Did hearing the speech make you change your mind on escalation at all?

[Ken Burch]

[bigjohn16]

1. No. It's a mistake. nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I'm still opposed to it.

But: I trust him.

Always have.

Probably always will.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

23. Trusting politicians is a dangerous game n/t

[lapfog_1]

3. No, but I'm still waiting to find someone with an idea

on what the right course of action is.

One that prevents a Taliban takeover of either Afghanistan or (more importantly) Pakistan.

It may be the least horrible of a set of horrible options.

And no, I don't think just leaving is a good option either.

[BanzaiBonnie]

15. I don't like it, but I don't think there's a GOOD out

There's only a sucky kind of out of Afghanistan.

There are no good solutions. If we had gotten Bin Laden and been out of there... but that ship has sailed and I sure wish that Obama had made that clear. I wish he had made it more clear about just what our interests are in Afghanistan. But I do have the feeling he wasn't talking to us. He was holding back on what he really thinks.

[PBS Poll-435]

4. Other

..

edited: why bother.

[TexasObserver]

5. No.

[avaistheone1]

6. I expected Obama would shake my convictions that the escalation is wrong.

I don't believe he made the case that this country's sons and daughters and our treasure should be sent off to Afghanistan.

Furthermore, he did not make the case that this is the nation's most pressing need over the 44,000 people who die here each and every year for lack of health insurance, the one in six children who are hungry in America, the growing bankruptcies and foreclosures and homelessness in America.

[quiller4]

7. I support the addition of troops but that was my position before the speech. n/t

[jgraz]

8. If possible, I'm even more opposed to it than before

Hearing a Democratic president roll out the Bush regime's "Greatest Hits" on 9/11 was almost more than I could bear.

[girl gone mad]

9. I did not expect that it would change my mind.

But I was also expecting it to be a much less offensive speech.

[lob1]

10. This war has been ignored for eight long years. Now I'm supposed

to be gung ho over escalation? Sorry, I threw my war pom pons away a few years ago.

[tuvor]

11. I don't get why anyone would unrec a poll.

Was the language in the poll question too biased, or what?

[LooseWilly]

12. Upon seeing clips being dissected by talking heads, I've decided the speech wasn't for my ilk.

I don't think the speech was meant to address concerns of the left at all. I think it was intended for the right, and the independents that the White House obviously seems to think exist to the right of Obama (I have a hard time gauging the nunaces of the "center"... it all just looks "right" to me).

That's my theory, anyway, for why there was no explanation of the apparent given of why we have to worry about the possibility of al Qa'eda having bases in Afghanistan, when they aren't there but seem perfectly capable of doing their thing from the border regions of Waziristan (which I heard no indication of intentions to invade with these new troops).

So, while the left seems willing to question this "given", the right seems to take it for granted... and so, as the speech also seemed to take that point for granted... I conclude that the speech was intended for an audience of the right.

Such a speech isn't likely to mean much to me...

[truedelphi]

20. I think the continual talk of "Obama needing to address the Right" etc

Is just a political cover for the fact that he was told he'd be given the election if he took care of Wall Street and the Military Industrial complex.

A week after Palin's selection for or by McCain, when I realized what a num nuts she was, it seemed possible that a deal had been made. (I mean, my very right wing Teabagging neighbor voted for Obama because he didn't like Palin.) And if Obama continues with his good behvavior, he'll face Palin in 2012, with the same election machinery in place that helped Bush in 2004 if Obama doesn't prove popular enough.

[dkf]

13. I'm finding myself yelling at the TV screen lately.

I really like Obama as a person but this is a big mistake. I'm feeling very deceived at the moment. As Chris Matthews said, escalating troops in Afghanistan to get the Pakistanis to be serious about the Taliban seems too tangential to make sense.

[avaistheone1]

14. So I wasn't alone.

[truedelphi]

16. I decided that I'd learn more by watching Marilyn smoke dope.

At least she never sold any of us out.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Naw....she just killed herself with a bunch of pills.

Ain't that cool?

[Ken Burch]

24. She'd have better off sticking with ganja.

She'd still be around and probably cougaring with one of Bobby's sons. Would've written a hell of a memoir by now too.

[cornermouse]

18. No. Escalation is wrong and it is stupid

for multiple reasons.

[argonaut]

19. I supported it before the speech.

I still support it after the speech. So, no.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Your poll has no option for me. I was leaning for and found myself leaning against.

The speech sounded like political BS and undermined my position somewhat, which is one of implicit trust in Obama on a matter on which I cannot form a solid opinion.

The implicit-but-unenforceable promise of rapid withdrawal so begs the question of why escalate in the first place that the whole thing started to sound like a time-share sales pitch.

And all I have on this thing is TRUST.

[TheKentuckian]

22. No, not really. It still doesn't make logical sense

the problems and solutions fail to fit together. Still dependent on a crazy line of thinking to work no matter how much more contained and limited the action is.

I'm happy he clearly wants to shut it down (thats how I call it, feel free to disagree), I liked the tone that for the most part steered clear of sloganeering bullshit and white hat/black hat worldviews so it kinda worked for me from 50,000 feet but the how, why, how much, and whadda we get factors remain pretty much untouched. I just don't buy the assumptions and don't see how the parts work together. Our supposed success isn't dependent on what do but what the Afghans and Pakistanis do and thats not a gameplan that I want my ass riding on.

From a total amoral viewpoint, I just don't buy it. You can keep whatever faith you choose but you don't make military strategy on those principles secular or not. We don't have goals we can achieve just ones we can contribute to fucking up, I always see that as a way not to go unless you have to and for sure not to over invest on gambling.