A Look at the President's Meetings on Afghanistan and Pakistan

"No such thing occurred at all."

Really?

Bush and Cheney did not wait until Oct of 2008 to do a review of Afghnaistan

"It was Nancy Pelosi who declared in April, 2005 that "the war in Afghanistan is over."

yes she was speaking about infinite detainment and drawing a line where the war ends.

Being a dishonest right wing you quote her out of context.

"Al Qaeda had publicly declared that Iraq was the central front in the jihad against the West, and Bush defeated them there"

Except Al Queda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion.

Perhaps if we had concentrated on taking Al Queda out in Afghanistan instead of trumping up bogus WMD charges so Bush could have a glorious war vs the slog in Afghanistan Al Queda would not consider Iraq the central front.

"Mr. Obama is so indecisive. It seems he's looking to vote "present" on Alfgan."

Is it true they eat cats on the planet Alfgan?

Mr. Obama is so indecisive. It seems he's looking to vote "present" on Alfgan.
___________________________________

It's smart for the President to take time with this decision - and get the best input possible. Afghanistan was a disaster for the Soviets and its been a quagmire for many invaders throughout the centuries. 'Civilizing' it could be a hopeless task, at least using military might. I surely don't know - and neither do you.

Mr. Obama is so indecisive. It seems he's looking to vote "present" on Alfgan.

For 7 years, Bush and Cheney left Afghanistan simmering on the back burner while the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped and restrengthened - with very serious consequences for our troops and the Afghani people that we see today.
___________________________________

You cannot blame this on anybody else.

Bush and Cheney had the authority to increase the troops in Afghanistan to whatever levels they wanted. Instead they put Afghanistan on the back burner and launched their neo-con attack on Iraq.

Afghanistan languished as the Taliban got stronger and al Qaeda got stronger. They squandered a 'victory' and endangered our troops and the Afghan people.

And now they're attacking Obama for lack of IMMEDIATE action - after 7 long years of dithering.

"That is nothing compared to the 7 years Bush and Cheney left Afghanistan simmering on the back burner while the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped and restrengthened..."

No such thing occurred at all. It was Nancy Pelosi who declared in April, 2005 that "the war in Afghanistan is over." Al Qaeda had publicly declared that Iraq was the central front in the jihad against the West, and Bush defeated them there. The Taliban had been removed from power and a democratically elected government was seated in Kabul. Bush sent the forces where the enemy was, and he beat them there.

The problem in Afghanistan today stems from Pakistan, and it is up to Barack Obama to deal with it. His days of complaining about what he inherited are over--the situation on the ground is vastly different from the one he "inherited," and he will have to be man enough to confront it. There is ample reason to doubt that he is up to the task.

Suffice it so say that FDR did not convene multiple meetings with a variety of people over the course of three months in order to decide whether to commit 40,000 men, 20,000 men, or none at all.
____________________________________

That is nothing compared to the 7 years Bush and Cheney left Afghanistan simmering on the back burner while the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouped and restrengthened - with very serious consequences for our troops and the Afghani people that we see today.

"How long was the meeting? 4 minutes? 23 minutes? An afternoon meeting with a sandwich break and tea?"

I would be happy to educate you about this matter were it not for your flippancy. Your assignment is to find out those facts for yourself, if you care.

Suffice it so say that FDR did not convene multiple meetings with a variety of people over the course of three months in order to decide whether to commit 40,000 men, 20,000 men, or none at all.

And the point, in case you truly did miss it, is that what were are seeing is absurd indecisiveness and a failure of leadership in wartime. Deal with it.

"I am waiting for what you agree with Mr Hebert with."

I agree only that the man is a numskull, and I love to see him sowing what Gibbon called "intestine discord" within the goofball community.

"Do you think we should withdraw from Afghanistan as he desires?"

No. I think if we had a commander-in-chief he would have decided months ago whether to grant the request of his field commander, or to withdraw before more men get killed in a half-hearted effort.

"Or do you agree with the President that Afghanistan is a fight we should be engaged in?"

I do not think the president is truly engaged in it; otherwise he would not have dithered since August on a request for reinforcements while his men are getting killed.

"(steps back waits for fascist hyena's head to explode)"

Sorry to disappoint you--see all of the above.

As a historical point of reference, the strategic decision taken by FDR to give the European theater precedence over the Pacific was taken at a single meeting attended by five men.
___________________________________

How long was the meeting? 4 minutes? 23 minutes? An afternoon meeting with a sandwich break and tea?

As a historical point of reference, the strategic decision taken by FDR to give the European theater precedence over the Pacific was taken at a single meeting attended by five men.

"I await the person who will declare that Mr. Reich and Mr. Herbert are wrong, and who will explain why"

I am waiting for what you agree with Mr Hebert with.

Do you think we should withdraw from Afghanistan as he desires?

Or do you agree with the President that Afghanistan is a fight we should be engaged in?

(steps back waits for fascist hyena's head to explode)

I await the person who will declare that Mr. Reich and Mr. Herbert are wrong, and who will explain why.

For my part, I am quite content to let their words hang in the air, speaking as they do very eloquently for themselves.

Your problem, not mine.

"You quoted a man you disparage as a loony leftie and disagree with his policy recommendations (withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan)."

Of course I quoted a person I disparage. Every time a leftist fool speaks I am quite eager to quote him, and let the world see his foolishness. This troubles some people?

"Seems to be the tactic of the week as I keep reading the same cherry picking cut and pastes from the same Robert Reich blog"

I thought he was dead to the right wing after saying white men recover faster post recession so the stimulus should focus on minorities and women?

Guess not.

I would take such criticism more seriously if the copy paster agreed with the material they were copy pasting.

But you and I know this is not the case.

Interesting attacking Obama from the left

_______

Seems to be the tactic of the week as I keep reading the same cherry picking cut and pastes from the same Robert Reich blog

It will be interesting to see who will be in attendance at the 15th and 25th meetings.

I quoted the words of Mr. Herbert. Let some leftist fool explain them away."

You quoted a man you disparage as a loony leftie and disagree with his policy recommendations (withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan).

All to attack the President.

OIbama derangement syndrome indeed.

"I do not agree with a policy of agonizing paralysis, and never have."

So you think we should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq as Hebert argues?

Do you think Obama increasing the troops there in March and doubling that increase in the coming spring is a mistake as Hebert argues?

Do you think there should be a focus on domestic policies specifically job creation (in Hebert's mind more stimulus) to the exclusion of foreign policy issues?

"... a policy that you agree with Obama on."

I do not agree with a policy of agonizing paralysis, and never have.