President Obama has already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

No you're the hypocrite. You seem to show some sort of outrage about Bush but kiss obama's A@@ whenever he does wrong. And he is doing wrong, just as Bush did wrong not listening to the generals.

[john & jean 37]

birds of a feather flock together

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

No you're the hypocrite. You seem to show some sort of outrage about Bush but kiss obama's A@@ whenever he does wrong. And he is doing wrong, just as Bush did wrong not listening to the generals.

Actually no. I haven't criticized Bush for not immediately jumping when the commander in Afghanistan called for more troops. Nor am I criticizing the current commander in chief for taking a good, hard look at our options and strategy in Afghanistan. Now, when dithering Cheney goes out claiming that the Obama administration is dithering, then I will call him out. As I will all those that have never questioned Bush on not filling a commander's orders but scream bloody murder if Obama takes time to consider the request. That's all.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

No you're the hypocrite. You seem to show some sort of outrage about Bush but kiss obama's A@@ whenever he does wrong. And he is doing wrong, just as Bush did wrong not listening to the generals.

Actually no. I haven't criticized Bush for not immediately jumping when the commander in Afghanistan called for more troops. Nor am I criticizing the current commander in chief for taking a good, hard look at our options and strategy in Afghanistan. Now, when dithering Cheney goes out claiming that the Obama administration is dithering, then I will call him out. As I will all those that have never questioned Bush on not filling a commander's orders but scream bloody murder if Obama takes time to consider the request. That's all.

Takes time while more American lives are lost. My sister's life is on the line over there while he makes a political decision.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

No you're the hypocrite. You seem to show some sort of outrage about Bush but kiss obama's A@@ whenever he does wrong. And he is doing wrong, just as Bush did wrong not listening to the generals.

Actually no. I haven't criticized Bush for not immediately jumping when the commander in Afghanistan called for more troops. Nor am I criticizing the current commander in chief for taking a good, hard look at our options and strategy in Afghanistan. Now, when dithering Cheney goes out claiming that the Obama administration is dithering, then I will call him out. As I will all those that have never questioned Bush on not filling a commander's orders but scream bloody murder if Obama takes time to consider the request. That's all.

Takes time while more American lives are lost. My sister's life is on the line over there while he makes a political decision.

That your sister's life is on the line is not the fault of the Obama administration. The war in Afghanistan was fcuked up a long, long time ago - if there really ever was anything to be won to begin with. That said, the Obama administration - unlike the dithering Bush administration - actually acted in February of this year on the troop request presented to the Bush administration in the Summer of 2008 ordering an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. Now, following an election in that country that is a sign of what is developing there (a corrupt and self-preserving government), I believe that we ought to take a look at what the options other than more troops and more bloodshed might be. Is it really worth it to sacrifice any more American lives or treasure over there? I'd rather have all options considered before sending more of our troops into harms way.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

No you're the hypocrite. You seem to show some sort of outrage about Bush but kiss obama's A@@ whenever he does wrong. And he is doing wrong, just as Bush did wrong not listening to the generals.

Actually no. I haven't criticized Bush for not immediately jumping when the commander in Afghanistan called for more troops. Nor am I criticizing the current commander in chief for taking a good, hard look at our options and strategy in Afghanistan. Now, when dithering Cheney goes out claiming that the Obama administration is dithering, then I will call him out. As I will all those that have never questioned Bush on not filling a commander's orders but scream bloody murder if Obama takes time to consider the request. That's all.

Takes time while more American lives are lost. My sister's life is on the line over there while he makes a political decision.

That your sister's life is on the line is not the fault of the Obama administration. The war in Afghanistan was fcuked up a long, long time ago - if there really ever was anything to be won to begin with. That said, the Obama administration - unlike the dithering Bush administration - actually acted in February of this year on the troop request presented to the Bush administration in the Summer of 2008 ordering an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. Now, following an election in that country that is a sign of what is developing there (a corrupt and self-preserving government), I believe that we ought to take a look at what the options other than more troops and more bloodshed might be. Is it really worth it to sacrifice any more American lives or treasure over there? I'd rather have all options considered before sending more of our troops into harms way.

BS - there is already "more bloodshed" .. And its getting worse.

Quit going to the default Bush argument. He isn't president now. Obama is the one screwing over Afghanistan right now while he makes political decisions and what could possibly look best for him. Its all about him after all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

No you're the hypocrite. You seem to show some sort of outrage about Bush but kiss obama's A@@ whenever he does wrong. And he is doing wrong, just as Bush did wrong not listening to the generals.

Actually no. I haven't criticized Bush for not immediately jumping when the commander in Afghanistan called for more troops. Nor am I criticizing the current commander in chief for taking a good, hard look at our options and strategy in Afghanistan. Now, when dithering Cheney goes out claiming that the Obama administration is dithering, then I will call him out. As I will all those that have never questioned Bush on not filling a commander's orders but scream bloody murder if Obama takes time to consider the request. That's all.

