It's been almost 24 hours... I can't believe this subject hasn't been brought up before now.
Once again, the man is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Conservatives are saying it's not enough, and liberals are saying he's let down his liberal base. And of course, the cons are already attacking his announcing a date for the start of withdrawl from Afghanistan.
Glenn Beck led the charge (of course), with some stupid rant about the presidient having listening to the generals, etc. Seems to me I remember Bush being told by the generals that we needed 400,000 troops in Iraq instead of 150,000. I don't recall Bush listening then.
Personally, I support the plan to send more troops; let's get in there, get it done and get out. I find nothing wrong with a president who wants to limit the time commitment to sending our troops in harm's way.
And the media, ALL media, are picking apart his speech line by line. They're even interpreting the cadet's reaction to his speech as significant.
And the fuckin' democrats are forming a caucus against the Afghan war.
I'll say one thing for conservatives; they always stuck together. I'm sure there were a lot of conservatives who thought Bush was an idiot and some of his policies were wrong, but for the most part they hung together as a group and publicly supporting him.
Here's on for GaGambler... I admit it - Liberals have no balls.
since the war started by anyone.
President Obama knocked it out of the park IMHO.
Schieffer: "I don’t understand, I don’t understand Katie, how you can set a deadline on what you’re going to do. This is not a football game where there’s a clock where the time runs out. To win this war you have to defeat the enemy. How can we say in the beginning that we’re going to do that when we don’t know what’s going to happen?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/02/cbs_bob_schieffer_obamas_afghan_strategy_isnt_logical.html
A man with common sense unlike Obamessiah .
Tone deaf and senile.
It is about putting the responsibility on Afghanistan and Pakistan to get on with the program.
You really think Bob Schieffer, a journalist knows more about Afghanistan and war than the Generals and National Security Team which is headed by General.
This is exactly how bullshit is made.
Nice political touch there by the Obamamessiah to give a pullout time date. Gives him cover to his flock to show he is not interested in staying.I guess you are one of the gullible
I haven't checked the board in a while but thought today would be a good day to read some interesting comments on the President's Address last night.
Like Eddie, I am surprised to see such little reaction.
My question for President Obama is this? Where is the dynamic, inspirational speaker that came onto the scene prior to the last election, electrified the audiences, overtook the slam-dunk favorite Sen. Clinton for the nomination and, since it was clearly the Democrats' year, the general election as well?
His speech last night was one of the most uninspiring, boring and lackluster Presidential addresses of all time. His demeanor has totally changed. Instead of being a dynamic leader and a breath of fresh air, he has become an intellectual, Ivy League-type professor and, dare I say, an arrogant snob.
The cadets looked like they were falling asleep.
There was no conviction in his address and no sense of urgency that this was being done to PROTECT all Americans.
When President Obama took office, I held out some hope for him. That hope, sadly, is slipping in my eyes.
As I saw Sen. Clinton in the crowd, I had another thought. In the Spring of 2008, I, like so many Republicans who did not care for her or her husband during President Clinton's two terms, took some delight and pleasure in watching her campaign crumble. But I told myself something then that I repeated to myself late last night as I watched the replay of President Obama's speech. Since it was clearly going to be a Democrat in the White House in January, 2009, I sure wished that it would have been Sen. Clinton instead of the man who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next 3-plus years.
President Obama, I am not a fan of yours but you are our Commander-in-Chief and I must support you. But please, bring back the Barack Obama we saw and heard back in 2008. That man could inspire. The one last night put our young military scholars to sleep and made Chris Matthews proclaim the United States Military Academy as the enemy camp.
"Since it was clearly going to be a Democrat in the White House in January, 2009, I sure wished that it would have been Sen. Clinton instead of the man who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next 3-plus years."
I would rather die than have Hillary as President..
It is known fact that Republicans don't like to deal with facts. Sending 30,000 troops in harms way is not inspiring, it is somber moment. This is a President who understands the consequences and has empathy for other human beings.
The previous one hardly wanted face the reality of war and conducted the war like in the old west, gun slinging.
I was merely comparing President Obama's speech to others he had made while he was campaigning for President.
Good observation. I think after 8 years of G.Bush, anyone who can put three sentences together seems like a poet.
During his campaign and inauguration, his speeches were the the best since JFK. Clinton was good, Obama is better.
This one tonight just didn't have passion that his earlier speeches had.
But there may be a reason...
It's possible that while he knows this is the right thing to do, he really doesn't have to stomach to send 30,000 of our young men and women in harm's way. He showed himself capable of doing it, but he doesn't have to like it.
Also, and give him credit for this, he must obviously realize that this is going to cost him, politically. He will be seen as a traitor to much of his liberal base, and in fact congressional democrats have already started an anti-Afghanistan caucus.
So in many ways, while it's problably the right thing to do and good for the country in the long run, for him its a no-win situation.
a “Remember 9/11 cry.”
