So let's review what he DID say and propose, as opposed to what he didn't.

[MichiganVote]

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction.

We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated.

We’re not going to baby sit a civil war.

Where the stakes are the highest, in the war on terror, we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation. Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.

Whenever I write a letter to a family who has lost a loved one in Iraq , or read an email from a constituent who has dropped out of college because her student aid has been cut, I’m reminded that the actions of those in power have enormous consequences – a price that they themselves almost never have to pay.

Iraq is sort of a situation where you’ve got a guy who drove the bus into the ditch. You obviously have to get the bus out of the ditch, and that’s not easy to do, although you probably should fire the driver.

When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

In an interconnected world, the defeat of international terrorism – and most importantly, the prevention of these terrorist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction — will require the cooperation of many nations. We must always reserve the right to strike unilaterally at terrorists wherever they may exist. But we should know that our success in doing so is enhanced by engaging our allies so that we receive the crucial diplomatic, military, intelligence, and financial support that can lighten our load and add legitimacy to our actions. This means talking to our friends and, at times, even our enemies.

We should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy on a country through military force. In the past, it has been movements for freedom from within tyrannical regimes that have led to flourishing democracies.

Our enemies are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America . And if we don’t take this threat as seriously as the bombs they build or the guns they buy, we will be fighting the War on Terror with one hand tied behind our back.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have reduced the pace of military transformation and have revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. This Administration (Bush II) has overextended our military.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Nations around the world that once knew nothing but fear now know the blessings of freedom. That is why we fight in hopes of a day when we no longer need to. That is why we gather at these solemn remembrances and reminders of war to recommit ourselves to the hard work of peace.

Our servicemen and women have been doing right by America for generations and as long as I am commander-in-chief, America will do right by them.

I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place. Six years ago, I opposed this war because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, & whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn’t caught bin Laden. We hadn’t put al Qaeda to rest, & as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. I wish I had been wrong. We’ve spent over $600 billion so far. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001. We are still spending $10 billion a month at a time when we are in great distress here at home. The lesson is we should never hesitate to use military force, & I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. We did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war."

You don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

It is an absolutely hopeful sign for the people of Afghanistan. As I have stated unequivocally, I have always thought that we did the right thing in Afghanistan. My only concerns with respect to Afghanistan was that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan in terms of moving into Iraq, and I think would could have done a better job of stabilizing that country than we have in providing assistance to the Afghani people. All of us should be rooting for the Afghani people & making sure that we are providing them the support to make things happen. With respect to Iraq, it’s going to be a tougher play. I don’t think any of us should be rooting for failure in Iraq at this point. This is no longer Bush’s war, this is our war, and we all have a stake in it.

-------------Take what you like, leave the rest--------------

[IndianaGreen]

1. Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?

Here we go again!

[vaberella]

2. Uncool. Just fuckin' uncool! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

3. Uncool but true!

Read David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest, and see how it parallels our situation in Afghanistan, and the same mistakes.

[MichiganVote]

5. Well, wars are not fought by the dead or for the dead my dear. They are fought by the daring and the

dedicated.

And most of those happen to be the youth. So while the LBJ saying is disgusting to you, it is a pointed reminder that none of them will/would be there without a commander in chief---including Obama.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Wait until you hear the new ones

The average age of our military dead in Viet Nam was 19. That, that is uncool.

[MichiganVote]

12. Some facts and figures...for what its worth.

According to my unofficial survey of various sites that list the ages of those killed in VietNam, Iraq and Afghanistan:

VietNam - 22-23 years of age
Iraq - 25-27 years of age (Some reports cite age 29)
Afghanistan - 23 years of age (Some reports estimate as high as 25-26)

Interestingly, I read that during the Vietnam War the U.S.saw the highest proportion of blacks ever to serve in an American war. During the height of the U.S. involvement, 1965-69, blacks, who formed 11 percent of the American population, made up 12.6 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam. From what I read, it seems the majority of these African American soldiers were in the infantry. Although there seem to be differences on the figures, the percentage of black combat fatalities in that period was a whopping 14.9 percent.

