You are losing me, Obama.

[tekisui]

We are talking about war. We are talking about doubling a war that has been lost for years. With Obama's initial surge came record numbers of deaths. Our forces could not ensure a legitimate election. We are going to now get more entangled and farther into a quagmire.

Many intelligent and connected people have warned President Obama against this decision. Matthew Hoh resigned in protest, Eikenberry advised against it. Senators and Congresspersons have come out against it. Wes Clark said it was a bad idea. James Jones said any more troops would be swallowed up in Afghanistan. VP Joe Biden suggested a scaled back approach, focusing on a end point.

President Obama is instead going to follow McChrystal, McCain, Lieberman, Colin Powell and the majority of the Republicans.

One this decision, you are losing me. It is not 2007 anymore. It is no longer the campaign. The initial surge has proven to be a losing strategy. I appreciate that a variety of opinions were garnered, but disappointed in the decision that has been made, angry in fact.

Many of the same stylized arguments that were used for the initial invasion of Iraq are being polished off and given to us by Democratic leaders as an escalation in Afghanistan. The reasons for saying shift weekly, much like the reasoning on Iraq.

I don't expect a person genie, a magic wand, a pony, a quick fix, rainbows, pacifism or the newest analogy. I do expect someone as intelligent, reasonable and level-headed as Obama to not make exacerbating decisions on war. It is his baby now, and the entire Democratic Party is going to take a hit on the incredibly bad decision.

[dkf]

1. You can't turn a bunch of tribes into a self-sustaining nation.

Obama wants to do the impossible.

[grantcart]

6. Oh my someone better inform Indonesia.

[dkf]

26. Tribes without a history of a nationalized government can't be

compared to a country with an authoritarian dictator for 3 decades. We may hate dictators but they do create top down governing.

[grantcart]

40. Afghanistan has had a long history of centralized government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

Since 1919 Afghanistan's central government has had one of the most enlighted central government's in the Muslim world with broad civil rights for women, including coeducational schools and voting rights for women, including women cabinet ministers.

Of course you will point out that the central government didn't extend control to the more remote areas.

Of course that is true, and continues to be true with countries that share Afghanistan's type of topography including China, Russia, Pakistan and India all of whom have significant areas that remain more or less under self rule by distant and remote ethnic groups.

You can read more about Afghanistan's central government history here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

[dkf]

142. All the experts I've been hearing on the subject talk about the lack of centralized

Government, and the power of Warlords and Tribal Leaders. I'd sure like to see an article that supports your contention, because that Wikipedia article can point to a figurehead official with no real power, who most Afghans ignored. No expert I've ever seen talks about a history of enlightened leaders and strong centralized Government when talking about Afghanistan.

[closeupready]

160. Correct. Afghanistan has always been an anarchic hellhole.

n/t

[dotymed]

95. Afghanistan is just

a payoff to the military industrial complex. It is a money pit. The Soviets realized this too late. The best we can hope for is containment.This will be funded quickly, while jobs, HC (single Payer), Education,etc... are too expensive to contemplate.

[gilpo]

120. Containment of whom?

You can't contain the military-industrial complex

[wuvuj]

156. The MIC contains us?

The US is a war-mongering nation that sees itself as acting from the high ground...with a social tradition of fighting wars...as in support the troops....biggest military by far...poor social programs at home.

And doing it all on borrowed $.

[anonymous171]

27. +100 years of Dutch imperialism probably has something to do with that

[grantcart]

34. Dutch maintained control of less tha 3 % of what is now known as Indonesia

[AzNick]

134. And France

All these Celts, Franks, Germans, Celts, Gauls, Romans, Basques, etc... all forming the core of one same nation.

Wow.

[closeupready]

161. Yes, AFTER they'd pulled the world into two world wars. Hard to see how Afghanistan

can do the same thing.

[kenny blankenship]

20. Are you talking about Afghanistan or America?

[anonymous171]

29. Took almost a hundred years and one epic and bloody war for our nation to come into its own

You want to babysit Afghanistan for that long?

[kenny blankenship]

50. I agree that something they could call a win in A-stan would require a constant willingness

to "revisit" our work, to return there to prop up and spackle over what will surely fall to pieces again and again. You can see from this which I posted last night, what I think of that idea.

[patrice]

54. 1+

[Andronex]

32. This is not about tribes

it's about pipelines crossing Afghanistan and Pakistan towards the worlds greatest untapped reserves of gas and oil in central Asia. It's all spelled out in the neocon PNAC document.

[Tutankhamun]

47. Bingo! TAPI Pipeline plus military/industrial complex equals quagmire in Afghanistan.

[wolfgangmo]

164. Bam

Yes. I wish to Christ that Edwards hadn't played hide the sausage and that America wasn't so puritanical that it mattered. He at least was a person who spent his life standing up to the rich and powerful. Obama is becoming more disappointing by the day.

Get the hell out of the wars Obama, shut down a few of our over 700 permanent foreign military bases, end torture, and for God's sake stop giving bailout money to proven crooks and liars.

[dixiegrrrrl]

179. Also spelled out in The Grand Chessboard.

I am astonished that Brzezinski seems so little known and read. He is Obama's Foreign Policy Adviser, for god's sake, and Obama is doing exactly what Brzezinski outlined in the book in 1997.

Quell surprise????

[grantcart]

2. I would like to see the advanced copy of the President's remarks that you seem to possess.

[tekisui]

7. Do you doubt we won't be adding 30,000-35,0000 more troops?

Seriously?

[grantcart]

33. The number of troops is secondary to the strategy that is adopted

Even if there are no additional troops but the wrong strategy is advanced I would be against it.


Afghanistan still has substantial strategic impact on the US, the civilized world, Asia, Pakistan/India and Russian/American relations. Additional troops may be necessary to secure a viable central government in Afghanistan.


The President has shown that he doesn't "kick" the can or follow anyone's assumptions, yet you accuse him of simply following recommendations, which leaked reports have already said that he has rejected and ordered reworked.


He is going to make his statement next week at that time I will make my mind up on his Afghanistan policy.

[Robb]

37. Stop being so damn sensible. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. I have a feeling that those troops are going to be carrying guns.

And, it won't be to make a fashion statement.

So, the "strategy" is likely to have the troops use the guns.

I'm against the "strategy" no matter which bogeymen are erected, how many flags are waved, how often "finish the job" is invoked.