Takes time while more American lives are lost. My sister's life is on the line over there while he makes a political decision.

That your sister's life is on the line is not the fault of the Obama administration. The war in Afghanistan was fcuked up a long, long time ago - if there really ever was anything to be won to begin with. That said, the Obama administration - unlike the dithering Bush administration - actually acted in February of this year on the troop request presented to the Bush administration in the Summer of 2008 ordering an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. Now, following an election in that country that is a sign of what is developing there (a corrupt and self-preserving government), I believe that we ought to take a look at what the options other than more troops and more bloodshed might be. Is it really worth it to sacrifice any more American lives or treasure over there? I'd rather have all options considered before sending more of our troops into harms way.

BS - there is already "more bloodshed" .. And its getting worse.

Quit going to the default Bush argument. He isn't president now. Obama is the one screwing over Afghanistan right now while he makes political decisions and what could possibly look best for him. Its all about him after all.

Oh Joe, you're so full of it. Quit pointing out that Bush completely dropped the ball on Afghanistan for years? I thought you want to listen to the Generals? Well, that's what they say. Now are they wrong?

SAWYER: Speaking of those commanders, Adm. Mullen, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and also Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is head of the operation in Afghanistan, have both said that the reason we’re in the situation we’re in now is that this war was under-resourced, including during the Bush administration years. Let me play what they said first:

McCHRYSTAL: It’s been eight years. Why isn’t it better? … We’ve under-resourced our operations.

MULLEN: This has been a mission [Afghanistan] that has not been well-resourced; it’s been under-resourced almost since it’s inception, certainly in recent years. And part of why it has gotten more serious and deteriorated has been tied to that.

[NickD 202]

Ha, using golf as the criteria for time spend in recreation. A more appropriate measure would be the time they spend playing with one's self.

One of our best presidents that really spent most of his time at the golf course was Eisenhower. At least when he was there, he wasn't in the White House fuvking up the country. We would have been far better off if Bush spent all his time at the golf course.

[yogib37 3]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

No you're the hypocrite. You seem to show some sort of outrage about Bush but kiss obama's A@@ whenever he does wrong. And he is doing wrong, just as Bush did wrong not listening to the generals.

Actually no. I haven't criticized Bush for not immediately jumping when the commander in Afghanistan called for more troops. Nor am I criticizing the current commander in chief for taking a good, hard look at our options and strategy in Afghanistan. Now, when dithering Cheney goes out claiming that the Obama administration is dithering, then I will call him out. As I will all those that have never questioned Bush on not filling a commander's orders but scream bloody murder if Obama takes time to consider the request. That's all.

Takes time while more American lives are lost. My sister's life is on the line over there while he makes a political decision.

That your sister's life is on the line is not the fault of the Obama administration. The war in Afghanistan was fcuked up a long, long time ago - if there really ever was anything to be won to begin with. That said, the Obama administration - unlike the dithering Bush administration - actually acted in February of this year on the troop request presented to the Bush administration in the Summer of 2008 ordering an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. Now, following an election in that country that is a sign of what is developing there (a corrupt and self-preserving government), I believe that we ought to take a look at what the options other than more troops and more bloodshed might be. Is it really worth it to sacrifice any more American lives or treasure over there? I'd rather have all options considered before sending more of our troops into harms way.

That is a very well thought out post Reinhard, I think you are right and I agree with you a lot.

Your post is well thought out.

I want to say things like this but it gets lost in my brain

The right wingers were jealous for 8 yrs cause we had a field day with Bush.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm not buying the 'lives on the line' whine at this point in time.

All enlistees sign on the line understanding full well what the possible consequences of signing are. No melodramatic hype is needed here- all members of the armed forces, past and present, deserve more respect than to have us playing silly politics over their deployments. The politics should stay in Washington and in the foreign policy that RESULTED in their deployment.

Personally I think we should pay a little more attention to the strategy of developing a strong counterinsurgency in partnership with a legitimate Afghan government. I guess some of us here are too darn busy whining about talking points instead of paying attention to the actual context that is staring right back at all of us from afar.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm not buying the 'lives on the line' whine at this point in time.

All enlistees sign on the line understanding full well what the possible consequences of signing are. No melodramatic hype is needed here- all members of the armed forces, past and present, deserve more respect than to have us playing silly politics over their deployments. The politics should stay in Washington and in the foreign policy that RESULTED in their deployment.

Personally I think we should pay a little more attention to the strategy of developing a strong counterinsurgency in partnership with a legitimate Afghan government. I guess some of us here are too darn busy whining about talking points instead of paying attention to the actual context that is staring right back at all of us from afar.

I think they should just bring the troops home, give them all medals, and pat them on the backs for a job well done. It's time for that part of the world to solve their own problems, without the US. In the end, that corridor serves no stategic importance to the US, and can be safely written off.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why ask for evidence if you wouldn't know it if it slapped you in the face?

