Do you think it is helpful to repeat the now cliched "He Said He Would Do It During The Campaign"

[Stinky The Clown]

I hear that so often as we discuss this march to escalation in Afghanistan. As if having said then that he would "get the job done" this time somehow makes that the right course of action.

The concept was wrong then and it is more wrong today. It was wrong then for all the moral and ethical reasons that all wars of choice are wrong. It is even more wrong now because we can't even pay for the photocopies of the orders much less the day to day costs of prosecuting this war of choice.

That is but one issue - the war. This same fall-back gets used as an all purpose reply when someone voices opposition to what Obama is doing or says he will do or the direction in which he seems to steering us.

So what if he said it during the campaign? What choice did any of us have? McPalin? Please. And even during the primaries. What choice did we really have if our vote was to be other than a vanity vote for a vanity candidate? HRC? She was out-chest-beating Obama on the war.

The same people who aver that "he said it during the campaign" also like to say that "he wants us to tell him where we want him to lead" or some variation on that theme.

Really?

The liberals **I** know are now down here with me ..... under the bus. When we look up anymore, this is what we're seeing.



I'm not ready to give up. I'm also not ready to give up on Obama, for whom I voted in the general and who I supported and endorsed (albeit late) during the primaries. But I getting damned sure angry with what's been happening.

And please don't use that "he said it during the campaign" line. It is **really** old, tired, and out of touch.

[sandnsea]

1. So argue against the war

But don't attack Obama about "change" when Afghanistan was never what he was talking about.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Its not just the war. And your use of the word "attack" pretty shows your mind set.

[sandnsea]

13. They're attacks. Whether you want to see it or not

You Attack Him. Every single day.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. I criticize him. And others.

For some of my fellow DUers, any negative word is an "attack".

[sandnsea]

20. Principles before personalities

Discuss the principles without the need for the attacks on personalities, and then you'll have some credibility when you say your concerned with the issues.

[treestar]

14. The point is you were against the war then and still are

And knew you'd be in this predicament.

You can still be against the war; just admit you voted for somebody who would continue the war you were against rather than vote for McWar who wouldn't made even more wars.

[Johonny]

4. Your suppose to argue with truthiness not the truth I guess

You can support Obama and not support either/or/both wars. It's not like they're mutually exclusive nor does it change the fact he is doing pretty much what he said he would do.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. "..... nor does it change the fact he is doing pretty much what he said he would do. "

I guess you missed the point of the OP?

:eyes:

[Chulanowa]

9. Usually I like your stuff, Stinky

But this one is pretty whiny. You're complant amounts to the fact there was nobody advocating ending Afghanistan that you wanted to vote for. So you voted for Obama, knowing full well what you were getting, and now you don't like it and are... are... what are you doing, man? Complaining on DU is like masturbating in the shower.

[sudopod]

25. Clearly no one here thinks "more war forever" is a valid strategy.

I'm with you on this whininess, especially regarding unhelpful wankery. We all want the same things: peace and justice. What we are having is a disagreement about strategy, specifically, the utility of spamming goddamn useless one-line bumper sticker OPs and replies everywhere. It serves no good end to let ourselves be wound up and then go on a self-destructive rampage that does nothing but alienate our allies.

[Duende azul]

10. Hey, people argued against the war during the campaign.

Those who rejected his position on Afghanistan were continuously dismissed here on DU by the "it's only campaign talk" crowd.
"Just watch the change when he is in office." "For the moment he has to talk that way"...
You can't really have forgotten the discussions here when he threw Pakistan into the mix. There was much work needed by his defenders to keep the antiwar people on board. But since there wasn't really much to choose between McInsane bombing Iran and Hillary even nuking them, where should they go?
You don't hear much of these apologists today. Now they're with the "but didn't you listen during campaign?" meme.

Since Obama ran mainly on his anti(Iraq)war position it was all about perception. The task was not to loose the antiwar crowd in the election. Afghanistan was sold as a minor issue. It seems Naomi Klein is right.

And before we forget: he isn´t delivering on Iraq. That's campaign talk you have no right to rely on, but on Afghanistan you have to accept even more than said during campaign? Can't have it both ways.

[sandnsea]

12. So keep arguing about the war

Nobody said stop. And yes he is delivering on Iraq. The disengagement strategy is already in place. You just don't want to see it so what's the point of having any other discussion about anything.