[choie]

93. "the civilized world"?

pray tell, are we part of the "civilized world"?

[Kid Dynamite]

103. I think you have already made up your mind on his Afghanistan policy

No matter what his remarks may be, it is almost certain that you will insist that we "give the President's policy a chance". This is not a matter of policy, it is entirely a matter of position. And the only Left position is US imperialist withdrawal from Afghanistan. No asterisks, yabbuts, or "nuance".

No exception

[Fedja]

135. A bit of a stretch?

I haven't seen him state anything to that effect. As for your position, it's one without consideration for facts or circumstance, so how is it even a position?

[kristopher]

154. !!!

[elocs]

3. We don't need to be at the destination yet, but I would like to see us going in the right direction.

I am not seeing that now and it is disappointing. Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, land mines....

[secondwind]

4. why don't you shelve this until after Tuesday evening? Why are you so insistent

that everything will be awful, even before you hear what our President's plans for Afghanistan ARE?


Jeez.......and a Happy Thanksgiving to you too!

[tekisui]

9. Oh yeah, I bet he's going to annouce a drawdown.

:eyes:

Happy T-day!

[bdamomma]

150. I am waiting to see what President Obama is going to say on Tuesday.

but if Russia was thrown out on their a$$es what makes them think this is "winnable" (I hate that word)

[elocs]

11. And then after Tuesday it will be to wait for something else, won't it?

I would love to be surprised on Tuesday but I highly doubt that I will be. Unfortunately, getting disappointed is getting to be routine.

[tekisui]

13. I know what it will be: Give it time to work!!11!!1111

That will by another year of fucking war without criticism.

[elocs]

38. Then more time to let it work + a few more thousand troops, over and over,

rinse and repeat. Been there, done that.

[MissDeeds]

97. Exactly

This is a massive waste of life and resources. The apologists would have us believe Obama needs more time to make a wise and prudent decision - all the while the body count continues to climb. And for what? This is unacceptable and unconscionable. :thumbsdown:

[Fedja]

136. Your question implies there's no answer.

When you say "for what?", you're not providing a viable reason. From where I'm sitting, the reason is the prevention of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of deaths which would be a consequence of a shattered governance system and civil war whenever the US troops leave.

Agree or disagree with that being a good enough reason, and there can be debate. Don't pretend that there is no reason though.

[MissDeeds]

158. Obama has failed to identify the mission

ten months into his presidency. It would appear even he is having difficulty answering the question "for what" are people fighting and dying. There is no viable reason.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

166. Never mind the deaths that OUR meddling has caused over the past 30 years

It all started with the CIA stirring up the Afghan equivalent of rednecks in the summer of 1979 (six months before the Soviets came in) to harass the indigenous Marxists who had come into power in a coup in March 1978. The rural fighters didn't know Communism from Consumerism, but they didn't want none of their wimmenfolk goin' 'round without burqas or their daughters going to school.

Just think. If the CIA had let the Marxist government suppress the rebels and carry out its program, a whole generation of Afghan women would have grown up educated and unveiled, and the war orphans who grew up to be the foot soldiers of the Taliban movement would have grown up in normal families instead of in harsh and fanatical regimen of Taliban training camps.

We broke it, and we can't fix it, because our policy makers look at everything in terms of war: the war on Communism, the war on "terrorism."

The best we can do is withdraw and pay NGOs from liberal Islamic countries (Bangladesh, Tunisia, Indonesia) to come in and do development work and negotiate among the warring parties.

[Generator]

89. I believe the proper reply is "Six More Months"

Hey, it worked for the last admin. I think the Obama defenders should study up on the cliches. "Winnable war"- after eight years- is another fav of mine-Obama used it, hey didn't they use that after Vietnam? WE MUST WIN. What is a win? How many dead is that? I need a number-oh yes-let's just wait another six months.

[ProSense]

5. "Obama is instead going to follow McChrystal, McCain, Lieberman...Powell and...Republicans"

How do you know this?

[tekisui]

10. They all wanted more troops, didn't they?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

17. How do you know that Obama wants what they want?

That's the question.

[tekisui]

23. We'll do this again Tuesday. But, honestly, in all sersiouness

does any part of you think for a moment that he won't be escalating? Answer honestly.

[pundaint]

115. The time for considering what Obama wants is past

Now we have a more authentic indicator to judge him on: what he's doing.

I will no longer buy into the the delusion that the directions he sets, and the actions he takes, don't count.

We all need to make our own judgments, but mine is that he isn't doing what is necessary to retain my support.

I voted for a positive reason last time in favor of Change at best I got mild attenuation. If another candidate is available who will strongly work for Change, he'll get my support. If I don't have that option, I will cast a vote to demonstrate against our entire right of center national agenda and incumbents. Worst case, I will cast a defensive vote, should Sarah or her ilk be the alternative. Tho only vote Obama will get out of me in future is the defensive one, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

[otohara]

30. Considering He Campaigned

to focus on the forgotten war...

I always expected him to send more troops to Afghanistan.

What did you think he meant?

[azmouse]

8. What else does your magic crystal ball say?

:eyes:

[tekisui]

12. Hilarious.

You can't debate the points, you don't have you talking points yet.

We'll do this again, Tuesday, how about it?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

15. FUCK THIS GODDAMN WAR!!!

Fucking fuck. This isn't a petty faction fight. It is fucking war. Death, destruction.

[azmouse]

19. Obama didn't start it but he has to finish it.

Yeah. It sucks. But screaming at fellow DUers isn't going to make any difference, is it?

[anonymous171]

31. And the easiest way to finish it is to withdraw.

[MissDeeds]

100. +10

:hi:

[Fedja]

138. Easy only for the US.

So if a withdrawal causes countless civilian deaths on the afghani side, what do you do? Do you just tell them it was the easiest way?

[anonymous171]

141. Yep. Fuck 'em. We should not even be there in the first place. nt

[Fedja]

145. You can't be serious.

They didn't ask for you to be there. That's the exact attitude that made the world turn its back on the US in the first place. That's the exact attitude that everyone hated about Bush.

"Fuck 'em" isn't a viable long-term strategy even if you spend more on guns than you do on health.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

167. We first said "Fuck 'em" when the U.S. purposely tried to destabilize the Afghan govt. in 1979

BEFORE the Soviets came in.

Our idiotic Cold War obsession blinded us to the fact that the Marxist government there was actually doing some good.

