Obama's Wrong Turn in Afghanistan

posted by John Nichols on 07/19/2008 @ 5:57pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (42)

Subscribe Now

Running for president is a perilous endeavor. Candidates make mistakes.

And Barack Obama is making a serious mistake this weekend.

As he tours Afghanistan, the senator from Illinois says he is "more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking."

That would be good if it were the case.

Unfortunately, Obama is busy making promises.

After meeting with the Democratic presidential candidate inside the US base in Jalalabad, Afghan warlord turned provincial governor Gul Agha Sherzai told reporters, "Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector."

Translation: Obama is not listening. He is making commitments.

Specific commitments.

Despite the fact that there are more foreign troops in Afghanistan today than at any time since the 2001 invasion -- roughly 60,000 total, including 36,000 Americans – Obama is proposing to dispatch two more US combat brigades (comprising more than 7,000 soldiers) to Afghanistan. That will give the United States even greater responsibility for a technically NATO-led ooccupation.

The Democrat's send-more-troops proposal is precisely the same as that of Republican John McCain.

And it is precisely wrong.

Dramatic increases in the US troop presence in Afghanistan in the past year have done nothing to stabilize the situation on the ground in the country. In fact, US military officials acknowledge that attacks in eastern Afghanistan -- the sector of the country where the majority of US forces currently operate -- are up by 40 percent so far in 2008.

So, too, as recent events remind us, are US and Afghan death tolls.

More troops will not cure what ails Afghanistan.

That's because, even though the cover of the latest edition of Time magazine refers to the fight in Afghanistan as "The Right War," and even though Obama seems to have bought into this particularly dangerous variation Washington-insider spin, there is nothing right or smart about deepening the US troop commitment in a country that has a long history of thwarting the best-laid plans of great military powers.

The US media and political class has never focused very seriously on the war in Afghanistan.

But in Canada, which was smart enough to keep out of Iraq, but not smart enough to keep out of Afghanistan, there has been much more attention to the conflict.

That attention has fostered a serious movement calling for bringing Canadian troops home.

More than a year ago, the opposition New Democratic Party called for "an immediate safe and secure withdrawal of (Canadian) troops from the counter-insurgency mission and to focus our assistance, not through counter-insurgency but through development and aid."

"The combat role is the wrong role for Canada and it's not making life more secure for Afghans," declared Jack Layton, the NDP's parliamentary leader.

The NDP leader and other Canadian critics of the country's military presence in Afghanistan argue, correctly, that while foreign forces have been training Afghan army and police units since the conflict began, the security situation in Afghanistan has not improved.

The Canadians suggest that one of the big problems is the fact that the foreign presence in the country is a too-narrowly defined military occupation directed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, rather than a broader, more-thoughtfully conceived mission under the leadership of the United Nations.

"Instead of extending a strategy that isn't working, Canada must aim to support and facilitate efforts towards the peaceful resolution of the Afghan conflict," says veteran parliamentarian Alexa McDonough, the NDP's spokesperson on international development issues.

Argues McDonough: "Canada should lead the international community towards a political solution, not continue the failed military approach. This means the international body in charge should be the United Nations, not NATO."

Instead of making ill-thought commitments of additional US troops to another quagmire, Barack Obama should be listening to the wise critique from engaged Canadians regarding a misguided and misdirected foreign military presence in Afghanistan.

Comments (42)

He will, John... he will.

Posted by ttr at 07/19/2008 @ 7:20pm
On the topic of economic engagement, the US owes vast debts to both Afghanistan and Iraq. With respect to Afghanistan, the US should never have invaded Iraq, and the full resources of the US should be involved in stabilizing Afghanistan, ultimately defeating the Taliban for real, and providing the people there with more hope than a field of opium poppies can provide. With respect to Iraq, the US must broker security internal to Iraq via an agreement made between Turkey, Iran, the peninsula Arabs, and of course the Shi'a and Sunni Iraqi factions themselves. And the US must get its army out of Iraq never to return. The US must be prepared to make vast concessions to all these parties in exchange for brokered redevelopment of internal security for Iraq, even strategically impacting concessions, despite the whinings of the Israeli regime. Finally, the US owes vast, vast reparations to Iraq and must factor into future US national budget calculations an entire regime of aid and payments to Iraq as debts owed for the awful destruction the US has so egregiously and needlessly brought to Iraq.

