Why it is o.k. to be slow and deliberative when it comes to Afghanistan where troops are dying right now....

BUT, Healthcare can not wait and has to be pushed through now!!!!!

(Actually I know the answer)

is brilliant.  He hits the nail on the head.  I'll try to do the link.

OK, no luck in getting the link.  You have to go to investors.com and and then go to editorials. that will pull the page and then you go to Thomas Sowell's column.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510506

Y

That old bucket doesn't carry water any more.  Obama has been working on health care since he took office 10 months ago... it's noot like he woke up last week and said, "Damn! I need to push healthcare reform through by next weekend so I can go out and play golf".

Admit it... in your eyes, anything BHO does is wrong regardless. If he came out tomorrow and said he was wrong about healthcare and changed his mind about it, you'd be all over him for waffling.

No, there are some things he could do with proper prospecive.

THe fact that he has been working on it since he took office, doesn't mean he is not pushing it too fast.

Yes, he has been working on it, but there is not "it" in the sense of nothing specific has been proposed.  

Once something is proposed, it is not unreasonable to give the Senate and the public a reasonable amount of time to figure out what they are buying.  After the details are ironed out, there is no emergency that requires the bill be passed in two days as opposed to two weeks.  Hey, the system closest to being selected will take two years to get in place.  It isn't as if a couple more weeks matter.

On the other hand, when he introduced the bill, Bachus himself said it would be the biggest legislation since the new deal and would affect every American family.  

If it is that transformative, Senators should have time to understand WHAT they are voting for, and the public should have time to let their representatives know what they want.

If it is a good idea, a charismatic president, with a sympathetic press, a majority in Congress, a huge network of his own, and every other resource that they have should be able to conduct a simple debate deserving of the magnitude of the question.

The rush he is being accused of with health care is the rush of not letting the people (or even the Senate) have a chance to find out what they are getting and discuss the matter.

You have me mistaken for a GWB basher....

I call them as I see them, so don;t try to paste me with what I guess is your MO.

I critcized Bush on several fronts (Spending, Terry Schivo debacle, Campaign Finance Reform bill).

Let me spell this out for you, I am NOT a REPUBLICAN. I am a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE.

From what I have seen it tends to be the liberal activists groups who follow blindly.

Case in Point, Bill does Monica (or vice-versa). Personally, I don't care except he does it while doing the job I am paying him to do (I would be fired fro that). Anyways, where is the NOW gang??? Dead Silence!!!

The reason BHO has not received any praise from me, simply, he has not done ANYTHING to deserve it...

Would troops no longer die if a decision on Afghanistan was made today?  Is the need for healthcare reform not urgent?  I mean we've known for the better part of 20 years that the US was on an unsustainable course when it comes to healthcare, when do you propose for us to get that done?  It was my understanding the decision making on Afghanistan is underway, whereas the President has already decided how to tackle healthcare reform.  You make it sound as if he's just not doing anything on the Afghanistan front at all.  Drawing a parallel on the process for resolving these two issues seems truly asinine to me, but maybe I'm missing something.  Maybe you can somehow clear things up by answering these questions for me.  

-- Modified on 10/28/2009 4:40:13 AM

Geez zorff, EVERYTHING is assinine to you, unless it is your take on the subject. You remind me of the Monty Python "Argument" skit.

Sorry Eddie, you are miles off on this one.

Sure, health care has been a campaign promise since Obama was first running for office. The first bill for health care though, wasn't proposed until a few weeks before the fall recess, and lawmakers were chomping at the bit to get it done RIGHT NOW HURRY THE HELL UP, we have to pass this thing before we go on recess. Even Harry Reid admitted he hadn't read it, while he was engaged in whipping votes up to pass it. How much sense does that make to you?

Meanwhile, after the war of words between Obama administration officials and former Bush admiinistration officials, we learn that during the TRANSITION, more than 10 months ago, experts were recommending a troop surge in Afghanistan. To further illustrate the point, Obama's hand selected Commander has also requested troops. While lawmakers push to pass a bill they haven't read, our troops in Afghanistan have dangled for nearly 3 months now waiing on Obama to make a decision. There is no excusing it. Either listen to the experts and send more troops, or just pull them out. This business of letting them sit there like sitting ducks unsupported and undermanned is bullshit. By the way, that is the EXACT same criticism I levelled at Bush long before there was ever any talk of a "surge" in Iraq. This isn't about partisanship, its about soldier's lives and safety, and there is NO excusing it. Allowing them to continue to be targets in a conflict they don't have the manpower to win because of politics is vile and disgusting, no matter which President is guilty of it.