[anonymous171]

183. The marxist "government" there was very similiar to the current US backed government

They had little influence outside the cities and needed large amounts of foreign military support in order to secure their own country. They did not have the popular mandate. I don't care how much "good" they were doing, they were still a soviet puppet state. Imperialism is bad m'kay?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

188. The U.S. was supporting the mujuhedin BEFORE the Soviets came in

and anyway, if the Soviets had won, the women of Afghanistan would have been far better off than they are now.

So spare me the whining about the poor women of Afghanistan, because the U.S. sealed their fate when they encouraged the most reactionary elements in the country to rebel against the Marxist government (which, by the way, was homegrown and supposedly took the Soviets by surprise at first, since they were NOT sponsoring them at the time of the coup).

As participants in the trashing of that country, we have no constructive role to play, not in a revenge-based culture. We need to leave and turn the job of reconstruction over the NGOs from allied Islamic countries, groups that did not take part in the conflict and will be less threatening to the population than Westerners would be. Aid workers from Egypt or Turkey who could legitimately claim to be fellow Muslims would have more credibility and could model ways to be Muslims without being medieval autocrats.

[anonymous171]

189. Homegrown but unelected. It was created by a coup.

Afterwards they carried out the usual marxist shit (state atheism, political repression, etc.)The Soviet Union was originally called in to "help" them utilize their natural resources and infrastructure (sound familiar?) You can see a lot of parallels between what is going on now and what the Soviets did back then. Empires are very predictable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

190. Still would have been better than

1. The country being reduced to rubble

2. Tens of thousands of war orphans, of whom many of the boys were recruited into the harsh regime of the Taliban as opposed to growing up in normal families and the girls were married off as soon as physically possible to Taliban members

3. Afghan women kept illiterate and in burqas instead of having secular educations and equality under the law (as happened in the Soviet Central Asian region)

[dixiegrrrrl]

180. You wanna talk dearths, do you?

Do you know how many deaths there have been in Afghanistan since we started bombing, which, by the way, was long before we invaded.
Would it surprise you to know that civilian deaths are 10 times that of soldiers on both sides?
I cannot imagine any citizen of Afghanistan feeling safe as long we continue to blow up weddings and markets and schools with remote long distance flying bombs.

Here, have some facts:

At least 753,399 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq
since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates.
About 251 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001. More than 108 times as many people have been killed in these wars and occupations than in all terrorist attacks in the world from 1993-2004. The 2004 report showed terrorism at an all-time high, and after numerous experts suggested that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fueling the increase, subsequent reports have remained classified.
Afghan civilians killed 7,589 Afghan civilians seriously injured 13,660

Most recent update: September 11, 2009
http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

and
About 1,500 Afghan civilians were killed from January to August, up 20 per cent from the same period last year, according to a United Nations report. Around two-thirds of those were killed by insurgents while most of the other 30 per cent were killed by NATO airstrikes..
Wed, 10/07/2009 -
http://www.topnews.in/two-afghan-civilians-killed-25-injured-attack-bus-2221636

and, going back EIGHT years:
"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."
http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

Want more?
countless pages on Google with FACTS and numbers.
I do not think we can do as much damage as leaving as we have done in the last 8 years.

[bdamomma]

151. .......................

:thumbsup:

[RetroLounge]

177. The ONLY way to finish it is to withdraw...

God, I am so sick of the synchophants and ass-kissers who think somehow THEIR messiah is going to win a war that has never been won.

RL

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rusty fender]

21. Oh, please. Obama said

that he would finish the job in Afghanistan. His admin has been floating the 35,000 # for weeks. No crystal ball needed here.

[Individualist]

80. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7094291&mesg_id=7094291

[ClassWarrior]

16. I'm opposed to an escalation, but I'll wait to see what conditions he's attached to it...

...before totally condemning him.

That being said, I won't ever hesitate to criticize him or any other public official when they deserve it. And an escalation is plain wrong.

NGU.

[shadesofgray]

18. I so agree.

[NoPasaran]

22. The only reason I keep you off my Ignore list

Is it would deprive me of the pleasure of unreccing each and every of your threads.

[tekisui]

24. Good for you.

Another Democrat for War!

[Bluebear]

88. Don't fret, I counteract that unrec :)

[TexasObserver]

25. I love LBJ for all the good he did, but I hate him for Vietnam.

I've been disappointed in the president on a number of matters, but this issue about war is a deal breaker for me, too.

If we are not out of Iraq and Afghanistan by December, 2011, I will not vote for Obama to have a second term. I will support a Democrat who challenges him, and they will send him away in shame, like McCarthy and RFK sent LBJ packing.

[patrice]

28. He's not in charge. The MIC is and the MIC has to justify itself to itself, not to us, because

if they WERE to admit that it was all one huge mistake, BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be WAY less quality military volunteers and, despite the good guys, less-than-quality volunteers produce un-reliable results, as Abu Ghraib and other incidents so clearly demonstrate.

MIC has to be in control of what the President does in order to "avoid" the appearance that enlisted are "cannon fodder".

Odd that Obama's actually in the same position that caused Hillary Clinton to acquiesce to plausible deniability (i.e. Bush's letter certifying proof of WMD) in order to run for pResident. Proof, once again, that Truth, by definition, IS inevitable.

[SergeStorms]

147. Quality military volunteers?

Do you mean the multiple felons and high school dropouts that now compose a great deal of our armed forces? They've lowered the standards for military service so many times they'll soon be recruiting in prisons, swapping pardons for military service, any day now. In essence, they already are. No qualified candidate in their right mind would want to join the military at this time, and they aren't. This is why the military has been forced to lower their standards to a point where they're accepting low-lives just to reach their recruiting quotas. And it shows.
Quality military volunteers, indeed!

[patrice]

200. That's my point. They don't stand a chance of pulling themselves out of this recruitment

hole, if they walk away from both Iraq & Afghanistan without something they can all a "goal" of somesort.

Not that it'd break my heart a whole lot if folk would stop joining the military, especially just as a job. But the recruitment problem is a real issue for someone in Obama's position, because he has the whole rest of this country to deal with, and congresspersons who would just love an excuse to get off the hook on HCR and other stuff on the table right now, not to mention how walking away from Afghanistan will piss off a bunch of military regulars, who, though theirs is not to question why, would prefer that their losses and their efforts not be for nothing.