[Duende azul]

15. The point of the OP was how any serious discussion is derailed by the campaign nonsense

And all that you did in your first reply was just that. You proved the OPs point.

Where did you stand when the issue came up during the campaign? Were you among those who tried to talk down the opposition to Obama's Afghanistan and Pakistan remarks? I don't remember, so I ask.

Where do you stand today? What's your position on the escalation?

[sandnsea]

19. That's what I said. Discuss the war.

Obama's name need not even enter into that discussion.

But those who say "we elected Obama to stop the war in Afghanistan" bring Obama into it themselves, and are either misinformed or outright lying - so at that point the discussion does become about why people are using political rhetoric instead of discussing the issues. And when the same people do it every day, over every issue, well then pretty soon you know it's not the issues, it's the need to attack.

[Duende azul]

21. That's not what I asked.

If you don't want to answer - fine. You don't have to.

Just keep attacking the OP on a personal level ("need to attack"). I have seen a lot of his posts recently and he seems to care about the issues.

Btw: If I recall it correctly, that talk during the campaign didn't include what is about to happen now.
Obama already delivered on his campaign "promise". He already send more troops. And attacked in Pakistan.
That campaign talk mainly was centered around capturing Bin Laden and fighting AlQuaida to paint republicans as incompetent on fighting terror.

Now we are talking something additional. Do you really believe he would have gotten any votes from the left or antiwar folks of all stripes if during the election he'd come up with "oh don't think the troops from Iraq will come home. They are going to Afghanistan. And a General who played a role in the Pat Tillman cover up, a GOP Sec of defense and Hillary will call the shots. Ah, and Betrayus will hang around in high position."
So the task during the campaign was to keep the antiwar-voters hopeful but at the same time maintain a fall back position.
And that was masterfully achieved.

So again, how did you answer to those who opposed Obama's Afghanistan position during the campaign?
Did you agree with them?
Did you help to downplay the issue for the greater good of a democratic presidency?
Did you you tell people, to calm down ("it`s only campaign talk")?
Did you back Obama during the campaign on this?
Did you oppose Obama in the primary over this?

Did you voice any position on that war?

And where do you stand now?

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. ah c'mon... you need to give him more time

like 8-9 more years.

So, in nine years, will Obama still be in office, or will he have passed it off to the next President?

[kctim]

5. No, its not helpful

in fact, its about as old and cliche as "under the bus."

Just curious though, how one can say they have been "thrown under the bus" on an issue even though they were told the position on the issue but still voted for the guy anyway?

[bigtree]

6. it's transparently used by most as a diversion

. . . from their own inability to form a defensible position in response to indefensible actions by the administration.

[Mari333]

17. +100000

they are writhing arent they. they know hes being an asshole but they cannot admit it to themselves.
I am always amused by people who put partyline before their own principles.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Hasn't he already increased the # of troops there all along?

It seems to me this latest thing is above & beyond what was expected based on the election promises.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Make ya a deal ...

I won't ever use the "he said it during the campaign" line if you will stop with the "thrown under the bus" thing.

Although, I must say, that is the most clever use of a photo to make the point I have seen in a long, long time. Well done. :hi:

[HughMoran]

24. Can I add "cheerleader" to that?

Funny stuff.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Its a deal ... and an easy one .....

.... "under the bus" is, for me, a little used term. :hi:

[ecstatic]

18. The truth is never cliche nt

[sudopod]

22. If people insist on acting surprised when he does what he said he'd do in his book

then yeah, I think it's helpful. Talk about strategies for opposing the war and why it is stupid and vicious and useless and wrong instead and you'll gain a grateful audience.

Being cliched and carrying on about "you all wasted ur time getting O elected, chains I can believe in lol" is trite and does nothing except engender discord and apathy among us. FSM knows we don't need more apathy.

[HughMoran]

23. This is a new argument at DU!

Just kidding...

[eleny]

26. I'm going to wait to hear him out next week

But I'm not hanging out under the bus if he starts acting like LBJ and flim flamming us with what he "knows" must be done.

If he escalates and people still want to love him up, I'm not going along with the delusions. I'm going to agitate against it and I'm going to agitate for a draft. That ought to slice through all the love. That's where the rubber meets the road.

Anyone who goes along with Obama ought to enlist or do everything in their power to influence the young in their families to enlist. Put up or shut the fuck up. That's going to be my motto.

But I'll wait till next week.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. K&R