Flames be damned for my letter to the President today- I'm sick of this

on bringing troops home from Afghanistan.

Circa November, 2009?

Escalation of troops?

I'm not going to grant you your wish for a flame war.

You get the last word.

... and there again, it's my DESIRE to know why this is something we couldn't discuss without flames... therefore, damn them.

... did he NOT?

As for Obama's strategy in Afghanistan, I would suggest -- with all due respect -- that maybe we wait to see what the actual strategy is before we start casting stones. If it's an increase of troops along with a proper timeline and exit strategy, I really don't have a problem with it. And, indeed, the reason most often cited for him throwing out previous plans and starting over is that they lacked a sound exit strategy -- one must assume, then, that the soon-to-be-announced plan will have one.

not WILLING to wait and see. Why should anyone assume anything and act flaccid as an empty bag before it's "filled"?

Sure, I could "wait and see", but casting stones, as you say, is the vigilance I believe we were advised necessary by Jefferson.

Going off half-cocked before we know anything isn't, I think, the best way to express our belief in Jefferson's notion that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Notice how I'm trying to have a real conversation, flames be damned.

You could consider the same... And yes, the price of freedom IS eternal vigilance. Viva informed citizenry!

That said, I think there's something of a dichotomy between sloganeering "Viva informed citizenry" and bashing an Afghan policy that has yet to be announced. In your letter you say we need an exit strategy in Afghanistan, but you don't know yet whether Obama's strategy in Afghanistan will include such an exit strategy (and as I pointed out earlier, it's quite likely that it will), and so, you may very likely be castigating the man for not having an exit strategy when, in fact, he has one. Savvy?

Again, I want to stay on track with this and not say that I found something insulting when I did not. I'm critical, based on what I've followed thus far. BUT

If I don't "know yet whether Obama's strategy in Afghanistan will include such an exit strategy", and you're quite sure it will, would you LIKE to share your explanation of why you might be so sure?

At the very least I might glimpse that encouragement?

As you'll recall, Obama had four plans on his desk a couple weeks ago and rejected all of them.

The most common reason cited for his returning to the drawing board is that none of the plans offered benchmarks for when troops could begin to come home or a clearly defined exit strategy.

Because the above reason is the one that caused Obama to reject all these plans, ipso facto, the new plan must have benchmarks and an exit strategy.

Okay, move over.... :popcorn: :popcorn:

You're not WILLING to wait and see.

But you're also not the Commander in Chief. You don't get daily intelligence briefings. You're not privvy to information being provided by the commanders in the field.

In short, your anger is based on knee-jerk reactions and not on the facts in evidence, which, I say again, are fact NOT in evidence TO YOU.

In shorter, you have no choice but to wait and see.

Did you vote for the guy? Then trust him.

insurance products and he had no 'basic problem' doing a full reversal on that one. So I fail to see how 'what he campaigned on' has to do with the price of eggs today. If he can change a basic element of his platform he can change any of them. He held Clinton up for contempt for demanding mandates and fines for insurance. Made speeches, debate points, TV commercials and mass mailings to say 'she will force you to buy insurance, which is terrible and I will not do that awful thing.'
So gee, this escalation could just as easily go the way of 'no mandates' as not. It is not as if he is keeping true to his campaign words in other areas. You act as though the fact that he said a thing or did not say it during the campaign means he is held to that position. But the mandates make that look like the bs that it is.

had Obama taken a more active role in shaping health care legislation. Now, I'll agree certainly that he SHOULD HAVE been more active, and that his acquiescence to Congress on the matter was a huge mistake, particularly in that it has now (probably) given him a bill that even he has problems with, but that he will have to sign for political expediency. But I don't think you can necessarily say that Obama himself presented legislation to Congress that included mandated insurance because, of course, he never did.

Now, at the same time, I definitely agree that a politician, once elected, all too often forgets 99 percent of what he or she promised during the campaign, and in some ways, Obama is no exception. But I think that in this particular case, it's not a fair comparison. Obama has not, in fact, proposed legislation to Congress that included mandates -- in fact, he offered Congress no proposal at all. (Again, a move that I think was a rather poor one.) And in the case of foreign policy, what exactly are you arguing here? Obama campaigned on a smarter war in Afghanistan, but did not campaign on withdrawal. Are you suggesting that, because his campaign promises cannot be trusted, that withdrawal is eminent, or that what we'll see is simply a continuation of the Bush regime's strategy there? Because I think that, given what we've seen so far in Afghanistan since Obama took over the Oval Office, neither of those things has happened or is likely to happen.

There's just no logic in that line of thought at all. None.

But he hasn't announced anything yet.

I don't expect my having weighed in to change what he will SURELY announce.

Perhaps so many who post to GDP know something I don't?

When he said he didn't agree with any of the positions being offered I had a ray of hope. But now I think he might send 38K instead of 40K troops.

Its a quagmire and it will bring down our economy and undermine his presidency.

... I do NOT wish to undermine this presidency.

I seriously wonder if so many, including this forum hold him accountable and talk about the ray of hope you had (I had the same one).

The (Dem)chair of the appropriations committee said so this weekend. If Obama raises taxes to pay for the war that will be a loss. If he doesn't, the economy is going to get worse. Nothing is made better by sending more troops. Its a no win situation.

... everything flows downhill.

