SoonerBlue

 

It such a dang shame that so many of our kids are being maimed and killed in that crap-hole Afghanistan, just to keep that crooked Karzai in office...so that he and his drug-cartel brother can continue stuffing their pockets and off-shore banks with stolen US taxpayer dollars and drug profits.

President Obama is really between a rock and a hard place. If he pulls back in Afghanistan, Republicans will savage him...they'll holler about "cut and runners" all the way through the upcoming elections. They'll whine that we handed al Qaeda a victory against the world's greatest superpower...and that we'll be more vulnerable to another 9/11 attack.

So, a decision to pull back in Afghanistan may very well set the GOP up to gain seats in both houses of Congress in 2010...maybe even the White House itself in 2012.

If they win in 2010 it will be more difficult for Obama to get much done during the last two years of his term...which would certainly almost guarantee a defeat in 2012.

So, if Democrats jump off the Afghan tiger's back, it will probably turn and devour all their political advantages. But, if they continue to hang on, it will certainly cause more of our kids to die and shed blood in Afghan sand.

From what I've read, if our goal is to defeat al Qaeda, then Pakistan is where we should focus, not Afghanistan. Our generals say there's only about 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan....while the tribal regions of Pakistan probably have as many as 10,000.

Here's something to consider -- if Afghanistan falls under the control of the terrorists, they sure haven't won any prize. They get a large barren and rocky wasteland the size of Texas, filled with primitive, uneducated peasants...who think they're doing good if they have indoor plumbing.

But, if al Qaeda and friends could destabilize Pakistan, they could win control of a big prize -- nuclear weapons...lots of missiles to reach any enemy they want.

So, maybe we should just start paying more attention to drone bombing the al Qaeda in Pakistan, and less on whatever the hell we're fighting against in Afghanistan.

And instead of sending more US troops to Afghanistan, just tell Karzai and his drug kingpin brother that the US is no longer going to protect them...then just see how fast they hightail it out of Dodge.

 

I descend from a long line of military men and women who fought in US wars from the Civil War to the Iraq War...Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. I grew up on different military bases here and yon, and I still live in an Army town. I understand the military mind-set of duty, mission, and service...but I do not trust the military complex to make the best decisions for our country.

I've read President Eisenhower's warning to the nation about the dangers of allowing a "Military-Industrial Complex" taking control of our country...the idea being that if the military becomes the biggest client for certain manufacturers, then we will begin to invest more of our economy into military contracts.

So I'm very leery when our top generals go above the president to lobby for war expansion.

The military tends to view the world through its own particular experience... and think its solutions are the best... even to the point of condoning torture.

 

See, America preaches good governance to the rest of the world, we say the military should be confined to the barracks and out of the political sphere.

 

So yes, a military commander's judgment on what's needed for a given strategy is very important...but it's not the final word. And it should be voiced only to the President, not the newspapers.

 

From The Telegraph: "According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen [..]

[A]n adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart.[..]

"[I]n London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".

When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No." [..]"

Generals know that their job is to execute orders coming from the White House...so I wonder what makes Gen. McChrystal think his job description has suddenly changed. For him to push for his own foreign policy outside the normal chain of command, he must believe that somebody has his back.

I’m thinking this is a message from the good ol' Military/Industrial Complex to the administration to get with the program. After all, the guys who love those Big, Bad, Expensive Toys would probably prefer that GE and Raytheon and Halliburton call the shots...

And am I forgetting something? Like remember when GWBush showed an incredible lack of vision when he decided to send only 50,000 troops into Iraq...and said the Iraqi people would throw flowers at them? Were there any generals who went on the news to refute the President like General McCristol just did? Or did they just ask for more Big, Bad, Expensive Toys?

I trust our extremely intelligent president, who seems to be studying the problems in Afghanistan with a competent first-class team.

It has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican...it has everything to do with competent leadership.

 

He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. If President Obama had not gone to lobby the Olympic Committee for the USA, he'd have been much more to blame. He really had no choice but to go...even though he knew he was sticking his neck out.

