"He promised, during the campaign, to increase troops in Afghanistan. Blah, blah, fucking blah ...."

[Stinky The Clown]

For some of us, it was seen as wrong then and it remains so today. For some, it seen as campaign rhetoric since it was said by a candidate who RAN HIS CAMPAIGN as Anti Iraq War; the cognitive dissonance of his Afghan stand was seen as simply rhetoric to counter the hard right.

No matter.

What choice did ANY lefty have?

Nader?

McPalin?

Mickey Mouse?

Get over yourselves. Yeah, he said what he said. We all knew what he said.

SO WHAT?

[tekisui]

1. YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION!!!1!!

You have no right to be outraged now!!!11!
You voted for it!!1!!!11!
YOu must want your own personal genie!1111

It is bullshit, and nothing more than an attempt to deflect and distract the debate. Obama is fucking up on this one. Most everyone on the left knows it, and it is damn near impossible to defend, so they fall back on deflections.

Don't worry, though, they will 'understand' the rationale for war on Tuesday, and the talking point should be in line.

[MNDemNY]

2. Wipe.

[HamdenRice]

6. "Most everyone on the left knows it," -- a symptom of megalomania

Actually a few people in an echo chamber on a message board "know it" and have convinced themselves they are the world.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. It would be useful if the so-called left could get its house in order

Maybe then it could get more than 6% of the vote in an election, and save the world.

Oh, yes, somebody else's fault: the corporate media, the dumb populace, the DLC moneybags, and etc. We never seem to take responsibility for our own failed rhetorical strategies, which, judging from the results, seem to totally fucking suck.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. You're deflecting from the original argument

I might also point out that "the so-called left" was part of a broad, victorious voting coalition in the last election. You might remember. It was in all the papers.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. I've been a leftist (not a Democrat, not a liberal, not a 'progressive' whatever the eff that means)

my entire adult life.

The left is quite right to engage in coalition politics, given the atmosphere, since it was well-proven that failure to do so leads to catastrophe. Why? Precisely because garnering more than 6% of the vote from a left position has been an utter failure, even at most local levels. Why? Is it because the ideas are no good? No. It's because we sound like a bunch of carping whiners most of the time, and offer no positive platform that makes sense to anybody. It's because we abandoned material and historical analysis for lofty, timeless absolutes, which might make us feel nice, but end up being recognized by even the most "dull-witted" of the so-called "sheeple" for what they are: condescending dogmas of no pragmatic value, and know-nothing proclamations.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. I don't disagree with you

But .... to the point ...... do you support this escalation in Afghanistan?

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. I'm undecided

I certainly don't believe that the issue is as simple as many here make it out to be. I also believe that many of the people who identify themselves as "on the left" here suffer from precisely the symptoms I described earlier: they have a ready-made answer to every given occurrence; they produce dogma rather than analysis. They then fill in the blanks with so-called "facts" post hoc, in the manner of all ideologists, fitting the facts around the policy, as it were.

[HamdenRice]

47. Well said! nt

[Stinky The Clown]

9. My unscientific, unreliable "Poll Of Personal Anecdotes" tells me NO ONE favors this

I have quite a few righty neighbors and friends. A few hard right.

NO ONE has indicated support for this. Interestingly, the reasons for the lack of support vary wildly. The hard righties, for example, sees it as a half measure-not big enough to suit them.

I have not met anyone - not.one.person - who blindly favors this. Except, as you point out, "on a message board .... and have convinced themselves they are the world." Well said.



edit to change "Ogf" to "Of" in the title

[Neecy]

32. And those fighting these wars aren't fooled

A guy who's been doing some work on my house has served three tours in Iraq. He's a Republican, a Jesus type person, and he's one hell of a nice guy.

I asked him what he thought of adding troops in Afghanistan. "These are rich men's wars" he replied with evident bitterness. He hated - HATED - the bogus reasons for the war in Iraq as well.

Those who fight these shitty wars are probably less enthusiastic than anyone.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Your statement surprizes me ......

..... not even a little bit.

[tekisui]

37. Ah, you think the escalation has broad support?

:rofl:

A majority of Democrats are against it.

[QC]

22. You forgot the one about the magic wand. n/t

[Fumesucker]

36. And ponies, he forgot ponies..

Lots and lots of ponies..

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Just snark ....

.... that's what you do when you have nothing with which to engage.

[closeupready]

56. When you and the most powerful person on Earth agree, you are in a comfortable position.

You need not play defense - it's up to those who oppose to mount a rhetorical counterargument, which is very difficult and daunting, esp. AFTER the decision has been made and announced.

