“Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan.”

Obama isn’t directly involved in Afghanistan either until he makes a damn decision.

pretty stupid of you to say obama isn’t directly involved in the process when he’s the decider.

He’s the decider? For two years on the campaign trail, he told us what we needed to do in Afghanistan. In March, he anounced his new strategy. Now here it is 10 months and almost 3 years after he said he had all the answers and he can’t make a decision? If this is how he is going to handle it, he should just announce our unconditional surrender and bring everybody home. What he is doing now will simply lead to more dead Americans and we are no longer going to buy into the propaganda that it is all Bush’s fault.

Obama is NOT a “decider“. He has a track record of waiting to see which way the Political Winds blow thus allowing some one else to make the decision. He also has a track record of deciding not to decide (like voting present instead of yea or nae).

“pretty stupid of you to say obama isn’t directly involved in the process when he’s the decider”

Only he’s not…because he hasn’t.

Obama is The Undecider. The Voter of “Present”. He Who Hesitates. The One (who can’t decide). The Messiah of Maybe. The Prince of Probably. The Procrastinator-in-Chief. The Sultan of the Status Quo. The Caliph of Can’t-Make-Up-His-Mind. The Naib of Next Week.

Bush stood up like a man and said “I’m the decider”. Obama Blames Bush and waits three weeks to do it.

“Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan.”

Like Gen. McChrystal?

pretty stupid of you to say obama isn’t directly involved in the process when he’s the decider.
Posted by Jack Schite
2009-11-16 09:08:05

Explain why he hasn’t done anything, you stupid POS.

I think it is an over simplification to say ‘send in more troops’. Rubber stamping Pentagon’s wishes is not gonna happen no matter how much you think POTUS should do so.
In light of Hoh’s resignation letter one wonders why the hell we are involved there in the first GD place.
http://original.antiwar.com/news/2009/10/27/resignation-letter-from-us-foreign-service-officer-matthew-p-hoh/

Not to mention Eikenberry who has essentially broken with Petraeus and McChystal (all three went to WP together) if you want someone alittle higher up on the chain of command who has grave doubts.

Securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal should be tantamount right now and a priority and we are doing that with some kind of special units which of course have to tread lightly because Pakistan wants to know why we don’t do the same with India.

Conservatives = always bad & always wrong

Liberal = always good & always right

Yes, that’s the best I can do – I am after all only little Jackie Schitty. That’s all they taught me at Media Matters.

Posted by Jack_Schitty
2009-11-16 10:57:06

Hi. Thanks.

“Securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal should be tantamount right now”

No, beating back the Taliban and securing the Afghan and Pakistani governments is tantamount right now.

It’s impractical to expect to secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, not to mention the scientists and equipment that go with it. If that country becomes East Iran, it’s mushroom cloud time. Not to mention the radicals would have access to a modern conventional military and a recruitment pool of an additional 250 million people.

Why are we there? If Afghanistan goes back to the Taliban and becomes a stronghold for radical Islam it is a grave threat to the stability of Pakistan and becomes a terrorism exporter again. If Pakistan falls, the next war won’t be in Central Aisa…it will be US troops in radiation suits scraping the charred remains of American citizens into lead-lined coffins.

I think it is an over simplification to say ‘send in more troops’.

Really? Because that’s exactly what Obama was saying all throughout the ’08 campaign. Funny how he and the entire left were so ineffably certain that we needed more troops in Afghanistan…until Obama actually had to do something about it. Suddenly Obama can’t decide what to do, even though he was so certain before he got elected.

Suddenly Obama can’t decide what to do, even though he was so certain before he got elected.
Posted by mightysamurai
2009-11-16 12:08:58

It’s known as a “learning curve”.

It’s known as a “learning curve”.

So you admit Obama had no idea what he was talking about during the campaign and he’s just learning stuff as he goes now? Wow. Thank you for agreeing with everything we ever said about Barack Hussein Obama.