[JohnnyLib2]

35. Rec.

I'm waiting until Tuesday--with the awful feeling that I don't really want to hear this speech.

[ChiciB1]

169. I'll Wait... But DO NOT Expect To Hear ANYTHING That Will Make Me Happy!!!

Nice words, put into speeches are ONLY that! Holding their feet to the fire is an entirely different thing. They can "say" anything, as has been said about so many "campaign issues" made in the past, that NOW have NOT come to fruition!

The CHANGE that I've seen the most of is the "CHANGES OF THE MINDS" on some very big issues that I felt were going to actually happen. Now I see that so many of those changes came with a multitude of variations and fiddling around the edges with alternative conditions. This is the kind of "double talk" that I've seen coming out of this "HOPE & CHANGE " Administration!

So, sure I'll wait to "hear" about another pretty speech which will probably outline certain specifics that most likely WILL NEVER be achieved! I'm only holding off my complaints because at this point in time, there are so many Rah-Rah Cheerleaders here who will jump out and attack those who are suspicious before his speech!

After Tuesday will be the best time to "speculate" on REALITY! I DO know that I want this thing ended and I don't support more troops to a WAR that in all probability won't have ANY GOOD outcome! Too many other countries have tried and failed! America as a nation is falling apart at the seams and trying to SAVE another country seems like folly because deep down I truly believe that IF Al Queda OR the Taliban want to do damage... they can easily do it without us killing people over there!

In case others haven't noticed... these groups are ALL over and it's a NEVER ending process to try to control them! The more we aggravate them by OCCUPATION, the more fervent they become!!

JMHO!!

[MindPilot]

36. I seriously hope Obama's speechwriters will aviod re-using certain phrases

"light at the end of the tunnel"

"turning the corner"

"peace without honor"

[pundaint]

118. Don't forget "winning their hearts and minds"

[pscot]

133. We had to destroy the village to save it

and now we don't even have to send in a rifle company. Just hit it with a drone. Instant carnage. I just don't see the point.

[bdamomma]

152. ....................

finishing the job????

[dixiegrrrrl]

182. "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"

[2tr4nqued]

39. You are losing me too, Obama.

I think your goals in Afghanistan are unachievable. You are just going to pour more money and more lives into the sand of Afghanistan for nothing. I will not stand idly by while you do that. I will work to foment and organize dissent against you. I have a lot of experience fomenting dissent from the last administration. I am happy to use what I have learned against you.

Obama's goals: unrealistic and unachievable.

Status of the war: unwinnable.

The cost: not worth it.

Obama's status: wrong about Afghanistan.

Obama is wrong to send more troops. Bring them home instead.

[Fedja]

139. Afghani civilians:

expendable.


Right?

[tekisui]

155. You mean the ones that

we kill on accident or the ones killed as the US is a target?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

168. You obviously don't know your history

Read up on how this conflict actually STARTED. Begin in March 1978, not in December 1979, which is where the powers-that-be want you to start.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[2tr4nqued]

43. No more troops to Obamistan. n/t

[secondwind]

46. Take your "fomenting" somewhere else......where have YOU been the last 8 years? Not here!

[patrice]

57. My guess is that's approximately how old that particular poster is.

Soooooooooooooooooo transparent.

[2tr4nqued]

82. Unwinnable war. Unrealistic goals. Overconfident Obama.

You know it's true.

[patrice]

83. NOT true because it IS completely out of context, historical, economic, social, psychological

in all regards, oversimplified and juvenile.

Straw-men are always very suspicious.

[Moochy]

140. Tombstoned Troll

Even those of us opposed to the escalation don't fault Obama for being overconfident, get your talking points right, dead freeper troll.

[SammyWinstonJack]

107. -1

WAR IS PEACE. :patriot: :puke: Take YOUR warmongering elsewhere.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

76. hmmmmm . . . How very DLC-like of you.

[dotymed]

96. I have been a life-long Democrat

I believe that Clinton is the nest repuglican we've had in my lifetime and Obama is finding a niche in there.

[earth mom]

42. It's Obama's war now. nt

[patrice]

81. It's OUR FUCKING GODDAMN WAR - It ALWAYS WAS - WAR is what WE are and Anyone who thinks

a pResident, even one representing a substantial and so-called "Crossover Vote" can change that ALL - BY - HIMSELF, just seems to be ignoring certain rather OBVIOUS facts, so, I for one, despite cute little avatars and screen-names and such otherwise, have to ask WHY those facts are being ignored.

[2tr4nqued]

90. Obama is wrong. The war is unwinnable. No more troops. n/t

[Bluebear]

94. indeed

[patrice]

204. Your support of that troll is interesting.

[earth mom]

202. NO-it's Obama's war now. Too bad the truth hurts.

FYI-millions of people in this country have tried to stop the fucking wars!

People have marched, called, spoken out as much as humanly possible given the corrupt media who twists the facts and numbers at every opportunity.

The next step is pitchforks, but the only way that will happen is with a draft, which you know Obama won't touch with a 10 foot pole, because he knows damn well what the reaction will be!


Either you are for peace or you are not.

If you are not, take down YOUR peace sign avatar because it's as meaningless and empty as the Nobel "peace prize" Obama received.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

44. Obama is losing me as well

Kucinich/Sanders 2012!

[notesdev]

85. Sign me up for that ticket

Kucinich/Sanders indeed! Now that would really get us change, it wouldn't be hot air we'd be pinning our hopes on, that's for sure!

[SammyWinstonJack]

109. I'll support that ticket

:thumbsup:

[Peregrine Took]

45. Why aren't politicians held to honor their campaign promises?

Makes me sick how they lie to get out votes but when they get in office they get a new "perspective" on things.

[Starry Messenger]

49. This.

And if they do have to get "a new perspective" why isn't it ever on anything progressive?

[G_j]

51. nothing new about "new perspective"

you know we're getting screwed again

[quiller4]

91. A troop increase is what Obama promised and that is what he is delivering along

with an end strategy. You may not like it but it should come as no surprise.

[tblue]

128. While I am also against this war, I have to say Obama told us all along that Afghanistan

was the good war. There are plenty of ways I feel Obama has let me, as a voter and election volunteer, down. But I was under no illusion that he was going to end this war. He championed it over and over the whole time he was he was campaigning. So, while I'm disgusted about this decision, I am not at all surprised..