According to one 2007 report, of the U.S. troops who have died in the global war against terrorism since 9/11, nearly a third -- 31.3 percent -- have perished not from enemy action but from accidents or illness. The percentage of such "nonhostile" deaths is an outright majority, 57.5 percent, in the actions grouped under Operation Enduring Freedom -- campaigns against terrorist groups in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and the Horn of Africa -- where fighting is less intense but the terrain more difficult. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, by contrast, 73 percent of deaths result from hostile action, which still falls short of the intensity of Vietnam, where hostile action accounted for 81 percent of deaths. However, in such unconventional wars, "hostile" does not mean "in battle"; roadside bombs, car bombs, and suicide bombs account for almost a third -- 29.4 percent -- of hostile deaths in Iraq. The proportion of reservists among the dead has nearly doubled, from 10 percent in Vietnam to 17 percent today.

Among the dead in Vietnam, single men outnumbered the married by more than 2-to-1. Today, the proportions are almost equal. And at least 40 percent of the troops killed in Iraq had children. Whites are indeed slightly under-represented in today's active-duty military as a whole: They make up 64.2 percent of the force, compared with 69.1 percent of the U.S. population. (The reserve components are somewhat whiter.) But whites are slightly over-represented among the dead, at 70.9 percent.

Conversely, African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. But blacks are not significantly over-represented among the dead of this global war: They make up only 12.4 percent.

The pattern for Hispanics is similar to that for blacks, although the differences are less extreme. The highest proportion of Hispanic dead came during the initial invasion of Iraq, the lowest in Afghanistan, with the Iraq insurgency's numbers falling in between. Overall, unlike blacks, Hispanics are significantly under-represented in the ranks of the military's living and -- to a lesser degree -- of its war dead. Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the U.S. population but just 9 percent of the active-duty military (9.9 percent of the Army). They account for 11.1 percent of those killed worldwide. The high school drop out rate for Hispanics may account for the lower enlistments in the military. Hispanics are slightly over-represented among living Marines, at 13 percent, and startlingly over-represented among the ones who have died, at 18.6 percent. If the casualties of this war are mainly a white Army GI's, a Hispanic Marine Corps rifleman is likely to be nearby.

That said, the highest predictor today of whether your son or daughter will become an enlistee is likely to be highly correlated with the jobs, or lack of them, in your own county. The most privileged don't bother to enlist, but the most disadvantaged don't qualify, so it's the middle classes that are mostly represented in the military.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Yes, but even the so called "baby killer" LBJ announced WAR ON POVERTY early into his ...

Presidency. He didn't just have "photo ops" with the poor but actually enacted programs that helped many get out of poverty.

Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty
Weeks into Office, LBJ Turned Nation's Focus to the Poor

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1589660

President Obama? Not so much save for a pittance in housing refinancing and unemployment assistance. But no REAL focus on those disenfranchised and poverty stricken within America.

The poor wage slave working stiffs are suffering more than ever. For example, there's MORE contracting personnel in Afghanistan than troops. Those boys and girls are NOT all support personnel.

Now, with the new (Complements - Don Rumsfeld for privatizing much of military operations), Mostly Privatized MIC, you KILL and DIE according to your corporate masters' schedule. :puke:

[IndianaGreen]

14. And he didn't appease the GOP on Medicare

and he alienated the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party (yesterday's blue dogs) with the Civil Rights Act.

[MichiganVote]

17. Actually, I think that LBJ, the GOP and the Democrats all knew what they were doing.

Logic a'la Washington DC. Somebody was going to pay for the Civil Rights Act. 58,000 died for it in VietNam. If LBJ were alive today, even he would tell the truth. In fact, he might be the only one to do so.

Every war buys something in the name of "freedom".

[Cha]

8. You're stuck in timewarp and it's made you

spout and Predict all kinds of shit.

[IndianaGreen]

16. people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles

That's a Hegel quote, but you are probably more familiar with Santayana's dictum that those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In your case, and those like you, you are bound and determined to repeat in Afghanistan every mistake that was made in Vietnam. Good luck!

[Cha]

18. Like I say..timewarp for you..

Pres Obama is actually a student of history.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Really? He just flunk this history test!

[Odin2005]

36. -1,000,000

[impik]

41. Whenever i think that i met the

biggest jerk around here, i meet a new one.

[HopeOverFear]

4. thanks

[ShortnFiery]

7. "deadly global struggle" The Commies are coming! They're under your bed, be AFRAID.

