the replies here, and replies to replies, have nothing to do with.

...with your original question.

I already answered. And you're right, his actions are matching his words during the campaign.

:popcorn:

[Clio the Leo]

124. "A dumb war...."

"A dumb war" is precisely what I think the President would refer to the "Great DU Afghani War Debate of 2009" ...... well he would call it "blog chatter" but I bet I could get him to refer to it as "a dumb war" .... esp if I threw in some pie with the deal. :)

Dont get me wrong Jen ..... I'm not picking on you ..... I'm just kicking your thread some more. :hi:

[jenmito]

129. I bet you're exactly right...

especially since you would throw in some pie with the deal.

Don't worry-I'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down. :hi:

[Clio the Leo]

131. lol, good. NT

[ShortnFiery]

132. Yes, that's precisely why Obama will serve one term ... senseless low level conflicts - WARS.

with or without pie. :eyes:

[Raine]

125. Yeah really

the Afghan War is the one thing he has been consistant on and was completely honest about.

[ShortnFiery]

134. And he has ONLY done what the MIC has told him to do ... that's NOT change.

There's no honor in being the Pentagon's puppet. And don't give me this "exit strategy" additional criterion because it's just disinformation and propaganda to assist the MSM in manufacturing consent to PISS AWAY one more TRILLION of our tax payer dollars as well as sacrifice 34,000 more troops to Kill and Die within Occupations that are MORALLY UNSOUND.

[avaistheone1]

139. You don't get the outrage because you don't want to get the outrage.

Obama was elected by voters to get us out of Iraq and not into Afghanistan. Voters consistently stated so throughout the country. It is a fact that you don't seem to grasp.

We voted for Obama to stop American involvement in the war/occupation in Iraq. We did not give him a blank check to go start or escalate wars elsewhere. Prior to the election you know it was divisive even here at DU regarding Obama escalating war in Afghanistan. I don't understand why you are surprised. You were just not paying attention. Just like you have not paid attention to the posts pointing this out to you the last few days.

Obama did not learn this country's lesson from Vietnam. Ask Colin Powell: You do not start or escalate a war without the country firmly behind you.

The escalation of the war is bad idea particularly now with our own country unraveling. The fact that Obama is that out-of-touch in his thinking and doesn't understand that the American public expects our resources to be used here for Americans at this critical time will not be appreciated by voters come reelection.

Remember that even though George HW Bush had his Gulf War victory, he failed to win re-election. The winner was Bill Clinton and the sentiment that won: "It's the economy, stupid".

Despite all of Obama's intelligence and charisma it looks like Obama is going to choose stupid. Now it is his war,and he will have to pay the price.


The American people are a very generous people and will forgive almost any weakness, with the possible exception of stupidity.
- Will Rogers

[Hippo_Tron]

141. Because Americans only approve of dead bodies arriving at Dover for so long

I recognize he's in a tough spot. I just hope he knows what the fuck he is doing.

[jeanpalmer]

142. I was hoping his position on Afghanistan

was just a campaign position, and that he would change course once he took office. It was just a gamble on my part. I did believe his promise that he would work from day one to get us out of Iraq, which he hasn't done. But my gamble didn't pay off. To my surprise, he actually believed his own rhetoric on Afghanistan. And unfortunately his promise on Afghanistan is the only major campaign promise he has kept.

I don't know if he will be re-elected. All I know is he has already lost some votes that he got in '08. Mine and my kids'. I will never vote for someone who wages imperialist war. And it looks like a lot of other people feel the same way. As these lost votes pile up, obviously it hurts his chances. He may try to imitate Nixon's strategy of escalating now, and then withdrawing into the election. I would view that approach very negatively. It wouldn't change my opinion, just harden my belief that this escalation is being done for political purposes.

[Bluenorthwest]

153. I'd rather he had been consistent on 'no individual mandates'

Or on his campaign position on eliminating income tax for seniors of modest income. He's been less than consistent on many issues, so aside from the stupidity of this 'war', arguing that he must be consistent just opens up can of worms after can of worms. Because being consistent here, and inconsistent there adds up to inconsistent. War being the exception to the rule. For some sick reason, the one promise you wish him to hold. The others? That was just rhetoric. Laughable logic.
He must be consistent, except when he must be inconsistent.

[noamnety]

154. He was CONSISTENTLY WRONG on afghanistan

and was elected in spite of that, not because of it.

Whether or not that will cost him the next election remains to be seen, I can't answer that part of your question in part because the underlying presumptions in your question were inaccurate.

[tekisui]

158. He will lose the party actives.

They are not supporters of expanding war. They will be less likely to contribute time and resources to him. They will still vote for him, but won't be as motivated to bring others to the polls.