Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech

[sealybobo]

I find it amazing that the neo cons who supported Bush's STAY THE COURSE and NOW starting to say that fighting them over there isn't worth it.

So they played politics with war and used our troops as pawns.

And they were all dishonest fucks the last 8 years.

I heard a GOP senator say, "some of my constituents are saying they they don't want to continue fighting the war in Afganistan". No shit! A lot of your constituents were saying that the last 8 years but you ignored them. Now its coming from neo con voters who only had a change of heart because the Dems are in charge now.

Right wingers who are doing this should all be tried for treason and be locked up for their anti Americanisms. They truly make me sick.

 

[sealybobo]

And this is just another example of how the right is wrong about EVERYTHING. They got hit on 9-11, they spread our troops too thin, they said the war was worth it, they didn't see a problem with Bush's strategies, they swallowed every excuse everytime the mission changed.

And only now do they see how deadly wrong they were.

Well Obama can't just up and leave. Remember what you all said would happen if we did that? Pakistan would become unstable, etc? Al Queda would move in? They'd come here and attack us if we left?

What happened to all your right wing arguments? Gone are they?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

He did exactly what i said he would do. He decided on a Half-Measure that will only lead to more kids being slaughtered for nothing. It's a Surge that really isn't a Surge. If you're going to be leaving by 2011,why send 30,000 more kids over there to be killed and maimed? It just makes no sense. Local Afghan Warlords will now simply solidify their ties with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and wait for the U.S. to leave in 2011. This really was just all about politics in the end. He tried to please both the Military and his Left Wing followers at the same time. These 30,000 more troops will not change anything over there. So why send them? Hmm?

 

[jillian]

As to the "quality" of Krauthammer's assessment, he criticized the speech for not being inspirational enough. Said it was too dispassionate and compared it unfavorably to Bush's "more passionate" speech announcing the Iraq surge.

That's certainly his right to hold that opinion, but I disagree.

Some people do respond better to a "rah-rah" emotional appeal for war. But I think the people of Afghanistan, our allies, and many others around the world (including many here in the United States) were looking for an indication that this was NOT some emotional, trigger-happy, call to arms considering that so many feel prey to that appraoch when Bush used it to drag others into a situation they now rergret. I think they were looking for indications that this was a well thought out, somber, intellectual decision. Taking his time about making the decision also played well to this audience for that reason.

While I do not agree with Obama's decision, I can appreciate and understand the deliberative process that went into the decision and the tone he took in announcing the decision.

Since I personally am someone who responds better to intellectual arguments/decisions rather than emotional ones, I fully understand. And I can understand that those who like to operate more on feelings didn't like the tone. To each his/her own.

But I STILL disagree with the decision.

what he said ^^^^^^^^^

and fwiw, i don't like us having to do this, but i don't see a lot of options.

krauthammer is a idealogue who would never settle for anything less than "bomb bomb bomb iran"... (or afghanistan... or iraq... or any other state he doesn't like).

bush was just too stupid to ever question a decision his "gut" told him to make.

Well I'm convinced that folks around the world wanted some reasurances that this wasn't some ginned up, purely emotional, war whoop like Bush used to dupe everyone into Iraq.

well, fwiw, for me it's a refreshing change watching someone take a decision like this seriously.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And this is just another example of how the right is wrong about EVERYTHING. They got hit on 9-11, they spread our troops too thin, they said the war was worth it, they didn't see a problem with Bush's strategies, they swallowed every excuse everytime the mission changed.

And only now do they see how deadly wrong they were.

Well Obama can't just up and leave. Remember what you all said would happen if we did that? Pakistan would become unstable, etc? Al Queda would move in? They'd come here and attack us if we left?

What happened to all your right wing arguments? Gone are they?

Yes (as we see above) no shortage of hypocrisy - but sealyboo, that doesn't represent the vast majority - only the hate mongers who would complain if Obama walked on water because it indicates he can't swim.

