76 days, 56 lives
That's the timeline since Obama's hand picked general in Afghanistan completed his review and asked for significantly more troops. Almost 25% of all fatalities in the Afghan war will have happened in Obama's first year in office. Yet still he waits, unable to decide what to do. The situation continues to degrade, troops are dying in increasing numbers, and our naive, inexperienced commander in chief is paralyzed into inaction, unwilling to listen to his generals. Obama campaigned on the necessity of the Afghan war, he's been talking about how important it is for at least 2 years, yet now that he is in charge he doesn't know what to do. Probably because it isn't on his teleprompter.
Advertisement
You got any better ideas?
The generals are urging more troops. If he commits more troops and then casualties increase, I'll bet you're just drooling at the chance to say their deaths would be his fault, aren't you?
Best bet is to get out of there, really - Karzai has no chance of surviving without us, but he's not our problem. That, and that the President might listen to "the generals", are the only meaningful Vietnam parallels.
But drooling idiot toothless Chihuahuas just want more dead Americans so they have another thing to blame Obama for.
You are truly beneath contempt.
Die, soon, and painfully.
October 20, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wanted the job, now he has it. And he doesn't know what to do. That 3am call Hillary talked about came and Obama doesn't want to answer it. You blamed Bush for a cloudy day, now you think it's unfair to expect Obama to be able to make up his mind on an issue he's been talking about for 2 years.
October 20, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, a non-answer. You truly are a punk, Chihuahua.
Be honest for once in your pathetic life and own up to wanting more dead Americans to lay at Obama's feet, you miserable piece of shit. Because that, in essence, is what you are hoping for.
You are not only incredibly stupid and a coward to boot, you're also thoroughly evil. The world will be a better place on your death, and hell will reject you as too repellent.
October 20, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO, it is you scumbag liberals that having been cheering for US troop deaths for years now. Stop projecting your treasonous thoughts onto others. I just want the idiot in chief to listen to his generals and win the war, but he is intent on losing it.
October 20, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit.
I've been steadily advocating getting the hell out of that damnable wilderness in Central Asia all along. There is no way we can win there, there is no way to win a war of attrition at that distance in a country where we do not belong or fit. If you have a better idea, put it up, asshole, and quit hiding behind "the generals" because they are as much a cause of dead American kids as anyone.
Afghanistan, and all of the rest of it, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, even Israel, none of it, none of it is worth a single drop of American blood.
Neither are you.
October 20, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if I had my way I would obliterate Waziristan, home to the Taliban and AlQuaeda. I would use nuclear weapons, and would have done so on 9/11 about an hour after the towers collapsed. I would instruct the military to win the war, period. I do not care at all about civilian casualties, mosques, or any of the pc crap the state dept worries about. If I had to obliterate all of Pakistan (our alleged ally), so be it.
October 20, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chihuahua your hero and fearless tinpot dictator from Crawford started the Afghan and Iraq wars and didn't finish either in eight years.
He was a complete failure and disgrace and you and other idiots like you voted him into office. Obmam has those disasters and a collapsed economy to deal with and has been President only wight months.
Instead, your Great Conservative White HOPE George W. Bush opened a US sponsored and funded Terrorism University in Iraq with visions of mushroom clouds and other lies and bullshit, and with US military troops as guinea pigs and targets for IED practice for Jihadists.
October 20, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as NobleCommentDecider said below, then, you miserable chickenshit, get your pathetic, lame, overly punked chihuahua-ass down to a recruitment station and get into uniform. (Presuming they'd take such a pitiful wimp as you, that is.)
Because anything else, from you, at this point, is more pathetic, uninformed, blustering blather.
October 21, 2009 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
76 days where do you get this number? McChrystal's report was leaked to WaPo on 9.21 and was not formally presented to The President through the chain of command (as it should have been in the first place) until October 1st. So please tell me what he got 76 days ago? ( a link would help) Word that McChrystal was going to request more? Now, there's something to base decisions on . . . a maybe with no supporting evidence as why or why not.
And let's assume just for fun that Obama did bow to McChrystal would those live have been saved? Sadly no. The troops still would not have been in place.