Indeed. The evidence that Bush and Cheney were dithering on Afghanistan leaving the generals hanging with their request for more troops slapped you in the face and you don't seem to know it. That's apparently not a big deal and not worth a damn bit of outrage. Hypocrite.

No you're the hypocrite. You seem to show some sort of outrage about Bush but kiss obama's A@@ whenever he does wrong. And he is doing wrong, just as Bush did wrong not listening to the generals.

Actually no. I haven't criticized Bush for not immediately jumping when the commander in Afghanistan called for more troops. Nor am I criticizing the current commander in chief for taking a good, hard look at our options and strategy in Afghanistan. Now, when dithering Cheney goes out claiming that the Obama administration is dithering, then I will call him out. As I will all those that have never questioned Bush on not filling a commander's orders but scream bloody murder if Obama takes time to consider the request. That's all.

Takes time while more American lives are lost. My sister's life is on the line over there while he makes a political decision.

That your sister's life is on the line is not the fault of the Obama administration. The war in Afghanistan was fcuked up a long, long time ago - if there really ever was anything to be won to begin with. That said, the Obama administration - unlike the dithering Bush administration - actually acted in February of this year on the troop request presented to the Bush administration in the Summer of 2008 ordering an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. Now, following an election in that country that is a sign of what is developing there (a corrupt and self-preserving government), I believe that we ought to take a look at what the options other than more troops and more bloodshed might be. Is it really worth it to sacrifice any more American lives or treasure over there? I'd rather have all options considered before sending more of our troops into harms way.

BS - there is already "more bloodshed" .. And its getting worse.

Quit going to the default Bush argument. He isn't president now. Obama is the one screwing over Afghanistan right now while he makes political decisions and what could possibly look best for him. Its all about him after all.

Oh Joe, you're so full of it. Quit pointing out that Bush completely dropped the ball on Afghanistan for years? I thought you want to listen to the Generals? Well, that's what they say. Now are they wrong?

SAWYER: Speaking of those commanders, Adm. Mullen, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and also Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is head of the operation in Afghanistan, have both said that the reason we’re in the situation we’re in now is that this war was under-resourced, including during the Bush administration years. Let me play what they said first:

McCHRYSTAL: It’s been eight years. Why isn’t it better? … We’ve under-resourced our operations.

MULLEN: This has been a mission [Afghanistan] that has not been well-resourced; it’s been under-resourced almost since it’s inception, certainly in recent years. And part of why it has gotten more serious and deteriorated has been tied to that.

Ok so go kill Bush - that will make you happy. I don't give a @$^ about what happened in the last 8 years. I care about whats happening now. People are dying because they don't have the support.

So you're argument is that, Bush underresourced the war, and so is Obama, so therefore, Obama is right because he's a democrat.

You are full of BS. Get your lips off Obama's A@@ and you might see reality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not buying the 'lives on the line' whine at this point in time.

All enlistees sign on the line understanding full well what the possible consequences of signing are. No melodramatic hype is needed here- all members of the armed forces, past and present, deserve more respect than to have us playing silly politics over their deployments. The politics should stay in Washington and in the foreign policy that RESULTED in their deployment.

Personally I think we should pay a little more attention to the strategy of developing a strong counterinsurgency in partnership with a legitimate Afghan government. I guess some of us here are too darn busy whining about talking points instead of paying attention to the actual context that is staring right back at all of us from afar.

I think they should just bring the troops home, give them all medals, and pat them on the backs for a job well done. It's time for that part of the world to solve their own problems, without the US. In the end, that corridor serves no stategic importance to the US, and can be safely written off.

I think that if you break something you have some responsibility for fixing it.

Of course - effing things up and then pissing off and leaving some other poor ####### to pick up the pieces is what the US (and every major world power before that) are very good at.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm not buying the 'lives on the line' whine at this point in time.

All enlistees sign on the line understanding full well what the possible consequences of signing are. No melodramatic hype is needed here- all members of the armed forces, past and present, deserve more respect than to have us playing silly politics over their deployments. The politics should stay in Washington and in the foreign policy that RESULTED in their deployment.

Personally I think we should pay a little more attention to the strategy of developing a strong counterinsurgency in partnership with a legitimate Afghan government. I guess some of us here are too darn busy whining about talking points instead of paying attention to the actual context that is staring right back at all of us from afar.

I think they should just bring the troops home, give them all medals, and pat them on the backs for a job well done. It's time for that part of the world to solve their own problems, without the US. In the end, that corridor serves no stategic importance to the US, and can be safely written off.

I think that if you break something you have some responsibility for fixing it.

Of course - effing things up and then pissing off and leaving some other poor ####### to pick up the pieces is what the US (and every major world power before that) are very good at.

Somewhere in between you and Bill is where I personally feel on the issue. Usually that's the way things would work out in a forward-moving world where 'benevolent' aggression leads to stable nation building, independent of the causes.