I disagree with the decision to send more troops now, but most on the right endorse it. And aren't to wedded to their rhetorical heros to admit it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

what he said ^^^^^^^^^

and fwiw, i don't like us having to do this, but i don't see a lot of options.

krauthammer is a idealogue who would never settle for anything less than "bomb bomb bomb iran"... (or afghanistan... or iraq... or any other state he doesn't like).

bush was just too stupid to ever question a decision his "gut" told him to make.

Well I'm convinced that folks around the world wanted some reasurances that this wasn't some ginned up, purely emotional, war whoop like Bush used to dupe everyone into Iraq.

well, fwiw, for me it's a refreshing change watching someone take a decision like this seriously.

Agreed. While I may disagree with the decision he made, I have a lot of respect for the thought that went into it.

 

[sealybobo]

He did exactly what i said he would do. He decided on a Half-Measure that will only lead to more kids being slaughtered for nothing. It's a Surge that really isn't a Surge. If you're going to be leaving by 2011,why send 30,000 more kids over there to be killed and maimed? It just makes no sense. Local Afghan Warlords will now simply solidify their ties with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and wait for the U.S. to leave in 2011. This really was just all about politics in the end. He tried to please both the Military and his Left Wing followers at the same time. These 30,000 more troops will not change anything over there. So why send them? Hmm?

He's sending them over NOW, in the WINTER, which is typically not when the fighting happens. That gives us the maximum amount of time to win the hearts and minds of the afgan people so maybe next summer we won't have to fight.

Or we can leave and let Bin Ladin take over again like he did before 9-11. Then you can blame Obama for Pakistan's instability too.

Don't assume Obama is dumb like Bush and Rumsfeld. He's got an exit strategy. But no matter how good his plans are, you'll find fault I'm sure.

But also, keep in mind that as we pull troops out of Iraq, we are doubling the number of contractors that are costing us even more than troops cost. And they are protecting the oil companies, not the troops.

 

[sealybobo]

And this is just another example of how the right is wrong about EVERYTHING. They got hit on 9-11, they spread our troops too thin, they said the war was worth it, they didn't see a problem with Bush's strategies, they swallowed every excuse everytime the mission changed.

And only now do they see how deadly wrong they were.

Well Obama can't just up and leave. Remember what you all said would happen if we did that? Pakistan would become unstable, etc? Al Queda would move in? They'd come here and attack us if we left?

What happened to all your right wing arguments? Gone are they?

Yes (as we see above) no shortage of hypocrisy - but sealyboo, that doesn't represent the vast majority - only the hate mongers who would complain if Obama walked on water because it indicates he can't swim.

I disagree with the decision to send more troops now, but most on the right endorse it. And aren't to wedded to their rhetorical heros to admit it.

If you had all the facts, as Obama does, I don't think you'd be so quick to disagree with sending more troops.

I thought sending more troops worked in Iraq? Not true anymore? I thought the SURGE worked?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

He basically announced our Surrender over there but is sending a token 30,000 more kids over there for some kind of political gain. Al Qaeda and the Taliban now know exactly when we are leaving so it's all just a Win/Win for them in the end. I just don't see a need to send 30,000 more kids over to the Slaughter House for nothing. If we're leaving than so be it. No need to send more kids over there to be killed and maimed. What will they be dying for at this point? What a shame.

 

[sealybobo]

He basically announced our Surrender over there but is sending a token 30,000 more kids over there for some kind of political gain. Al Qaeda and the Taliban now know exactly when we are leaving so it's all just a Win/Win for them in the end. I just don't see a need to send 30,000 more kids over to the Slaughter House for nothing. If we're leaving than so be it. No need to send more kids over there to be killed and maimed. What will they be dying for at this point? What a shame.

Good thing a partisan simpleton like you isn't calling the shots.

A. You don't get it.

B. You never will.

So if we leave EVER, then we lost?

And how do we win this when we don't have your support?

And what about all the warnings you and Bush gave us about cut and running?

And again, didn't the surge in Iraq work?

Sounds like you right wingers are admitting that for the last 8 years, you've been full of shit.

The 30 thousand troops are going to train Afgan's to police themselves. Also to win over the hearts and minds of the people.

You don't think that is possible? Well thats because you are under informed and a right winger who doesn't want to believe. So fine, don't believe. Keep hoping we fail.

