Obama’s Afghanistan Speech
Here’s the full transcript. More coming.
8:09: It’s striking how heavily Obama is laying the blame at the feet of the Bush administration, blaming it for diverting resources to Iraq and for neglecting the Afghan fight.
8:12: Obama seems a bit defensive in deflecting the charges that he’s been “dithering,” arguing: “There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.” Why even respond to this charge now?
8:16: The central rationale for escalating, according to Obama: “I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.” Striking the degree to which he is relying on 9/11 as a rationale.
8:23: Obama again invokes 9/11 as a rationale, this time as a way of explaining why this isn’t a parallel with Vietnam: “And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”
8:27: Surprising how short shrift he gives to arguing why it’s an imperative for the conflict to not be open-ended. Main reason seems to be that “we must rebuild our strength here at home,” and that “our prosperity provides a foundation for our power.”
8:54: Russ Feingold is immediately out with a statement hammering the speech:
“I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.”
9:08: John McCain’s statement condemns Obama’s designation of July 2011 as a start date for withdrawal, even though pulling out is completely predicated on conditions on the ground, blasting Obama’s “arbitrary date to begin withdrawing,” which sends “exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies.” McCain adds: “Success is the real exit strategy.” Reminiscent of the 2008 campaign, in which McCain repeatedly blasted Obama for not wanting ill-defined “victory.”
10:02: Nancy Pelosi’s statement blames Bush for Obama’s conundrum, but signals skepticism, and stops short of full support:
“President Obama inherited a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan because the Bush Administration did not have a plan to get the job done.
“Tonight, the President articulated a way out of this war with the mission of defeating Al Qaeda and preventing terrorists from using Afghanistan and Pakistan as safe havens to again launch attacks against the United States and our allies. The President has offered President Karzai a chance to prove that he is a reliable partner. The American people and the Congress will now have an opportunity to fully examine this strategy.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Important sentence:
“Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war”
“It’s striking how heavily Obama is laying the blame at the feet of the Bush administration…” I had the exact same thought. It’s like a time warp where Sen. Obama is back on the campaign trail instead of a presidential address.
So if you were tasked with establishing peace, because ultimately as a U.S. Soldier, that is your job, in the country of Afghanistan, you’re answer would be to give up and walk away?
Don’t forget, this is the land that an attack on American civilians was staged. This isn’t Vietnam, or Iraq.
Republican Bush’s failures in Afghanistan arguably begin when the Taliban offered Bush Osama bin Laden.
Republican Bush’s failures in Afghanistan include: Failing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora mountains and allowing Osama bin Laden to escape into nuclear armed Pakistan.
Republican Bush’s failures in Afghanistan continued when he failed to provide the troops or resources to complete the mission and then misdirected America’s troops and resources into the Republican’s Iraq War Lie.
Republican Bush’s failures in Afghanistan went on for years even as the Taliban took over large swaths of Southern Afghanistan and set up base camps in neighboring nuclear armed Pakistan, specifically Pakistan’s Northwest Waziristan region.
Why does the president pledge to not be Afghanistan’s “patron”? What’s wrong with being a patron? The word means supporter or paying guest.
Yes, how shocking that Obama would remain true to immature form and give yet another speech that is a partisan attack on his predecessor, seek to evade responsibility, and say things that are patently untrue, indeed risibly so.
This is your petty, finger-pointing, responsibility-avoiding President doing his thing.
Actually, Republican Bush’s failures in Afghanistan begin even before 9/11.
Republican Bush was repeatedly warned by the previous outgoing administration that terrorism was a ‘blinking red light’ and needed serious attention.
Republican Bush sat on his hands all throughout the months before the 9/11 attacks.
The month before the 9/11 attacks Republican Bush failed to act on the explicit warning that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack US. Republican Bush ignored the warning and stayed on his vacation (long vacations which he continued to pleasure himself with while he sent other parents’ children off to war).
The sleazy right wing extremist “quarterback” provides a perfect description for his authoritarian war criminal leader, Republican Dick Cheney: “a partisan attack on his” successor, seek[ing] to evade responsibility, and say[ing] things that are patently untrue, indeed risibly so.