[pundaint]

143. Because WE don't do it

[Moochy]

172. Because the mass media control the national narrative

Despite the Internet's over-hyped promise to organize and mobilize concerned citizens around important issues, the basic configuration of media power has not changed from the top-down model:A handful of companies controlling the narrative of practically every story we talk about on DU.

[pundaint]

171. It wouldn't be practical, most of them promise opposite things to different audiences.

[OneBlueSky]

48. "on the incredibly bad decision" . . .

seems to be Obama's stock in trade these days . . . bad decisions, I mean . . . who the hell is he listening to, anyhow? . . . expanding a lost war, refusing to sign the land mine ban, refusing to change the most egregious parts of the Patriot Act, etc. . . . I still like the guy, but I'm not sure how much longer I can support him if he keeps this shit up . . .

[patrice]

52. I think some of us need to consider whether to shut-the-FUCK-up about the President and get your

calendar and your asses ready to get out there and FIGHT like hell in 2010 for the most Progressive LOCAL candidates you can find, because

We ARE going to need them!

And whether Progressives win or loose, the fight itself will push things forward, and once you've done that to your fullest ability, THEN come back here and justly bitch about who OWNS us in spite of our ***BEST*** efforts to free ourselves.

And don't give me any sad stories about what you have done to your fullest IN THE PAST. THIS IS NOW - not then - SAME STRUGGLE, but DIFFERENT time, different Battle!

Solidarity, to all True Progressives!

[dotymed]

98. I insist that we start

a Separate party. The PROGRESSIVE party. A party not dependent on corporate money and whose first act is too bring public financing to the table.

[Zen Democrat]

53. Obama is keeping his campaign "word" on Afghanistan.

So why did you vote for him when you could have voted for John McCain?

I need to know the details -- and hear the speech primarily. I hate war and I for one wish he would frame it in new words - that we aren't there to wage war. We are there to as non-violently as possible build up the Afghan infrastructure and educational system in order to keep the populace from being run over once we pull out. I just don't believe it's possible to leave without a small measure of security in the area -- Afghanistan borders both Iran and Pakistan, so it's not an isolated land anymore. I think being there for peaceful objectives, and not calling it a WAR would be helpful. Who are we at war with? The Taliban that we are paying off? The innocent Afghan people? Karzai and his brother? I say this shouldn't be a war at all -- but we do need a positive footprint in the area as long as all hell could break loose in Pakistan. As I recall, the Vietnam war was not talked about as an American war until after LBJ escalated in 1965, even though we'd been in there since the mid-50's. Winning the hearts and minds took on a very bad connotation in Vietnam -- because those were words to cover the burning of villages and resettlement of refuges, which was a horror. To take those words to heart and actually strive to educate and help people, while protecting them from violence -- that could be huge.

I need an exit ramp. Not a date certain, but a PLAN. And I believe that Obama has one now. And I don't know who you people are that constantly berate the President when you know very little. I have a son in the military, and I want the troops home as much as anyone, but if there actually is a sane and productive way to end this, I'm hopeful and do believe that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. Problem is -- we don't know what he knows and what pressures are on him. But I'm not going to carp and complain and whine. If I wanted to be a titty-baby complainer about things I don't know so much about at this point, I'd sit with the Republicans.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

170. We are tainted by our 30-year involvement in training the mujahedin

in the first place.

Yes, Afghanistan needs to be rebuilt, but we should turn the job over to NGOs from Islamic countries that can win the trust of the people.

[pundaint]

173. voted for kucinich in primary, against palin in general

Would have gone green if Obama didn't promise transparency, no lobbyists, and reform of healthcare and all that fierce urgency of now crap. His Afghanistan position cost him my primary vote, and but for Palin, would have cost him my general election vote.

[WeDidIt]

56. The real question is, did he ever have you to begin with? n/t

[Bluebear]

58. LOL the "Loyalty Oath" purity test, eh? Sad. nt

[patrice]

61. Anyone who denies that anonymity makes all kinds of poses possible needs to get

a little bit better acquainted with what this kind of environment is.

No one's calling for a loyalty oath to the President.

What we DO need to know is what people's Real motives are and the best way to identify those is by working together locally.

This place is almost pure 100% rhetoric.

[patrice]

65. Or - Do you in fact know exactly what kind of environment this is and you are using it for

________________________ ? - something other than what YOU may seem . . . ?

[Bluebear]

67. I have no idea what you're babbling at me about.

But tekisui is not somebody who was "never for Obama". That is an uber lame juvenile retort which did not address one thing in the original poster's presentation.

[patrice]

73. Good Point. But his post does appeal to those who never were AND he makes no distinction

between himself and them, so . . . how about you?

All of us would have to be deaf, dumb, blind, and ignorant not to know that LOCAL races are at stake here.

[WeDidIt]

77. It is sad

Radical left wing liberals apparently want to push a purity test off on Democrats much like the radical right wing conservatives are doing to the Republicans.

My take is, it's foolish for anti-war liberals to expect Obama to go back on his word with regards to Afghanistan.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeDidIt]

108. Fine by me

Radical Left wingers will do the the Democratic party what Radical Right wingers have done to the Republican party.

[pundaint]

175. Shouldn't a party have some principles to justify it's existence?

And radical is an inaccurate and pejorative term. Historically, the Democratic Party is the party of the American Left, as Labour isin England.

It would be more accurate to describe most members of the Democratic congressional delegation as Radical Right Wing Conservatives, because it is their views diverging from the historical norm of their party.

As for the foolishness of thinking Obama would go back on his word, there are sufficient examples in earlier posts to this thread of him doing just that.

We have parties to organize ourselves around a legislative agenda. If we can't get specific as to what that agenda is to be, then what is the point of parties at all?

[tekisui]

68. I registered voters, made calls, canvassed, convinced my

family and donated. And voted for him twice.

Blow it out your ass.

[Bluebear]

69. Oh no you didn't! You did not!

You didn't do any of those things, because you don't support this war.

(Love the final line :)

[WeDidIt]

72. Then I'm surprised you're shocked he'd keep his promise regarding Afghanistan

:eyes:

Ass. Blow. Out. Yours.

[tekisui]

75. God, you are tedious.

Who said I was shocked. I have been against his position on Afghanistan since the day I heard it.

[WeDidIt]

79. Combining that with your OP it's clear.

Obama never had you to begin with if him keeping his word on this issue is enough to "lose you".

