But Michael Steele said that this was Obama's war. ""This was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
Actually that makes a lot of sense. If bigtexxx is applauding a politician's actions, that politician has failed us.
A single payer was DOA as far as Congress was concerned. There was no way many of Congressional Dems would support it. A couple of Dem Senators also threatened to not support a public option so that was also problematic.
Sorry, I had to come back to this. You are deluding yourself if you think any kind of permanent democracy will take hold in Iraq. The propped up regime we created with Maliki will collapse the moment the US pulls out of that country. And it looks like it will be sooner than later. Today Makili proclaimed there is no negotiation on the timeline US troops are to be out of the country next year. You really think 1300 years of Sunni rule in Iraq is just going to give up that? Delusional
I think in some cases it can be used when there is no other alternative and an imminent threat to people. But in 99% of the cases I think it's a useless endeavor more about taking out one's anger than extracting information.
"The antiwar effort since Obama has taken office has disappeared." <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/N_VHEts3fqk?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe> Even as President Obama maintains close to 50,000 troops in Iraq and continues to escalate and expand the war in Afghanistan, the antiwar movement in America continues to shrink. So, what happened? Reason.tv visited two antiwar protests—one left-leaning, one libertarian—in an attempt to answer that question. Author and historian Thaddeus Russell and Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty also weigh in. War, it seems, is a bipartisan venture, which is reflected by the fact that Democrats have a favorable view of Obama's foreign policy, despite its remarkable similarity to George W. Bush's foreign policy. And though there have been rumblings of antiwar sentiment from some on the Right, Republicans remain strongly in favor of an interventionist foreign policy. Although public sentiment is turning against the war in Afghanistan, the always-shifting withdrawal deadlines and the unwillingness to touch defense spending mean that this bipartisan war is likely to continue far into the future.
Except most antiwar people in general and definitely on this message board were against the Iraq war, and in favor of military action in Afghanistan. That was the case when Bush was the president and is only slightly less the case now. If truth be told Liberals are more against Obama's war in Afghanistan than they were against Bush's. The complaining about the lack of antiwar movement happens to be coming from people who obviously didn't pay attention to it during the Bush administration. In a way it's almost as if the conservatives complaining were for the war when Bush was President but only now are against it. That would explain why they had no idea which war the protests were mostly about under Bush.
Obama's best attribute to me his his ability to deliver a good speech . . .but does it go far enough?
911 inside job? <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cQrwKr_b4Lg?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe> (Warning vitriolic language (mentions cookies)) <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h6UOcmbHrDY?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
Still marching on in March 2011. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GrHm4phj5RQ?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> House to vote on measure calling for withdrawal of US from Afghanistan by end of year By The Associated Press (CP) – 31 minutes ago WASHINGTON — A House resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by year's end headed toward defeat Thursday as Republicans and Democrats joined together in embracing President Barack Obama's long-term policy. In a show of bipartisanship on national security, lawmakers warned that passage of the resolution would have dire consequences in the fight against terrorism and put the nation at risk of another 9-11 strike. "Withdrawing before completing our mission would reinforce extremist propaganda that Americans are weak and unreliable allies and facilitate extremist recruiting and future attacks," said Republican Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. This week, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan echoed that warning, saying passage of the resolution would be hailed by the Taliban and al-Qaida as a victory. Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said "it's not responsible to mandate a complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year without regard to the consequence of our withdrawal." A resolution expresses lawmakers' opinion but has no legal effect. Although this one has failed in the past and was almost certain to fail again, the debate provides a measure of Congress' impatience with the war in the face of increasing budget pressure. The resolution calls for President Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. forces no later than Dec. 31, 2011. Army Gen. David Petraeus told Congress that the war is turning around and the United States is on track to begin drawing down troops in July. The timeline calls for ending U.S. and NATO combat operations by the end of 2014. The resolution and its chief sponsors — Reps. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, Republican Walter Jones and Republican Ron Paul — argue that's not fast enough. Kucinich, at the opening of the debate, said the country is spending $100 billion a year on a war that could last another 10 years. "Are we willing to spend another trillion dollars on a war that doesn't have any exit plan?" he asked. Speaking directly to his budget-conscious colleagues, Kucinich said, "You want to cut out waste. Let's get out of Afghanistan." Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, Petraeus called the resolution a mistake that would do serious harm to U.S. national security interests, the coalition of 48 countries contributing military personnel and U.S. forces. "The Taliban and al-Qaida obviously would trumpet this as a victory, as a success," Petraeus said. "Needless to say, it would completely undermine everything that our troopers have fought so much for and sacrificed so much for." The U.S. has about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and its international partners have about 40,000. A similar resolution failed in the House last March on a vote of 356-65. Lawmakers on both sides of the issue will be watching the vote total closely to see if the opposition gains support. The resolution comes after Petraeus spent two days testifying on Capitol Hill, seeking to build political support for the costly war that has dragged on for nearly 10 years. A Washington Post-ABC News poll out this week found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say the war is not worth fighting. Petraeus said Wednesday the initial wave of troop withdrawals in July will probably include combat as well as non-combat forces. He mentioned no numbers, nor did he identify which combat units might be pulled out to begin what Obama has called a responsible winding down of the war by 2014. It is widely expected that a large share — if not the majority — of those initial American withdrawals will be support forces, such as logistics specialists who helped in last year's U.S. troop buildup. Petraeus has said he foresees a tough combat season ahead this spring and summer. The general said that in formulating his recommendation to Obama he will take into account several factors, including the capabilities of Afghan security forces, progress in improving the Afghan government's ability to deliver basic services, and the extent to which ordinary Afghans see their government as legitimate.