This is your petty, finger-pointing, responsibility-avoiding [Republican Vice] President doing his thing.”
News Reference said, “Republican Bush’s failures in Afghanistan arguably begin when the Taliban offered Bush Osama bin Laden.”
Actually, NR, if you want to replay history, it was the Sudan that offered bin Laden to Clinton.
We can play this backward looking game all night, or would you prefer to actually discuss the current situation in Afghanistan?
I’m shocked, just shocked, that a right winger like “American Delight” doesn’t know the full definition of “patron” and fails to recognize the many negative connotations that the word can imply. (Or am I being patronizing?-)
http://www.answers.com/patron
Very original, Reefer.
Do you think it is good for the sitting President to use virtually all his public addresses — including an official one of this nature — to continue partisan attacks on his predecessor? Is it good leadership? Does it reflect well on Obama? Is it even remotely possible for you to take off your fanatical blinders for a second to evaluate that?
Or is all you know your I-hate-Cheney mantra?
“Hannity repeated lie that Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton; Lanny Davis to Hannity: “That’s a lie”"
http://mediamatters.org/research/200406220008
So not only does “American Delight” not understand simple English, they also fail to know history.
Either right winger “American Delight” is a Fox Fool or a liar.
“Why does the president pledge to not be Afghanistan’s “patron”? What’s wrong with being a patron? The word means supporter or paying guest.”
Origin:
1250–1300; ME < ML, L patrōnus legal protector, advocate (ML: lord, master), der. of pater father.
Perhaps that's why.
“Do you think it is good for the” war criminal Republican and former Vice President Dick Cheney “to use virtually all his public addresses” … “to continue partisan attacks on his” successor?
Let’s be clear, the rancid lies of war criminal Republicon Cheney and the obscene mismanagement of America’s military troops by Republican leaders needs to be directly addressed.
You right wing fools got American troops killed because of your leader’s disastrous leadership.
Greg – re your second notation… I think it is a simple but unavoidable political reality that this charge needs to be met.
LOL, this reefer clown thinks that mediamatters is a reliable source of truth. What Clinton said: “They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have.”
Spin all you want, those words speak for themselves.
But then, there is always the larger point: At what point exactly do Obama and his Obamatons feel like spinning the past for someone else to blame and take responsibility for their own actions and words?
McCain tells NBC he supports the President’s plan and thinks Democrats and Republicans should support him. He does take issue with the exit strategy, but no surprise there.
“Why does the president pledge to not be Afghanistan’s “patron”? What’s wrong with being a patron? The word means supporter or paying guest.”
Origin:
1250–1300; ME < ML, L patrōnus legal protector, advocate (ML: lord, master), der. of pater father.
Thus patronize. The term has clear connotations of unequal status. Naughty of you to pretend it doesn't.
(for whatever reason, two posts have fallen into a hole somewhere)
Reading the prepared text http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/full-text-of-obamas-remarks-on-afghanistan.php?ref=fpa
Its interesting how much he mentions Afghani gov’t corruption-I think is pretty remarkable, while candid, that the president would make note of that to the American public who may not really realize this. I would think this puts pressure on Karzai but one wonders by what standard do we judge the corruption eradicated, to what degree and, if it isn’t substantially altered, does this affect how quickly we leave?
Yes, let’s be clear.
This Reefer nut is a deranged leftist kook who represents about 0.001% of the country.
And he is so blinded by partisan hatred that he applauds his American Idol President’s using occasions like this not to lead and unite but to blame and divide and poison the country with partisanship.
This is why you and your party are speeding toward disaster. Part of why, that is.
Unquestionably his best foreign policy speech.
Hey QB, when he mentioned not giving Afghanistan more support after the mujahadeen defeated the Soviet Union, he was talking about your boy Cheney. Glad he got that in there. If Cheney wasn’t such a war-monger as to hit it and quit it in Afghanistan instead of doing the right thing we definitely never would have been attacked on 9/11. Cheney IS AQ.
After 9/11 the Taliban offered Republican Bush Osama bin Laden, instead Republican Bush let Osama bin Laden escape.
Was it incompetence or treason on Republican Bush’s part when he allowed Osama bin Laden to escape?