Okay, now think about – 9/11 was certainly why Bush invaded in the first place - in lieu of making an intelligent analysis about how to respond to terrorism - but it has no relevance as to why we should stay there and keep fighting the Afghan civil war, other than for purposes of revenge. The only reason he started that way was to inflame the audience and make it willing to accept his decision.
If this had been a courtroom, DNC Phil would have stood up and said “Objection -the prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value” and he would have been correct.
Then he employed George Bush’s shameful tactic of mentioning Al Qaeda over and over again as though they were a substantial force with a cohesive command and control structure, as oppose to a bunch of guys in caves who hate the US and a bunch of guys all over the world who engage in terrorist acts are branded by the press as members of al Qaeda.
Talk about free advertising for the bad guys. They don't need an advertising budget bc the US Presidents do it all for them.
It only went downhill from there as he declared the surge vital to American security but effectively said we’re leaving in a year or so.
I’m not sure anyone can cure the mess made by the Bush administration but it seems to me Mr. Obama has now gone “all in” on this one.
go in and take out the bunch of guys in caves. Problem solved and all of you will be heros and awarded Congressional medal of honor.
Besides there is millions on Bin Laden and other leaders head. All of you will be worth millions.
Rich, Famous and Heroic, everything a man ever wanted.
"Disappointing. To begin with he opened the speech with a
a “Remember 9/11 cry.”
The majority of the people have no clue and a even shorter memory..
Obama opened the speech up with 911 to jog the short memories, of those that sing kum ba ya when faced with danger...
that is a pretty good indication that he believes that facts and logic alone would not make the case for sending more troops to Afghanistan.
You need to remember that he's basically continuing Bush's policies, which is going to piss off his liberal anti-war base. What he did was corageous, politically speaking, so he needed to try to mediate his actions with some good ol' patriotic rhetoric... he wasn't playing to his live audience of cadets, he was playing to his base.
I don't know if I would go so far as to say "courageous", but he knew it would hurt him politically in the short run, yet did what needed to be done anyhow.
Maybe, just maybe POTUS Obama will stop being "candidate" Obama, and stop pandering to his ultra liberal base. This was a good start.
Why weren't the cold hard facts enough to explain to the country why we need to send in more troops and stay there?
Could it be because the only policy justified by the facts is "cut and run" and that is politically unthinkable?
It's just like the Roman Polanski thread. If you start out saying "he raped a child," then virtually everyone on the board was inflamed and totally supported arrest, extradition, retrial, no matter that it would cost a million or so.
When I pointed the actual facts - if convicted he would be eligible for release under California's court ordered policy of reducing the prison population - and raised the question "is this cost effective," nobody could address the concerns literally -instead, all I got was emotional responses.
I just don't we should go to war on emotion.
First one is easy, it is the right thing to do.
The second reason is a bit more convuluted, by doing the right thing, Obama has managed to begin the process of crumbling his base, piss of the MSM and lose the support of the DNC, all in one fell swoop. Sometimes I love politics.
Liberals not only have "no balls",but the Democratic party, even when in power they are the keystone cops of politics. I made this same statement about a year ago, I don't take much pleasure in being right.
See I do agree with conservatives sometime.
As a liberal, I'm fucking embarrassed how the democrats have squandered the opportunity given them. They had a chance to put the nail in the coffin of right wing conservatives, and they've totally blown it.
When Obama got elected, I thought it was the first step to controlling not only the presidency, but Congress for a long, long time.
Now I'm worried about the mid-term elections next year, and I'm also very afraid that Sara Palin might actually have a chance to achieve high office... not necessarily the presidency, but a position where she could do real harm.
Any Democrat should be embarrassed, and everyone else should be relieved that the Dems are the Keystone Kops of politics.
The Dems have, not only the executive branch of government, but a super majority in Congress, and still can't get out of their own way. lol
You should be worried about the mid-terms, but I do disagree with you about Palin, she isn't going anywhere, but maybe to Saks Fifth Ave with her newfound wealth. rofl. She will be banished to the sidelines on anything meaningful, and will be a cheerleader at best(or worst). It's the Democrat's that keep her relevent, not the Republicans themselves. Trust me, Sarah Palin will not be on the ticket in 2012. The Republicans learn from their mistakes, politically at least.
See, here's where I think you're wrong, at least about the consevatives on THIS board.
Back when I thought Palin was a total joke and was a big reason that McCain lost, and posted about it here, a signigicant number, consevatives told me that I was crazy, that if it weren't for Palin, McCain would have lost by far more votes.
So you say that Republicans learn from their mistakes, but many posts here seem to prove you incorrect.
Eddie, conservatives stick together because they're sycophants. Liberals have principles, so that is why Obama's base doesn't support him escalating the war in Afghanistan.
Our only focus should be in getting rid of Pakistan's nukes. Once we do that we can ignore that part of the world.
