For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Chaos At The Daily Kos Over Afghanistan
Written By : John Hawkins

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous tipped me off to a fascinating thread over at the Daily Kos that echoes the utter confusion of the Left on Afghanistan.

You see, despite all the caterwauling about foreign policy that we heard from the Left during the Bush years, it’s still ultimately little more than a political football to them. So now, the aimless indecision of the White House has drifted down to the activist level. And no wonder:

* During the campaign, Barack Obama “made it clear” that winning in Afghanistan was vitally important. Now, he seems much more indifferent.

* Liberals told everyone who would listen that we were wasting resources in Iraq that could better be used in Afghanistan. But, now that resources have been freed up, Obama’s hedging on sending them even though the generals say they need them to win the war.

* The poll numbers on Afghanistan seem roughly split at the moment, but that may be misleading. Whatever else may be said about Bush, he was a dogged man. He would have stayed as long as necessary and done whatever it took to win in Afghanistan, no matter what the political fallout turned out to be. If we lose in Afghanistan, how is Barack Obama, who has zero “tough guy” credibility with the public, going to look? How would the American people react to losing a war because of the personal weakness and political machinations of the man in the White House?

With all that in mind, comes a Daily Kos ad page for an anti-war show called, “Obama’s war.”

Here’s the initial post about it:

Getting online today the first thing I notice was the DKOS background and the words ‘Obama’s war’.

WTF? I beg to differ, but this is NOT Obama’s war. This is Bush’s war, plain and simple. One thing we do NOT need to be doing at this juncture is feeding into the right wing meme that this is Obama’s war. Obama is trying to clean up the mess started by Bush and his cronies at Halliburton.

I know that Obama is trying to wind this quagmire down, but that does NOT make it ‘his war’. It must suck being the only adult in the room for him, but that’s the job he applied for, and he is doing the best at it humanly possible.

I see those around here giving Obama down the road all the time, and that’s fine by me. But this ‘Obama’s War’ crap is going too far, and simply parroting FoxNews talking points.

So please, people. Let’s stay level headed about this.

This is NOT OBAMA’S WAR.

Dammit.

Because Obama is not sending a clear signal about which way he is going to go (the Left is actually much more authoritarian and centralized in thinking than the Right), the responses to this are all over the map.

Well, then it is an … (1+ / 0-)
… American war, at least until we can get out, which means that “Obama’s War” is an incorrect appellation. Thanks for proving that for the diarist.

People can demand that troops be pulled out and not put in, and they can be careful about what they call it. But, if they want to voice their right to call it “Obama’s War,” then I can call them clueless. That’s my right.

“Obama, Obama, I love ya, Obama; you’re only November away” — cute ginger kid

by Tortmaster

You can call (1+ / 0-)
it any kind of war ya want.

I sure don’t have a problem with calling it Obama’s war, since he’s the CinC, and he’s ramped it up there.

If you want to speak to the current administration, who do you go to?

by Hound Dog

Thank you (4+ / 0-)
I don’t care if it’s an ad or not, and it matters little what the overall intent is–either on the part of the site or the show itself.

But this is exactly the message it sends–that it’s “Obama’s War”, and it also makes it look like it’s something the site supports.

Disgusting. If I was really full of myself, I’d go GBCW and get lost. But nobody really knows me from adam around here anyway, so I think I’ll just get lost. This has absolutely, thoroughly disgusted me.

Necessity is the mother of revolution…

by o the umanity

Most Americans (7+ / 0-)
did support the invasion of Afghanistan. (I was not one of them). And while I agree that the execution and decision for the war was Bush’s, he no longer has power. It is Obama’s war now. Just as Viet Nam became Nixon’s war as opposed to Johnson’s – those of us who voted for Obama did so hoping he’d apply sanity to the situation – and we are not terribly comfortable with the statements coming from his White House on this nor the actions.

More drones? More civilian deaths? That’s not going to resolve this situation.

by KibbutzAmiad

Actually, Afghanistan is an American war. However, Barack Obama is the Commander-In-Chief and therefore, he’s the one ultimately responsible for winning it.

Moreover, the fact that Barack Obama is starting to take political considerations into account in fighting the war in Afghanistan may not be surprising, but it is alarming. When his generals are telling him that they need more troops to win and he’s hemming and hawing while his political handlers pore over polling data, it’s disturbing. This is a time for leadership, not a time for “voting present.”

As long as Barack Obama is doing the best he can to win in Afghanistan, Barack Obama deserves conservative support for that part of his agenda. But, if he ultimately chooses to waffle on doing what it takes to achieve victory, he should be forewarned that the criticism will be merciless and savage.

0
  • Mike_M

    Well as the liberals love to say "elections have consequences".