And a heads up to McChrystal you want your CiC on your side? Don't try and do an end around to the public. Especially a public that is tiring of these never ending wars.
October 20, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if Obama wants to cut and run (the standard democrat war strategy) why didn't he campaign on that? Why did he go to great lengths to point out that the Afghan was a war of necessity and declare how important it was to our security? Just more evidence that democrats can't be trusted with national security matters.
October 20, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut and run? Like Saint Reagan did when hundreds of Marines were blown up in Beirut because he and his generals put them all in one high-rise?
October 20, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that was a major screw up. It was idiotic to put marines on guard with empty guns, but that was the state dept meddling, and Reagan was wrong to withdraw and encourage the militants. He should have bombed the hell out of the whole place, including Iran for being involved.
October 20, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marines is capitalised.
And if the Democratic strategy was cutting and running, then tell me why Nixon cut and ran from Viet Nam, Bush cut and ran from Desert Storm, and why Eisenhower ended Korea with a peace treaty left unsigned. My track record indicates that Democrats tend to finish and win US wars.
Would you mind presenting some counter-evidence? Or is this all rote bluster?
October 20, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nixon was out of office before Saigon fell, Bush ended Desert Storm after Iraq was expelled from Kuwait. Democrats advocated fleeing Iraq before the surge, claiming the war was lost. They opposed Dessert Storm, opposed the Afghan war (claimed it would be a bloodbath and should be resolved by 'police')
October 20, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, I was really relieved that he saved Kuwait for Democracy....Oh thats right Kuwait isn't a Democratic state. Add to that the Bush White House had given tacit approval to Saddam to move on Kuwait.....and you have another "Bush" moment in the whitehouse.
October 20, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. It shoulda been a police action. Armies aren't known for detective work.
October 21, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh revisionist history. It wasn't Bedtime for Bonzo's fault but the State Dept? I remember clearly how befuddled reagan was at that time.....of course in true Hollywood style he pulled out of the crises to go conquer a few beach bums in Grenada......
October 20, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and here is the link for you on the 76 days:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6879511.ece
October 20, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet your were really pissed when George Bush waited until after the 2006 elections, in January 2007, to advocate for the surge in Iraq, even though advisers had told him to send more troops in October 2006.
What's that, you weren't upset at all? Why? What has changed?
October 20, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read wikipedia's timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007
It points out that no recommendations or decisions were made for increasing troops until mid December. Bush also faced a hostile Congress determined to oppose any new strategy.
However, to answer your stupid question, yes I was upset with Bush for not sending in more troops years earlier. It was a bad strategy to go with the 'small footprint', imo. How is any of that relevant now? Bush is gone. Obama is facing this issue and hoping it goes away. He is not leading.
October 20, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here's a quote from the Washington Post, the Number One establishment cheerleader for more war in the Middle East:
Among Bush's Top Advisers, Division Over the Surge
"As the violence in Iraq raged at unnerving levels in the summer of 2006, the Bush administration wrestled with how to respond, ultimately leading to dissension and disagreement over the Iraq war policy. As Bush's military advisers urged for a reduction in U.S. troops, Bush's advisers at the State Department and National Security Council advocated a more aggressive reevaluation of strategy. By October 2006, President Bush ordered national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to undertake a secret review of the war strategy. This under-the-radar review brought forth a dramatic shift: a plan to surge five brigades to Iraq, about 30,000 combat and support troops."
October 20, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And anyone whose upset with Obama taking two months (giving you the benefit of the doubt on this time frame) to decide on a plan of action, while Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq with no plan to win either, then dithered for years while Iraq went completely to shit, is pretty hilarious.
October 20, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, arguing that Obama is better than Bush proves what? Bush was an idiot in so many ways, just less of an idiot than Gore or Kerry. But your article points out that Bush's military advised against more troops, whereas Obama's is advising on the urgent need for more troops. So doing nothing when the military says they don't need support is a bit different from doing nothing when they say it is critical. Understand?
October 20, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But wasn't your argument just that the president should do whatever the generals tell him to do? Or, in the alternative, once Bush had a plan of action he agreed with, why did he still wait three months to put it into action?