If you agree with the President, you can talk nice and say things like 'isn't it a shame he didn't see it your way?', look like a reluctant trooper.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. So ..... bullying is okay?

I'm not sure what else you might have meant. :shrug:

[closeupready]

69. I was picking up on that idea you had going on, that people who support the escalation

snark (or, as I was suggesting, commisserate with opponents) because neither they nor Obama can effectively refute many arguments against escalation.

In other words, I guess it's sort of like, they play Good Cop to Bad Cop Obama.

[Stinky The Clown]

77. Okay, got it.

Mea Culpa!

:hi:

[closeupready]

55. You so nailed that one.

:yourock:

[butterfly77]

70. Wrong! and I don't recall the President...

telling us what he is going to do yet,that is all media talk to get you stirred up. What ever the decision it will take time to leave and it won't take a week or a month to do.

[tekisui]

71. We'll do it again tomorrow.

If you cant see what the plan is, you haven't been paying attention.

[HamdenRice]

3. He has all but ended the Iraq War. I'm thrilled! "US undertaking largest withdrawal of troops"

"US undertaking largest withdrawal of troops and materiel since Vietnam"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6941125&mesg_id=6942311

Leaving Iraq Is a Feat That Requires an Army

By MARC SANTORA
Published: October 8, 2009

JOINT BASE BALAD, Iraq — There is no more visible sign that America is putting the Iraq war behind it than the colossal operation to get its stuff out: 20,000 soldiers, nearly a sixth of the force here, assigned to a logistical effort aimed at dismantling some 300 bases and shipping out 1.5 million pieces of equipment, from tanks to coffee makers.

It is the largest movement of soldiers and matériel in more than four decades, the military said.

[rucky]

4. They need to come home. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

5. And that justifies expansion in Afghanistan ......... how, exactly?

*And* ...... so far, any meaningful Iraq withdrawal is just ...... words. Plans. I'm encouraged, but I'll wait to see what actually transpires.

[HamdenRice]

7. "a candidate who RAN HIS CAMPAIGN as Anti Iraq War; "

And ended it! A monumental accomplishment!

[Stinky The Clown]

11. It isn't over.

The troop levels are about what they were, whether you want that fact to be so or not. You're confusing hope with fact - a common malady.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Obama said he never wanted to send troops in without justification...

There's NO justification to keep our troops occupying TWO Muslim nations. IT'S INSANE!

[tekisui]

39. Ended? Do you know how many troops are still there?

And, the withdrawal time-line is about to get pushed back after Iraq cancels their January elections.

[HamdenRice]

48. 20,000 were sent there just to pack stuff up according to the NY Times

In the real world, you don't just fly everyone out all at once and leave all the equipment behind.

I also know that my nephew was brought home, and Obama ended stop loss so he was able to leave the service.

I also know that US troops are now out of the cities and on remote bases and most combat patrols have ended.

I also know that there was only one combat fatality in November, and that was early in the month.

If that doesn't satisfy you as the war "ending" then nothing will.

[tekisui]

50. There is a great expanse between ending and ended.

HR: And ended it! A monumental accomplishment!

Not quite. I applaud the efforts towards ending it. But, I will believe it is over when I see it. The elections in January will likely be canceled and our time-line for withdrawal will be postponed.

[HamdenRice]

52. Where are combat operations occurring in Iraq -- please post a link nt

There are US troops in Germany. That doesn't mean WW II is continuing.

Troops still there =/= continuing war.

Dag, I hate teh ... oh, never mind.

[tekisui]

54. Combat operations aren't set to end until August of 2010.

If you are going to claim a position of superior understanding, you should at least understand what is going on there.

BAGHDAD, Nov 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. military does not have to decide until April or May whether to push back the end of its combat operations in Iraq due to a possible delay in the country's next election, the U.S. commander said on Wednesday.

President Barack Obama has pledged to end U.S combat operations in Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, ahead of a full pullout by the end of 2011. The U.S. force in Iraq is supposed to be reduced to 50,000 by next September from around 115,000 now.

A veto by Iraq's vice president of a law needed for the election to take place in January raised the possibility once again that the ballot would have to be delayed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLI523468

Dag I hate teh....ah fuck it.

[Stinky The Clown]

51. "In the real world" ....... that's pretty much how it always happens.

It is cheaper to leave that worn out shit over there and just leave. If anything, all that usually gets done is that which can be used against us is rendered permanently inoperative.

By the way ...... "in the real world" was used by you to imply what, exactly?

[HamdenRice]

53. The military disagrees with you

If you think that the only war ending that will satisfy you is for the military to leave everything there and not pack it up -- well then, you've just defined what "in the real world" isn't.

