Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well let's look at Bush's last year for afghanistan:
"Documents show more than a 30 percent increase in attacks on Afghan roads
In 2008, Taliban and al Qaeda attacks increased 31 percent
There was also a 60 percent rise in civilian deaths in 2008"
Documents give insight into increased violence in Afghanistan - CNN.com
After 7 years the Bush admin really royally still had it all fucked up.
Obama was in office for less than a month before he escalated the war.
Obama approves Afghanistan troop increase - CNN.com
Try using current articles.
From your first link
The documents, based on NATO statistics, show more than a 30 percent increase in such attacks on Afghan roads around the country from January to December 2008.
Also, the commander in Afghanistan shouldn't have to beg Obama for more troops and resources. Obama should make sure they were provided for, before it got to this sad state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/world/asia/21afghan.html
General Calls for More U.S. Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure
September 20, 2009
WASHINGTON The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a confidential assessment of the war there that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict will likely result in failure.
The grim assessment is contained in a 66-page report that the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, submitted to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30, and which is now under review by President Obama and his top national security advisers.
The disclosure of details in the assessment, reported Sunday night by The Washington Post, coincided with new skepticism expressed by President Obama about sending any more troops into Afghanistan until he was certain that the strategy was clear.
His remarks came as opposition to the eight-year-old war within his own party is growing.
General McChrystals view offered a stark contrast, and the language he used was striking.
Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) while Afghan security capacity matures risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible, General McChrystal writes.
A copy of the assessment, with some operational details removed at the Pentagons request to avoid compromising future operations, was posted on The Posts Web site.
In his five-page commanders summary, General McChrystal ends on a cautiously optimistic note: While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.
But throughout the document, General McChrystal warns that unless he is provided more forces and a robust counterinsurgency strategy, the war in Afghanistan is most likely lost.
...Mr. Obama and his advisers have said they need time to absorb the assessment of the Afghanistan security situation that General McChrystal submitted three weeks ago a separate report from the generals expected request for forces as well as the uncertainties created by the fraud-tainted Afghan elections.
You are one dumb ****. You asked for proof obama escalated the war so I provided a link showing he did it less than a month after getting in office and you whine and say I should have used a more current article? What kind of fucking stupid dildo are you?
Then why are you complaining if the neo-cons did a good job. You are in a dilemma, between a rock and a hard space. You have lost either way you go.
The commander has been begging for troops from Obama. Obama at the end of this year, finally made a decision to send more troops.
Do you have any evidence that Pres. Bush didn't give the commander troops that he requested from him?
You are one stupid prune bug. Obama sent more troops when he got in office. Then you ask when did Bush not honor a request for more troops? What the fuck are you snorting?
Pentagon: More troops to Afghanistan needed, but unlikely - CNN.com
The commander has been begging for troops from Obama. Obama at the end of this year, finally made a decision to send more troops.
Do you have any evidence that Pres. Bush didn't give the commander troops that he requested from him?
You are one stupid prune bug. Obama sent more troops when he got in office. Then you ask when did Bush not honor a request for more troops? What the fuck are you snorting?
Pentagon: More troops to Afghanistan needed, but unlikely - CNN.com
He did idiot. I just posted it.
cmike has lost the argument, and he knows it because he is going ad hom. I love it when the loonies try to jump on Obama while trying to ignore Bush's screw ups.
They still don't get it that my GOP lost the election because of this unwillingness to accept responsibility.
You may have heard of the surge? It much have been somewhere on DailyKos.
Bush: 'Quiet Surge' of Troops Sent to Afghanistan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
Bush said the battalion, roughly 1,000 Marines, now headed to Afghanistan in November will be followed in January by an Army combat brigade. A brigade is 3,500-4,000 troops.
Bush said the U.S. and its coalition partners serving under the NATO umbrella have responded to an uptick in violence in Afghanistan by sending thousands more troops. He said in the past year, the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and others have sent additional forces to Afghanistan.
"These troop increases represent a 'quiet surge' in Afghanistan. In all, the number of American troops in the country increased from less than 21,000 two years ago to nearly 31,000 today. The number of coalition troops — including NATO troops — increased from about 20,000 to about 31,000. And the number of trained Afghan army and police forces increased from less than 67,000 to nearly 144,000," he said.