Look, you're obviously one of those "conservatives" who despises everything Bush did and stood for. You were just too busy licking his boots when he was president to tell anybody.
October 20, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently can't read your own posts. If the review of strategy started in October, and meetings were still being held in December, where do you get that he waited 3 months?
Regarding Bush, yes I disagreed with a lot of what he did, mostly because he was too moderate and too much of a big spender. He was what democrats used to be before they became the flat out communists they are now.
October 20, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I disagreed with a lot of what [Bush] did, mostly because he was too moderate and too much of a big spender. He was what democrats used to be before they became the flat out communists they are now."
OK. I think we're done here.
October 20, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he's still medium rare. A few more hours at about 550 degrees, basting regularly, that might do it. We can ignore the stench for a while longer.
October 21, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clever -
Are you 12? How long are Republicans going to roll out this trope - "the standard democrat war strategy" before they figure out is has no traction or basis in fact.
Next you link does not work. Sort of like your argument. But as long as your linking Times online UK Read this one are your prepared for 30-40 years?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6788043.ece
We are coming into the winter months when fighting greatly subsides. So Obama has a bit of time after 7 years of Afghanistan being ignore and screwed up to try and see if is possible to get it right. Every nation before us hasn't been able to and I'm not sure why anybody thinks we have some magical power to be any different.
Truth is unless someone is willing to define what winning is and a exit strategy then we should get the hell out. The mission of getting Osama (remember that was the mission) is long past ever happening at least in Afghanistan.
October 20, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
link works fine when I just tried it.
October 20, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got it. was on my end. The 76 day time lines is from when McChrystal submitted to DoD. It was not officially submitted to Obama until 10.1. Next you are quoting someone on the foreign relations committee where does he get this number.
I hold by my original thought I want this right not fast.
October 20, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too slow and it may not matter, and I am pretty sure Obama was made aware of the contents of the report when it was submitted, if not sooner.
October 20, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, no getting Osama was not the mission. The mission was to destroy the alQuaeda bases and prevent them from having a sanctuary to attack us from, and to remove the evil Taliban.
Second, Obama's general said he needs the troops NOW, and that waiting til the end of the year might make the war unwinable.
Finally, Obama campaigned on the importance of this war. He's had at least 2 years of saying how important it is, you'd think he would have spent some time trying to figure out what to do, or at least trust the professionals who have.
October 20, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This from the same chihuahua who, when I confronted him with his own demonstrable lack of either understanding or plan, said he knew little or nothing about such things because he hadn't been to "...Army War College..." and promptly ran like a scared child and hid behind "the generals"?
You really do like to sling unmitigated bullshit, don't you?
What you don't know would fill the Library of Congress.
And all you can do is say "listen to the generals" when that was what created the disaster we remember (well, I remember it!) as Vietnam.
We listened to generals like Westmoreland (and the CIA) and what did we get?
Defeated. Because we were trying to prop up a government that would not fight for itself, and could not survive for two months without our military propping it up. Google John Paul Vann sometime, you miserable cur. He knew what was going on. He understood. And he was ignored. By the fucking generals!
You want a replay of the 1975 Embassy helicopter-borne rooftop evacuation, listen to the goddamned generals.
Is that what you are advocating, you miserable piece of shit?
October 20, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Saigon gov't collapsed when treasonous liberals in the US Congress cut off funding and then refused to authorize any emergency assistance. The war was lost because POLITICIANS like JFK and LBJ (and Nixon), and the democrat congress put such restrictions on the fighting of it that it could not be won. In addition traitor liberals like Walter Cronkite spun the Tet offensive as a major VC victory, when it was a crushing defeat. You know less about Vietnam than you do about the other things you spout off about, which is pretty remarkable.
October 20, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What were the rules of engagement in Viet Nam? Do you know? Do you care?
If you knew, you wouldn't write such things. Further, I doubt you know anything about war or its conduct. You sound to me like a trigger-happy chickenhawk. A nasty civilian.
October 20, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enemy aircraft could not be attacked on the ground, enemy aircraft could not be pursued into Laos, Cambodia. Northern cities could not be bombed, enemy troops could not be pursued into neighboring countries. That's a few of the restrictions.
