Breaking: MSNBC : Prez Obama REJECTS ALL MILITARY OPTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

[California Girl]

Del isn't left wing.

I hate to agree with Ravi on almost anything, but in this case, she is (imho) at least partly correct.

Del is not so easily pigeon-holed as either "left wing" or "right wing." At least not pigeon-holed with any particular accuracy.

Emphasis mine.

I know. It's really annoying with Ravi does that!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As someone once said: It was like attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor

This little gem certainly explains why you loves the "Hopey Changey" thing..

Hope and Change, simple mantra for a simple mind.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Psssst. And nobody every said that IRaq ws responsible for 9/11.. so don't bother.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It's that he wont do anything at all. (Wrong! Making the major players think this through and come up with small things like and exit plan, when do we hand over to the Afghans, is forcing them to better plan what to do. The knee jerk shit from Bush and Cheney are what got US into this mess.We had the worst month on record in Afghanistan for troop deaths due in no small part from a military standpoint that we don't have enough troops on the ground there to stay safe. (I agree we siphoned the forces off to Iraq and now we are paying the price. Just sending in 40,000 more without a real plan is not great strategic planning.)Thus the options are either put a lot more in or get them all out and rethink how we combat terrorists. (This, I believe is what they are doing. This shit about a war on terrorism is plain shit. A war against terrorists is something that can be planned and executed.I vote for the later.

When the Dithering Duo blame Obama about dithering, you know the right is full of it and trying to cover their mistakes that got us where we are.

 

[del]

Please.....this isn't "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" .....

When one goes to war one does have a set of goals, it's called winning....but one must adapt, change and plan new strategies along the way as the big picture changes. Right now the "how" from Obama's grandiose strategy speech in March of 2009 was a dismal failure. Right now our troops have no clear cut strategy, no leadership from the White House and no support outside their military chain of command. An exit strategy, at this point, appears to be a general retreat into the cities and then to leave once the American public is bamboozled into thinking the Taliban has been eradicated. This will result in us having to go back there again.

What exactly was the failure of the last Administration in Afghanistan? Explain in detail.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

any more blindingly stupid questions you'd like to pose?

Nice try...

President Bush Says Usama Bin Laden May Not Be Captured During His Time in Office - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Capturing Usama bin Laden has been one of President Bush's top priorities during his time in office, but the president now seems to doubt the Al Qaeda mastermind will be found before his term ends next January.

Speaking about his goals for his last year in the White House, Bush tells FOX News in an exclusive interview to air this weekend that if U.S. military and intelligence knew where bin Laden was, they would have apprehended him already.

"If we could find the cave he is in, I promise you — he would be brought to justice or wherever he's hiding," he tells FOX News in "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish," a documentary scheduled to air Sunday, Jan. 27, at 8 p.m. ET.

The president adds: "I will have left behind a mechanism — and a structure for the next president to better protect America."

During interviews conducted on Air Force One, in the Oval Office and at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, the nation's commander-in-chief opens up about his first seven years in office and the final one to come, which he hopes to finish strong.

Bush insists that finding bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in the Pakistan-Afghan border region, remains a priority.

"For the country, it's a matter of closure in many ways for those who suffered under the attacks," Bush said. "He's hiding. He's isolated. He's not out there leading any parades."

Bush says he is briefed at least once a week on bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.

His former Homeland Security Adviser, Fran Townsend, who left the White House in November, told FOX News:

"The president has made perfectly clear that he wants bin Laden brought to justice before he leaves office. That's the objective: To ... bring bin Laden to justice before the end of the administration. And we have organized ourselves to try and achieve that objective."
Bush says in the interview he's confident bin Laden ultimately will be found.

"He'll be gotten by a president," Bush says.

And to critics who say he hasn't done enough to find bin Laden, Bush is blunt:

"They don't know what they're talking about," he says.

nothing you've posted negates what he said in '02.

nice try.

 

[namvet]

Surely you post is sarcasm or a joke???

I think Pres. Bush was spot on. He did somethign never done before. He took the fight to the terrorists, rather than the terrorists continuously attacking the US and then go and hide in their safe haven countries.

