AP: Obama expects support for more Afghanistan troops

[mal]

Obama expects support for more Afghanistan troops
TBO.com - News From AP

By ANNE GEARAN
AP National Security Writer Nov 25, 6:42 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama expects Americans to support sending tens of thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan once they understand the perils of losing, and he is preparing to make his case to the nation next week.

Eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Obama said it is still in America's vital national interest to "dismantle and destroy" al-Qaida terrorists and extremist allies. "I intend to finish the job," he said.

---

^Does he have the Smell of LBJ on him?...

2012 could be 1968 for the DNC.



peace...

 

[mal]

Hell, 2010 could be, and Barry won't even be Running...

Where are the Anti-War Lefties who Obsessed about either of these Wars being Wrong and Unconstitutional?...

Am I going to Start Reading their Displeasure with his Continuing these "Failed" Wars?...

We Lost the War on Terror, didn't we?...

I can't Keep the Left's Talking Points Straight.



peace...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Good...but the Code Pink anti-war, wannabe hippie fucks will be out in force.

 

[Article 15]

Once again, Obama ran his campaign on refocusing on Afghanistan. He is doing what he said he was going to do. Outside the far left anti-any war loons and the far right isolationists I don't recall people calling A-Stan the wrong, illegal, etc.

It was always "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq"

 

[mal]

Once again, Obama ran his campaign on refocusing on Afghanistan. He is doing what he said he was going to do. Outside the far left anti-any war loons and the far right isolationists I don't recall people calling A-Stan the wrong, illegal, etc.

It was always "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq"

Does he have 100% Support from his DemocRATS in Congress?...

If my Memory Serves me, they aren't CODEPINK(O), are they?...

McGovern is leading a group of 73 members who are sponsoring legislation to require Defense Secretary Robert Gates to outline a military exit strategy from Afghanistan by the end of this year.

^MeThinks they were MORE Vocal during (43), and the "Free Press" More Willing to Entertain them than now...

As for Iraq... What's "Changed" since (43)?...

The Patriot Act?...

Warrantless Wiretaps?...

GITMO?...

Where is the Left on these Issues?...

I Remember them being LOUD as Fuck a Year Ago...

Lapdogs now.

Enter LBJ II.

Barry has NO Intention of "Winning"... I Assure you of that.

Newsweek: "Obama's Vietnam" Is Afghanistan

^Newsweak Hinted at the "Vietnam" aspect of what Barry might do a while back...

Policing Afghanistan is NOT Winning there...

It wasn't a Winning Strateegery in the Nam, and it won't be in Afghanistan.

I Support this President Winning in Afghanistan...

MeThinks he is going to Use this Increase as a "Last Try", and then Claim Victory and Leave after he Wins a 2nd Term...

All of this is Dependent on 2010 though.

The Voters may do to him what Je$$e said he wanted to Politically next Fall.

Someone in the "Free Press" Needs to Break Free from the Pack of Sycophants and Ask Barry this Question:

"What does 'Finish the Job' mean, Mr. President?... And Please, don't Look at your Teleprompter for the Answer."



peace...

 

[Article 15]

No, Mal, he doesn't have 100% support from the Dems in Congress that has been clear since day one.

I repeat myself but Iraq was the reason Bush's feet were held to the fire not A-Stan. That's what he was getting hammered on. Obama has a window to follow through on Iraq and it closes next summer. A-Stan has always been seen as the noble fight in the eyes of most Democrats so I don't understand how you expect them to rail on him for doing what he said he was going to do. You want to apply the same rules to different wars but they don't match up.

He effed himself in my view by backing the Patriot Act again and GITMO. But the left is for the most part keeping their problem with it to themselves much like the right didn't have a problem keeping eerily silent about Bush doubling the debt and massively expanding government in his 8 years but now they are loud as fuck about Obama's spending. The truth is that neither side wants to publicly come out that strongly against "their guy." Instead they show their disdain at the voting booth.