Bush said the mission of the forces headed to Afghanistan will be to work with "Afghan forces to provide security for the Afghan people, protect Afghanistan's infrastructure and democratic institutions and help insure access to services like education and health care.
"They will show the citizens of Afghanistan that the government and its partners will stand with them in the battle against the Taliban and extremists," the president said in a speech at the National Defense University.
The move answers in part calls from Democrats to shift troops out of Iraq to a more sizable force in Afghanistan. Still, Democrats quickly shot back that Bush isn't doing enough to get troops out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, where violence is rising.
You may have heard of the surge? It much have been somewhere on DailyKos.
Bush: 'Quiet Surge' of Troops Sent to Afghanistan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
Bush said the battalion, roughly 1,000 Marines, now headed to Afghanistan in November will be followed in January by an Army combat brigade. A brigade is 3,500-4,000 troops.
Bush said the U.S. and its coalition partners serving under the NATO umbrella have responded to an uptick in violence in Afghanistan by sending thousands more troops. He said in the past year, the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and others have sent additional forces to Afghanistan.
"These troop increases represent a 'quiet surge' in Afghanistan. In all, the number of American troops in the country increased from less than 21,000 two years ago to nearly 31,000 today. The number of coalition troops including NATO troops increased from about 20,000 to about 31,000. And the number of trained Afghan army and police forces increased from less than 67,000 to nearly 144,000," he said.
Bush said the mission of the forces headed to Afghanistan will be to work with "Afghan forces to provide security for the Afghan people, protect Afghanistan's infrastructure and democratic institutions and help insure access to services like education and health care.
"They will show the citizens of Afghanistan that the government and its partners will stand with them in the battle against the Taliban and extremists," the president said in a speech at the National Defense University.
The move answers in part calls from Democrats to shift troops out of Iraq to a more sizable force in Afghanistan. Still, Democrats quickly shot back that Bush isn't doing enough to get troops out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, where violence is rising.
Oh, you mean the one where it wasn't enough troops?
Admiral: Troops alone will not yield victory in Afghanistan - CNN.com
Are you really that foggy that you have forgotten....shit....that's being too generous. You're undoubtedly ignorant of how the bush admin was criticized for not sending in the requested troop strength for afghanistan and iraq.
You are the imbecile, of course.
It is NOT that President Obama had NEVER acknowledged that we are at war. It is that he tried to manipulate the use of language to sweep it aside. Being at war and vigorously prosecuting a war are not synonymous.
That he refused to call TERRORISTS "terrorists" was PART of the problem.
Politically correct language is all well and good in a cocktail party or in addressing people in a civilized setting. It is not a good way to discuss the enemy. This particular enemy is not civilized, by the way. They are barbaric fuckers who ARE indeed trying to kill as many of us as they can as often as they can.
9/11/2001 actually did happen and the fuckers who inflicted that shot on us are not done.
What the hell is it going to take to wake you idiots on the left UP?
How the hell do you guys think? Why is it superior NOT to be proactive to PREVENT them from succeeding in any future plots than it is to be merely reactive to the shit they do?
Good God. And when anybody on the right invokes the memory of 9/11 your knee jerk (but dishonest) reaction is to whine some shit about "politicizing" 9/11. You idiots. It was a WARNING. It kinda sorta makes sense to react to the blow inflicted on us AS a warning in order to prepare against any futuer such attacks. Invoking the memory FOR THAT PURPOSE is no more politicizing 9/11 than a fire alarm sounding is politicizing the flames.
He's escalated the Afghan war and increased targeted attacks on suspected Al Qaeda. What more do you want?
Not only is he trying to clean up Bush's mess in Iraq, he's now fighting terrorists affiliated with people BUSH released from Gitmo.
How did he escalate the Afghan war? How did he increase targeted attacks on suspected Al Qaida?
I want some proof that he did so? Because he didn't.
You may have heard of the surge? It much have been somewhere on DailyKos.
Bush: 'Quiet Surge' of Troops Sent to Afghanistan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
Bush said the battalion, roughly 1,000 Marines, now headed to Afghanistan in November will be followed in January by an Army combat brigade. A brigade is 3,500-4,000 troops.