It's harder to predict the next year's local govt budget, we must make real decisions with providing basic services.

THESE DECISIONS EFFECT EVERYONE NOW.

.... when they see it's clear you neither paid attention to what he said during the campaign nor what to what the admin has been saying (off the record) to the press.

I mean, when I can even find a headline from F*x News saying he is making sure to have a "sound exit strategy" then you know there's a fundamental flaw in your argument.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/15/administration-lowers-bar-success-afghanistan-war-seeks-exit-strategy/

... I've paid as much attention as someone can while jumping into the quagmire of local government. In fact, some days I wish I were two persons. But, I'm living in real time where it portends our locally economy is headed into the next budget year, I can tell you.

Do I have to prove how much attention was paid to what Obama implied? I don't know that gets a pass on what many who are stationed in Afghanistan have said.

The message of any exit strategy continues to effect us economically.

... or any day. What a stupid popularity contest, when we should be having real dialog...

:think: - "What a concept!"

Because we need to understand a thing or two about what WE wanted from this president... and what WE are to contend with along the road to getting the fuck out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Personally, I will not risk standing idly by while this tender approach results in screwing us economically over and over again. Many of your local governments are dealing with this, folks, and we need an economic infusion, but "wait and see". That is clearly not going to cut it in time.

AGAIN... I say AGAIN... the real effect of foreign policy decisions like this effect us economically.

I'M SICK OF WAITING LIKE AN EMPTY VESSEL... hoping that the HOPE will pay off eventually. IT'S HAPPENING NOW!

:patriot:

In fact he promised to increase troops levels there which is what he is doing.

I can't think of where I heard or read that. Can you?

... but this gets nowhere to the point of this subject, nor what was quoted in the OP.

Furthermore, your post has statements which refer to "promises" Obama made regarding Afghanistan and that "we" voted you in to "bring the troops home". Those comments are not correct. I am just trying to set the record straight for those, including yourself, who may have forgotten what Obama has said and promised regarding the war in Afghanistan.

"Well, Mr. Warmonger, looks like you're getting exactly what you wanted! Enjoy the blood on your hands, chickenhawk!"

I have not been posting on DU for quite awhile.. now I know why.

But, as you can see, I want a real conversation here, flames be damned.

I seriously doubt he's going to just send more troops to AfghanisNAM without saying that an exit strategy is the first priority.

We'll see.

the insanity in Afghaistan was one of the things I disliked most about O during the campaign. I was praying it was some sort of political ploy to bolster his war cred, but I knew it could very well be his truth.

Once he was elected, I decided I would give him one year to see where he was going with both Iraq and Afghanistan before making a judgement. Come January, I fear it will be time for me to hit the streets again. :( Just becasue it is a Dem making a potentially huge mistake does not mean I will support it.

I encourage you to keep up with your efforts. I fear it is going to be a long four years.

Indeed...

"Do not forget your promise of hope to a severely wounded nation, largely placed in this position over the last 8 years, but surely sent there by an economic policy over the last 30."

Not that getting the Hell out of Afghanistan isn't also crucial..... but the worst thing I see on this board, from "our" side even, is the ridiculous assumption that Chimpy and Chimpy alone created the mess we are in now, when the truth is (as you pointed out) our current economic clusterfuck is the culmination of 30 years of fucked up economic policies.

I can't say whether or not Barack Obama personally recognizes that fact or not. But it's obvious that the stooges on his economic team not only recognize it, they celebrate it. Which I suppose extends to the President one way or another - he either chose these morons ($ummers, Timmy the elf, etc.) because he agreed with them, or relied on some really shitty advice from others who do. Either way, they need to go.

AND we need to get the fuck out of Afghanistan & Iraq. Permanently. NOW.

... whether or not he recognizes how we got we got here.

Your last line and time-line said it best.

K & R

If he gives the order they are supposed to have to obey him.
There is NO reason he cannot make a plan to leave...
Its just insane to pour more of our limited funds into these wars...bring our soldiers home NOW!

1: Weeks ago, after his initial discussions and planning sessions with his team, Obama instructed all his advisors to go to the drawing board again to specifically come up with recommendations that include an exit strategy. Did you miss that?

2: Next week, Obama is scheduled to address the country regarding the decision he has made on Afghanistan. He at least deserves to be heard before one starts throwing around words like "betrayal."

1. No, I didn't miss those recommendations the President unwilling to take up.

2. Betrayal by way of our role in two wars while spinning into insolvency is a likely objective without a swift exit strategy.

On what do you base "the President unwilling to take up?"

The President is at least willing to do one thing that you in your wisdom are not -- listen. We have not yet heard from him what his strategy is going forward, yet you ignore what he has actually done -- thrown out the recommendations he was given that did not include an exit strategy, and ordered recommendations that do include an exit strategy.

You scream at him for not doing something he has already done and then insist he has not done it?

You make assumptions without even knowing what the reality of his strategy is?

And yet you want to be taken seriously on this.

I'll stick with Obama.

Obama has only been a slight improvement over Bush so far. It looks like he's just another politician / salesman.

It's like watching your best friend drive away drunk and you know there is nothing you can do to stop them from killing themselves.
I grieve for this nation. If it lasts another generation I'll be truly surprised.

I don't want the troops there either, but there's a whole of information we don't know..

then go back to waiting on the rich folks.

Well said