:eyes:

[dbonds]

129. Weren't you a big Hillary supporter?

You also seem to forget that Obama already sent troups to Afghanistan. What may happen next week is in addition to his campaign promise.

[WeDidIt]

157. Nope. First donated to Obama the day he announced

though Hillary would have been fine by me.

His promise was to finish the job in Afghanistan. If that requires more troops, so be it.

[dotymed]

101. You already have if you think Kucinich

is not trustworthy. I'd vote for Kucinich and/or sanders any day, based on their records.

[Cha]

60. Sorry to see you go.

We'll carry on.

[JohnnyLib2]

63. Bet that's a misread.

Haven't seen the OP back down on anything!

[Cha]

66. Good for him. I'm supporting

the President..he's not losing me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. He lost me when he announced his "plan" for Afghanistan during the campaign.

Which was the same "smoke 'em out", "bring it on" plan that we had before minus the cowboy boots.

[patrice]

70. tekisui - You know I love you and I know how hard it is to accept what our situation REALLY is.

We ARE being held hostage and if President Obama publicly recognizes who his REAL Boss is, I fully expect something horrible to happen to us. He has to do HIS (hopefully, Creative) best with the part he has BEEN GIVEN, we have to do ours, and TransNatCo/MIC has to fulfill its role too (whatever that turns out to be). Then all of us will be able to see better what the next step is relative to our own unique roles in the processes at work here.

I hope Obama does what I think is Right. I know he might not, so I have to be ready for either; THAT'S Freedom.

[Kid Dynamite]

104. Freedom to be screwed by the Man In Charge

freedom to suck it up and accept it with aplomb if we all get fucked over by decisions that benefit business and monied interests only at the expense of everyone else?

Is that definition 4b in Merriam-Webster?

It seems your unique role in the process at work here is pre-issuing milquetoast apologetics..or absurdist comedy. Hard to tell which.

[mullard12ax7]

117. Wrong, totally completely 100% false

Obama could get us out of there tomorrow. That would bring home 10s of 1000s of killers with no skills or jobs though and then the U.S. would have to admit that our form of capitalism collapsed and it's time to restructure our entire economy into a more socialist state.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. Blessed are the Warmakers.

From the anti-Beatitudes.

[G_j]

74. he has FAILED

at being a great president. A great leader would have bucked the Pentagon and militarism in Afghanistan.

he lost me too

[Nite Owl]

78. How much time are we

How much time are we supposed to keep giving Obama? For a while there last week when they were saying he wanted to know the end game it began to sound like the guy who campaigned. I'll listen on Tuesday but am not very hopeful that this war will end any time soon or that it will be paid for fairly and not taken out of things for which the people of this country are desperate. The huge deficits cannot be paid for by only cutting the peoples needs, it has to be the wars too.

[patrice]

84. I want you all to step right up, here and now, and name which policies you are willing to sacrifice

to your over-simplified understanding of how decisions about ***OUR WARS*** are going to be worked out.

You say it's all corrupt and worthy of destruction on this single issue alone? Please list here whom you select to suffer and die (aside from those who VOLUNTEERED to risk suffering and death) so that we can throw the whole thing over and start again with something a little closer to YOUR (and, possibly, MY) liking. Please reply with your nominations for the BYE, BYE list below.

[patrice]

86. P.S. And if you want to say status-quo suffering & death outweighs what will happen if you get your

way, you know, of course, that you have to make a valid case for that.

[2tr4nqued]

92. Obama should cut his committment to unwinnable wars, bad plans, and ridiculous goals. n/t

[mullard12ax7]

112. I've listed them 100 times, pigs don't listen

How about you list why you support useless death, corruption and treason.

[patrice]

205. Mischaracterization is proof of counterproductive intent. But I will respond nonethe less:

I don't support it.

But that doesn't make all of the people who do, all of the people who have sacrificed, all of the people on the fence who are influenced by the two groups previous groups, all of the people who don't give a shit one way or another but WILL seek profit wherever the wind blows, all of those outside our country who are waiting to take advantage of our political weaknesses . . . it doesn't make ANY of them, NOT ONE, change, or go away, or just disappear.

So the question is not whether I support or not, but given that I and maybe even 70-75% of the rest of the country DON'T,

What exactly do we do about that other 25-30%?

Pretend they AREN'T there? Ohh, that's a good idea! :sarcasm:

How do we give them something that they need, so we can at least CYA a little, and at the same time actually SOLVE at least part of the problem?

My-way-or-the-highway at this particular point in events will result in losses on all of the other Issues on the table right now and in 2010 and unless that's what people want (which I seriously suspect is THE fact for many), people need to grow the fuck up.

[ClarkUSA]

99. "President Obama is instead going to follow McChrystal, McCain..." You left out Hillary.

BTW, he's the C.I.C. and following no one but himself. I sure hope he doesn't listen Hillary and the rest of the warmongers
you mentioned. Since you have no clue what his decision is, your speculation is just that - pure fluff.

And since when did Wes Clark say "it was a bad idea"? Link? Quote? Or is this another bit of speculative fluff? :eyes:

[tekisui]

105. Here:

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has some advice for Congress: Start planning an exit strategy from Afghanistan.

Speaking to the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, Gen. Clark said, "figure out where you’re going. How do we get out of here? Because our presence long term there is not a good thing. We’re playing into the hands of people who don’t like foreigners in a country that’s not tolerant of diversity. And that’s not going to change.”

It is no surprise that Clark's comments have been ignored by the mainstream media. It seems that most who speak out against the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are marginalized by the corporate media. But if people who speak out against the wars have credibility, like Gen. Clark, they are completely ignored.


http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18134

[ClarkUSA]

162. Hmm... as I suspected all along, your OP is misleading. Gen. Clark never "said it was a bad idea."

In fact, President Obama asked for exit plans from his Pentagon chiefs prior to Gen. Clark's testimony. As far as I know, Gen. Clark
has never been against going back into Afghanistan to finish the job. In fact, he's someone who has always said that we "took
our eyes off the ball" there, which is the same terminology that Pres. Obama has used repeatedly.

:eyes:

[tekisui]

195. Bury your head all you want.

Gen. Clark said, "figure out where you’re going. How do we get out of here? Because our presence long term there is not a good thing. We’re playing into the hands of people who don’t like foreigners in a country that’s not tolerant of diversity. And that’s not going to change.”