Maybe you're right on his plan to declare victory and leave A-Stan later on. Personally, I don't think we can "win" there, only contain. Maybe just like almost every other time we've dug ourselves into one place for that long we don't ever leave. I see that as a much more likely scenario.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Obama has apparently made the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to accept McChrystal's reccommendation to marginalize the Taliban by taking up aggressive positions in Taliban strongholds.

I think this is a big mistake for several reasons.

1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government and I believe that trying to establish one now is a mistake because it is doomed to failure and it exceeds our original mission to eradicate Al Qaeda.

2) The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. They may be largely indifferent to Al Qaeda BUT they offered to turn over Bin Laden in the first days of bombing in Afghanistan and they have also kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (intelligence indicates that fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan.) The Taliban is a highly nationalistic group who has shown no interest in exporting their influence.

3) Remember the Russians. A wise man learns from his mistakes. A REALLY wise man can learn from OTHER PEOPLE'S mistakes.

4) 85% of the objectives for going into Afghanistan in the first place have been met. (Obviously folks are free to give a greater percentage weight to objectives - this represents my own personal opinion.) I reserve the last 15% for capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden. I'd love to see that objective met. Unfortunately, at this point, the window of opportunity to confirm his death, may have slammed shut. At any case, imho it is not worth the additional casualties and expense to chase this objective since it is so unlikely to be met anyway.

 

[JWBooth]

Obama has apparently made the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to accept McChrystal's reccommendation to marginalize the Taliban by taking up aggressive positions in Taliban strongholds.

I think this is a big mistake for several reasons.

1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government and I believe that trying to establish one now is a mistake because it is doomed to failure and it exceeds our original mission to eradicate Al Qaeda.

2) The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. They may be largely indifferent to Al Qaeda BUT they offered to turn over Bin Laden in the first days of bombing in Afghanistan and they have also kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (intelligence indicates that fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan.) The Taliban is a highly nationalistic group who has shown no interest in exporting their influence.

3) Remember the Russians. A wise man learns from his mistakes. A REALLY wise man can learn from OTHER PEOPLE'S mistakes.

4) 85% of the objectives for going into Afghanistan in the first place have been met. (Obviously folks are free to give a greater percentage weight to objectives - this represents my own personal opinion.) I reserve the last 15% for capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden. I'd love to see that objective met. Unfortunately, at this point, the window of opportunity to confirm his death, may have slammed shut. At any case, imho it is not worth the additional casualties and expense to chase this objective since it is so unlikely to be met anyway.

From my vantage point here on the right I see nothing to argue with in your points my left leaning compadre.

The notion that the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is going to be successful is laughable simply from the long view of history. Fortifying the cities while abandoning the countryside isn't a strategy it is an admission of failure. Since he admits failure, bring the boys home before we get any more of them killed.

Your 85% remark is interesting. Last summer I argued that McLouse was a looser for the GOP, that he did not offer the voters a clear alternative to Obummer. Often the refutations were that McLooser was 80% good enough on conservative issues. If 80% was good enough for the right on a potus candidate, why wouldn't 85% be good enough on this war. Apples and oranges, I know, still.....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Obama has apparently made the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to accept McChrystal's reccommendation to marginalize the Taliban by taking up aggressive positions in Taliban strongholds.

I think this is a big mistake for several reasons.

1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government and I believe that trying to establish one now is a mistake because it is doomed to failure and it exceeds our original mission to eradicate Al Qaeda.

2) The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. They may be largely indifferent to Al Qaeda BUT they offered to turn over Bin Laden in the first days of bombing in Afghanistan and they have also kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (intelligence indicates that fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan.) The Taliban is a highly nationalistic group who has shown no interest in exporting their influence.

3) Remember the Russians. A wise man learns from his mistakes. A REALLY wise man can learn from OTHER PEOPLE'S mistakes.