Bush attacking Iraq after 9/11 was idiotic

As someone once said: It was like attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor

[youtube]FCVZlLBchVE[/youtube]

 

[Navy1960]

War on the Cheap

British troops are dying in Afghanistan because of a lack of money. Whatever ministers might say about their commitment to make sure the army has the best possible equipment, that's the reality.

What's more, the penny-pinching has nothing much to do with the fact that Britain is skint. The cost of the recession will push the budget deficit to some 12% of GDP this year, but the squeeze on the defence budget began years ago.

It is possible to provide the forces in Afghanistan with the helicopters and heavily armoured vehicles they need but something will have to give.

The fiscal facts of life are these. Just over four decades ago, Harold Wilson announced the end of Britain's East of Suez policy. At that time, Britain had a sizeable military presence in the Middle East plus bases in Singapore and Hong Kong. All but Hong Kong were abandoned because money was tight as a result of the economic problems that culminated in the devaluation of 1967.
War on the cheap is costing soldiers' lives | Business | The Guardian


You cannot fight a war both in Iraq and Afghanistan on the cheap, or with the attitude that the DoD has been fighting it since Don Rumsfeld of less is more. You simply cannot cut the military, or refuse to listen to commanders in the field and then expect them the complete the mission at hand. It costs lives. The Navy War college studied this issue in 1996 and basically concluded this is the best way to protract a conflict, lose a war, and cost lives.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA307767&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

If the DoD and the current Administration wish to continue this policy of not supporting deployed forces in the field then perhaps it is best they withdraw from the field.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

any more blindingly stupid questions you'd like to pose?

Nice try...

President Bush Says Usama Bin Laden May Not Be Captured During His Time in Office - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Capturing Usama bin Laden has been one of President Bush's top priorities during his time in office, but the president now seems to doubt the Al Qaeda mastermind will be found before his term ends next January.

Speaking about his goals for his last year in the White House, Bush tells FOX News in an exclusive interview to air this weekend that if U.S. military and intelligence knew where bin Laden was, they would have apprehended him already.

"If we could find the cave he is in, I promise you — he would be brought to justice or wherever he's hiding," he tells FOX News in "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish," a documentary scheduled to air Sunday, Jan. 27, at 8 p.m. ET.

The president adds: "I will have left behind a mechanism — and a structure for the next president to better protect America."

During interviews conducted on Air Force One, in the Oval Office and at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, the nation's commander-in-chief opens up about his first seven years in office and the final one to come, which he hopes to finish strong.

Bush insists that finding bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in the Pakistan-Afghan border region, remains a priority.

"For the country, it's a matter of closure in many ways for those who suffered under the attacks," Bush said. "He's hiding. He's isolated. He's not out there leading any parades."

Bush says he is briefed at least once a week on bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.

His former Homeland Security Adviser, Fran Townsend, who left the White House in November, told FOX News:

"The president has made perfectly clear that he wants bin Laden brought to justice before he leaves office. That's the objective: To ... bring bin Laden to justice before the end of the administration. And we have organized ourselves to try and achieve that objective."
Bush says in the interview he's confident bin Laden ultimately will be found.

"He'll be gotten by a president," Bush says.

And to critics who say he hasn't done enough to find bin Laden, Bush is blunt:

"They don't know what they're talking about," he says.

nothing you've posted negates what he said in '02.

nice try.

You just had to ******* go there didn't you....

any more blindingly stupid questions you'd like to pose?

Look...if you are too stupid to see the tree but for the leaves perhaps you better keep your opinions to yourself. Saying bin Laden isn't a priority hasn't got jack shit to do with military strategy.

Now...answer the ******* question......What exactly was the failure of the last Administration in Afghanistan?

 

[del]

Nice try...

President Bush Says Usama Bin Laden May Not Be Captured During His Time in Office - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Capturing Usama bin Laden has been one of President Bush's top priorities during his time in office, but the president now seems to doubt the Al Qaeda mastermind will be found before his term ends next January.

Speaking about his goals for his last year in the White House, Bush tells FOX News in an exclusive interview to air this weekend that if U.S. military and intelligence knew where bin Laden was, they would have apprehended him already.

"If we could find the cave he is in, I promise you — he would be brought to justice or wherever he's hiding," he tells FOX News in "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish," a documentary scheduled to air Sunday, Jan. 27, at 8 p.m. ET.