Bush said the U.S. and its coalition partners serving under the NATO umbrella have responded to an uptick in violence in Afghanistan by sending thousands more troops. He said in the past year, the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and others have sent additional forces to Afghanistan.
"These troop increases represent a 'quiet surge' in Afghanistan. In all, the number of American troops in the country increased from less than 21,000 two years ago to nearly 31,000 today. The number of coalition troops including NATO troops increased from about 20,000 to about 31,000. And the number of trained Afghan army and police forces increased from less than 67,000 to nearly 144,000," he said.
Bush said the mission of the forces headed to Afghanistan will be to work with "Afghan forces to provide security for the Afghan people, protect Afghanistan's infrastructure and democratic institutions and help insure access to services like education and health care.
"They will show the citizens of Afghanistan that the government and its partners will stand with them in the battle against the Taliban and extremists," the president said in a speech at the National Defense University.
The move answers in part calls from Democrats to shift troops out of Iraq to a more sizable force in Afghanistan. Still, Democrats quickly shot back that Bush isn't doing enough to get troops out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, where violence is rising.
Thus you are saying, cmike, that Bush did not do enough: thanks for the admission.
That person is simply giving you an adequate supply so you can continue playing the game.I know liberals are extremely slow so I'll type slowly.
1) Under Pres. Bush there was a surge in troops that was doing quite well
2) Troop still levels still need to be replenished. Troops leave, get moved etc.
3) The commander in the field wrote a letter stating how bad things have gotten with troop levels in the field. Obama ignored it. Four months later he finally made a decision to replenish the toops in the field.
Now I'll try to make it even simpler so even a liberal may be able to understand it (although that is still very unlikely).
You have a gallon of milk. The milk slowly get drunk and the amount you have left goes down. Soon you have to give less and less to your family for their cereal. You keep asking your wife to buy more milk. She ignores you for four months, until the quanties of milk for your family gets super low. Finally, she decides to buy more milk.
Now because she bought more milk doesn't mean that she created an escalation in the amount of milk that your family has. She just replenished the milk used for the family.
I can try using a marbles example if that doesn't work.
You may have heard of the surge? It much have been somewhere on DailyKos.
Bush: 'Quiet Surge' of Troops Sent to Afghanistan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
Bush said the battalion, roughly 1,000 Marines, now headed to Afghanistan in November will be followed in January by an Army combat brigade. A brigade is 3,500-4,000 troops.
Bush said the U.S. and its coalition partners serving under the NATO umbrella have responded to an uptick in violence in Afghanistan by sending thousands more troops. He said in the past year, the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and others have sent additional forces to Afghanistan.
"These troop increases represent a 'quiet surge' in Afghanistan. In all, the number of American troops in the country increased from less than 21,000 two years ago to nearly 31,000 today. The number of coalition troops — including NATO troops — increased from about 20,000 to about 31,000. And the number of trained Afghan army and police forces increased from less than 67,000 to nearly 144,000," he said.
Bush said the mission of the forces headed to Afghanistan will be to work with "Afghan forces to provide security for the Afghan people, protect Afghanistan's infrastructure and democratic institutions and help insure access to services like education and health care.
"They will show the citizens of Afghanistan that the government and its partners will stand with them in the battle against the Taliban and extremists," the president said in a speech at the National Defense University.
The move answers in part calls from Democrats to shift troops out of Iraq to a more sizable force in Afghanistan. Still, Democrats quickly shot back that Bush isn't doing enough to get troops out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, where violence is rising.
Somewhere in all this is the fact that Afghanistan is a NATO operation of which the USA is only a part. Bush was condemned for at least most of six years for being a 'cowboy' and acting unilaterally without support from supposedly ally nations. So when he allowed those allied nations to lead through NATO in Afghanistan, he was condemned for not acting unilaterally. Whatever mistakes were made or however much he did or did not mismanage anything, it is obvious that nothing he was going to do would be right.