B.S. we could be focusing on Policing Actions to root out al Qaeda cells ALL OVER THE WORLD. But now, our MIC has to continue to TEST OUT their Pretty Weapons and Armaments on the Afghan People as the TRUE enemy = al Qaeda = has morphed into The Taliban. :eyes:

Orwell's rolling over in his grave as The American Crusade that began in 2001 is back up to full speed. All we need is another 34,000 of our youth to SUCK into the meat grinder of the USA War Machine.

There's a lot of money to be made boys and girls - those bombs won't blow themselves up, ya know? :crazy:

[2tr4nqued]

9. Unwinnable war. Unrealistic goals. Overconfident Obama.

Those will be good sound bites after Obama finally gives his long overdue announcement.

The war is not worth fighting. Most Americans agree, Obama is wrong to send more troops to AFghanistan. Especially Democrats think that, and that's who Obama relies on to win in 2012.

Obama is throwing the election already?

[Baltoman991]

11. No, it's you

and your ilk throwing the election already.

If ANYONE turns on Obama because of Afghanistan then they never really did listen to a word he said. So which is it? You never listened or you never supported him to begin with?

[IndianaGreen]

13. Warmongering for Obama was not an election slogan in 2008!

And, yes, millions will oppose Obama's stupid and shitty little war in Afghanistan!

[Baltoman991]

26. Oh bullshit to you

and your FAUX SNOOZE meme. It's not Obamas fucking war. He was handed the bullshit. But those millions you claim will oppose him are the same millions who voted for him inspite of his stand on Afghanistan. So if they now want to pretend he never said he would continue this war then more power to you and the rest of them when we have President Palin sitting in the White House. I'm sure you all will get exactly everything you want when that happens.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Who cares? Is there a breach of contract suit pending?

Arguments about what Obama did or did not promise are silly.

A bad policy that was promised is a bad policy.

A good policy that wasn't promised is a good policy.

[MichiganVote]

20. Are the "promises" the only issue?

I have read that since March 2003, Gallup has asked Americans on 79 different occasions whether the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, compared to having asked the same question about Afghanistan only nine times since November 2001.

Why is that? Is it about promises? Is it about policy? I don't know myself.

I do know that over 50% of the population seem to be paying attention to the issues of both conflicts. I have read that by April of 2008 63% of Americans polled said that Iraq was a mistake compared to less than half that number the first year of that war. In Afghanistan the numbers are similar. In Gallup's initial 2001 poll about Afghanistan, shortly after the U.S. invasion, and in the poll that followed in January 2002, a very small minority of 9% and 6% of Americans, respectively, said U.S. involvement in that country was a mistake. That number climbed to 25% in the summer of 2004 (at about the same time that a majority were saying the Iraq war was a mistake), and reached a high of 42% in March of this year. In the most recent poll, the "mistake" percentage for Afghanistan has settled back to 36%.

So what is wrong? The promises or the policies?

[Cha]

21. Because you say they're "silly"...no,

you don't get to decide.

[MichiganVote]

22. I think anyone can decide that the current arguments about promises are

either serious or silly. In this country I still support the right for people to debate or not, to hold opinions, informed or otherwise. To speak or stay silent. I, or you, may not like another's point of view, but I reserve the right to defend their right to express it, to discuss, to deliberate and to decide.

[Cha]

23. He's not deciding for me..and that's what I was talking about.

I think it's important to know the history..it's "not a dirty word".

[MichiganVote]

24. I didn't read that he/she was deciding for you. History, however, is always fraught with

darkness and illumination. Just ask a married couple who insulted whose parents first. :)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

25. Your constant defense of Obama's policies

smacks of desperation, why are you one of the 4 or 5 people who I am constantly seeing on multiple threads defending everything and anything Obama does, regardless of the internals of the policy. Is there anything Obama does or has done you disagree with?

[Cha]

27. Oh, it's another net nanny telling Obama Supporters

they're on too many threads.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

28. You can post on as many threads as you wish

I just wonder if there is anything you disagree with Obama on.

[Cha]

29. Thank you.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

30. Not answering my simple question

is very telling.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Gee, that's big of you. Is there any policy you agree with Obama on?