[Stinky The Clown]

63. Please tell me what we brought back from Viet Nam?

Maybe you can tell me what came back from Desert Storm 1?

Maybe we brought stuff back from Grenada?

In WWII we left most of our "stuff" there, too ..... but then ..... we never left, now did we? Same for Korea.

So I think the only fair comparison is Viet Nam.

How does the military disagree with me? Do they have a different set of facts to which only you and they are privy?

None of this is rhetorical. I hope you'll grace me with your answer.






By the way ..... do you support these war or do you simply support the president in anything he does? If you support either these wars or this president on his prosecution of these wars, then why are you or your children not directly involved?

[HamdenRice]

72. The military disagrees because they sent 20,000 supply, quartermaster and logistics troops to pack

up equipment and bring it back. Did you read the times article at the link? The headline and first graph at least? They have decided to bring back tons and tons of stuff.

Huge amounts of materiel were brought back from each of those conflicts. I assume you're around my age or older -- don't you remember WW II military surplus shops being fully stocked until well into the 1960s?

Just because the evacuation of Saigon was chaotic doesn't mean that the US left all their equipment in VN. They had many months to bring it back between the general withdrawal of US troops from the bulk of the fighting and the fall of Saigon.

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Oh boy .... where to start ......

Military Surplus ----- mostly stuff that was HERE and never got used because the war ended. not a hell of a lot came back. But then, we won and we occupied, so that's understandable. We have YEARS to get it all back.

As to Viet Nam, I assume you can back up what you said about us having lots of time to get the stuff back in an orderly fashion. I'm around your age. I don't recall much coming back .... just a lot of forward staged stuff that wasn't in country. But that's just my own recall. Surely you ahve something to back up what you're saying, right?

I notice you missed the last part of my reply. I'll use a big font so oyu can't miss it:

By the way ..... do you support these wars or do you simply support the president in anything he does? If you support either these wars or this president on his prosecution of these wars, then why are you or your children not directly involved?

Please answer that part before you get back to your deflection questions about what got left where and when.

On edit, you also failed to answer my "in the real world" question that went to your intended implication in using that phrase.

[HamdenRice]

78. Very large letters -- how eloquent

I obviously didn't support the Iraq war WHICH IS WHY I'M THRILLED THAT OBAMA IS ENDING IT.

Got that?

[Stinky The Clown]

79. You're still avoiding questions

But that's what I'd expect from you. You seem all about deflection and saving yourself from habving to deal with the reality that we are nowhere with respect to ending these wars, apart from some "plans".

I will grant you something that I have said many times (probably including to you, but I don't pay you that much attention, usually): I commend him for making plans and saying he's ending our involvement in Iraq. I simply will not cheer it until it is actually over. This is very much a matter of bullshit walking and action talking.

Now ..... why are you or your kids not serving since you support escalation in Afghanistan?

Where is your evidence that we brought a lot of stuff back from Viet Nam?

Large letters often are easier for some people to read. And they stick out to people casually scanning a thread and maybe cause them to read a whole exchange and make up their own minds. So yeah ...... it is intentionally attention grabbing.

[HamdenRice]

81. You realize you're using a really dumb rhetorical strategy

The idea that no one can have an opinion on the war who doesn't have kids in it is stupid. As it turns out, and as I've stated many times, my nephew just back from Iraq and finished his time in the Army several months ago, and thanks to the Obama administration, he can't be stop lossed, and was able to leave the service. My son has had "the talk" with me because he wants to join. But the idea that I can't have an opinion on the wars unless I tell him to join is irredeemably stupid -- and you're not a stupid person. You may be confusing the progressive criticism of Republican chicken hawk officials and politicians who dodged Nam, had no kin in the services and then actually sent young men and women to war, with the now current DU stupid meme that you can't have an opinion on the war without kin in the service -- but they're completely different moral judgments.

I will repeat again: I was against the war in Iraq and am thrilled Obama is ending it. If you can't see that, it's because you no longer want to deal in realities, but in fake perpetual outrage. As for Afghanistan, having been 1/4 mile north of the WTC on 9/11/01, having heard the first plane scream over my office and crash in the North Tower, having had to walk south into the area of the catastrophe to try to get home to Brooklyn over the Manhattan Bridge, I certainly supported the swift destruction of the perpetrators of that attack.

DU is no longer the place to have any sort of intelligent, nuanced conversation any more, and I could explain exactly what I think about the Afghan policy, but somehow I don't think it would have any effect whatsoever of sparking a thoughtful discussion, which is why at this point, I prefer to talk about Afghanistan with thinking people in my real life.