Well, the die has been cast, and we shall know by mid 2011, or perhaps even sooner if it worked or not.
It is a daunting task, and I fear that getting a Real Government, and a Real National Police Force, and a Real National Army stood up within that time period is going to be the most difficult things to accomplish.
You see, we can put the Taliban back on it’s heels, and force it back into the badlands, but without a real government and national army in place to keep The Taliban suppressed, we will not have accomplished anything permanent.
I shall now wait and see how it all works out, or not. I hope to hell that we do complete this Hail Mary play, but I am very cognizant of the fact that Karzai is not going to be able to oust all his old mafia cronies, and that they enemy also will have their input on how the effort turns out.
We need to avoid getting too inebriated, down at Rosy Scenario’s Cantina.
LOL, the right wing extremist “quarterback” thinks that the fiction spewing FOX Republican propaganda channel is a legitimate source for news.
And where was Murdoch’s FOXes when Republican President Bush failed to provide adequate resources to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in the hills of Tora Bora?
Well, we know where Murdoch’s Foxes were, they were so far up Republican President Bush’s @ss that when the right wing Fox’s Roger Ailes sneezed, Bush had to wipe his nose.
Under Republican President Bush, FOX was literally an appendage of the government.
Now it’s the other way around, the Republicans are literally an appendage of FOX.
Hey Ethan, it appears to me that you are abusing substances tonight. I’ll give you that benefit of the doubt.
“[L]iterally,” huh? I love it when illiterate people use that word that way. You are a laugh riot.
Ethan | December 1st, 2009 at 08:56 pm
Unquestionably his best foreign policy speech.
Ethan, I agree.
It’s interesting listening to some of the commentary on the tube in response to the speech. I have heard lawmakers from both sides of the aisle say some pretty stupid things. It’s like they were not listening to what he said. Oh well, I heard what I needed to hear and I agree with what the President is doing.
Obama says one thing-Feingold says another re: national security interests. Who’s correct?
The thing about Vietnam was that the basic premise of not allowing communism to spread *because it was in our national interest* and would result in a “domino effect” turned out to be basically flawed. Is Obama’s premise similarly flawed?
Don’t forget, this is the land that an attack on American civilians was staged. This isn’t Vietnam, or Iraq.
Given its long, long history of fluid tribal alliances and no viable central government worth the name (including the present one) & its equally long history as the graveyard of empires, it’s worse.
clarification: is Obama’s premise similarly flawed -but for different reasons-
Right wingers fear true history because it often condemns them.
Right wingers like “quarterback” live in Orwellian fantasies where their actions never have consequences and reality gets constantly rewritten.
The facts in Afghanistan condemn Republicans going all the way back to the right wing’s fictional hero: Hollywood entertainer Ronald Reagan.
Reagan and his unindicted co-conspirator Bush 1 abandoned Afghanistan after they had used the Mujaheddin against the Soviets.
There’s a poignant scene in the biographical drama “Charlie Wilson’s War” that depicted the historic instance where Texas Democratic Representative Charlie Wilson tried to provide assistance in school construction money to the Afghani’s after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.
He was ignored.
We (and by that I mean all of US, but particular shame goes to Republican President Bush 1) turned our backs on allies that fought our enemies for US.
We turned our backs and our Mujaheddin allies slide into chaos, eventually degenerating into the theocratic thuggery of the Taliban.
The key to tonight’s speech is the President’s exit strategy. I know it will be debated at length but he made it clear we’re leaving beginning in July 2011. How fast and how long it takes is just logistics.
You mean; like The Republican Party has!
Intended for New Reference:
You mean; like The Republican Party has!
So, Feingold is mad that Obama did not set a timetable for troop withdrawals and McCain is mad because Obama is setting a date to start troop withdrawals. Seriously?
@ChuckinDenton: “The thing about Vietnam was that the basic premise of not allowing communism to spread *because it was in our national interest* and would result in a “domino effect” turned out to be basically flawed. Is Obama’s premise similarly flawed?”
But are the comparisons truly similar? With regard to the “domino effect” in Vietnam, it was believed that a victory for Communism there would ultimately lead to the spread of Communism to other nations all over the world.