    One is the fact that Obama bungled away the relationship with Pakistan that Bush so meticulously built up over the years by carelessly running his mouth to score political points during the campaign.

    Getting Pakistan on board the war was vital to its success and they weren't eager to help. Musharraf neraly got assassinated for his troubles, and the country has teetered dangerously close to open civil war.

    Enter Obama, blabbering away about invading Pakistan and gee, suddenly they don't trust us any more when he becomes President and guess what? The situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border deteriorates.

    He'd better realize that when he ran his mouth as a community organizer or State Legislator he got his name in the paper, but when he runs his mouth as President of the United States, nations listen and people die.

  • rmiller

    Posted by Mike_M

    2009-10-07 11:58:00

    You must be living in a dream world.

    When Obama said, as a candidate, that Afganistan was the war we should be fighting, conservatives called him out as not being patriotic for not supporting the war in Iraq. Which he didn't.

    He even supported air strikes into Pakistan, in pursuit of the Taliban, because those were the people who attacked us.

    Conservatives protested that he advocated attacking an ally in the war on terror.

    Until the Bush administration did the same.

    Now you want to say that the Obama adminstration bungled away something that the Bush administration did. Allow me to remind you that Obama only continued what the Bush administration started.

    "Enter Obama, blabbering away about invading Pakistan and gee, suddenly they don't trust us any more when he becomes President and guess what? The situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border deteriorates."

    Gee…we never did invade Pakistan…and they don't trust us anymore than under Pres. Bush. And we still send drone missles there, just like before Mr. Obama was elected.

    The situation on the Pak-Afgan. border is deteriorating. I agree with that assessment. But you want to blame liberals. I don't want to blame conservatives, but I think we, as a country, have made mistakes.

    The war needs to be fought….the only real question is: do we have the political will?

    If politics stops at the border, when does it stop?

  • belacuse

    "Allow me to remind you that Obama only continued what the Bush administration started."

    Actually, I should point out here that it was Muslim terrorists flying airplanes into American buildings that started the war (at least in its current incarnation).

  • rmiller

    Posted by belacuse

    2009-10-07 14:11:11

    I don't argue with that….You are right.

    My concern, as a liberal, is that we may actually be going after the correct national enemy. And that conservatives are playing politics.

  • belacuse

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-10-07 14:15:11

    Its more than playing politics. I for one, am pretty concerned when the commander in Afghanistan says that the situation is still pretty bad and without more troops, we may lose. At that point, all eyes swivelled to Obama to see what his reaction would be. And so far, his reaction has been to freeze in the headlights. This is disturbing. If you agree that it is in our national interest to see a stable and democratic Afghanistan, then you should be concerned too.

    Obama's treatment of the war, his or not, has been abysmal.

  • rmiller

    Obama's treatment of the war, his or not, has been abysmal.

    Posted by belacuse

    2009-10-07 14:25:5

    It's a fair assessment.

    We, as a country, are being asked to support a war that is questionable.

    What I would ask you conservatives is: how would it be other wise. Do we retreat? Do we double down?

    What would you have our CIC do?

  • belacuse

    What would you have our CIC do?

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-10-07 14:34:09

    Listen to his generals.

    I don't have any experience in being a general, nor do I know all the information they do. But I do have faith in the men who are doing that job, and if they say they need more troops to succeed, then what is the problem? Why did Obama get so butthurt and reflexively cover his ears and say, "nuh uh"? That is bizarre to me, that our President is so instinctively against anything vaguely republican that he would risk our losing the war in Afghanistan – and all that means.

  • rmiller

    Why did Obama get so butthurt and reflexively cover his ears and say, "nuh uh"? That is bizarre to me, that our President is so instinctively against anything vaguely republican that he would risk our losing the war in Afghanistan – and all that means.

    Posted by belacuse

    2009-10-07 14:44:53

    I think you are mistaken in your interpretation.

    I don't think Obama is covering his ears. I do think he is willing to double down…and I agree with that assessment.

    We cannot leave Afghanistan without victory. Our CIC knows where the attacks of 9-11 came from….as do the American people.

  • BIG

    What I find incredible about our President is that his agenda has to be implemented immediately or else the our world will go to hell, but this decision needs months of thought and contemplation. McChrystal was just echoing what President Obama said in March and now all of a sudden he is stepping outside the chain of command??? When the President says that victory is not an option, it makes me wonder what his options really are?

  • BIG

    Our CIC knows where the attacks of 9-11 came from….as do the American people.

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-10-07 14:57:40

    The training bases for the 9/11 attacks did come from Afghanistan, but the funding for the operation came from Saudi Arabia. Is this what you meant when you said you knew where the attacks came from?

  • Mike_M

    "And that conservatives are playing politics."

