FDR, JFK, even old LBJ... all were war presidents..

These are some of our stalwarts that we pull out on a weekly basis to make a point. They had to deal with wars, but that did not make them war mongers.

President Obama did not start either of these two wars he was handed.

He is trying to free us from 8 years of non stop war, and if you had been reading the papers lately, you would know that he has been battling those who want an open ended war for at least 10 more years.

He has set a date to try and start dismantling this thing.

He like all the other Democrats, wanted to take the troops out of Iraq, and finish the Afghan conflict and come home.

This is exactly what he is doing.

Damn straight you're a Peacetrain~

Did you happen to catch Krugman on CNN today.. He was doing a commentary on this .. His point was that Obama had to give a time limit to the Afghanis and Pakistanis because they have started to rely on us to do all the fighting..and are just sitting back.

I'm finding out more and more about this.

.... strangely enough the logic he used for why we should put a time line on leaving Iraq.

I remember it as clear as day because it was the week before Super Tuesday and I was trying to decide who to vote for. My HEART wanted to vote for him but I didn't feel (at that time) that he could beat Hillary (who I also adore) in the primaries, or McCain in the general (which seems hillarious to think of now.) I wanted my vote to count. But their policy stances were SO similiar that I was really trying to find an excuse ... and wasn't having much luck.

I originally felt that it was unfair to put a timeline on leaving Iraq. I felt that we made the mess, we should stay as long we needed to to fix it. That was essentially Hillary's position (from what I remember.)

But then he explained that by fixing a timeline, the Iraqis would have to step up to the plate because they'd know, at some point, we'd be gone and it would all be on them.

And that's what I needed.

I entered the voting booth that Tuesday confident in the man I was voting for and I haven't lost that confidence since.

It's actually amazing that none of the press has brought that point up. I smiled when I heard Hillary mention it in the Senate hearing this morning.

I may have to find the Youtube of that moment. It would be interesting to watch again given the current circumstances.

And Michael Jordan sucked at basketball.

He nearly flipped out when Martin Luther King spoke up against the Vietnam War.

and company did, and how they lied to him.. I saw it in a different light.

He should never have been President. He wasn't up to the job, and knew it.

and reduced poverty by epic proportions in this country.

The war was wrong, but he was defintely up for the job. He knew how to whip the House and Senate into shape and get critical legislation passed. We don't have anyone today that can do that.

Maybe should have stayed there and stayed out of foreign affairs. He was just not able to fight the military-industrial complex.

I'll never forget the disgust I felt when he'd get on TV and look over his glasses at us and say, "my fellow Americans..." Shudder!

programs that had a significant reduction in poverty.

Paul Krugman notes:
L. B. J. declared his “War on Poverty” 44 years ago. Contrary to cynical legend, there actually was a large reduction in poverty over the next few years, especially among children, who saw their poverty rate fall from 23 percent in 1963 to 14 percent in 1969.



Obama will not have an opportunity to reduce poverty, or create much in the way of social programs because everything in this country is going to impoverished from his two wars.

deliberately to provoke the North Vietnamese. It's on tape.

I saw LBJ differently..Not the war, but how he got pulled into it so deep..

Every time we add troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the violence increases. War is not peace.

America particularly Democrats are bitterly divided about escalating in Afghanistan.

Obama is ignoring the primary lesson of Vietnam: Do not escalate or start a war unless the American people are united behind you.

He has decided to roll the dice and stir the pot there. Obama owns that war now.

.... and we co-signed on the title.

rather than end it. It is Obama's war not only because he took the oath of office January 10th, but because he is worsening conditions in Afghanistan.

Every time we have sent our troops into Afghanistan, the violence increases.

security and even Human Rights Watch has this comment today on the Obama Plan

"Human Rights Watch said Obama's plan needed to strengthen civilian protection with a "clear strategy for combating corruption, removing warlords and holding rights violators accountable."

The human rights organization called the U.S. emphasis on rule of law in Afghanistan "long overdue" but said sufficient training of Afghan security was needed to "ensure basic human rights protections."

Add to that the President has given a time line to the Afghanis and Pakistanis that we will not be there in an open ended war (as some have been trying to get through)

That we will do this and then we are coming home.

How would you or anyone do it differently to unwind this war we had handed off to us?

He campaigned on the idea, as did Kerry before him, that we "took our eye off Afghanistan and bin Laden and went into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11". How many hundreds of times have we heard Obama, Kerry, Clinton and others saying this? And what did it mean? It did not mean that we should give up on Afghanistan--it meant exactly the opposite! Yet some of us here somehow expected Obama to magically solve Afghanistan without using the military. Karsai's not up to the job and it is in our interest to create a climate where extremism has a really hard time flourishing.

I have been taken aback reading some of the postings here at DU, reading the opinions of those who have minds as narrow as anyone on the right, and who are determined to see everything in a slanted way with a predetermined opinion. It's like trying to talk to my old wingnut dad--absolutely a waste of time trying to change his mind. I thought liberal-progressives were interested in facts and truth, not in attacking everyone they don't agree with.

... many are upset about this because they are "shocked that Obama is doing this." Despite what he's clearly said on the matter, he has earned a reputation for using diplomacy as his first "weapon" when dealing in the international front.

So for him to suddenly seem hawkish seems out of character (again, despite what he's said over and over again on the matter.)

It's a testament to who he is.

(I always have to look at the bright side of everything.)

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are Wahhabi Muslims, the religion of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis fund a global network of Wahhabi schools in which anti-Semitism, hatred of Israel, and misoginy are core elements of the curriculum. I saw a PBS video a few months ago of the madrassas in Pakistan, where young boys are basically brain washed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

description of what's going on around here.

I was anti war before Obama knew how to go to the shitter all by himself.
If you expect me to change my ways and accept war as an answer just because the kid thinks it's the answer, well, that dog don't hunt.

Seems you may be the closed minded one, just like your dad?

.... the blood thirsty savage. He had a country to build, why waste money fighting the Britsh? India certainly tried and failed.

instead of the government.

Our founding fathers were pretty smart.

The use of these indicates a lack of ability to communicate effectively, childishness, and futility.

K and R.