(snip)

He said, "the legacy of Vietnam really looms over these discussions. It's particularly painful for me to see where we are in Afghanistan."

The retired general said he preferred a "minimalist" approach that would subvert Afghan terrorism, as some Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, have argued. Biden has asserted that the US should draw down its Afghan military presence and focus on the Taliban, while taking the fight to al Qaeda. Clark emphasized that cannot be accomplished through military strategy alone and that an exit strategy, combined with clear military objectives is the only way for the U.S. to achieve any tangible goals in Afghanistan. And the end goal is to get out of there before it becomes another Vietnam.

http://www.examiner.com/x-23316-Madison-Independent-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Gen-Wesley-Clarks-advice-Get-out-of-Afghanistan

Any surge is not an exit. Clark says the focus needs to be on getting out.

[Bluebear]

207. 'And that’s not going to change'

That's the exclamation point.

[Mira]

102. Just a minute ago I looked at the black wristband, Obama 1/20/09, which I got

at the inauguration in Washington.
I thought to myself, it may be that come Tuesday I have to take it off.

K&R

[tekisui]

106. Honestly, Mira,

it breaks my heart. I knew he wasn't going to withdrawal right away. I knew he was going to 'focus on it'. But, I didn't think he would make it a second Iraq. I am sadly disappointed.

[Mira]

125. At this point I still have a smidgeon of hope. I don't know why. But I am waiting

til I hear it from his lips.

[bdamomma]

153. I am disappointed too, I know he wanted to focus on Afghanistan

but after 8 years what are we trying to accomplish there? It makes no sense, waste of money and lives. I am waiting until Tuesday nite to hear what his plans are. Just really sucks.

[Old Codger]

110. From what I know

So far and I have hopes that what will come out of this speech is going to be different than I have been hearing.
But I am an optimist .. My guess at this point is Obama may have decided that all he wants is one term...And so far that is where he is headed... Then again I think congress has to fund this supposed surge don't they???

[mullard12ax7]

111. Intelligent people don't matter, war mongering capitalist pigs matter

I was told to shut up and enlist right here on this site the other day, have been told that the wars are over, have been told to forget about torture, to forget about civilian killing, to basically forget about reality.

The reality is the United States is a corrupt and criminal fascist country.

[pundaint]

119. But are we Number One at it?

[BigBearJohn]

113. Well, he's better than a republican, but I won't vote for him again.

[northzax]

123. Why did you vote for him the first time, then?

He campaigned on a promise to emphasize the war in Afghanistan. He said it over and over again. If this was a deal killer for you, why wasn't it last November?

Did anyone actually listen to him talk about Afghanistan during the campaign, for the 18 months he was running for president? Anyone?

[BigBearJohn]

148. I'm asking myself the same question.

[cascadiance]

114. He could at least free INNOCENT Democrats like Siegelman instead of dirty Republicans like Stevens!

When I see what's happening with that case and what happened earlier when Ted Stevens got off the hook, it paints a bad picture of the state of Denmark! Something's wrong that still needs fixing. And I'm wondering if Obama's up to the task! We need someone who is to fix things!

[Aragorn]

116. return

the Nobel peace prize pleez.

[SergeStorms]

149. There's a little egg........

on the face of the Nobel Prize committee now, isn't there? They announced that they had the ability to see into the future and know what President Obama was going to do before he did it. Now.............? :dunce:

I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say Tuesday, but all indications are that it won't be what I, and many, many others, want to hear.

Withdrawing troops from Iraq just to redeploy them in Afghanistan does not qualify as "change we can believe in". Speaking for myself only, that is.

[northzax]

121. How can he be losing you on this?

Honestly? Go back and read what he said, not what others said about him, during the campaign. He said afghanistan was going to be his priority. That he always supported the war in Afghanistan. That he would remove troops from Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan. Everything he said on this issue is in line with this. Did you think he was lying? Or did you choose not to hear it? How can you be disappointed in someone for fufilling his campaign promises?

[Bluebear]

122. 'fufilling his campaign promises?' - so how many troops have been removed from Iraq?

[Techn0Girl]

124. I see the ChickenHawk Brigade is out in force ....

So sad to see people who call themselves Democrats willing to sacrifice more youn men and woman to war.

I'm with the original poster -
Afghanistan is a showstopper for me - we deploy there and you can count my vote and my participation out from that point forward.

I worked with the Obama campaign and worked to get many people to vote for him. We go to war AGAIN and you can count me and a whole LOT of people like me out.

[the blues]

126. Well-stated. n/t

[bertman]

127. How can you have an Empire based upon MILITARY MIGHT if you aren't willing to fight wars

in far-flung places and build bases all over the planet to protect the interests of the businessmen who profit from keeping that MILITARY MACHINE running?

The last President who tried to stop that machine paid for it with his life. President Obama is not going to replay that movie. He's just a figurehead who signs papers and gives great speeches.

[Amonester]

131. We don't WANT an Empire

We have PLENTY or MILITARY MIGHT to DEFEND the ACTUAL territory of this country

BRING BACK ALL military personel HOME and DEPLOY them to DEFEND the country (if necessary...) FROM THE ENEMY WITHIN (the bu$h family evil empire)

We'll keep CONTAINING the crazy taliban & co (the christoban included) like we CONTAINED the Soviets FOR 60 YEARS.

Peace out! :hi:

[bertman]

132. I agree , Amonester, but it's not what we want that matters at this point. Sad to say.

We are the pawns.

[liberal N proud]

130. You lost me

[Jester Messiah]

137. Obama has been going over the info and the options for months.

I trust him to make the right call based on that info. Without being privy to that same info, how can you second-guess his decision? You voted for the man (presumably), so why not give him the benefit of the doubt? If he puts more troops into the mix, he probably has a damn good reason for doing so, and he probably won't send one squad more than he has to because unlike Bush, he actually gives a damn about the lives of the soldiers under his command.

I swear, sometimes I think people forget we're living in the real world. You can't just turn the ship of state 180 degrees in the blink of an eye. Wars have to be wound down, policies have to be replaced with better policies, damage has to be repaired. It doesn't happen overnight.

[German]

144. Liars evereywere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk&feature=player_embedded

[Enthusiast]

146. If Afghanistan is so critical

and essential for future U.S. safety start up the military draft and hit them with everything we have. Otherwise STFU, pack it up and head for home immediately.