I don’t think that’s the argument at all with regard to Afghanistan and terrorism. Instead, the argument is that there is a potential for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to destabilize, specifically, Afghanistan and Pakistan, with Pakistan’s destabilization being the greatest threat, because it posses nuclear weapons. So, I don’t think the potential for a “domino effect” is an appropriate metric for assessment here (and it doesn’t seem to be the one officials are using), because to the extent that any “domino effect” exists, it is restricted to two countries, not the world.
All, see Pelosi’s statement, just added. Some pretty serious skepticism there.
He’s ambitious. You gotta give him that.
If he pulls this off, gets the economy humming again and bends the deficit curve in the right direction, weens us off of oil, gets this health care reform passed, he’s gonna get his own monument in downtown D.C. that will forever be a reminder to the delusional modern day conservatives they were wrong about just about everything.
Greg, I found your obsession with Obama’s repeated references to 9/11 fascinating. Wasn’t he just reminding all of us why we took the war to Afghanistan in the first place and trying to reinvigorate some of the solidarity the nation felt on 9/12 by implying that the threat still exists?
I also found qb’s glib comments about Obama being petty and trying to evade responsibility while at the same time giving credit to the hard work and accomplishments of our armed service men and women in securing Iraq quite contradictory. Not surprised by his response though, as he hates Obama the neo-marxist. From the speech:
“Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.”
At this point, I am in support of our President and hope he will be able to accomplish the goals he has set forth. I think the security of the region still demands our attention and if Pakistan can live up to it’s end of the bargain and rout out AlQaeda and militant Taliban, and Karzai realizes we are not there indefinitely, it may be worth our effort. I hope Obama holds to the July 2011 timeline to begin withdrawl as I think it is imperative that the American people and soldiers are able to visualize
the end game.
I still wish he had chosen a quicker path to withdrawl but I accept his arguments. As the daughter of a WWII vet and the wife of a Vietnam vet who has also been known to protest a war or two, I support our troops and the difficult work they do on our behalf and I think Obama showed them tonight that he supports and believes in their efforts as well.
One more quick comment, I still support a war tax on people making over $250,000. Normally, I would expect everyone to contribute, but since the middle class has been reduced in status I believe they should get a pass.
The President was spot on in pointing out that he was not “dithering” and this was the perfect time to smack the trembling coward that is Cheney in his ragged mouth with those facts. I disagree with Greg on that one. As for Bush, it was important that Obama point out why we are where we are as well as how were going to move forward. The problem with people like Quarterback is that facts don’t have a counter weight. Either you have them or you don’t and what the President stated were cold hard facts! It’s not blame, you pathetic cry babies! It’s a fact that Bush and that scared little girl known as the Dick created this disaster and walked away. You’ll not the President also stated that the 30,000 he sent in March was a request that was made to the Bush administration but, was never done. No dithering there, eh? Hypocrite or stupid Republican? Wait, that’s an oxymoron!
Travis-
I wasn’t implying that the domino effect would apply to any other countries beyond AF/Pak. Sorry if that wasn’t clear but it seems to me that he does imply that there could be a similar situation regarding those two countries. In other words, w/o our intervention Pakistan could destabilize and certainly Afghanistan would fall again to the Taliban. Or the deterioration of one could lead to the other. To my mind, faulty as it my prove to be, both results equate with a domino effect of sorts. Perhaps not the right term for it, I admit.
I also support a war tax. I hope this effort gets some real bipartisan support. Given all the talk about fiscal responsibility that goes on, this is a very good place to start.
Andy, hypocrisy runs rampant in the halls of Congress on both sides of the aisle, so I seriously doubt a war tax will get any traction. It would be interesting though to be proven wrong.
Also Greg, unless there’s more to Pelosi’s statement than you posted I don’t really see the “serious skepticism” you claim. She has stated in the past that Karzai is not a reliable partner, but it seems to me she is giving Obama some credit for giving him another chance, while having reservations as I think we all do.
lmsinca, yeah that’s true but we heard the president refer to the deficit in his speech tonight. I strongly believe he has decided that reducing the deficit will get done on his watch.
