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

[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.

I agree but for different reasons. Afghanistan is in a 35 year old civil war as stated in this former marine turned foreign service officers resignation letter as of today. My political science professor once said it best in that we should get out of the Afghan War because many a great nation have fallen in these lands. There is its history of long wars here and then there is the fact that the ideology we are fighting there is also in 23 different countries and we can't be in all of them. How can we justify just this one or that one? We're going to have to change strategy on the home front which is what really needs the critical eye of scrutiny. The decision about sending more troops or not should be the easy and intuitive one.

Obama has nearly finished gathering information on whether to send tens of thousands more American forces to quell the deepening insurgency, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. source

That said this article just today claims October is the deadlist month for US in Afghan War. I have to agree with those that say every life lost in the wars right now are on the current administration.

There is a whole bunch of people who voted for Obama because they wanted the US to get out of these Wars. I want Obama to get us out of these wars and bring home the troops.

I don't know that your reason for getting out is all tat different from mine - there isn't anything to be won just sums up what you said. But hey, word on the last paragraph.

He isn't ever going to get out of Afghanistan.. And the funny part is that you'll be ok with it because Obama is your lord.

[HAL 9000 96]

Somehow a rolleyes isn't enough.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Somehow a rolleyes isn't enough.

But you should have done it anyway

[scandal 951]

Somehow a rolleyes isn't enough.

Mebbe two unsures ? :unsure:

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Somehow a rolleyes isn't enough.

But you should have done it anyway

Do you wear a baseball cap backwards with your sunglasses?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Somehow a rolleyes isn't enough.

But you should have done it anyway

Do you wear a baseball cap backwards with your sunglasses?

No but i'd look sweet

[HAL 9000 96]

Somehow a rolleyes isn't enough.

But you should have done it anyway

I knooooooooow.

Somehow a rolleyes isn't enough.

Mebbe two unsures ?

For some of these chilluns I think the addition of a new emoticon would be in order.

[Kevin and 10]

He was racist and segregated the federal civil service by forcing out blacks who had been obtaining government jobs during Reconstruction. He personally set back civil rights and integration more than any President in the post Civil War era. Other than that though, he was a pretty righteous dude.

:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

yeah i guess that's one take on it - as long as one didn't speak out against ww1.....

----------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

Thus, while "espionage" is usually defined as a clandestine activity of getting secret information and passing it on to the enemy, the law vastly extended the meaning of the term to include also the openly carried expressing of political opinions, without revealing any secret, and by persons who had no connection with the enemy - as long as the expressing of such opinions was construed as helping the enemy.

This was punishable by a maximum $USD 10,000 fine (almost $170,000 in today's dollars) and 20 years in prison (almost 22.5 years in today's years in respect to life expectancy).

-----------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

The Sedition Act of 1918 (May 16, 1918) was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

The Espionage Act made it a crime to help enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.

------------------

yeah, some "...righteous dude." he shredded the first amendment.

Don't forget Wilson's Brown Shirts, American Protective League.

[Kevin and 10]

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.

The opium trade. There's a lot of cash to be made in illicit drugs. The CIA has been caught smuggling before, so what would stop them now?

[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.

The opium trade. There's a lot of cash to be made in illicit drugs. The CIA has been caught smuggling before, so what would stop them now?

True. However, the CIA does much better with secret wars, although most of the current administration was problably on the other side when those findings were being executed.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh yeah- GHWB was in charge at the CIA at the time wasn't he?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Oh yeah- GHWB was in charge at the CIA at the time wasn't he?

I was thinking more Reagan administration, with Kukela, Fran, and Olly North.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh yeah- GHWB was in charge at the CIA at the time wasn't he?

I was thinking more Reagan administration, with Kukela, Fran, and Olly North.

It was an inherited structure set up by GHWB in the 70s. This isn't that covert- I think you're thinking more specifically of the narcoterrorist Contras in Nicaragua and the whole Iran-Contra deal.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Oh yeah- GHWB was in charge at the CIA at the time wasn't he?

I was thinking more Reagan administration, with Kukela, Fran, and Olly North.

It was an inherited structure set up by GHWB in the 70s. This isn't that covert- I think you're thinking more specifically of the narcoterrorist Contras in Nicaragua and the whole Iran-Contra deal.

More or less. The whole idea was touched upon in "Clear and Present Danger". But there was more to it, as it spilled into other parts of Central America, El Salvador, for one, and Panama for another. Now it is DEA trying to stop it. Back then it was the CIA trying to promote it, a carry over from the wars in Southeast Asia, and the man in charge, well you touched on it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why do you think Noriega is in jail here after being on CIA payroll??