:shrug:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

32. Yes I agree with Obama on many things

Lilly Ledbetter act

SCHIPP

Using diplomacy with Iran and North Korea

Missle Defense shield in Poland

Announced unequivocal end to torture

Announced closing Guantanamo

Stimulus Bill

Launched high-speed rail, exercised the power to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant, sought a low-emissions zone for 200 miles surrounding our coasts, enacted the toughest auto-emissions standards in U.S. history, and begun converting the auto industry to electric vehicle production. He’s preserved two million acres of wilderness and a thousand miles of rivers.

Set a timetable for exiting Iraq

Made women's rights a core component of US foreign policy around the world

Improved relations with the Islamic World.

Has made serious progress towards limiting Nuclear Proliferation


Those are the ones off the top of my head, so you can rest your head and not be outraged that I am a knee jerk Obama hater. I am disappointed with Obama on a lot of things, and I commend him for others. People like Cha want to support him no matter what he does and it makes me wonder if they really can discern each issue. Maybe you are in the boat as well.

[ClarkUSA]

34. Gee, that's big of you, too.

<<People like Cha want to support him no matter what he does and it makes me wonder if they really can
discern each issue. >>

Keep wondering until your head hurts. Obama supporters who strongly approve of the President are the same as the 85% of
self-identified liberals who do the same: we don't whine just because we haven't gotten our pony in 10 months. Nor do we
expect everything to be perfect with every policy issue or decision.

<<Maybe you are in the boat as well.>>

Nah, I thought he made a bad choice for SoS when there were so many more qualified people with genuine -- as opposed to
false -- FP experience. But you never heard me say so during the entire SoS debate on DU because I'm not a knee-jerk Hillary
hater. :)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

38. Why take offense to a statement I directed at Cha

You werent the person I was talking to. But you took it upon yourself to get offended at a question I posited to Cha, NOT YOU. Tells me a lot actually.

[MichiganVote]

33. Well I'd like to respond to that if I may.......

I do agree with Obama that we have enemies throughout the world. Find them? If that's considered a policy, fine. Go find them. I think most of us can name names.

I agree with the policy of providing humanitarian aid. Blackwater? Not so much.

I agree that education and healthcare require reform. I disagree with many of the policies of NCLB but I am stymied to understand what the Obama administrations policy is with regard to health care or health insurance care reform. It seems we must wait to see what is passed and what he either signs or does not sign.

I agree that Veterans need our support. Why then are the mental health care needs of Veterans such a minor part of the defense budget? Is there a policy for that from the Obama administration. If so, I'd like to read it.

I agreed with the bail out loans to the auto industry. Not hard to understand why, I live in a state that has been devastated by NAFTA and the rest. Nevertheless, I want those loans repaid promptly.

I disagree with the land mine deal. But I am still reading about it. It is inexplicable to me why that should be a problem.

What is surmised in today's politics is that a promise is considered a statement, a statement is considered a policy and a policy is then considered a promise. Read the original post. It contains many quotes that are statements. Are they promises? Are they policy?

I don't read them most as anything other than the statements of a politician so I am surprised that others assign them as a promise or a policy.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

37. Not all of my agreements with Obama are policies

and some of them are promises that have yet to be fufilled, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I am unhappy with Obama on many things and I am happy with him on others. I was responding to Cha who seems to be happy with everything he does, as his/her many other posts about Obama are evidence of. I asked him/her if there was anything Obama has done that you are unhappy with, they couldn't answer me, or chose not to. That tells me a lot.

I stated the things I am happy that Obama has done or is doing. I am not a "hater" of Obama and his policies, it isn't as black and white as some people would like us to believe. But overall I am not as happy as some others on DU.

[Odin2005]

35. K&R!!!

[cornermouse]

39. This is one of the major problems I had with Obama.

We don't need to "rebuild our military to meet future conflicts" unless we're planning on going to war with China. "Ending the war in Iraq responsibly" is republicanism speech at its worst or best, depending on how you feel about going to war over something that could and should have been handled on a much smaller scale. Afghanistan, 8 years after the fact, is too late to have any real effect on the guilty who are now in Pakistan anyway but I don't see him declaring war on Pakistan so far.

Call it a fool's errand, call it foolishness. Look at it without blinders on and you see a huge mistake.

[impik]

40. He is doing exactly what he said on both fronts, and those who

voted for him knew exactly where he stands.

[Orsino]

42. Let's not--or not for long.

Let's push him to make the best possible decisions.