Funny thing just happened on MSNBC. Chris Matthews is doing a live show and he just mentioned that he’s getting flack on another network for something he said earlier. He made a comment earlier this evening right after Obama’s speech about West Point. First he said the audience appeared stoic and not very warm. Then he made a comment about it appearing like the president was in enemy territory. I think that’s the comment that is getting him some flack. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow.
In my comment earlier I certainly did not mean to imply that qb was giving credit to the armed service men and women in Iraq, that was Obama. After re-reading my comment I thought it was a little confusing.
“I also found qb’s glib comments about Obama being petty and trying to evade responsibility while at the same time giving credit to the hard work and accomplishments of our armed service men and women in securing Iraq quite contradictory.”
I pretty much gave up watching Chris Matthews several months ago, I just can hardly stand him anymore, so it doesn’t surprise me he would make a cynical comment about West Point and Obama Did he expect them to be jumping up and down in their seats rather than being respectful to their CIC? He also made several comments about the Stupak Sepsis Ammendment that totally turned me off of his show.
I did watch Rachel earlier and she said something interesting that this was the most aggressive of decisions Obama was weighing. The least of the four was immediate responsible withdrawl. I’m heartened that he at least considered it.
lmsinca, I haven’t heard anyone ask this question or draw this conclusion, but why did the president choose July 2011? Could it be that he is determined to not leave this mess for anyone else? This timetable would assure him that regardless of what happens in 2012, our military role in Afghanistan would not be an issue.
best part of the speech was
“god bless american”
the rest was bs as usual from DC. corrupt politicians telling afghan they are corrupt. decades of failed policies, lowest approval rating EVER for congress yet they demand afghan meet benchmarks.
HA too bad obamie and the rest of the blowhards up there don’t have to meet performance standards they would fail and begone all of them d and r.
professional blowhards
oh for the spelling czars
s/b “god bless america”
That and it also holds his feet to the fire if he runs himself in 2012, which I assume he will. I think he rather likes setting definitive goals for himself and the country and also knows that we have little patience left for a prolonged engagement there.
Have a good night all.
Andy-
Who knows? Politics here at home or something he has learned from the Generals that makes him think all of this can be accomplished in that time. Both? Maybe someone should tell the enemy and the Afghanis that they have less than years to get their **** together.
The more I think about this, the less I like it.
that would be “they have less than two years to get their…”
lmsinca, I definitely avoid Matthews whenever I can. I did enjoy an interview he did tonight with a retired army general who pointed out the reaction of the cadets following the president’s speech. The general reminded Chris that that room full of future military leaders were captivated by the president. He seemed very impressed by the president and the reaction of the young cadets. And of course Matthews seemed unfazed.
yes idiot matthews we know you feel the troops are the enemy along with many other of your followers.
seems with your elitists superior knowledge you would know that those only idiots get tingley feelings in their legs when obama speaks not west point cadets. but thanks for proving what myself and millions of other Americans already knew.
“He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case”
the situation is a major threat to the world but we only got 18 months and if the major threat is not gone then to bad soo sad we are packing up and going home I have to run for president in 2012 and my radical base won’t vote for me if I don’t just pack up and leave afghan.
geesh thank god I did not serve under this panty waist.
The president had a busy lunch today.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/interview_with_the_president_the_politics_of_escalation.php
One more quick post, this from General Mc Chrystal with more at the link.
“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/mcchrystal-praises-obama_n_376214.html
“In my comment earlier I certainly did not mean to imply that qb was giving credit to the armed service men and women in Iraq, that was Obama. After re-reading my comment I thought it was a little confusing.”
Your statement still makes no sense but for a different reason. The original comments above to which I responded were Greg’s first live blogging comments about Obama being surprisingly heavy on the “blame Bush” theme and defensive about “dithering.”
Obama’s sucking up to the cadets and giving credit to service men and women has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Obama is a small man who habitually seeks to avoid responsibility, deny that there are choices to be made, and resorts to partisan blamemanship.
Those were not impressions I originally had of him, but in less than a year his character has become quite clear in these respects.
And, no, I don’t hate him. Hatred is what you liberals harbor for those who disagree.
