If you're against the war now, it doesn't MATTER if you didn't post against it during the campaign

[Ken Burch]

Some people here are using the argument that they "didn't see" any outrage over escalation in Afghanistan, so that somehow destroys the validity of anyone coming out against it now.

You hardly heard any people who planned to vote for LBJ opposing involvement in Vietnam during the 1964 campaign.

In both cases, nobody had any reason to think that a massive increase in the troop presence would be involved.

In both cases, it wasn't clear during the campaign that the leadership we'd be defending through the country in question would turn out to be utterly lacking in support or credibility.

In both People learned more after the campaign.

In both cases the case for intervention collapsed after the campaign.

Nobody now thinks it was illegitimate for Democrats to join the anti-Vietnam War movement in the years after 1964. Just the same, no one should think it illegimate or "faux outrage" to join the anti-Afghanistan War movement now.

Nobody is entitled to tell people they can't take a position now if they weren't loud enough about it during the campaign, or that that position is not based on sincere conviction.

On this issue, there is no such thing as "fauxrage", which is something only conservative indulge in anyway.

[FrenchieCat]

1. What did you learn new about Afghanistan since the campaign?

I learned that we are getting a never never before proposed exit strategy on Tuesday.

[bvar22]

21. Since the campaign, we have learned....

*that the Karzai administration (Mayor of Kabul) is hopelessly corrupt, and rigged the last election.

*that Hamid Karzai's brother is a CIA operative.

*that it would take over 400,000 combat troops to "secure" Afghanistan.

*that we are actually paying The Taliban Billions.

*that the majority of Afghanis want us OUT.

*that it is the presence of the US Military in Afghanistan that is radicalizing the neighboring countries.

*that there is NO HOPE of ever establishing a strong Central Government in the Tribal Regions in Afghanistan. (OK. Some of us knew that before the election).


...but don't let these facts interrupt your rhetoric.

There were many of us who opposed Obama's Afghanistan policy during the campaign, but voted for him anyway.
The rhetoric that we must STFU because we "voted" for him is inane.
The rhetoric that others must stick to the plan because they voted for Obama is also inane.

I WELCOME anyone to reexamine Obama's Afghanistan policy of escalating the hostile Occupation of a land locked Asian, Muslim country without a Central Government.

[robinlynne]

26. here. here.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

27. Thank you for posting this response to Frenchie Cat

So I didnt have to.

[freddie mertz]

42. Where is her response? Surely a "thank you" is in order.

But we all know this was just another attempt to derail the discussion.

[PVnRT]

58. Pffft. You expect a response?

[mike_c]

28. wish I could rec this response separately...

But I'll have to be satisfied with recommending the the excellent OP!

[Ken Burch]

39. Thanks.

n/t.

[ChiciB1]

48. AGREED bvar22! I Was Against ANY More Troops Going Anywhere During

the campaign and even BEFORE! Actually I had been thinking about sitting the election out because I wasn't all that thrilled! But then Palin came along and I jumped in and worked my ass off, along with others in my family!

My daughter and I were talking about this situation this morning and she asked me if I regretted working so hard, I should tell you what I said but won't! She did tell me that I should be proud of what I did and move on because I really don't have control over much of ANYTHING that is going to be done! TOO MUCH MONEY INVOLVED!!

I would LOVE to see Obama succeed, and I would also love to see Congress GTST, but I'm pretty much a cynic at this point in time. I HAD thought that my thinking would be different because I've been an activist for quite some time and know that a lot of speeches are meant to sway the masses. My grandson pulled us all into Obamanation and off we went. The new has worn off for him and as it is with the younger generation so many times, the election is over until the next time!

Not only am I a liberal, I can't wrap my head around what we think we can accomplish when the middle east has been a cesspool of hate for almost FOREVER! I'm against War anyway!

[Soylent Brice]

49. i'm pretending that i can rec your reply.

[Orsino]

66. We might have pretended otherwise a year or three ago...

...but to feign ignorance of these facts now? Pathetic.

[Why Syzygy]

2. Actually, the campaign rhetoric

indicated it WOULD go a different direction. We were led to believe that Obama would use an effective strategy for a change. Just because some of us don't think massive troop build up is an "effective strategy", there is no reason for the hawks to toot their horns.

Who cares what they think any way? That is just so much excuse to try to shut us up. It's called "control freak". DU is overrun with them.

[sandnsea]

3. Bush diverted money from Afghanistan

Bushh dropped the ball on Afghanistan. Bush let the real terrorists get away in order to lie about terrorists in Iraq. Osama bin forgotten?

Everyone from DUers to Bill Maher to Rachel Maddow said all of this for the last several years.

To pretend that they're now shocked that a Democratic President would turn his attention to Afghanistan and Bin Laden is tough to believe. To further pretend they thought troops were going to be withdrawn is stunning.

Be against the Afghanistan war, fine. But don't pretend you've been betrayed because that changes the debate from the facts of the war to slandering Obama based on lies, which destroys your credibility and does nothing to advance the needs of the Afghan people.

[Ken Burch]

6. Nobody is pretending. There was NOTHING in the campaign that equated

to sending 34,000 more troops.

We have every right to be against this war and every right to be angry that the insane choice of escalation was about to be made. The 2008 election result was NOT "All The Way With LBJ".