The president adds: "I will have left behind a mechanism — and a structure for the next president to better protect America."

During interviews conducted on Air Force One, in the Oval Office and at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, the nation's commander-in-chief opens up about his first seven years in office and the final one to come, which he hopes to finish strong.

Bush insists that finding bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in the Pakistan-Afghan border region, remains a priority.

"For the country, it's a matter of closure in many ways for those who suffered under the attacks," Bush said. "He's hiding. He's isolated. He's not out there leading any parades."

Bush says he is briefed at least once a week on bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.

His former Homeland Security Adviser, Fran Townsend, who left the White House in November, told FOX News:

"The president has made perfectly clear that he wants bin Laden brought to justice before he leaves office. That's the objective: To ... bring bin Laden to justice before the end of the administration. And we have organized ourselves to try and achieve that objective."
Bush says in the interview he's confident bin Laden ultimately will be found.

"He'll be gotten by a president," Bush says.

And to critics who say he hasn't done enough to find bin Laden, Bush is blunt:

"They don't know what they're talking about," he says.

nothing you've posted negates what he said in '02.

nice try.

You just had to ******* go there didn't you....

any more blindingly stupid questions you'd like to pose?

Look...if you are too stupid to see the tree but for the leaves perhaps you better keep your opinions to yourself. Saying bin Laden isn't a priority hasn't got jack shit to do with military strategy.

Now...answer the ******* question......What exactly was the failure of the last Administration in Afghanistan?

well, von clauswitz, since we went there to capture osama, wipe out al qaida and wipe out the taliban, and since osama hasn't been captured, al qaida's still in business and the taliban is in control of large parts of the country, i'd say the last administration failed at *everything* in afghanistan.

at the risk of repeating myself, do you have any more blindingly stupid questions, herr generalmajor?

 

[Contumacious]

MSNBC Obama Rejects All Military Options For Afghanistan

I think we all know the Obama WH, which has always taken a negative view of robust American leadership in the world, .

"robust American leadership in the world," aka, interventionism is the caused of all our evils. The bastards should stay home and mind their own business.

I state that with some trepidation since the motherfuckers may construe that as a suggestion to create more Waco-style confrontations.

.

 

[toomuchtime_]

MSNBC Obama Rejects All Military Options For Afghanistan

I think we all know the Obama WH, which has always taken a negative view of robust American leadership in the world, has decided to allow Afghanistan to end in debacle, and is now only working on how to escape responsibility for it.

When things looked grim in Iraq, the Bush WH was hard at work looking for a strategy to win with, and now, as conditions deteriorate in Afghanistan, the Obama WH is hard at work looking for a slogan to lose with.

IMO, there's no other way for it to end.

Without strong American leadership, there is no other way for it to end, but think of what that means. If Afghanistan falls to the insurgents, it will be used as a base to wrest control of the tribal lands in Pakistan from the Pakistani government, and those lands will be used as a base of operations to try to gain control of the Pakistani government and its nuclear arsenal, putting hundreds of millions of people's lives in Pakistan and India at risk.

These people are suicide bombers who crave and glorify martyrdom and who seem to have no concern about the innocent lives they destroy as they pursue this goal. If they did gain control of Pakistan would they be deterred from a first launch by the certain devastation that would come with an Indian retaliation? These people are suicide bombers.

And what of US security? Would nuclear devices make their way from a radical Pakistani government into the hands of terrorists who are set on attacking the US or our allies? What if those planes had carried nuclear devices on Sept. 11: we would not have just lost the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon, we would have lost New York City and Washington D.C. Would a radical Pakistani government be deterred from abetting such an attack on the US out of fear of our retaliation? They're suicide bombers.

Responsible nations, like responsible people, sometimes have to do things they really don't want to do because they understand that their long term prospects are greatly improved if they do these things. There are no unsolvable problems in Afghanistan, only complications that increase the cost and may lengthen the duration of the mission, which is to help establish a stable democracy that will not allow international insurgencies such as, but not limited to, al Qaeda to establish bases of operations from which to attack the US or its allies or Afghanistan's other neighbors. Nearly everyone is the world would be better off if this mission is successful, and there is no reason to think it can't be successful in time if the US shows the kind of strong leadership and commitment to the mission that will give the various factions in Afghanistan confidence that we will not abandon them to the insurgents or to a corrupt, despotic government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nice try...