4) 85% of the objectives for going into Afghanistan in the first place have been met. (Obviously folks are free to give a greater percentage weight to objectives - this represents my own personal opinion.) I reserve the last 15% for capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden. I'd love to see that objective met. Unfortunately, at this point, the window of opportunity to confirm his death, may have slammed shut. At any case, imho it is not worth the additional casualties and expense to chase this objective since it is so unlikely to be met anyway.

From my vantage point here on the right I see nothing to argue with in your points my left leaning compadre.

The notion that the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is going to be successful is laughable simply from the long view of history. Fortifying the cities while abandoning the countryside isn't a strategy it is an admission of failure. Since he admits failure, bring the boys home before we get any more of them killed.

I agree with everything except perhaps the "failure" designation. IF the objective has always remained delivering a crippling blow to Al Qaeda - then IMHO we have succeeded.

But IF the objective creeps and becomes establishing a strong, U.S.-friendly, centralized government, then I would agree with using the term failure. This was NEVER going to happen no matter how many lives we sacrifice - imho.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I see we had one "other" vote. Could that voter explain their position? I'm honestly not trying to bait you into something that I'm just going to rip into. (I know that's common on these boards) but I really am just interested in hearing all perspectives.
Thanks.

 

[Xenophon]

I knew he'd punk out and keep this pointless war going.

Barry lacks the stones to do what needs to be done and end it.

 

[mal]

No, Mal, he doesn't have 100% support from the Dems in Congress that has been clear since day one.

I repeat myself but Iraq was the reason Bush's feet were held to the fire not A-Stan. That's what he was getting hammered on. Obama has a window to follow through on Iraq and it closes next summer. A-Stan has always been seen as the noble fight in the eyes of most Democrats so I don't understand how you expect them to rail on him for doing what he said he was going to do. You want to apply the same rules to different wars but they don't match up.

He effed himself in my view by backing the Patriot Act again and GITMO. But the left is for the most part keeping their problem with it to themselves much like the right didn't have a problem keeping eerily silent about Bush doubling the debt and massively expanding government in his 8 years but now they are loud as fuck about Obama's spending. The truth is that neither side wants to publicly come out that strongly against "their guy." Instead they show their disdain at the voting booth.

Maybe you're right on his plan to declare victory and leave A-Stan later on. Personally, I don't think we can "win" there, only contain. Maybe just like almost every other time we've dug ourselves into one place for that long we don't ever leave. I see that as a much more likely scenario.

I Understand you Take...

My Prediction is that he will Lose Favor with his Base in the Next Couple of Years if he doesn't "Finish the Job" (Whatever the Hell that means), or if he doesn't have us out of there...

It if gets Bloody and Seems Pointless, you will see the Left Pull a 68 on him in a Heartbeat.

As for the "Bush is a War Criminal" but Obama is OK because he's our Guy...

I don't see ANY Legitimate Person on the Right Calling Obama a War Criminal right now.

Patriot Act... Warrantless Wiretapping... GITMO... The Wars...

ALL of that is OK now because it's THEIR Guy...

If the Right was like the Left, we'd be going Against Barry on these things because he's NOT our Guy... But we don't.

That's the Distinction.

The Right will Support Obama as he Fights these Wars... We haven't Changed our Tune.

If Sarah is President in 2012 and we are still Fighting this War on Terror, those Old Voices, even in the Senate, like J. Forbes Kerry and the others, will Suddenly be saying "Vietnam" again...

The Dishonesty is Tiring, and Dangerous.

Real Lives and Real People, the Left is Changing Tunes about.

Either "Winning" is Defined and is the Goal, or we Need to get out and Turn our Backs on the Afghanis like we do the Rest of the Oppressed in the ME under Islamic Law.

And the Elected Left Needs to be Held Accountable for their Words and Actions when it wasn't "their" President...

They are ON RECORD in the Senate and House.

If the "Free Press" was "Free", we'd Know these things...