Posted by Zero at 07/19/2008 @ 9:03pm
I marvel at the naivete of most "progressives" regarding the Obama troop withdrawal plan. The man has made quite clear that troops exiting Iraq are headed for Afghanistan. The whole concept is like a giant shell game with force levels of American troops in the region remaining absolutely constant. The target, if anyone has the foresight, is Iran and Obama is no less apt to pull the trigger on the Iranians than Bush. We're simply setting up a second invasion route with the Afghan sleight of hand. The purpose of Iraq has always been Iran. Now the "progressive" Obama does his part.

Posted by john lowell at 07/19/2008 @ 10:36pm
afghanistan will not be tamed by europeans.

ever.

taliban means "student".

these people are not religious students.

they just want to be left alone.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/19/2008 @ 10:47pm
The plan is to get one or two brigades out of Iraq for each of 16 months. With two more in Afghanistan, the numbers are not equivalent.

I agree that the UN needs to be involved in both places. I never understood why the hawks always made our withdrawal result in a vacuum; we are not the only alternative to chaos. Does anyone else remember a time after the overthrow of Saddam that the Sec. Gen. of the UN offered to come in to do the nation-building piece of things so we could start leaving? And Bush sayin no?

The focus should definitely be on diplomatic efforts, not military.

Posted by ramara at 07/19/2008 @ 11:05pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/19/2008 @ 10:47pm

I get you frosty but what about the Afghanis who want the taliban to leave them alone. This is such a fucking mess. We should have finished the job of crushing the taliban and capturing Bin Laden.

Posted by k330k at 07/20/2008 @ 12:45am
afghanistan will not be tamed by europeans.

ever.

taliban means "student".

these people are not religious students.

they just want to be left alone.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/19/2008 @ 10:47pm

Sometimes Frosty your anti-war hostility really gets the best of your senses. It's a shame you hate the Afghan people so much that you want them to go back under the thumb of the Taleban. I guess you like to see them tortured, beaten, and killed for desiring basic human needs and wants.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/20/2008 @ 01:06am
It's not surprising that the Nation would turn on Obama for making the natural decision to actually oppose evil.

It has long been stated that Obama would turn towards the center in his run for the presidency. He is now taking that course and as expected, the far left will rise up in anguish and anger, feeling betrayed and deceived.

Obama is recognizing that if he is to become president he will need to act like a true commander-in-chief. Let's hope he continues to act with this kind of wisdom. He might actually become a decent president (as far as foreign policy goes).

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/20/2008 @ 01:13am
I guess you like to see them tortured, beaten, and killed for desiring basic human needs and wants.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/20/2008 @ 01:06am

Yeah it's much better when amerikan civilian armies are doing it, shame on you FZ.

How's that kool-aid taste?

Posted by madlib at 07/20/2008 @ 01:25am
How's that kool-aid taste?

Posted by madlib at 07/20/2008 @ 01:25am

Does your mommy know you're still up playing adult past your bedtime?

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/20/2008 @ 01:27am
My mommy?

You're not seriously so base and stupid to bring up my mother are you?

I really will have to choke a bitch.

Posted by madlib at 07/20/2008 @ 01:39am
Let's define the mission in Afghanistan. I think it was to get the heads of Al-Qaeda to disintegrate the group based on taking its heads... I thought.

There are many people that think that the aim is to destroy the Taliban. That is another thing. Those Muslim nationalist groups are heavily supported in the country side, it is a very large and popular movement. The Taliban's aim is of course to take over government and make Afghanistan an extremist religious dictatorship. They use terrorist tactics so if they don't get the support of the people, fear will do.