President Bush Says Usama Bin Laden May Not Be Captured During His Time in Office - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Capturing Usama bin Laden has been one of President Bush's top priorities during his time in office, but the president now seems to doubt the Al Qaeda mastermind will be found before his term ends next January.

Speaking about his goals for his last year in the White House, Bush tells FOX News in an exclusive interview to air this weekend that if U.S. military and intelligence knew where bin Laden was, they would have apprehended him already.

"If we could find the cave he is in, I promise you — he would be brought to justice or wherever he's hiding," he tells FOX News in "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish," a documentary scheduled to air Sunday, Jan. 27, at 8 p.m. ET.

The president adds: "I will have left behind a mechanism — and a structure for the next president to better protect America."

During interviews conducted on Air Force One, in the Oval Office and at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, the nation's commander-in-chief opens up about his first seven years in office and the final one to come, which he hopes to finish strong.

Bush insists that finding bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in the Pakistan-Afghan border region, remains a priority.

"For the country, it's a matter of closure in many ways for those who suffered under the attacks," Bush said. "He's hiding. He's isolated. He's not out there leading any parades."

Bush says he is briefed at least once a week on bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.

His former Homeland Security Adviser, Fran Townsend, who left the White House in November, told FOX News:

"The president has made perfectly clear that he wants bin Laden brought to justice before he leaves office. That's the objective: To ... bring bin Laden to justice before the end of the administration. And we have organized ourselves to try and achieve that objective."
Bush says in the interview he's confident bin Laden ultimately will be found.

"He'll be gotten by a president," Bush says.

And to critics who say he hasn't done enough to find bin Laden, Bush is blunt:

"They don't know what they're talking about," he says.

nothing you've posted negates what he said in '02.

nice try.

You just had to ******* go there didn't you....

any more blindingly stupid questions you'd like to pose?

Look...if you are too stupid to see the tree but for the leaves perhaps you better keep your opinions to yourself. Saying bin Laden isn't a priority hasn't got jack shit to do with military strategy.

Now...answer the ******* question......What exactly was the failure of the last Administration in Afghanistan?

Not simply routing Al Qaeda and then getting out.

 

[Ravi]

I think we all know the Obama WH, which has always taken a negative view of robust American leadership in the world, has decided to allow Afghanistan to end in debacle, and is now only working on how to escape responsibility for it.

When things looked grim in Iraq, the Bush WH was hard at work looking for a strategy to win with, and now, as conditions deteriorate in Afghanistan, the Obama WH is hard at work looking for a slogan to lose with.

IMO, there's no other way for it to end.

Without strong American leadership, there is no other way for it to end, but think of what that means. If Afghanistan falls to the insurgents, it will be used as a base to wrest control of the tribal lands in Pakistan from the Pakistani government, and those lands will be used as a base of operations to try to gain control of the Pakistani government and its nuclear arsenal, putting hundreds of millions of people's lives in Pakistan and India at risk.

These people are suicide bombers who crave and glorify martyrdom and who seem to have no concern about the innocent lives they destroy as they pursue this goal. If they did gain control of Pakistan would they be deterred from a first launch by the certain devastation that would come with an Indian retaliation? These people are suicide bombers.

And what of US security? Would nuclear devices make their way from a radical Pakistani government into the hands of terrorists who are set on attacking the US or our allies? What if those planes had carried nuclear devices on Sept. 11: we would not have just lost the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon, we would have lost New York City and Washington D.C. Would a radical Pakistani government be deterred from abetting such an attack on the US out of fear of our retaliation? They're suicide bombers.

Responsible nations, like responsible people, sometimes have to do things they really don't want to do because they understand that their long term prospects are greatly improved if they do these things. There are no unsolvable problems in Afghanistan, only complications that increase the cost and may lengthen the duration of the mission, which is to help establish a stable democracy that will not allow international insurgencies such as, but not limited to, al Qaeda to establish bases of operations from which to attack the US or its allies or Afghanistan's other neighbors. Nearly everyone is the world would be better off if this mission is successful, and there is no reason to think it can't be successful in time if the US shows the kind of strong leadership and commitment to the mission that will give the various factions in Afghanistan confidence that we will not abandon them to the insurgents or to a corrupt, despotic government.