[Stinky The Clown]

82. Why the reluctance to state that at the outset when asked?

As to Afghanistan in 2001, I supported it, too. I was right there until we fucked it up.

It remains fucked up and is essentially the same place that bush's fuck ups made it. Sending more troops is stupid.

oops ... hit Post too fast .....

And what about leaving stuff behind in Viet Nam?

[StarfarerBill]

27. There will still be a large contingent of US forces in Iraq for years or decades to come.

But even if every American soldier and contractor left Iraq tomorrow, that would only end our participation in the war; the war itself will continue.

Our occupation has managed to effect separation of the combatants by main force; if and when our big guns leave, the still-existing ethnic/religious/economic rivalries and inequalities will bring those combatants together again...murderously. We've done nothing, not one damned thing, to change anything in Iraq other than to stir an already-boiling pot, the lid of which was barely kept on before by a brutal dictator...of our own making, for the most part.

That is the best we can hope for in Afghanistan, as well. Until we learn that the boot of our military might on the collective throat of people caught up in civil wars will solve nothing, and indeed make things worse once that pressure is taken away, we will only lose more blood, treasure, and any respect we can have for ourselves as a people with compassion for others' suffering.

Note that I mentioned nothing about the corporate-profit- and political motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq; that's a whole other story.

[JackRiddler]

62. This is nothing more than the Status of Forces Agreement accepted by Bush.

Please, you're a knowledgeable person so don't give us bullshit.

The troop withdrawal from Iraq is being conducted in accordance with the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated with the Iraqi government by the Bush regime. You might argue that the latter would have tried to undermine it, but all the Obama administration has done so far is to live up to SOFA. You can't give him more credit for it than that. We'll see what the situation will be in August 2011, when all US troops are supposed to be out. Do you really think the seven US bases they're still building will be abandoned?

Besides which: What does this have to do with OP? Afghanistan!

[phantom power]

10. let me say this about that

I cheated on her with a friend of mine
There are no days when we don't fight
But remember I warned her and I'm a guy
So she can't complain, no she can't complain
--Nickel Creek

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Off topic

Nickel Creek - I saw their very last concert at the Ryman, in Nashville, a year or so ago.

[phantom power]

58. I always imagined they would put on a barn-burner of a show.

Never had the pleasure of seeing them live.

[Stinky The Clown]

65. Have you ever been to the Ryman?

The place literally vibrates. It is not unlike I'd imagine the inside of a drum. It makes the music visceral. I like that!

[phantom power]

80. That sounds cool. The best venue I ever frequented was The Ark in Ann Arbor.

A lot of the best shows I ever saw were there.

[snooper2]

12. "We took our eye off the ball by going into Iraq"

I guess he couldn't have said it enough......

As soon as all the girls can go to school without being murdered I'll be happy...

[Stinky The Clown]

14. So .... you, personally, support the escalation in Afghanistan?

Do I understand you correctly?

[snooper2]

25. I'm split to be honest..

I'm leaning on the side of staying but it just doesn't seem like there will ever be good leadership there. The corruption is so pervasive.

The thought of the entire country being governed with Sharia law is sickening to me. It's a clusterfuck of a situation but screaming remove all troops now isn't necessarily the answer either. I always keep in mind their are a good number of folks who don't think the U.S. should have a single troop in ANY foreign country.


Regardless, President Obama made his position clear from day one.....

[kiva]

17. If I thought this occupation/war was about that,

I'd be more likely to support it - but it isn't. It's about OBL/oil/the Taliban/American security/whatever else is the current rationale. The idea we are fighting this war to help the women and girls of Afghanistan is nothing more than justification for people who don't want to disagree with the president.

[Echo In Light]

19. "Propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to the totalitarian state." - Chomsky

[Mari333]

18. The women of Afghanistan want us OUT

http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/10/11/video-afghanistan-women-say-no-more-troops.html

[doc03]

20. Everyone on the left opposed the surge in Iraq. I know

nobody here will admit it but it did work, we are finally drawing down there. Some on the far left would oppose retaliating if Russia nuked us. I remember people blaming Clinton and GHWB for deserting Afghanistan claiming that lead to the current problems there now, you can't have it both ways. Obama ran on the premise that Afghanistan was the "good war", he sure as hell can't cut and run now. You talk the talk when you campaign you have to be willing to walk the walk after the election.

[bread_and_roses]

30. yeah. too bad he's not walking the talk on much else (n/t)

[doc03]

34. Like what? n/t

[Fumesucker]

35. What "worked" in Iraq was ethnic cleansing and paying the combatants to not cobmbat each other..

The "surge" had little to do with relative peace in Iraq.