What we got to do with that? I don't believe we need to intervene in the internal affairs of this country. Where does the Taliban end, and Al-Qaeda (AQ) begins? The line is blurry. But they will be bed fellows as long as we are there. Why? Because this nationalist group will welcome AQ in the fight to get us out, when we go they will turn against AQ because they are different ethnically and in their specific purposes. I don't think the Taliban is interested whatsoever in exporting its revolution. And in Irak, even though AQ is very similar to the Sunni rebels, they fought each other.

So the final point would be, what is really Obama's objective. Is it to destroy the Taliban? The Taliban may be compared with the Vietcong I guess. Many think is just a rebel group but half the people support it secretly. We have no business in Afghanistan but to find the AQ leaders. And that requires much more intelligence than people.

Posted by Frank42 at 07/20/2008 @ 01:49am
We have no business in Afghanistan but to find the AQ leaders. And that requires much more intelligence than people.

Posted by Frank42 at 07/20/2008 @ 01:49am

Frosty, is this what you mean by leave them alone?

Posted by k330k at 07/20/2008 @ 07:36am
LUVVY, what did the Red Cross say about American treatment of prisoners?

you are right about the Taliban being bad for Afghanis, so after 6 years why are they still running around? Is it because they read lefty websites, or is it because your president has failed as CIC?

Why did the Afghanis "accept" the Taliban? Because they brought a semblance of order to peoples lives, all the people have to do is live according to scripture and they will be left alone. Now that semblance of order is gone.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/20/2008 @ 09:22am
I agree. The man's penchant toward arrogance could literally destroy his chances. the slightest hint of a Godlike attitude could literally destroy his chances and sabotage any work we have done to get him elected.

Posted by julien38 at 07/20/2008 @ 09:23am
Nothing new about Obama here. He can't listen and has become so ingrained in doing what is politically expedient it is now automatic to make promises he will never keep.

Obama's campaign has been emphatic about this is not a political tour, but a "substantive" one. That Obama, as The Nation pointed out, is there to listen. Even Obama said the same thing to the press.

Only one voice that I have heard so far has Obama's agenda spot on. Germany's Chancellor, Angel Merkel, had this view on Obama, "reminding everyone that this was principally a political, not a diplomatic, visit by a man who is not yet president. Newsweek, July 18, 2008

If only our national media had the same insight and courage.

Posted by sailcovershot at 07/20/2008 @ 10:03am
I really will have to choke a bitch.

Posted by madlib at 07/20/2008 @ 01:39am

Ha! Love that quote.

Posted by k330k at 07/20/2008 @ 10:48am
"The man's penchant toward arrogance could literally destroy his chances." Posted by julien38 at 07/20/2008 @ 09:23am

I don't and never have perceived him to be arrogant. I don't understand. The "bitter" comment was truth as well as as his speech on Father's day at the black church. Both speeches were spot on. He can't win for losing. If he speaks truth, he's being arrogant. If he says what you want to hear, he's being politically expedient.

Posted by k330k at 07/20/2008 @ 10:54am
Facing the sea...

A delicate and soft wind is blowing near an empty space, while the curtain covers a silky notepaper describing a picture and the love for the youth; I call you my darkness, I wait for a dream......

Francesco Sinibaldi

Posted by Sinibaldi at 07/20/2008 @ 10:58am
OK let me get this straight. Nichols and the rest of uber liberals are advocating pulling out of Afghanistan? Remember 9/11? The Taliban supported Al Qaeda. Provided funding and training for the terrorists. Provided logistical support for them. After the attacks the US demanded that AQ be turned over, the Taliban refused. The USA invaded to stop these terrorists from striking us again. And you all think we owe them reparations? The Afghans are lucky that their country still exists... We should put 100,000 troops in there if that is what it takes to defend our country from these murderers. Iraq was a mistake, attacking Afghanistan and holding that country accountible for its actions was not.

Posted by BlueDeminTX at 07/20/2008 @ 11:00am
Mr. Nichols and Gang,

So Nato should withdraw or hand this situation over to the U.N. who has either made a mess of virtually every situation they have tried to clean up or just not bothered at all ala, Rwanda, Sudan, etc. when it gets a bit sticky. I get it.

OR better yet we should just withdraw, send the Afghani's a check for their trouble, let the Taliban and AQ get back to serious training and recruiting and effectively teaching the locals the proper way to live according to their interpretation of the Koran (head removement, etc. if you don't agree with their version). That's right screw the Afghani's they have it coming, especially those whore women in those blue thingees.

If done quickly then the Nato troups can go home to friend and family and order up a coke and pizza and all will be right with the world.

And the Taliban and AQ will settle down to the usual transport of poppy products and campfire sing alongs and leave Mr. Nichols and his gang alone. Beause they will know that is the right thing to do, by gosh.

Geez I knew all along that it had to be this simple, why can't these war mongers get it. If the U.S. and E.U. would just quit being such assholes everything would be fine.

Thanks

Posted by larsky at 07/20/2008 @ 11:28am
Nice to see Obama and Pelosi finally coming around to the plan for leaving Iraq all along...

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/19/2008 @ 7:46pm

(Reminded me of this:)

I would like to welcome Pelosi and Obie into the plan enacted 5 years ago...

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/19/2008 @ 8:28pm

er, you mean:

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam's support for terrorism.

September 16, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/3dnkw3

- or -

Sunday, September 14, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you're going to get into a debate here about--talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that.

...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We talk about $87 billion. Yeah, that's a significant expense. No question about it. But it's going to be much more expensive down the road if we wait. And it'll be much more expensive--it's less money, frankly, than the events of 9/11 imposed on us here in the United States.

...

MR. RUSSERT: If you froze the tax cut for the top 1 percent of Americans, it would generate enough money to pay for the $87 billion for the war, if you did it for just one year. Would you consider that? VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think it'd be a mistake, because you can't look at that without considering what its impact would be on the economy.

...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I'd heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, "What do we know about this?" They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know," end of statement.

...

MR. RUSSERT: But we see deficits for the next 10 years, big ones. How do you deal with that, when you have Social Security, Medicare, coming up?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We anticipate even with the added spending that we've asked for now we'll cut the deficit roughly in half from where it'll be next year over the next five years. So we'll be moving in the right direction.

...

MR. RUSSERT: If they were wrong, Mr. Vice President, shouldn't we have a wholesale investigation into the intelligence failure that they predicted...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: What failure?

MR. RUSSERT: That Saddam had biological, chemical and is developing a nuclear program.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: My guess is in the end, they'll be proven right, Tim.

...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the president is betting his presidency on the war in Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: This president is betting his presidency on the importance of fighting the war on terror, of recognizing that 9/11 changed everything, of adopting a strategy that's going to make this nation safer and more secure for our kids and grandkids. And it takes a president willing to take a risk, willing to use the power of the United States, to make that happen. And this president's done it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

Yep, hsuB's fucked things up real good "for our kids and grandkids".

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/20/2008 @ 11:42am
Nichols' comment is naive and dishonest. Naive because it will certainly require greater military force to defeat the neo Taliban forces in Afghanistan who upon victory will be empowered to spread their terrorism to Kashmir and then throughout the region. Whether the US directly sends more combat troops or greater assistance to Karzai's forces matters not. Nichols' comment is also dishonest because he criticizes Obama's so-called militarism without saying anything about his massive program of economic assistance and reconstruction. Obviously that is where Obama is focusing, so please stop the naivety and selective misrepresentation. Nichols is just mouthing ultra left delusion, worthy of foreign policy infants such as McKinney and Matt Gonzalez.

Posted by hartal at 07/20/2008 @ 11:48am
There's a reason hsuB/cHeney has done everything OBL has told them to do.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/20/2008 @ 11:51am
er,

MR. RUSSERT: If you froze the tax cut for the top 1 percent of Americans, it would generate enough money to pay for the $87 billion for the war, if you did it for just one year. Would you consider that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think it'd be a mistake, because you can't look at that without considering what its impact would be on the economy.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/20/2008 @ 11:54am
hsuB/cHeney are the new con Taliban/AQ.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/20/2008 @ 11:57am
er,

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he says.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/20/2008 @ 11:58am
>>>"Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector."<<<

Nichols entirely misses the import of Obama's "promise".

Clearly there is a military component, and this will continue until Bin Laden is brought to justice. But Obama promises MORE than just security, and indicated that reconstruction and development of the economic sector would also be a top priority.

Why Nichols COMPLETELY MISSES this part of Obama's promise is somewhat puzzling given the clear language that he quoted from Obama at the beginning of his article.

Certainly, NATO's involvement will be dramatically reduced with the capture of Bin Laden, and they will either be charged with a new peaceful mission at that point that focuses on reconstruction and economic development or this "could" be done under UN auspices.

The important part of Obama's promise is that the mission will change from primarily a military one to a social and economic mission. And after Bush, we certainly need more promises and delivery of social and economic development in Afghanistan.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/20/2008 @ 12:13pm
It's a shame you hate the Afghan people so much that you want them to go back under the thumb of the Taleban. I guess you like to see them tortured, beaten, and killed for desiring basic human needs and wants.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/20/2008 @ 01:06am

so, you are ready for darfur?

equitorial guinea?

china?

afghanistan is about securing the gas pipeline to india.

wake up.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/20/2008 @ 4:23pm
Sounds like we're gettin' us a new COWBOY!

And the west rides again....

Yee Haw !!

Posted by bleedingheart at 07/20/2008 @ 5:36pm
I am somewhat surpised that you went on at such length about the NDP and their opposition to the war.

A few of points:

1) The NDP has never been in government in Canada.

Sure they always manage to get a few seats in the House of Commons, but they are not one of the two "governing" parties of Canada (The Liberal Party and Conservative Party). They are a fringe party.

2) This past spring, after several months of debate, and a blue ribbon commission headed up by a Liberal Party ex-deputy Prime Minister, the official opposition Liberal Party and governing Conservative party came together to extend the Canadian combat mission in Afghanistan to 2011, conditional on some more NATO troops in Kandahar where Canada operates. The US has sent 3000 troops to the area, and Poland has stepped up with Helicopters, so those requirements have been met.

The NDP was on the sidelines during all this, demagoguing the issue from the sidelines.

3) Realise, that a lot of this NDP rhetoric has it's foundation in anti-Americanism. Mining the anti-American vein that runs through some people in Canada has been a rich source of votes for the NDP, especially while Bush is in office. Never enough for them to actually get into power mind you, but enough to give them a few seats in Parliament.

At any rate with the passage of the extension bill the debate is over, at least until 2011. And with Bush is leaving, and the possibility of a President Obama, the NDP has quieted down about the issue, probably finding their anti-American rhetoric has a smaller audience.

Posted by Alex2000 at 07/20/2008 @ 5:48pm
It is not to late to draft Hillary Clinton. She has seen the Republican playbook thanks to Obama's shawdow campagin and can win securely the way the Democrats are supposed to.

Go PUMAs!

Posted by pete kent at 07/20/2008 @ 7:44pm
<i>Posted by Metteyya at 07/20/2008 @ 12:13pm </i>

Frankly, you took the words right out of my mouth. I was just as confused as you here; Nichols quoted Obama on the importance of reconstruction and then goes onto lambast "just pouring more troops in." Exactly!

I just don't understand the position of those who favor withdrawing assistance from Afghanistan. You would think that after the last time this kind of situation happened, we would learn. After we backed the mujahideen, Congress just decided that it didn't want to spend the money necessary to facilitate reconstruction, so we just left the entire "country" to its own devices. And yet somehow, after suffering the consequences of that colossal mistake, we should make it yet again?

Posted by Thrawn at 07/21/2008 @ 02:10am
They are a fringe party.