October 20, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you only know abou limitations on expanding the locus of the war. And you don't know what rules of engagement or escalation of force procedures are. I doubt you know much about grunt level warfare. Otherwise you wouldn't spout half the genocidal blather you have loosed in here.
If you really knew war, and if you understood warfighting, your opinion would have relevance on its conduct. But you don't.
October 20, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.....so you are saying all those rules were followed? moron
October 20, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Northern cities could not be bombed? Want to ask any older residents of Hanoi or Haiphong about that one?
You truly are one stupid chihuahua.
October 21, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bulldog --- "Well, if I had my way I would obliterate Waziristan, home to the Taliban and AlQuaeda. I would use nuclear weapons, and would have done so on 9/11 about an hour after the towers collapsed. I would instruct the military to win the war, period. I do not care at all about civilian casualties, mosques, or any of the pc crap the state dept worries about. If I had to obliterate all of Pakistan (our alleged ally), so be it."
Nasty plus.
October 20, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In any given 76 days (wherever that number came from) 8,745 Americans will die due to lack of health insurance. ~20,000 have died while our issustriuse Senate wrings it's hands over health care reform. By rights, Max Bacus and Olympia Snowe can each file about 5,000 additional notches in their blackberries.
In order to save American lives, our president is delaying a politically unpopular (there are NO good options) decision on Afghanistan until after congress has passed a health bill. Once the Afganishit hits the fan, there will be no way to pass HCR.
October 20, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, basically you admit he is playing politics with the lives of our troops and the safety of the country. Nice. I finally found a liberal I agree with.
October 20, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding CBD, the guy you voted for, George W. Bush, played politics every day of his administration, most of all with terrorism and the lives of the the thousands of US troops and thousands of US citizens who were killed on his watch.
I am thankful Obama is not rushing more troops into a country that has had a corrupt and incompetent leader and government that was blindly supported by George W. who did not give a shit.
October 20, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be "our iLLustrious Senate.."damn dislexia!
October 20, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it's actually worth my time . . . But . . .
In light of the fact that all the Bulldog can do is crap in the corner and piss on your leg... I'll still take the time to post this:
It appears that both Gates and Obama are pretty clear on what their actions are and will be.
Now ... The rest of you folks can waste your time and stay around this dumb ass and play ring around his butthole, but you're just spinning your wheels.
Ain't that right bullshitting Bulldog?
~OGD~
October 20, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, idiot, where in that story does it say Obama has decided on what to do about McCrystal's troop request? In fact, what the hell was your point at all?
October 20, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did you start counting the dead bodies Chihuahua?
January 20, 2009?
Didn't Fox News tell you that that four thousand troops died in Iraq after Bush declared Mission Accomplished in May, 2003?
If you think more troops can save the lives in Afghanistan, sign up and deploy you hypocritical jerk.
October 20, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Puppy ... Get outside and crap in the yard . . .
And make sure you lick that butthole of yers nice and clean before coming back in the house...
~OGD~
October 20, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe we're actually wasting time writing on your pathetic attempt at political commentary via the CBD Blog, but here goes anyway. It is quite obvious that you have never served and have absolutely no clue what you're even talking about. You guys wrap yourselves in the flag, but refuse to wear the Camouflage. How ironic (and disgusting) that you would weigh in and call for more troops, when you have never even seen a war plan and know nothing of military tactics. Newsflash: EVEN GENERALS ACT POLITICALLY on occassion. As former military men (USMC here), we deplore your condescending advice and know that this war has been hampered for years! Iraq and Afghanistan have been run so poorly to date, it is amazing we have a chance in either. Let's get this right (as right as we can make it) and get U.S. troops out of the Holy Land. There is no way to win there. We've only acted to raise Al Qaeda's influence and numbers with our deployment.
October 21, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My 'condescending advice' to listen to the general in charge of the war? Instead of the advice from Biden, who never served a day, or relying on his own judgement (having also never spent a day in the military)?
October 21, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep lickin' . . .
Lick lick lick that crap spewing butthole you worthless mutt.
~OGD~
October 22, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink