White House Expresses Remorse over troops killed in Afghanistan

JORDYN PHELPS:
LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "TROOPER" (ONE) AND "TROOP" (A GROUP OF TROOPERS):

ABC’s Jordyn Phelps reports:

As President Obama contemplates U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, the military operation in the country is facing increasing violence. Eight U.S. troops [READ: TROOPERS] were killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday.

one would imagine that after 8 years of failed policy and plan in 2 wars, republicans might be a little more humble in their discussion of current policy on Afghanistan...

and yet, this illustrates so clearly the republican mindset.... don't plan, don't support, get it wrong, don't change... and claim victory, blame someone else for your failures after you leave office.

no small wonder why republicans were rejected by the american electorate

Obama announced his own strategy for Afghanistan back in March,

this a perfect example of the rigid unsuccessful policy of the rightwing anti-Obama crowd

they can't realize that conditions can change and require a newer analysis for a war plan.

one might imagine that after 8 years of failed republican war policies, they would learn a lesson or two

Not just dithering but dawdling too! We are in Afghanistan ( The 'good" war) to eliminate the government instability that allows terrorists to use it as a training ground. If their was a stable government we would not need to be there. The pathetic, weak and inept handling of this situation by this administration is horrifying.

So, let's see. As it turns out the latest WSJ/NBC poll shows that the public -- those not in the fringe, at least-- adamantly doesn’t want Obama to rush the extremely complex Afghanistan strategy decision. To wit--

"As you may know, the Obama administration has said it will not make a firm decision about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan until after that country’s upcoming runoff election when the president of Afghanistan will be determined and the political situation in that country is clearer. Do you support or oppose this decision?"

Support 58%
Oppose 37%

Meanwhile, rightwingers are helping Obama in some ways, since he will be sending more troops and the question seems to be how many and what is the end goal. Forty-seven percent now support a troop increase, up from last month and higher than the 43% who oppose it.

===for crying out loud this feckless dope make a bloody decision!===

Could be that making decisions is above his pay grade.

Don't look now, but Obama has failed John Kerry's "Global Test." The UN has just declared that Obama is “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there" in Afghanistan.

---US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN’s top investigator of such crimes said.

“The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan,” UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston told a press conference.

“My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law,” he said.---

Gen. McChystal probably never thought he would have to deal with a Commander-in Chief that injects so much politics in trying to make military decisions. It almost looks like Obama is looking at the polls and seeing which way the wind is going to blow before he decides on his commander's plea.
Wouldn't surprise me if McChystal just throws his arms up and resigns.

Remember Libs:

You have the White House, filibuster-proof majorities in Congress, and an overwhelmingly accomodating press (except for that pesky little Fox outfit).

War is over, if Barry wants it.

The president has already claimed that this is a "war of necessity", so how at this point could he not send in more troops? What did (does) he mean by "necessity"? Is it to capture Bin Laden? To shut down the Taliban? Al Qaeda? To promote democracy? There are terrorists all over the world, as we all know, we even have them right here in our own country.
Whether Bin Laden is there or not, I don't know. But if Afghanistan and Pakistan are the havens for terrorists and drug trades, then seemingly, we would need more troops. However, to eradicate the entire problem we would seemingly need to have troops everywhere. He needs to clarify exactly what he means by "necessary".

Obama continues to evade his responsibilities.

Same old cheap shots and smear tactics from the right - conveniently overlooking it was Bush and Cheney who left Afghanistan on the back burner for 7 years while al qaeda and the taliban regrouped -julieterra | Oct 27, 2009 8:10:03 PM & julieterra | Oct 27, 2009 7:07:44 PM
----------------
Same old tactics by the die-hard left. Copying and pasting Blame Bush arguments.

Why not try being objective and admit that Obama announced his own strategy for Afghanistan back in March, and that now his dithering about whether or not to send the troops requested by HIS man on the ground might be showing Al Qaeda that this is the opportune time to play on public fatigue and weak governance?

I don't know if we should be there or not. Everything I've heard about the Afghan government is that it's corrupt and rotting from the inside. This would be difficult enough with the backing of a trusted government, let alone one whose elections are being questioned.

Regardless of the decision or outcome, it would be nice if our President would adopt a "Buck Stops Here" attitude instead of perpetually blaming Bush, Fox, and whomever else and getting us past partisan politics like he promised in his campaign.

"OUR president the baby"
__________________________________

As soon as you resort to juvenile name calling, you discredit the remainder of your post - which fortunately didn't have much to offer anyway.

OH MY GOD,

wHAT IS THE big deal WE NEED TO GIVE OUR president the baby some time to deal with more pressing issues like the "war" against 'FOX'. We can't expect him to fight his brothers in the muslim world after all.....after all those evil terrorist carry weapons!

"Remorse"?

Do you mean THIS "remorse":

Main Entry: re·morse

1 a : a gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs (as injuries done to others) : SELF-REPROACH b : an attack of remorse
__________________________________

Yes, these are the types of slanted words that affect the mind set of the reader. So when the main use of the word is guilt for past wrongs or injuries done to others; or an attack of self reproach, the reporter has either used the word without proper care - or has intentionally slanted the piece.

Neither explanation seems that flattering.

"Remorse"?

Do you mean THIS "remorse":

Main Entry: re·morse

1 a : a gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs (as injuries done to others) : SELF-REPROACH b : an attack of remorse
2 obsolete : sympathetic sorrow : COMPASSION
3 obsolete : a lessening or break in a process or action
4 obsolete : a solemn obligation
synonym see PENITENCE

if & when
Posted by: mickey maoist

the 2 foundations of the republican cult,
always based on the most dire predictions possible to try and justify their ineptitude and failed policies

"Isn't it during the campaign he said that Afghan is the right war? What is your plan? I guess Obama lied because he does not have any plan."
____________________________________

Nonsense. Obama authorized 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, after finding the situation a complete mess as left by Bush and Cheney.

"This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said in a written statement.

Now, additional troops (up to 80,000!) have been requested - and even with those numbers the General says that corruption in Afghanistan may make winning the was impossible.

Try to be honest with your lying.

Eight dead soldiers.. How many more soldiers needs to die before he decides? Isn't it during the campaign he said that Afghan is the right war? What is your plan? I guess Obama lied because he does not have any plan.

"not a single person has suggested using nuclear weapons."
_______________________________________

Oh yeah?

"I don't know how many more lives have to be lost for Obama to do what Truman did"
Posted by: gary | Oct 27, 2009 7:17:34 PM

Are you really ignorant of 'what Truman did'?