With Chicago being rejected so early, looks like it wasn't high on the IOC's list anyway...and would have lost in the first round whether Obama went to bat for us or not. Then they'd say, 'Why didn't you go?'

Hometown pressure aside, you have to admire his guts...knowing how a rejection would leave him wide open to late-night jokes and criticism from his enemies,

It's a big deal for any country to get the Olympics...and nothing ventured, nothing gained.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the President thought it was the right thing to do, and he would do it over again.

For those who think that Rio's win means Obama has lost his "star quality" in the world, IOC member Anita De Frantz begs to differ: "Everyone wanted to have their picture with both of them, everyone wanted to be near him, so no, no, no he won. Chicago didn't."

Most Americans see the President's pitch as a matter of excellent statesmanship, engaging the world and representing US interest. After all, the leaders of the other Olympic contenders were there lobbying too.

Maybe the Olympic Committee didn't like the heavy grass-roots protests in Chicago against hosting the Olympics. Some reports said 45 percent of Chicago was against it. They sure made a lot of noise about not wanting the disruption, or having to tax everyone to pay for all the construction and preparation, etc.

Maybe Chicago's political reputation is just too shady...too much potential for graft and cronyism. But then, the IOC selection committee has its own reputation for being corrupt...

Maybe the fact that the US has hosted it several times in recent memory, and South America never has, tipped things in favor of Brazil. Maybe the IOC just chose the least politically charged selection out of all of the contenders.

Whatever, you can bet on the neo-cons laying the fault on Obama.

But to lose the Olympics and cheer? Dancing with glee because we lost to Rio only shows how bitter is their hatred of the President. Remember in 2004, how we cheered New York being a finalist for the 2012 Summer Olympics?

What happened to all those fine "America First" self-proclaimed patriots who now rant against Obama and Chicago? Does anyone remember that it was George Bush who first approached the Committee asking them to consider Chicago as the venue?

President Obama merely picked up where his predecessor left off.

So it's a sad statement on the state of the Republican party when their leaders resort to juvenile nyah nyah nyahs...cheering a loss to the USA probably because they can't get over their own loss at the ballot box.

Well, thank goodness not all conservatives are so childish. One of my favorite righties, Joe Scarborough from "Morning Joe," defends President Obama and speaks out against those who revel in America's Olympic defeat.

~~"Count me as one conservative who is disappointed that President Obama's hometown will not be hosting the 2012 Olympic Games.

Chicago is a beautiful city that would have made a perfect backdrop for the Olympics. The President was right to fly to Copenhagen to try to land the games, not for the sake of his city, but for the good of his country. The fact President Obama failed makes me respect him more for taking the chance, and the fact many right-wing figures opposed the President's mission shows just how narrow-minded partisanship makes us all. [...]

[W]hat we saw from some conservative corners regarding the President's failed Olympics bid was just plain stupid."~~

Way to go, Joe...you give me hope that the conservatives can pull out of that 'five spiral' dive and become a viable party again.

　

 

Ahmadinejad's jittery craziness is the perfect foil to what Gordon Goldstein calls Obama's "greatest qualities as president"..."his quality of mind and his quality of judgment -- his dispassionate ability to analyze a situation." 

We'll have to wait and see if Americans can appreciate a thoughtful and patient President over a knee-jerk reactive cowboy one.

From washingtontimes.com: "[M]r. Obama's disclosure Friday that Iran had a secret nuclear facility and that he had known about it since taking office introduced a new way of looking at many of his decisions since January.

"You have to go back and look at the nine months and all the moves he's made since then, and that he knew Iran was lying to him, and he still went ahead with it," said Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a Washington advocacy group devoted to eliminating nuclear weapons from the world.

"He played Iran perfectly, to isolate Iran, unite all the other countries around him, with an open hand to Iran, and then he springs the trap."

Not only did the president look strong, he looked cunning. [..]"

It is refreshing to see Obama handle the 'Iranian' problem this way....after eight years of "cowboyism."

I find his slow and thoughtful approach to these challenging problems remarkable. His bringing the Russians on board by agreeing to move Bush's  missile shield out of Eastern Europe was brilliant.

The neo-cons played checkers...Obama plays chess.