Look how long it took Obama, who stated unequivocably that the surge wouldn't work in Iraq, and then stated unequivocably that the surge had failed in Iraq, to finally admit, after repeated direct questioning and not allowed to duck the question, that the surge had worked. It's pretty safe to assume that had he taken over as president about that time, there would have been no surge at all, and by now we would still be fighting a half-assed containment war or would have pulled out, our tail between our legs, and listening to the terrorists chortle about the great victory they had won and how the great Satin had been completely defeated, humiliated, and demoralized.
At least you're competently arguing the issue Cmike, while some here accuse you of going ad hominem as they directly insult you and argue nothing but ad hominem.
I know liberals are extremely slow so I'll type slowly.
1) Under Pres. Bush there was a surge in troops that was doing quite well
2) Troop still levels still need to be replenished. Troops leave, get moved etc.
3) The commander in the field wrote a letter stating how bad things have gotten with troop levels in the field. Obama ignored it. Four months later he finally made a decision to replenish the toops in the field.
Now I'll try to make it even simpler so even a liberal may be able to understand it (although that is still very unlikely).
You have a gallon of milk. The milk slowly get drunk and the amount you have left goes down. Soon you have to give less and less to your family for their cereal. You keep asking your wife to buy more milk. She ignores you for four months, until the quanties of milk for your family gets super low. Finally, she decides to buy more milk.
Now because she bought more milk doesn't mean that she created an escalation in the amount of milk that your family has. She just replenished the milk used for the family.
I can try using a marbles example if that doesn't work.
You super dumbass. I already posted a link showing that 2008 was the worst year for Afghanistan. That means after SEVEN FUCKING YEARS under the Bush Admin they still failed to bring any kind of stability. You fail to grasp such an elementary piece of information but you want to accuse others of being slow? Lol. It's like you, Liability, Ollie, Fizz, Divecon, etc are the same dumb bitch with several sock accounts. How else can your endless ignorance be explained?
You may have heard of the surge? It much have been somewhere on DailyKos.
Bush: 'Quiet Surge' of Troops Sent to Afghanistan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
Bush said the battalion, roughly 1,000 Marines, now headed to Afghanistan in November will be followed in January by an Army combat brigade. A brigade is 3,500-4,000 troops.
Bush said the U.S. and its coalition partners serving under the NATO umbrella have responded to an uptick in violence in Afghanistan by sending thousands more troops. He said in the past year, the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and others have sent additional forces to Afghanistan.
"These troop increases represent a 'quiet surge' in Afghanistan. In all, the number of American troops in the country increased from less than 21,000 two years ago to nearly 31,000 today. The number of coalition troops including NATO troops increased from about 20,000 to about 31,000. And the number of trained Afghan army and police forces increased from less than 67,000 to nearly 144,000," he said.
Bush said the mission of the forces headed to Afghanistan will be to work with "Afghan forces to provide security for the Afghan people, protect Afghanistan's infrastructure and democratic institutions and help insure access to services like education and health care.
"They will show the citizens of Afghanistan that the government and its partners will stand with them in the battle against the Taliban and extremists," the president said in a speech at the National Defense University.
The move answers in part calls from Democrats to shift troops out of Iraq to a more sizable force in Afghanistan. Still, Democrats quickly shot back that Bush isn't doing enough to get troops out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, where violence is rising.
Somewhere in all this is the fact that Afghanistan is a NATO operation of which the USA is only a part. Bush was condemned for at least most of six years for being a 'cowboy' and acting unilaterally without support from supposedly ally nations. So when he allowed those allied nations to lead through NATO in Afghanistan, he was condemned for not acting unilaterally. Whatever mistakes were made or however much he did or did not mismanage anything, it is obvious that nothing he was going to do would be right.
Look how long it took Obama, who stated unequivocably that the surge wouldn't work in Iraq, and then stated unequivocably that the surge had failed in Iraq, to finally admit, after repeated direct questioning and not allowed to duck the question, that the surge had worked. It's pretty safe to assume that had he taken over as president about that time, there would have been no surge at all, and by now we would still be fighting a half-assed containment war or would have pulled out, our tail between our legs, and listening to the terrorists chortle about the great victory they had won and how the great Satin had been completely defeated, humiliated, and demoralized.
At least you're competently arguing the issue Cmike, while some here accuse you of going ad hominem as they directly insult you and argue nothing but ad hominem.