Basically, if health care deserves haste in lieu of deliberation and caution, our soldiers deserve the same level of urgent attention even more so.

all that was a reference to the skit I never saw.

-- Modified on 10/28/2009 5:44:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppK6sxz6epk

O, THAT'S the solution.  Pull them out or send more troops.  Well there you go, problem solved.  Another person that should be added to the roster of Obama's advisors.  Maybe you've heard this before, but pulling troops out of battle before the conflict is resolved costs lives.  Leaving troops in a conflict costs lives.  Sending more troops into a conflict costs lives.  Hmmmm.  It seems that troops will be losing lives no matter what decision is made.  So some of us level-headed Americans, think that it's OK for the Commander In Chief to actually make an educated attempt to get the shit right instead playing eeny, meeny, miny, moe with people's lives.  And it doesn't make sense to cite "experts" as justification for increasing troop levels anyway.  Since this fight began, there hasn't been a consensus among any of the authorities on how to proceed in Afghanistan.  To further complicate things, those "experts" have varying levels of expertise on different aspects of the conflict there.  Yes, you actually have to consider the advice of those OUTSIDE of the military chain of command when deciding what to do in war.  Why?  It's entirely possible for a military strategy to yield success on the battlefield, while falling short of the goal that brought them there in the first place.  So I'm willing to allow the guy who has the consequences of the final decision resting on his shoulder a little time to get it right.

The comparison of Afghanistan to Healtchare reform is again, ASININE.  The problem with healtchare has been evident for 20+ years, while the dynamics of Afghanistan have changed over and over again - and continue to do so.  Give your Obama bashing a break and actually consider the facts.  

-- Modified on 10/28/2009 9:25:24 PM

I so needed a good laugh.  Thank you for finding this and sharing the link!!!

You ask if troops would no longer die. It is highly likely thaere would be less casulaties than there are now because they could better defend themselves.

How can you say BHO has decided what to do on heathcare. The White House never even put a bill forward (gutless wonders). Instead he is laying low and letting congress take the hits and float the unpopular ideas he want to see implemented. Now there is leadership (NOT).

So, if you can not see the difference between our troops in combat and a legislation being discussed in the halls of congress, then DAMN, I don't think anyone can help you.

You are an incredibly thick-headed individual.  Instead of typing it again, I'll just quote what I already said.  "The comparison of Afghanistan to Healtchare reform is again, ASININE.  The problem with healthcare has been evident for 20+ years, while the dynamics of Afghanistan have changed over and over again - and continue to do so.  Give your Obama bashing a break and actually consider the facts."  I hope that doesn't need to be translated for you, since there were no big words.  

How do you know sending more troops wouldn't mean that more troops would die?  Allow me...you don't.  The answer isn't an obvious one.  If the Commander In Chief needs to make a thorough assessment before making a decision about troop levels, then that's what he should do.  The shoot-from-the-hip approach to international conflict didn't work too well before and I don't really care to see it employed again.

I refer to as having convictions...

Look at your own statement and you will find the real ASINIE argument.

You say that healthcare has been a problem for 20 years, and then argue we MUST act now. Well Hell, if it has been a problem that long, what the hell is going to change over the next year to make this something we have to rush into!! Oh Yeah, the 2010 elections!! If you have to rush something through BEFORE an election, that tells you something about the legislation. Time to grow up, this is a POLITICAL forum.

I am glad you are such an EXPERT on Afghanistan, sorry I must have missed your rank, would that be Lt. General or full General. BHO's hand picked commanding General has said he needs more troops ASAP. You really want to be stupid enough to try to convince this board you know better?

If you want to look at history, let me clue you in. BHO is turning into LBJ, thinking he knows better how to run a war than his commanders. You want to real debacle, let him keep dragging his feet.

-- Modified on 10/29/2009 4:21:29 AM

He needed to wait until after the election to avoid pissing off the Daily Kook crowd who then might stay home Tuesday in New York, Virginia and NJ.

I've see none potential BHO plan where hold and protect the villages but not the country side. Hmmm, where have we seen this strategy before? Oh yea, 'Nam.

I'm right there with you on that point RWU.  The elections next week are extremely important to both parties, and BHO cannot afford to "screw it up" by making what may be an unpopular decision with most of the political left.