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.

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.

Kill Bush? Aside from the fact that I never have nor ever would support such a bastardly notion, what would that accomplish? Contrary to what you seem to believe, the death of a fellow human doesn't give me any joy.

And contrary to what you seem to have read my argument is and has been two-fold:

1) I believe that careful and comprehensive consideration ought to be given to any request for more troops. A cost/benefit analysis as well as an ongoing strategy consideration should occur before troops are comitted. The administration owes as much to the military and the country and this isn't a process that happens overnight. Western yahoo style shooting from the hip is not a fruitful approach as the last 8 years have impressively demonstrated.

2) All those outraged by Obama's consideration of the general's troop request need to proudly wear the label of a hypocrite as I don't recall any of them - including you - being outraged when Bush & Co. sat on their general's request for months never providing a single pair of the additional 60,000 boots that the general wanted to have on the ground there. Selective outrage is the game of the day for the RWN. That's well established.

Lastly, I am actually at odds with the Obama administration over Afghanistan as I think that rather than getting deeper into this mess, we ought to be getting out. There's nothing to be won over there.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Kill Bush? Aside from the fact that I never have nor ever would support such a bastardly notion, what would that accomplish? Contrary to what you seem to believe, the death of a fellow human doesn't give me any joy.

And contrary to what you seem to have read my argument is and has been two-fold:

1) I believe that careful and comprehensive consideration ought to be given to any request for more troops. A cost/benefit analysis as well as an ongoing strategy consideration should occur before troops are comitted. The administration owes as much to the military and the country and this isn't a process that happens overnight. Western yahoo style shooting from the hip is not a fruitful approach as the last 8 years have impressively demonstrated.

2) All those outraged by Obama's consideration of the general's troop request need to proudly wear the label of a hypocrite as I don't recall any of them - including you - being outraged when Bush & Co. sat on their general's request for months never providing a single pair of the additional 60,000 boots that the general wanted to have on the ground there. Selective outrage is the game of the day for the RWN. That's well established.

Lastly, I am actually at odds with the Obama administration over Afghanistan as I think that rather than getting deeper into this mess, we ought to be getting out. There's nothing to be won over there.

Again, If you don't see that troops are already committed there then you have to be stupid. I'm not calling you that, but if you don't see that then you are.

Troops are already there, it isn't "escalating" as ALLLLL your pretty little democrats called it when they were against putting more troops in. Its called reinforcements. People are dying while Obama makes a political decision. You have to be stupid if you think he's really just trying to find the best option. He's running around giving speeches, golfing, campaigning, etc while troop's lives (including my sister) are in danger and being lost. You didn't know me during the Bush years and I had plenty of beefs with him as well. Bush is not commander in chief, Obama is. So all that matters now is what Obama is doing. You can't point out any hypocrisy where none exists.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You didn't know me during the Bush years and I had plenty of beefs with him as well.

Its a good bet that you didn't know anyone here during the Bush years and that hasn't stopped you from accusing others of holding opinions that they don't. What makes you think you should be treated any differently when its done to you?

1) I believe that careful and comprehensive consideration ought to be given to any request for more troops. A cost/benefit analysis as well as an ongoing strategy consideration should occur before troops are comitted. The administration owes as much to the military and the country and this isn't a process that happens overnight. Western yahoo style shooting from the hip is not a fruitful approach as the last 8 years have impressively demonstrated.

2) All those outraged by Obama's consideration of the general's troop request need to proudly wear the label of a hypocrite as I don't recall any of them - including you - being outraged when Bush & Co. sat on their general's request for months never providing a single pair of the additional 60,000 boots that the general wanted to have on the ground there. Selective outrage is the game of the day for the RWN. That's well established.

Lastly, I am actually at odds with the Obama administration over Afghanistan as I think that rather than getting deeper into this mess, we ought to be getting out. There's nothing to be won over there.

I think the obvious point here is that if people don't want politicians playing politics with people's lives, they should probably think twice before they jump in bed with them to endorse and fight their wars.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well ya know... they can't die if there are more of them there.

Again, more retarded politicizing things beyond petty politics.

Edited October 27, 2009 by HAL 9000

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Well ya know... they can't die if there are more of them there.