What possible excuse is there for us outspending the entire rest of the world on our military? Why are we in all these countries? I contend it is only to feed money into the entitled military industrial complex.

Now that the Soviet threat is gone we had to have a replacement boogie man - we found that in Islamic terrorism. It is ridiculous!

[closeupready]

159. This is going to be the worst decision of his presidency.

But hey, what do I know.

[Shagbark Hickory]

163. If you want to rebuild a nation, we've got one right here that could use a lot of work!! End thewar!

[BobRossi]

165. Too late.

He lost me months ago. My gut feeling of him was right on target.
His inexperience and inability to make a decision is underwhelming.

[eleny]

174. This is an almost overwhelmingly sad time

It's like we've been blasted back to the days of LBJ. I hope I'm wrong but fear that next week he'll confirm that he's made a terrible decision. I don't know if I can bear watching his address.

[davidwparker]

176. It's Obama's 'everything' now.

Wasn't it McCain who was going to continue the war and keep GITMO open? Not prosecute Bush/Cheney? Not get health care reform?

[NJmaverick]

178. I have to say this is post and title that is certainly lacking in intellectual honesty

You have made it clear that you encourage and want to bash the Democratic party and our Democratic president. In fact you are on record of questioning the motives of those that think such a plan is a bad idea.

An intellectually honest title would have been to say you disagree with his policy in Iraq. Instead you and your followers prefer the far more destructive and inflammatory title.

Is your agenda to return the GOP to power????

[tekisui]

181. Is that all you have?

You deflect to your usual fear the goppers? It shows how hard you are going to have to spin to defend this one.

[NJmaverick]

185. I notice you couldn't dispute anything I said

rather you try the another intellectually dishonest tactic of changing the subject and attempt to attack me with your false claims of "deflection". You have been blinded by negative emotions and have lost any sense of balance or reason

[tekisui]

186. God, do I really have to do this?

"You have made it clear that you encourage and want to bash the Democratic party and our Democratic president. In fact you are on record of questioning the motives of those that think such a plan is a bad idea."

-(about me) I don't want to bash Democrats. I want to hold them accountable. I did vote for them and the do represent me.

"An intellectually honest title would have been to say you disagree with his policy in Iraq. Instead you and your followers prefer the far more destructive and inflammatory title."

-(about me)I don't disagree with his policy on Iraq. I do disagree with his policy on Afghanistan. The catchy title was a play on the 'You are losing me DUers/Kossacks' posts. It worked. Followers? You really endow me with a lot of power. I appreciate it.

"Is your agenda to return the GOP to power????"

-(about me) Of course not. My agenda is to be heard by the people I voted for. And to point out that there is another choice that can be made now.

[NJmaverick]

187. What a load of crap

You decided on a title that was full of hyperbole, rather than a thoughtful title. That betrays your desire to bash rather than hold them accountable.

You lame excuse about being an annoying copy cat thread doesn't change your desire to bash the Dems and Obama

"your agenda is to be heard by the people you voted for"?!?!?! Do you honestly believe they read this forum? If you honestly meant that you would be writing and phoning your representatives instead of spending your time on DU bashing President Obama and the Democratic party.

[tekisui]

191. Iggy time.

[Bluebear]

193. Sorry you had to endure that. He learned the phrase "intellectual honesty" a while back

and tosses it around like a badminton birdie.

[tekisui]

194. I gave it a good faith effort.

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

196. Intellectual honesty is as popular with you two as garlic is with vampires

:eyes:








1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

[Bluebear]

197. Nice cut and paste. When you can actually write something that cogent come back & let us know

[Bluebear]

199. Brawwwk!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7087583#7088024

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6904121#6908290

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=17935#19910

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=14543#15738

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=19307#21362



:rofl:

[Christa]

184. He will not lose me

I still vividly remember the disastrous 8 years with Bush ...

[Bluebear]

192. "At least he's better than Bush" - what a testiment!

[Bluebear]

198. with an a, even.

[patrice]

201. Doesn't look as though anyone came up with which of the other issues on the table, i.e. Everything,

they are willing to throw away in order to get what they want out of Obama on this issue.

Like Afghanistan has nothing to do with and will have no effect upon anything else that is up for grabs right now, which, as I mentioned earlier, is EVERYTHING.

Fucking Senate, fucked Afghanistan by LETTING Bush take us into Iraq and, now, what President Obama does about Afghanistan will provide cover for more of their contrary bullshit on the other issues on the table and it appears that there's a bunch of people in this thread who want the President to act as though that fact isn't true.

I was NEVER for any of this, not for War on Afghanistan not for the Invasion & Occupation of Iraq, not from the very start, not from before that even, not - for - one - goddamn - minute!

It ISN'T easy for me to trust Obama on Afghanistan, but anyone trashing the President over this, who can't see that tearing this President down right now ***IS*** ABOUT DEFEATING DEMOCRATS IN 2010 for their "failures" on the other issues, ALL of which WILL be affected by the "success" or "failure" of what the President does about Afghanistan. This blindness seems self-serving to to me, to say the least and, at worst, in some cases possibly even working against the best interests of the People of this country as I see them.

Yes, I know there are those who offer their criticism in all honesty and integrity, but it just so happens that right now there are also those who CAN and WILL take very useful advantage of the negativity. I just hope all of you are ready to pay the price for what you're doing, but I suspect when/if policy and electoral failure outweighs success I will be hearing all of the reasons for why it's Obama's fault and none of ours.

Now go ahead and make your case for how the end of the Democratic Party as we know it is preferable to what we have going on right now and (though I may agree with you about that to some extent and our differences are really just about TIMING, i.e. how and when) you need to make your case for the following:

If the political destruction you court is justified on the principle that "People are being hurt, so everything must change," you need to proove to me that the suffering and death that result from your destruction of the political opportunities before us will be less than what they would be if we stick together, back President Obama, and stay in this fight for REAL change.

[patrice]

203. P.S. Now ask me why I think "Your way or the highway" isn't REAL change. nt

[LWolf]

206. He lost me a long time ago.

When he allowed McClurkin to campaign for him.

When, in that interview on FOX, he told us that he thinks Republicans have better ideas on public education than Democrats do.

When he committed himself to the war on terror in general, and said he wouldn't rule out a unilateral invasion of Pakistan.

When he left a place at the health care table for the insurance industry.