Like DemocRAT Senate Leader Daschle back in Early 2002... 2002, Doubting we could Win the War...

A LOT of these DemocRATS are Shameless Fucking Slugs and Need to be Called out for it.



peace...

 

[JWBooth]

Obama has apparently made the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to accept McChrystal's reccommendation to marginalize the Taliban by taking up aggressive positions in Taliban strongholds.

I think this is a big mistake for several reasons.

1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government and I believe that trying to establish one now is a mistake because it is doomed to failure and it exceeds our original mission to eradicate Al Qaeda.

2) The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. They may be largely indifferent to Al Qaeda BUT they offered to turn over Bin Laden in the first days of bombing in Afghanistan and they have also kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (intelligence indicates that fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan.) The Taliban is a highly nationalistic group who has shown no interest in exporting their influence.

3) Remember the Russians. A wise man learns from his mistakes. A REALLY wise man can learn from OTHER PEOPLE'S mistakes.

4) 85% of the objectives for going into Afghanistan in the first place have been met. (Obviously folks are free to give a greater percentage weight to objectives - this represents my own personal opinion.) I reserve the last 15% for capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden. I'd love to see that objective met. Unfortunately, at this point, the window of opportunity to confirm his death, may have slammed shut. At any case, imho it is not worth the additional casualties and expense to chase this objective since it is so unlikely to be met anyway.

From my vantage point here on the right I see nothing to argue with in your points my left leaning compadre.

The notion that the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is going to be successful is laughable simply from the long view of history. Fortifying the cities while abandoning the countryside isn't a strategy it is an admission of failure. Since he admits failure, bring the boys home before we get any more of them killed.

I agree with everything except perhaps the "failure" designation. IF the objective has always remained delivering a crippling blow to Al Qaeda - then IMHO we have succeeded.

But IF the objective creeps and becomes establishing a strong, U.S.-friendly, centralized government, then I would agree with using the term failure. This was NEVER going to happen no matter how many lives we sacrifice - imho.

Failure was the wrong term, more like ordering abandon ship without breaking out the life boats.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In that analogy - what are the life boats?

 

[JWBooth]

In that analogy - what are the life boats?

Bug out.

Instead he wants to get everyone on the observation deck and play musical chairs.

 

[Article 15]

You misunderstand what I meant about The Patriot Act and GITMO ... I didn't say that both sides flipped positions on both of those issues. I said the left is treating The Patriot Act and GITMO like the right treated Bush's out of control spending and expansion of the gov't. There's a difference.

Please, don't tell me that the right hasn't changed their tune about the war since "their guy" left office. Back when Bush was POTUS people were viciously attacked and labeled all sorts of ugly things for merely criticizing Bush's war policy. Nowadays the POTUS is wide open to attacks on war policy and it's the same people who were calling people traitors who are the loudest mouths in the room when it comes to Obama's war policy.

Sarah Palin is never going to POTUS.

Look man, I didn't hear a whole mess of clamoring from the the GOP senators and congressmen attacking Bush. You can pull out an example or two to puff your argument but that's about it. The fact is the while Bush had control of both Houses he didn't use his veto pen one single time so let's not pretend that the GOP and the right are honest players here and the Dems are evil. The fact is that the VAST majority of the GOP didn't open their mouths. It took years before some senators started to break from Bush on Iraq.

It seems to me like you want to the left to treat Obama's A-Stan's war policy like they did Bush's Iraq policy. That's just not gonna happen. They supported A-Stan and not Iraq during the Bush presidency. If Obama doesn't get out of Iraq next summer and the Dems in Congress dont get loud about it then you will have a point I can get behind. Until then you're trying to compare apples to oranges in my view.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In that analogy - what are the life boats?

Bug out.

Instead he wants to get everyone on the observation deck and play musical chairs.

Oh - sorry - yeah I see what you mean.

 

[geauxtohell]

Obama has apparently made the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to accept McChrystal's reccommendation to marginalize the Taliban by taking up aggressive positions in Taliban strongholds.