I don't need you war machines I don't need your ghetto scenes Colored lights can hypnotize Go sparkle someone else's eyes Spoiler
Pakistan Is Also Erupting — Against the U.S. By PETER CHARLES CHOHARIS and SHAMSHEK ASAD Published: March 31, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/opinion/01iht-edchoharis01.html As U.S. forces were firing hundreds of missiles to establish a Libyan no flight zone, Pakistani newspaper headlines were consumed by a different missile strike: “Pakistan furious as U.S. drone strike kills civilians,” blared The Express Tribune; “38 killed in drone strike on NWA tribal jirga,” declared the Daily Times. This week marks the second anniversary of the Obama administration’s “Af-Pak strategy” to confront the “security threats posed by extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” But while the United States scrambles to develop a response to protests in North Africa and the Middle East, its policy toward Pakistan is crumbling — with no clear fix in sight. Last December, the administration’s “2010 Afghanistan and Pakistan Annual Review” reported positive developments throughout the region. According to the unclassified version, the U.S.-Pakistani “renewed bilateral partnership is helping promote stability in Pakistan” and defeat Islamic radicalism. But today, the facts are otherwise. Pakistan is deeply divided and radicalism is spreading even among the nation’s most privileged classes. After the governor of Punjab was murdered in January for supporting the repeal of Pakistan’s blasphemy law, thousands took to the streets. But instead of protesting the murder, they marched in support of the law and the assassin. Pakistani lawyers — a group that was instrumental in toppling the Musharraf regime — threw rose petals at the accused killer and hailed him as a hero. A few weeks later, another opponent of the blasphemy law and Pakistan’s only Christian cabinet member was gunned down. Although the culprits escaped, Rafi Usmani, the grand mufti of Pakistan, told the Associated Press, “I am afraid that this could be an American conspiracy to defame the government of Pakistan, Muslims and Islam.” Far from a U.S.-Pakistani “partnership,” anti-Americanism is rampant. Last fall, 29.5 percent of students in postgraduate colleges and universities identified the United States as the greatest threat to Pakistan, according to a survey by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies. That number was more than twice as many as the next greatest threat, India, with whom Pakistan has fought four wars. Only 6.8 percent of Pakistan’s young elites identified the Taliban as the greatest threat; 6.5 percent said it was Al Qaeda. In perhaps the most troubling response for America’s strategic engagement, 68.3 percent thought Pakistan should not support the “U.S.-led War on Terror,” while only 21 percent thought it should. Since then, ongoing drone strikes, the killing of two alleged attackers by the C.I.A. contractor Raymond Davis, and the claims of his diplomatic immunity by the United States, have further inflamed public opinion. While payments to the dead men’s families recently gained Davis’s release, even moderate opposition politicians and journalists have criticized the settlement, even though the payment of “blood money” is sanctioned by Shariah law. As for the United States promoting stability within Pakistan, the Obama administration’s expanded use of drones appears to be having the opposite effect. As early as 2009, according to a leaked cable, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, warned that America’s unilateral targeting of militants risks “destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan without finally achieving the goal.” One of the authors of this article, Shamshek Asad, was raised in Pakistan. During a trip to Karachi a week ago, he experienced greater anti-Americanism than ever before at all levels of society. More than 60 years after independence and 40 years after the loss of Bangladesh, Pakistan remains extraordinarily leery of foreign influence. Coupled with a remarkable belief in foreign conspiracies and a decade of anti-U.S. propaganda by Islamists, this generates not only resentment, but near paranoia about U.S. intentions in Pakistan. Optimists argue that U.S.-Pakistani relations may have hit a rough patch, but they remain sound. Skeptics contend that the United States has failed to bolster President Asif Ali Zardari’s government, despite billions of dollars in military and civilian aid, and that America’s efforts have yielded more antipathy than gratitude. Two years ago, the Af-Pak Strategy answered Pakistani criticism that America had historically abandoned both countries by committing “all elements of international power — diplomatic, informational, military and economic” to the region. It is time to assess whether this ambitious strategy is working. The Obama administration should conduct an independent review of U.S. policy toward Pakistan. The questions it should address include: Is the core goal of the United States — to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan — distorting American policy toward Pakistan? Would a lower U.S. profile and more modest agenda be more effective and sustainable? Do the tactical benefits of drone strikes further long-term, strategic goals? And should the U.S. abandon the “Af-Pak” regional approach in favor of more tailored policies for each country? There are no easy answers. But after two years of limited progress in an increasingly radicalized, nuclear Pakistan, tough questions are the least of our worries.