Just remember how wrong you were the last 8 years about everything.

Obama should ask you what to do and then just do the opposite.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Announcing our Surrender to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and then sending 30,000 more kids over there to be slaughtered just seems ludicrous to me. What will those kids be dying for? Al Qaeda and the Taliban will now only grow stronger. They know exactly when we're leaving so it really is a Win/Win for them in the end. We shouldn't expect even one more American kid to risk his or her life over there. If it's over than so be it. Don't send more kids to the slaughter though.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And this is just another example of how the right is wrong about EVERYTHING. They got hit on 9-11, they spread our troops too thin, they said the war was worth it, they didn't see a problem with Bush's strategies, they swallowed every excuse everytime the mission changed.

And only now do they see how deadly wrong they were.

Well Obama can't just up and leave. Remember what you all said would happen if we did that? Pakistan would become unstable, etc? Al Queda would move in? They'd come here and attack us if we left?

What happened to all your right wing arguments? Gone are they?

Yes (as we see above) no shortage of hypocrisy - but sealyboo, that doesn't represent the vast majority - only the hate mongers who would complain if Obama walked on water because it indicates he can't swim.

I disagree with the decision to send more troops now, but most on the right endorse it. And aren't to wedded to their rhetorical heros to admit it.

If you had all the facts, as Obama does, I don't think you'd be so quick to disagree with sending more troops.

I thought sending more troops worked in Iraq? Not true anymore? I thought the SURGE worked?

Afghanistan is not Iraq and what worked in one place may not work in another.

Just for one example. Iraq is a country that has a tradition and a history of a strong (well tyranical might be a better word) centralized government. Afghanistan does have that same tradition or history. They have historically be a lot more fragmented with local warlords calling most of the shots. Terrain has a lot to do with this too.

So building a strong centralized government in Iraq that can police itself and all its territoties is quite a bit different than trying to build the same model in Afghanistan.

That's just one example. What works in one place may or may not work in another place.

And yes, Obama does have access to a lot of information that I don't and I respect that fact. But if he expects me to agree with a strategy that I think is counterintuative, he better give me something to base that on. If national security means he can't give it to me - so be it. I'll have to stay in the disagree but hoping for the best category.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Announcing a "Surge" and our Surrender at the same time just seems so outrageously insane to me. Al Qaeda and the Taliban now know when we are leaving. They have won. End of story. So why send more of our kids over there to be killed and maimed? What does a "Surge" mean at this point? How can this President now order our kids to continue risking their lives over there? That War is now over so is there really any need for a pathetic "Surge?" What a tragedy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

he's like rainman. Instead of Wopner it "announcing a surge ....."

 

[ihopehefails]

it never makes me laugh as hard as when a Iraq War cheerleader opens up their piehole and starts in on Afghanistan because of their partisan hatred of Obama.

That was only true during the Bush years when you guys attacked him for overspending and being big government (as if you believed in those things) and then turn around and do ten times the damage you accused Bush doing when Obama got elected.

Do I hate Obama? Of course. I think the guy is a prick and so far I haven't seen anything he has done that I would agree with.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

A "Surge" and Surrender Plan is no plan at all. God help our kids over there.

 

[ihopehefails]

Announcing a "Surge" and our Surrender at the same time just seems so outrageously insane to me. Al Qaeda and the Taliban now know when we are leaving. They have won. End of story. So why send more of our kids over there to be killed and maimed? What does a "Surge" mean at this point? How can this President now order our kids to continue risking their lives over there? That War is now over so is there really any need for a pathetic "Surge?" What a tragedy.

He only did that to cover up the retreat factor by announcing a surge and focusing his speech on that but minimizing leaving. Why else would he send the least amount of troops to beigin with. Its a political move to cover up for the fact that he plans on leaving witch would be unpopular so he covers it up with a surge to make it seem like he is attacking.

 

[WillowTree]

Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Hayes slam Barack Obama's weak Afghan Surge speech Tuesday night. Frankly, it was a well articulated and very accurate analysis. During Obama's speech you could almost hear the cadets seething as they sat in their chairs pretending to respect this Presidents flip-flopping, boorish speech!
Dittos Rush!: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech
Comments?