I think this is a big mistake for several reasons.

1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government and I believe that trying to establish one now is a mistake because it is doomed to failure and it exceeds our original mission to eradicate Al Qaeda.

2) The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. They may be largely indifferent to Al Qaeda BUT they offered to turn over Bin Laden in the first days of bombing in Afghanistan and they have also kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (intelligence indicates that fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan.) The Taliban is a highly nationalistic group who has shown no interest in exporting their influence.

3) Remember the Russians. A wise man learns from his mistakes. A REALLY wise man can learn from OTHER PEOPLE'S mistakes.

4) 85% of the objectives for going into Afghanistan in the first place have been met. (Obviously folks are free to give a greater percentage weight to objectives - this represents my own personal opinion.) I reserve the last 15% for capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden. I'd love to see that objective met. Unfortunately, at this point, the window of opportunity to confirm his death, may have slammed shut. At any case, imho it is not worth the additional casualties and expense to chase this objective since it is so unlikely to be met anyway.

Good post. I especially agree with #1.

 

[American Horse]

Obama has apparently made the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to accept McChrystal's reccommendation to marginalize the Taliban by taking up aggressive positions in Taliban strongholds.

I think this is a big mistake for several reasons.

1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government and I believe that trying to establish one now is a mistake because it is doomed to failure and it exceeds our original mission to eradicate Al Qaeda.

2) The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. They may be largely indifferent to Al Qaeda BUT they offered to turn over Bin Laden in the first days of bombing in Afghanistan and they have also kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (intelligence indicates that fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan.) The Taliban is a highly nationalistic group who has shown no interest in exporting their influence.

3) Remember the Russians. A wise man learns from his mistakes. A REALLY wise man can learn from OTHER PEOPLE'S mistakes.

4) 85% of the objectives for going into Afghanistan in the first place have been met. (Obviously folks are free to give a greater percentage weight to objectives - this represents my own personal opinion.) I reserve the last 15% for capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden. I'd love to see that objective met. Unfortunately, at this point, the window of opportunity to confirm his death, may have slammed shut. At any case, imho it is not worth the additional casualties and expense to chase this objective since it is so unlikely to be met anyway.

From my vantage point here on the right I see nothing to argue with in your points my left leaning compadre.

The notion that the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is going to be successful is laughable simply from the long view of history. Fortifying the cities while abandoning the countryside isn't a strategy it is an admission of failure. Since he admits failure, bring the boys home before we get any more of them killed.

Your 85% remark is interesting. Last summer I argued that McLouse was a looser for the GOP, that he did not offer the voters a clear alternative to Obummer. Often the refutations were that McLooser was 80% good enough on conservative issues. If 80% was good enough for the right on a potus candidate, why wouldn't 85% be good enough on this war. Apples and oranges, I know, still.....

We’re not doing what has been done before, so old lessons don’t really match our situation; apples and oranges as you say. We have a lot invested in prestige as a dependable ally, including our effort in Iraq which is going well despite the nay-sayers. The Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are the same people who fled Iraq because their failure was foregone.

If we stand up, the Taliban will not allow AQ to interfere again. If we stand down they’ll divide the country up once again. I voted to stay with McCrystal’s request. I would add to it with NATO troops instead of our own, and I’d hope that at least Obama would ask NATO nations to fortify-complement-reinforce our people, reminding them it’s vital to their own defense to do so.

He’s in a unique position to persuade them because they must be having doubts about him, giving them some cause for alarm. If they don’t step in now the status-quo-ante will come back to bite them. He should come on strong with them and here at home or we’ll lose it over there. This is a real opportunity for him if he wants to take it; we will have a double set of masterful accomlishments in the ME which will change the world we live in for the better, forcing change in the whole region.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Obama has apparently made the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and to accept McChrystal's reccommendation to marginalize the Taliban by taking up aggressive positions in Taliban strongholds.