Obama mentioned a trillion dollars spent on the wars as if that is a lot of money. Who knew?
Funny to hear him talk about being honest about the money he’ll spend. Whenever he says he is going to be totally honest, especially about spending, or that he is saying what he has always said, you can be confident he is lying.
a trillon is pennies compared to what obama himself has already spent not including the trillions he wants to spend on healthcare and cap n tax.
hypocrite is his name
obama is a liar just like the majority on the hill. he was being truthful when he told the troops they make a good photo-op.
egomanic is his middle name
ha this sums it up for me
That was such a strange speech. Deploring partisanship while serially trashing Bush at each new talking point. Sending more troops, but talking more about when they will come home rather than what they will do to the enemy. There was nothing much new in the speech, yet apparently it took the president months to decide whether even to give it.
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWM5YTUyMmUzZjVhY2UzNWRhYWExNzBlMGY2MjBjOGY=
On patrol at the Front: it’s lonely… desolate… and still far too dangerous for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s difficult, too, for the families and kids they’ve left behind. So, at the USO, we have a mission…
To make sure all 170,000 of these courageous men and women – who are risking their lives every day, for us – know they have not been forgotten.
Without your support – our mission may fail. Please give as generously as you can. On behalf of those we serve, Thank You!
https://www.uso.org/donate/custom.aspx?id=641&
Quarterback,
Obama may be lying but Bush was so honest that he didn’t have the two wars on the books. Now that’s a fiscal conservative. Did you forget about the two tax cuts worth one trillion dollars when we were at 2 wars? Mind you the tax cuts were not paid for. Did you forget about the Medicare Part D that cost 500 billion and was NOT paid for?
Plus, here is a gem from Dick Cheney after 2002 midterms:
Paul O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said
So, my conservative friends stop hyperventilating about deficits. St. Ronnie proved they don’t matter.
I wonder where all the deficit hawks were until about 9 months ago.
the only defense these creatures have is bush/cheney
pitiful display from the self proclaimed superior intellectual elitists.
I wonder why all the deficit hawks of the last eight years are soo hip on spending trillions when it’s their leader in charge.
again pitiful arguements can you try defending this pitiful CIC without invoking bush?
ya thought so there is no defense for this lame administration and it’s brainwashed followers.
“necessary war”
as long as bush was president
what a bunch of empty cowards
Al Gore Asking $1,200 To Shake His Hand In Copenhagen
haha what fool would pay even a penny to shake this snakeoil salesman’s hand?
answer only an elitie progressive would be stupid enough to pay $1200 to shake this fools hand. oh I can’t wait until the global warming criminals are arrested and brought to trial they owe the american taxpayers millions. time for a class action suit!! maybe we can get our lightbulbs back instead of the mecury filled dim bulbs the knitwits forced down our throats that give me a freakin migraine.
Good ol’ Saint Russ! NEVER get between this phony windbag and a TV camera, when there’s a Democratic President to be bashed.
I find it amazing how we still hold to the conspiracy theory that Osama bin Ladin and 19 mostly Saudi nationalists, trained to fly in the US, perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 after this many years. ObL denied attacking us. Our proof is a poor quality video found in a house in Jalalabad in November 2001 that shows a right-handed “Osama” claiming responsibility for the attacks. ObL is left-handed.
If one examines the timeline and facts relating to all those involved – before and after – this is not an open and shut case, but rather a conspiracy theory at best.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
And the powers that be, those that control our governments, continue to profit from this new “pearl harbor.” Look to the freedoms lost and not regained in the Patriot Act, for one example.
bush was there for her
obama has threw her under the bus
Obama’s Kenyan aunt: ‘I carry my own cross’
Called a political liability, president’s relative describes her anguish
Onyango reserved special words of kindness for former President George W. Bush for a directive he put in place days before the election requiring federal agents get high-level approval to arrest fugitive immigrants, which directly affected Onyango. The directive made clear that U.S. officials worried about possible election implications of arresting Onyango.
She said she wants to thank Bush in person for the order, which gave her a measure of peace but was lifted weeks later.