    Sorry, only liberals play politics with war. Conservatives want to win. If Obama can clean up Afghanistan, he'll get the credit he deserves. Unfortunately he's botching it because he's putting his titanic ego ahead of strategy, diplomacy, and good sense.

    As proof, I do give Obama credit for Staying the Course (oh the irony) in Iraq and not cutting and running to appease the liberal base.

  • rmiller

    Is this what you meant when you said you knew where the attacks came from?

    Posted by BIG

    2009-10-07 15:00:10

    Well…I am not a big fan of the US-Saudi alliance. Because of the structure of Saudi society, I think we are headed to loggerheads. Saudi social systems are not conducive to Western social systems.

    Yes…the attacks came from the conservative Saudi system being funded world wide by their oil money. Which we fund by buying their oil.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    Some of the training for the 9/11 guys probably took place in Iraq, according to various intel reports and one of the guys who used to work at the training camp. It was on NPR back in 2001.

  • http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

    Which we fund by buying their oil.

    Posted by rmiller

    Now which side of the aisle opposes fully developing and using our domestice oil supply? Hint: It ain't the Right.

  • rmiller

    Posted by Dick_Nixon

    2009-10-07 16:34:17

    Of course….I don't oppose developing our own resources.

    Nor do I oppose conserving resources…..

    Is there a conflict between the two POVs?

  • RWNReader2

    When Obama said, as a candidate, that Afganistan was the war we should be fighting, conservatives called him out as not being patriotic for not supporting the war in Iraq.

    No, we pointed out that his faux-toughness on Afganistan was nothing more than cheap political cover, and that Iraq revealed his "true" position on the GWoT. His equivocation on Afganistan today, after talking tough in March, is proof that we were right all along.

    Further proof: His Orwellian decision to replace the word "terrorism" with "man caused disaster"…

    Further proof: His decision to award Mary Robinson with a medal….

  • RWNReader2

    What would you have our CIC do?

    I would have him not lie when he announced he had ALREADY IMPLEMENTED "a new strategy" in Afganistan after "meeting with generals and advisers" back in March. It was all a steaming pile of bullshit he thought he could get away with when his polling was sky high and he was getting one long continuous BJ from the MSM. He just made it up and did nothing. Now more and more servicemen are dying and he still doesn't know what to do.

  • http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

    What would you have our CIC do?

    How about sending more troops to Afghanistan? You know, LIKE HE PROMISED TO DO DURING THE CAMPAIGN?

    Seriously, is that really so unreasonable a request? It's not like we're pulling some arbitrary standard out of our asses, Obama SPECIFICALLY PROMISED to send several extra brigades to Afghanistan. And it wasn't just some throwaway soundbite, it was a major theme of his campaign.

  • aharris

    Of course….I don't oppose developing our own resources …

    When I need a reason to use our dependence on foreign energy as a political talking point to hold over the heads of conservatives, like I am doing here.

    Nor do I oppose conserving resources …

    When it's politically expedient to say so because the Democrats have been obstructing our ability as a nation to develop any and all resources rather then taking the underpants gnome approach by putting our resources off limits in favor of yet-to-discovered "green" energy.

    Is there a conflict between the two POVs?

    Posted by rmiller

    2009-10-07 17:17:04

    Since I'm not the one straddling two oppositional views in order to try to gain political leverage, you tell me.

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    So apparently RMiller is in favor of more drilling in the US, of removing the bans on drilling off shore, and in opening up ANWR to oil drilling. He supports building more nuclear power plants. He must, since he said he supports developing our resources.

    Too bad the guys in his party are rock solid, wall to wall opposed to that, and the president he so mindlessly defends and supports wants none of that. Easy to say you support something you can rely on your guys blocking at every turn.

  • http://quantum-kitty.blogspot.com/ simulacre

    Posted by Christopher_Taylor

    2009-10-07 19:31:49

    kinda like a 'Blue Dog Democrat' who can cast token, conservative-friendly votes while resting, assured, that the measure will never pass. For an example, see the concealed carry legislation recently voted down (allowing a concealed carry license to be valid across state lines).

  • whats_up

    Since I'm not the one straddling two oppositional views in order to try to gain political leverage, you tell me.

    Posted by aharris

    2009-10-07 19:22:27

    Aharris,

    What leads you to belive that they are oppositional views. It is possible to develop our natural resources while trying to conserve as much as possible. These arent opposite views, they are common sense views.

  • TheBaud

    What leads you to belive that they are oppositional views. It is possible to develop our natural resources while trying to conserve as much as possible. These arent opposite views, they are common sense views.

    Posted by whats_up 2009-10-08 11:52:21

    You think it is common sense to block any and all efforts to use our own resources for our own energy needs, while at the same time complaining about our dependance on foreign oil?

    Lay off the weed, whats_up, or you'll have no brain cells left!

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info