I don't think it has anything to do with American leadership at all. Face it, the only way we'd have any control over Afghanistan is if we nuked it, took it over and made it a state.

The rest of your post should have been considered before we went in.

 

[Meister]

There will have to be another 9-11 scenario before a fire will be lit under these politicians. The post 9-11 days are gone, and it's back to the pre 9-11 days. Ah yes, the good ol' days.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

nothing you've posted negates what he said in '02.

nice try.

You just had to ******* go there didn't you....

any more blindingly stupid questions you'd like to pose?

Look...if you are too stupid to see the tree but for the leaves perhaps you better keep your opinions to yourself. Saying bin Laden isn't a priority hasn't got jack shit to do with military strategy.

Now...answer the ******* question......What exactly was the failure of the last Administration in Afghanistan?

well, von clauswitz, since we went there to capture osama, wipe out al qaida and wipe out the taliban, and since osama hasn't been captured, al qaida's still in business and the taliban is in control of large parts of the country, i'd say the last administration failed at *everything* in afghanistan.

at the risk of repeating myself, do you have any more blindingly stupid questions, herr generalmajor?

Once again, Colonel Klink, you have FAILED to see what the actual situation is in Afghanistan...I don't know whether it's just stubborness on your part or maybe you do in fact champion retreat as a strategy....but at any rate...let's look at some facts shall we?

we went there to kill, capture or incapacitate the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. This is a true statement. After 9/11 NATO held a conference and all parties agreed to send combat troops to aid in that effort. WHO stepped up to the plate. Canada and Britan...THAT'S IT!!! The USA had AGREEMENTS FROM ALL other parties to that conference that they would send combat troops to help but their contingencies NEVER ARRIVED!!!
We successfully destroyed the Taliban, caused Al Qaeda to retreat into Pakistan and bin Laden to become a nothing leader of a decimated terrorist group who has to hide in a cave FOREVER. Or did history start for you in 2005.

Now...you got any more dumbass responses Klink?

 

[Contumacious]

These people are suicide bombers who crave and glorify martyrdom and who seem to have no concern about the innocent lives they destroy as they pursue this goal. nt.

So quit giving them reasons to attack us, stop killing their families, get out of their country. Leave them the **** alone. Is that so hard to understand, you stupid son of a *****?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?


.

 

[MaggieMae]

Notice Obama changed AFTER his boy lost the election in Afghanistan.

So Obama lost election on 2 Continents

You mean you really think we should have American troops dying and getting maimed in a country run by someone as corrupt as Karzai?

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the entire problem. I hope that all this time being spent weighing the options means that they are seriously looking for an EXIT strategy, not how to WIN. Win what? Al-Qaeda has moved on.

 

[MaggieMae]

He's a douchebag.

How profound. And I note some of your mindless fans eagerly concurred with your empty comment.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think it's time to bring the troops home from Afganistan. Without a strategy of a victory, or an end game, this will end up like Viet Nam, with a lot of our military becoming statistics. I don't want to see that again.....ever.

I agree. If they can't come up with cogent plan to get the entire job done then the best thing to do is get the hell out.

While this may appease many on the left...it will ultimately lead to the Taliban retaking Afghanistan.....then what?

Go back over there AGAIN? At what cost this time? Boston nuked? No thank you.

Obama needs to be Commander in Chief and man up...not a ******* George Soros puppet.

The Taliban already re-emerged, a long time ago. Where have YOU been?

 

[MaggieMae]

So he rejected a bunch of plans that had no clear end game and exit strategy. Good.

End game and exit stategy. How about a strategy for winning first?

"Winning" what? Do you know any of the history of Afghanistan? They have had to deal with invaders and occupiers since Alexander the Great by virtue of its geopolitical location, and they see the United States as just the latest in a long line of countries they ultimately will drive out. We will NEVER be "welcome" there, even as nation-builders. Afghanis are quite content with their culture as it exists.