It’s known as a “learning curve”.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-16 13:19:24

I said he knew the answer two years ago, there was nothing to learn, never-show. And Bush had descisons on the table about Al-Queda and Afghanistan within 30 days of 9/11. So Obambi must be a REALLY SLOW F’N learner!!!!!!!

The “learning curve” in a new job is fine if you are a Walmart Greeter. But it is not acceptable if you are President of the United States. And since it is taking Obama a lot of time to get up to speed, it shows us that he went to school on the “short bus”. Maybe he actually was a participant in the special olympics and it wasn’t a joke he told on Leno?

And Bush had descisons on the table about Al-Queda and Afghanistan within 30 days of 9/11.
Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-16 13:48:19

Too bad none of them worked.

Too bad none of them worked.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-16 14:20:08

From 9/12/2001 through 1/25/2009 there were zero militant Islamic attacks in America. From 1/26/2009 to today there have been 2 militant Islamic attacks in America.

Yet you feel Bush failed and Obama has the answers? Why do you want dead Americans?

Why do you want dead Americans?
Posted by BIG
2009-11-16 14:27:30

It helps keep real estate prices down.

It helps keep real estate prices down.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-16 14:31:03

Are you posting from Dearborn? Real estate is in the toilet there.

Didn’t Joe Biden say something about the job of the Presidency not lending itself to a learning curve?

But it is not acceptable if you are President of the United States. And since it is taking Obama a lot of time to get up to speed, it shows us that he went to school on the “short bus”. Maybe he actually was a participant in the special olympics and it wasn’t a joke he told on Leno?
Posted by BIG
2009-11-16 14:12:18

That would be a valid criticism…if we had had an attack on American soil that was the equivalent of 9-11.

Since we haven’t…it’s not a valid criticism.

Didn’t Joe Biden say something about the job of the Presidency not lending itself to a learning curve?

Posted by William Teach
2009-11-16 14:49:55

Care to identify what jobs that learning curve might entail?

I know the answer…it was Biden who said it. But you are using it a criteria…

What are they?

Since we haven’t…it’s not a valid criticism.
Posted by rmiller
2009-11-16 15:00:48

So we can only criticize President Obama if 3000 Americans are murdered? We have to shut up until then?

Look, he ran for the office saying we need to doo more about Afghanistan. But he has been spending his Presidency campaigning and playing golf while continuing to vote present on Afghanistan. I too wonder what sort of information is he looking for in regards to Afghanistan. Is he waiting to find out if they wear white after September? Is he awaiting instructions from Andrew Stern on how he should proceed? Or Rev. Wright? I am sure he has been presented a wide range of plans in the 10 months he has been President. He now says he rejects them all and wants them to come up with new ones. Maybe if the new plans just include the words “hope” and “change”, that will get him to make up his mind?

Barack Obama has had a few years to come up with a plan for Afghanistan. His lack of direction is killing Americans. Not making a decision is making a decision and I believe it is the wrong one. If he wants to surrender, then he should surrender. But his dicking around isn’t doing us any favors and no matter how you look at it, it makes him appear weak.

But his dicking around isn’t doing us any favors and no matter how you look at it, it makes him appear weak.
Posted by BIG
2009-11-16 15:09:07

What is with the conservatives fasination with style over substance. Who cares how he looks as long as he gets it right. That is the problem with the right, they would rather look good than get something accomplished.

“What are they?”

How about any executive experience? Bush had it. Clinton had it. H.W. Bush had it. Reagan had it. Carter *gulp* had it. Every other 20th century President had either been in the Vice Presidency, Cabinet, or military prior to taking office.

Obama is literally the least qualified President in the history of the country, and it shows. The man has never had to make a decision his entire life, and now he’s supposed to decide how to fight a war? Of course he can’t do it. What would possibly make you think he could?

That is the problem with the right, they would rather look good than get something accomplished.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-16 15:27:50

You are f’n retarded, HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING AND HE SAID 2 YEARS AGO HE KNEW WHAT TO DO. Where’s the fucking substance, Obambi’s is dithering because he want’s make to descision that LOKS THE BEST in the polss, not because he gives a rat’s ass about doing the job ‘right’. You have to be seriously naive or have to have your so far up Obambi’s ass you’re licking his tonsils, to beilive otherwise. So which is it WU?