Again, more retarded politicizing things beyond petty politics.

This is the most assinine thing i've ever heard. Amateurish beyond belief.

So the fewer troops there, the safer they are? You are dumber than I thought. Not an insult, I feel sorry for the small mindedness. So if we have 1 troop there, less troops will die. Even if he's killed and that means 100% of our troops there are dead? You have got to be kidding me.

And Hunt, let me know when you want to stop blaming Bush for Obama's problems and short-comings.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Joe - let me know when you want to apply the same standards to others that you apply to yourself.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Joe - let me know when you want to apply the same standards to others that you apply to yourself.

Let me know when you stop whining.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Joe - let me know when you want to apply the same standards to others that you apply to yourself.

Let me know when you stop whining.

Let me know when you've grown up.

As someone with a sister in the war zone - I'm surprised that you don't want a more honest discussion on the subject - at least one that doesn't involve distorting the opinions of others so you can get your jollies on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Kill Bush? Aside from the fact that I never have nor ever would support such a bastardly notion, what would that accomplish? Contrary to what you seem to believe, the death of a fellow human doesn't give me any joy.

And contrary to what you seem to have read my argument is and has been two-fold:

1) I believe that careful and comprehensive consideration ought to be given to any request for more troops. A cost/benefit analysis as well as an ongoing strategy consideration should occur before troops are comitted. The administration owes as much to the military and the country and this isn't a process that happens overnight. Western yahoo style shooting from the hip is not a fruitful approach as the last 8 years have impressively demonstrated.

2) All those outraged by Obama's consideration of the general's troop request need to proudly wear the label of a hypocrite as I don't recall any of them - including you - being outraged when Bush & Co. sat on their general's request for months never providing a single pair of the additional 60,000 boots that the general wanted to have on the ground there. Selective outrage is the game of the day for the RWN. That's well established.

Lastly, I am actually at odds with the Obama administration over Afghanistan as I think that rather than getting deeper into this mess, we ought to be getting out. There's nothing to be won over there.

Again, If you don't see that troops are already committed there then you have to be stupid. I'm not calling you that, but if you don't see that then you are.

Where did I say that troops are not already committed? I was referring to committing an additional 40K troops as requesetd by Gen. McChrystal and maintain that this is a decision that isn't to be made lightly. Of course, you know that and were merely looking to fire a cheap shot. You missed.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Darnell 8,478]

I thought Mr. Obama not have the same 'walking and talking' issues as Mr. Bush?

Golf is a game for walking and talking, IMO.

[nowhereman 1]

Meanwhile, somewhere out there, a general is still waiting for more troops.

Ummm Bush ignored the advice of his Generals for 3-4 years, so your argument falls flat. As for Obama I hope he can play golf better than he can bowl.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well ya know... they can't die if there are more of them there.

Again, more retarded politicizing things beyond petty politics.

This is the most assinine thing i've ever heard. Amateurish beyond belief.

So the fewer troops there, the safer they are? You are dumber than I thought. Not an insult, I feel sorry for the small mindedness. So if we have 1 troop there, less troops will die. Even if he's killed and that means 100% of our troops there are dead? You have got to be kidding me.

And Hunt, let me know when you want to stop blaming Bush for Obama's problems and short-comings.

Not quite what I wrote is it? Try again, with the writing spelled out in those notebooks they use to learn proper reading/writing technique.

What was that? Typical copout? Quit whining and read correctly for once in your OT life.

Joe - let me know when you want to apply the same standards to others that you apply to yourself.

Let me know when you stop whining.

Let me know when you've grown up.

As someone with a sister in the war zone - I'm surprised that you don't want a more honest discussion on the subject - at least one that doesn't involve distorting the opinions of others so you can get your jollies on.

Really. That in itself is ridiculous beyond any reason.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Meanwhile, somewhere out there, a general is still waiting for more troops.

Ummm Bush ignored the advice of his Generals for 3-4 years, so your argument falls flat. As for Obama I hope he can play golf better than he can bowl.

You are Bush deranged. Obama needs to get the troops there and then decide whether to pull out or not.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I thought Mr. Obama not have the same 'walking and talking' issues as Mr. Bush?

Golf is a game for walking and talking, IMO.

Homos play golf.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why?