Posted by Alex2000

a fringe party that holds the keys to viceroy harper's minority blubberment.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 08:24am
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/20/2008 @ 10:48pm

Note: HAPP mocks Obama for somehow promising "world peace"...

but has no trouble with McCain promising BOTH a capture of bin Laden by 2013 AND a balanced budget by 2013.

Seems the one promising "magic" is McCain.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 08:59am
While I consider myself a Progressive, I am not a pacifist. 9/11 justifies our presence in Afghanistan, and, for that reason, I will support the war if it is supported by the American people, financed by our government, and properly supported with enough troops to do the job. I will not support the use of torture, or violations of human rights. I want to see the Geneva Convention followed, along with Federal Law , and the Constitution. Our only reasons for being there are al-Qaida and the Taliban. They are an independent country, and it is not our business to remake them in our image. Helping them with infrastructure, medical care, and economic development unrelated to "Free Trade" or multinational companies is allowed. They should be encouraged to develop their own economy behind "Trade Barriers." Forget Imperialism in any form! But, If they want to be stupid about economics, that is their own business. I want to see us working with Afghans, and, if possible, all of her neighbors. This, of course, means Iran. We are not there to dictate to people, but to work with them to get the job done.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/21/2008 @ 2:57pm
Look on the bright side........Magic can have all the dope he wants......he can carry it back in his diplomatic pouch each time he visits Afghanistan....:))

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/20/2008 @ 10:48pm

Yeah, with Bush riding shotgun.

Posted by k330k at 07/21/2008 @ 2:58pm
Nichols' comment is naive and dishonest. Naive because it will certainly require greater military force to defeat the neo Taliban forces in Afghanistan who upon victory will be empowered to spread their terrorism to Kashmir and then throughout the region.

complete nonsense. Kashmir is disputed territory between India and Pakistan. nothing whatsoever to do with the Taleban or Afghanistan.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/21/2008 @ 4:28pm
I think it's smart for Obama to talk about Afghanistan as much as possible. That way, maybe he won't have to explain his opposition to the Surge, which proved successful, thus showing Obama's incredibly poor, dogmatic judgment when it comes to world affairs. God knows half the population is eager to forget all about that, now if only you folks can just convince the rest of us that it never happened...

Posted by pontificus at 07/21/2008 @ 7:31pm
"the Surge, which proved successful,"

So the political goals have been met? Did they pass laws regarding hydrocarbons, provincial elections and Kirkuk while I was looking elsewhere?

So the Sunnis to whom we have given arms and money will have no beef against the Shi'ites once they've done stomping AQM?

So the fact that the "defeat" of Sadr didn't seem to involve either disbanding his militia or laying down his weapons doesn't mean anything?

Posted by brunowe at 07/21/2008 @ 9:38pm
Simply a hilarious thread there mR nIchols! Obama (aka Alibama) is really all over the map politically!

You gotta to love this guy, one day he wants a sitdown talk in Iran with genocidal maniacs, the next day he wants to bomb Obama (I mean Osama) in Pakistan, and now he wants to abolish all our agreements with NATO and take over running the "war on terror" in Afganistan!

The only thing funnier is that now that the NATO command has mishandled the war in Afganistan mR. nIckles wants the U.N.of authoritarians and anti-U.S.A. nations and united hero's of anti-semitism to sit back and watch the taliban take back Afganistan! What a plan!

Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/22/2008 @ 01:24am
A moment of refreshing candor from Mr. Obama:

"Tonight Barack Obama told ABC News that, knowing what we know now--that the surge in Iraq has been a success, that it has drastically reduced violence and given Iraq a shot at a bright future--he would still oppose it."

So, even if the denizens of the left-wing fever swamp rationalize their opposition the Surge on the pseudo-basis that 'it'll never work!', at least their leader will admit that it doesn't matter whether it works or not, he's still against it. You lefties could learn something from Mr. Obama, at least he's honest. Of course, you could go one step further and admit that you're against the Surge ESPECIALLY if it works, but...baby steps.

Posted by pontificus at 07/22/2008 @ 08:04am