“I loved President Bush,” Onyango said while moving toward a framed photo of Bush and his wife standing with Barack and Michelle Obama at the White House on inauguration day. “He is my No. 1 man in my life because he helped me when I really needed that help.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34222489/ns/politics/
Important sentence:
“Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war”
**********************************************************
NON SEQUITUR
In fact Obama DID have a request for more troops before 2010, he had it 4 months ago. The issue here is WHY it took him FOUR MONTHS to decide if the General HE appointed knew what he was doing and was informed enough to make the decision more troops were needed.
Obams has made a purely political decision here, one attempting to appease his anti war base and calm those who believe he has NO will to stand and fight. He has satisfied neither of them and has taken yet another step backwards
ObL denied attacking us.
************************************************************
LOOL, there is viseo and audio of him celebrating and explaning how they never believed the damage would be so great as to take down the structures.
Time for you to beam up to the mother ship, lib.
roxsteady | December 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
” and this was the perfect time to smack the trembling coward that is Cheney in his ragged mouth with those facts.
It’s not blame, you pathetic cry babies! It’s a fact that Bush and that scared little girl known as the Dick Cheney”
************************************************************
Th hatred exhibited from the cut and run left is never more apparent then when faced with Dick Cheney’s strength. When a liberal sees Dick Cheney they are immediately reminded of the chasm between his strength and love of America and their hatred and extreme cowardice when faced with any threat involving the use of our military. What a sick feeling the libs must have when they view themselves in the mirror and see a coward looking back at them.
It is said “A coward dies a thousand deaths while a hero dies but once” All this dying by Democrats is the reason for their unbridled hatred directed towards anyone who is not 100% in their anti American camp.
It’s a bit like all hallows eve around here.
“Dick Cheney’s strength”. Well, effectively nobody thinks well of Cheney any longer and he polls horridly even among Republicans. That might be because of his role in justifying and implementing torture (the last surviving Nuremberg judge holds that what has been done represents prosecutable war crimes). It might be because 9/11 happened under Cheney’s watch and after warnings of such a danger had been greatly ignored. It could be because a second terrorist attack (antrax) happened under Cheney’s watch. Or perhaps it is because Cheney is incapable of taking even the slightest responsibility for the enormous failings of his tenure and administration, fiscal, strategic and military. Or perhaps it is because he hides from any and every request or demand that he present himself and his office’s operations to the open view of American citizens. Or perhaps it is because, after years of holding that it is unpatriotic to derogate the CIC during war, he proceeds immediately and regularly to derogate the CIC during war. Perhaps it was all the deferments while other kids ended up dead and maimed. Perhaps it is all those things and more.
Cheney’s strength. Let’s measure it in Stalin-units.
How come no one ever mentions finding Bin-Laden?
@at – It is a sign of strength to have allowed Bin Laden to remain at large, so I skipped over that embarrassment.
All, morning roundup posted:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/afghanistan/the-morning-plum-22/
Perhaps it is that the fellow above is a partisan crank who spouts malarkey.
MB,
Conservatives like me were very critical of Bush and the GOP for participating in continued reckless spending — domestic spending, that is, where the real damage is done.
The question is why liberals like you were “deficit hawks” for eight years but now support a President who has thrown off all restraint and thinks that spending new trillions on domestic boondoggles to buy votes is fine.
But that’s not really a question, since the anwwer is obvious. Liberals like you care nothing about “fiscal restraint.” Your agenda is always more spending, more taxes, more resentment-based politics, more vote buying. You are hypocrites.
more resentment-based politics
“He” criticizes trafficking in the politics of resentment. Meanwhile, in this idiot’s assessment Sara Palin is “the real deal”.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Amongst right winger “quarterback’s” lies is his fraudulent math.
Again:
Republican Reagan increased the US debt by 260%.
Republican’s Reagan and Bush 1 increased the US debt by 400%.
Republican Bush 2 MORE THAN DOUBLED the US debt. Worse, nobody even knows how much Republican Bush’s cronies at the Fed indebted US with, the best guess is at least two trillion.
The vast majority of American debt happened under just those three Republicans. It’s only been through constant right wing lies that that truth has been obscured.
And note: Each of those three Republican Presidents deliberately pushed budgets that increased the US debt.
Read: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0