It might mean something except that Krauthammer has a long record of advocating handing a M-16 to every ambulatory person in this country and sending them out around the world to shoot up everything that moves.

Link?

 

[sealybobo]

Yes (as we see above) no shortage of hypocrisy - but sealyboo, that doesn't represent the vast majority - only the hate mongers who would complain if Obama walked on water because it indicates he can't swim.

I disagree with the decision to send more troops now, but most on the right endorse it. And aren't to wedded to their rhetorical heros to admit it.

If you had all the facts, as Obama does, I don't think you'd be so quick to disagree with sending more troops.

I thought sending more troops worked in Iraq? Not true anymore? I thought the SURGE worked?

Afghanistan is not Iraq and what worked in one place may not work in another.

Just for one example. Iraq is a country that has a tradition and a history of a strong (well tyranical might be a better word) centralized government. Afghanistan does have that same tradition or history. They have historically be a lot more fragmented with local warlords calling most of the shots. Terrain has a lot to do with this too.

So building a strong centralized government in Iraq that can police itself and all its territoties is quite a bit different than trying to build the same model in Afghanistan.

That's just one example. What works in one place may or may not work in another place.

And yes, Obama does have access to a lot of information that I don't and I respect that fact. But if he expects me to agree with a strategy that I think is counterintuative, he better give me something to base that on. If national security means he can't give it to me - so be it. I'll have to stay in the disagree but hoping for the best category.

Funny the right liked comparing Iraq to Viet Nam but now they see the difference between the Iraq and Afgan conflicts.

We are out manned in Afganistan. We need 30,000 more troops to accomplish what Obama wants to accomplish. We need to train a bunch of police and security forces to work for the Afgan government. We can't do this without the 30,000 troops. You want to just up and leave? That would be a sure disaster. I'd rather stay and pick off the taliban that are training in the Pakistan/Afgan border, or have you fogotten about them?

So you don't think we can help build a strong central government capable of policing the country?

You don't think we can win the hearts and minds even though we have done so in several other provinces?

PS. Iraq is a fucking mess. It is now Shiite. So now its aligned with Iran. And they are dangerously close to giving power over to Mook Tada El Sadr. Remember him? They chanted his name as they hung Saddam. He's also an enemy of America. So we may have turned over Iraq to an enemy. But for now we have control of their government and all that means is that rich oil companies and defense contractors are getting rich off the American tax payers. That's all the Iraq war was about. PERIOD.

But Afgan is about 9-11. We need to solve that problem. Now you are a cut and runner? And if Obama didn't give a timetable, you'd be crying about the costs. And a time table isn't guaranteed. It never is. What we do tomorrow affects what we do the day after. So saying we hope this is over in 3 years is just a mission statement. That's about how long we think it will take. And if our plans work, then Al Queda will not be able to come back when we leave. If we leave today, they're already waiting.

Arguing with you guys is futile. Just wait and see what happens. Just as we waited and waited and waited until you righties lost both of these wars. Now Obama has to clean them up and you're playing politics. I say F all of you. You aren't going to vote for Obama anyways so who cares what you think.

 

[sealybobo]

Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Hayes slam Barack Obama's weak Afghan Surge speech Tuesday night. Frankly, it was a well articulated and very accurate analysis. During Obama's speech you could almost hear the cadets seething as they sat in their chairs pretending to respect this Presidents flip-flopping, boorish speech!
Dittos Rush!: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech
Comments?

It might mean something except that Krauthammer has a long record of advocating handing a M-16 to every ambulatory person in this country and sending them out around the world to shoot up everything that moves.

Link?

You never give links so don't ask for them. And don't say you do, because sometimes you make outragious claims and THAT my dear is when you fail to provide links.

In other words, when I've asked you for links, you say no. So I bust you for being a liar and you just ignore me. So fuck giving you a link of any kind.

JW Booth, don't give her SHIT!

And it wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't always see you asking other people for links. Look it up yourself retard.