I think this is a big mistake for several reasons.

1) Afghanistan is not Iraq. They have never had a tradition of a strong centralized government and I believe that trying to establish one now is a mistake because it is doomed to failure and it exceeds our original mission to eradicate Al Qaeda.

2) The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. They may be largely indifferent to Al Qaeda BUT they offered to turn over Bin Laden in the first days of bombing in Afghanistan and they have also kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (intelligence indicates that fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan.) The Taliban is a highly nationalistic group who has shown no interest in exporting their influence.

3) Remember the Russians. A wise man learns from his mistakes. A REALLY wise man can learn from OTHER PEOPLE'S mistakes.

4) 85% of the objectives for going into Afghanistan in the first place have been met. (Obviously folks are free to give a greater percentage weight to objectives - this represents my own personal opinion.) I reserve the last 15% for capturing or confirming the death of Bin Laden. I'd love to see that objective met. Unfortunately, at this point, the window of opportunity to confirm his death, may have slammed shut. At any case, imho it is not worth the additional casualties and expense to chase this objective since it is so unlikely to be met anyway.

From my vantage point here on the right I see nothing to argue with in your points my left leaning compadre.

The notion that the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is going to be successful is laughable simply from the long view of history. Fortifying the cities while abandoning the countryside isn't a strategy it is an admission of failure. Since he admits failure, bring the boys home before we get any more of them killed.

Your 85% remark is interesting. Last summer I argued that McLouse was a looser for the GOP, that he did not offer the voters a clear alternative to Obummer. Often the refutations were that McLooser was 80% good enough on conservative issues. If 80% was good enough for the right on a potus candidate, why wouldn't 85% be good enough on this war. Apples and oranges, I know, still.....

We’re not doing what has been done before, so old lessons don’t really match our situation; apples and oranges as you say. We have a lot invested in prestige as a dependable ally, including our effort in Iraq which is going well despite the nay-sayers. The Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are the same people who fled Iraq because their failure was foregone.

If we stand up, the Taliban will not allow AQ to interfere again. If we stand down they’ll divide the country up once again. I voted to stay with McCrystal’s request. I would add to it with NATO troops instead of our own, and I’d hope that at least Obama would ask NATO nations to fortify-complement-reinforce our people, reminding them it’s vital to their own defense to do so.

He’s in a unique position to persuade them be cause they must be having doubts about him, giving them some cause for alarm. If they don’t step in now the status-quo-ante will come back to bite them. He should come on strong with them and at home or we’ll lose it over there. This is a real opportunity for him if he wants to take it; we will have a double set of masterful accomlishments in the ME which will change the world we live in for the better, forcing change in the whole region.

American Horse - I respect and appreciate your postion and your input. But I have to disagree with a couple of the points you made.

You say that the AQ in Afghanistan are the same people who fled from Iraq. But intelligence just doesn't support that. Saddam (who ran a secular tyranny) was enemies with Al Qaeda (who supported a Islamic tyranny) and not only is there no evidence to support any collusion - there is ample evidence to support that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq until AFTER we invaded. And then it was only recruiters who found a receptive audience BECAUSE we invaded.

Add to that the widely-held belief that there are now fewer than 100 AQ in Afghanistan and I think your point disintergrates.

Also, the fact that the Taliban offered up Bin Laden and the fact that they have booted AQ out of Afghanistan and your objective of preventing future cooperation between the two groups is - imho - already achieved.

I shy away from using terms like "winning" or "losing" because they are so often ill-defined imho. I think they encourage a highly romanticized but incredibly vague perspective on the issue of war. I prefer to talk about naming an objective and weighing whether or not objectives have been met or not.

I do agree with your point about the need for international cooperation if we are to continue this fight and I am encouraged that the current adminstration has achieved a lot more in that regard than the previous one. But I still disagree with the decision to allow this "mission creep."

I don't mean to be offense and I really hope I haven't been. But that's my opinion.