It’s funny how all Obama talks about these days is the importance of getting Afghanistan “right.” And yet… he was so cocksure of himself in the run up to the election: Afghanistan was the War of Necessity, Not Choice. It was the Central Front on Terror. Why, he would even invade Pakistan if it would get Osama!

So now we find out this fool never meant what he said about Afghanistan being important, never had a clue what to do about it. The raid on Pakistan, apparently, has been put off indefinitely. (Shocker, that).

It’s been a year since Obama was elected President. He’s been in office for going on 11 months. And still not even a clue as to what to do about Afghanistan. In the end, he’ll likely announce some half-assed “compromise” that gets lots and lots of US troops killed and maimed, but never leads to victory. Because Victory is not a Good Word, you see.

I keep thinking that the Battle of Midway was the turning point in the War in the Pacific, and that it took place almost exactly 6 months after Pearl Harbor. Within half a year, FDR had chosen his generals, decided upon a fundamental strategy, and marshaled the resources of the United States to turn the war around.

Six months into his presidency, Obama decided nationalizing 1/6th of the United States economy in order to provide us with Soviet-style healthcare was far more worthy of his attention than winning the War of Necessity.

President noob is noob again.

Who cares how he looks as long as he gets it right.

Gets what right? In case you haven’t noticed, he hasn’t done anything. American soldiers are dying while he fiddles around trying to decide whether to possibly consider spending some time thinking about doing something.

He’s holding Afghanistan hostage for the health care plan. Bet on it. He won’t act until that passes, and if it doesn’t (which seems likely) who knows what will happen.

Delaying on action here is idiotic, and its sadly pathetic how the very people who criticized President Bush for delaying on a change in tactics in Iraq are defending President Obama for doing the same thing with far less excuse.

President Noob stands around while soldiers die. Obama fails, again.

President Noob stands around while soldiers die. Obama fails, again.

Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2009-11-16 19:12:34

Is there any other reason why the US should govern Afghanistan,…other than domestic political concerns?

Gets what right? In case you haven’t noticed, he hasn’t done anything. American soldiers are dying while he fiddles around trying to decide whether to possibly consider spending some time thinking about doing something.
Posted by mightysamurai
2009-11-16 18:30:49

Get’s what right, indeed. If you’re concerned about American soldiers dying, then you would support a withdrawl, no?

If you’re concerned about American soldiers dying, then you would support a withdrawl, no?

1)If the administration is not committed to victory
2)If the administration is going to insist on underfunding
3)If the administration is going to insist on following the current ROE forbidding returning fire if civilians are present
4)If the administration refuses to reinforce and alter strategies to proven, successful counter-insurgency doctrine

yes I support immediate withdrawal…

Is there any other reason why the US should govern Afghanistan,…other than domestic political concerns?

Where were you eight years ago last September?

And if you think we should pull out of Afghanistan he’s still waffling and doing nothing instead of taking action while soldiers die.

If you’re concerned about American soldiers dying, then you would support a withdrawl, no?

I’d prefer that Obama stuck to the promises he made during the campaign. You know, the ones about Afghanistan being the “war of necessity”? The war where he had “taken our eyes off the ball”? The war he vowed to reinforce with several extra combat brigades? You remember that, right?

Well Obama doesn’t.

He seems to have COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN about his promise to send more troops to Afghanistan. Even though it was a central part of his campaign message and his main strategy to buff up his foreign policy credentials. Funny how that all seemed to slip his mind the moment he got into office. Almost like he didn’t really care about the War in Afghanistan and was just using it as a cheap political ploy to trick idiots like you into voting for him. His new strategy seems to be sitting around with his thumb up his butt while good soldiers die.

Great Site……

Hey Admin , Extremely nice blog , if you need backlinks to your website I provide upto 10,000 high quality SEO backlinks for only $5. Check it out here :http://bit.ly/msweL2...