Iraq now is a much divided "nation" with multiple sides all hating the other and living in armed camps.

Yay!!

[doc03]

40. From what I understand the bribes were part of the surge

strategy, it is giving us an escape route, I hope. The trouble is GWB dithered for 6 years before changing strategery. Obama thinks things over a few weeks and they call it dithering. If GWB would have thought about things a little before going off half cocked we wouldn't be in this mess. How many in the Congress opposed going into Afghanistan or even Iraq at the time? I suppose maybe Kucinch, of course he would be against fighting if the Chinese were landing in California.

[bvar22]

45. How Many?.....

"How many in the Congress opposed going into Afghanistan or even Iraq at the time? I suppose maybe Kucinch,"

Boy, did YOU just destroy your credibility.

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

Iraq War Resolution

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

[doc03]

59. What about Afghanistan? n/t

[kentuck]

21. There are many foreign policy experts on DU...

It's rather simple. We need to get the hell out. Now.

We don't care who controls the nuclear bombs in Pakistan. We don't care if al Qaeda sets up shop again in Afghanistan and hits America once again. That does not concern us. We want the troops out. And WE WILL YELL IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

We are the world. We are the experts.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. I most always like what you have to say, Kentuck, but on this one ......

..... read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7112937

[kentuck]

28. I don't support the escalation..

I am simply saying it may not be as black or white as we might think? There are legitimate concerns. I don't believe more American troops are the solution. But I am not an expert. That is just my opinion.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Ha ha, fooled you!

Apparently Obama is someone who keeps his promises

[Renew Deal]

29. You got what you voted for.

Bush also did what he said while guys like you were saying there's no difference between Gore and Bush.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Guys like me?

You have no idea what "guys like me" think.

Do the research and stop blowing bullshit out of your ill-informed, wildly assumptive ass.

[juno jones]

31. Hell, he also ran on no insurance mandates.

If he's gonna break 'em all, he might as well as break the Afghanistan one too, in fact presonally, I'd welcome it.

[closeupready]

57. He sure did.

n/t

[Major Hogwash]

33. Did he also campaign on the platform that the Patriot Act was just great? Fuck, no!!!!

And I dare say that he is a 1 term wonder.

After he is gone, he will wonder why!

[dflprincess]

60. And he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA

though the Candadians claimed they had been told that that was just campaign rehetoric. If that's the case, he could now claim that continuing the endless war policy was just "campaign rhetoric" as well.

[WeDidIt]

38. For those who saw his Afghanistan stance as a LIE

You should have heard him speaking on October 2, 2002. He stated it CLEARLY in his first anti-Iraq War speech and hasn't altered it since. He wasn't running for president in 2002. He wasn't even running for Senator in 2002.

So get the fuck over yourselves already. You were dishonest with yourselves and never listened to the man.

[dflprincess]

61. Back in 2002 - while still a lowly state senator

he still supported single payer health care as well - if he changed his mind about that, he can change it about Afghanistan.

[WeDidIt]

67. He even explained that change

Single Payer is not politically viable at this time, thus his change. He even said during the campaign if he could start from scratch, he'd go with single payer. Too many feet at the table for it at this time. You ahve to get your foot in the door to eventually get single payer and we've had the door shut on any form of reform for over a century.

[dflprincess]

75. Yet we can "start from scratch"

with the insurance company friendly exchange they've hatched.

Single payer would have been viable with the public (I've run across a lot of people who think that's what the "public option" is) it just wasn't viable with the sell outs in Congress or the administration.

Maybe he'll figure out that escalating in Afghanistan isn't "politically viable" either. Even though it will mean a loss of profits for the MIC and probably affect potential campaign contributions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Would the born-again hawks here back McCain if he had won and made the same decision?

After all, he also promised to focus on Afghanistan and escalate the war.

[Turborama]

68. Moot question, he'd most probably have us embroiled in a war with Iran by now

And Afghanistan would still be "the forgotten war".

[chill_wind]

73. "born again hawks"-- perfect.

A lot of us might have to steal that.

:thumbsup:

[SIMPLYB1980]

66. This should be a fun few days of

heads exploding.


Yes you knew exactly what you were voting for and trying to run away from that just shows you should not be taken seriously. imo

[Stinky The Clown]

76. There was no choice, now was there.

And, just because he said he would escalate this war doesn't make that fact any righter now than it was then.

but you go ahead. Don't defend the indefensible and look the fool. Go straight to being snarky.

By the way, why are you not in a uniform? Or your kids? And if you or they are, I'll shut up. If you're not, then put up. Fair enough?