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

40. I'm an opponent of the war, not of the man

You can support the man and still think the war would be a disaster. In fact, since we know the war will mean the end of domestic gains, it's actually MORE supportive of the man to oppose the war than to defend it.

And you ar WAY THE HELL OUT OF LINE with the racist smear. You owe ever war opponent an apology on that one.

[Chulanowa]

52. "Would be" a disaster?

It's already a disaster. The trick is to un-disaster it. Which is something Americans of both parties have been wanting for six years, it's something Obama ran on, and it's what he's trying to do.

You're worried about increasing our presence in Afghanistan hurting election day? Newsflash for you, man... A majority of Americans wanted this. If Obama were to follow your rout and just abandon everything, drop his pants an haul ass, that would be costly as hell for elections. Maybe you're young and just don't know, but a weird fact of the American public is that they love war, they just hate losing it. If the Afghanistan plan sees gains, we will have another 40 years.

And lastly no, I'm not. Your argument is incoherent and nonsensical. For six years, people have been wanting attention refocused on "the real fight" in Afghanistan. I'm certain you weren't praising bush for downscaling that front while leaving it unfinished, were you? Of course not. So when we have Obama coming in and doing exactly what we on the left have been demanding of Bush for the last half of a decade, suddenly you don't want it to go down that way. Why the sudden 180 turn? Surely you didn't expect the president to lie and NOT scale up our presence in Afghanistan, did you? When you're coming up with a crazy, illogical, incoherent ramble like what you presented, your readers are going to assume that you're basing it on some illogical, nonsensical standpoint. You make no fucking sense, your position is not rooted in fact or reason, and therefor you have to expect people are just going to chalk you up as a ranting kook with no basis in reality who's arguing from an unreasonable position. I didn't say you were a racist, I said you can't blame people for thinking you're racist, stupid, or crazy, as these are the three leading causes of asinine incoherence.

You, sir, should apologize to everyone capable of reasoned thought for your half-baked drivel.

[bvar22]

22. That is 34,000 MORE.

He has already sent 17,000.

[MrModerate]

8. I'm not shocked. Obama never explicitly promised to withdraw from Afghanistan . . .

And clearly, sending in just enough troops to get 'em ground up in the desert without delivering any benefit to anyone (à la Bush), is something that needed to change.

I had imagined, however, that Obama's solution would be earlier withdrawal. I don't think the war is "winnable" now with the resources this country is willing to invest -- if it ever was. I also think Pakistan is going to explode pretty soon now and we're going to wish all over again we hadn't shit our military away over the last 8 years.

I think Obama is wrong. However, I don't think he misled us.

[avaistheone1]

10. So what? Obama doesn't want to pursue Bush/Cheney for war crimes so Obama is okay with whatever

they did.

Obama was elected to get us out of Iraq, not to escalate war in Afghanistan. I voted for Obama but that does not mean he has a blank check from me to start war wherever he pleases. It is too late for Afghanistan.

Bin Laden is more than likely dead. Al Qaeda probably doesn't even exist in Afghanistan anymore. Reports there are from 0 to 100 members there. Hardly worth sending all those soldiers over at a cost of $1 million dollars a piece. Al Qaeda planned 9/11 in Germany and Florida, shall we bomb those places too?

Our own country is collapsing. The needs of the American people trump the needs of the Afghanistan people. And if we really want to help the Afghans we would do as they wish and leave their country. There has been more deaths of Afghan civilians since we have been there and each time we inject troops their are more civilian casualties.

It is surprising that the Obama team has not learned the primary lesson on the Vietnam conflict: Do not go to war unless the American people are united behind you. It is also surprising that they have are not in tune with the increased lack of popular support for this escalation.

We are at a fateful fork in the road. We do not have the treasure and the resources to save Afghanistan and save America. I choose America.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. Read this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x25159#25458

[sandnsea]

44. That's fine. Someone is against the war

Based on facts. No problem. Those facts are the reason Obama has spent 6+ months analyzing a strategy and sent the generals back to the drawing board several times. We'll see what he comes up with to deal with all those issues.

That's completely different than saying you've been betrayed because he promised to bring all the troops home and get out of Afghanistan -- when he never said that.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

45. He was very pointed in his campaign

He was always going to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. I supported him, I never agreed with his policy choices in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Campaign promises kept do not equal sound policy.

[sandnsea]

47. Maybe he said it because he believed it

Just because it's something you disagree with doesn't mean you get to relegate it to the hinterlands of a "campaign promise". And as I've said for a while now, I don't see how anybody can say whether they agree with his strategy or not since he hasn't said what it's going to be.

Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? Because it's logical that people who think Bush was involved in 9/11 would oppose any war related to it at all.

[PVnRT]

59. Huh?

"Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? Because it's logical that people who think Bush was involved in 9/11 would oppose any war related to it at all."

So, now anyone who opposes these wars is a conspiracy theorist? Wow, that is stupid.

[Orsino]

64. We've been betrayed.

Eventually, this will be generally acknowledged, but for now, I know who's pretending.

[avaistheone1]

4. I applaud any one who has an anti-escalation anti-war position regarding Afghanistan whether

they made that decision now or prior to the election.

Personally, I came glad to see so many people are against the Afghanistan war. If they just came to their senses now- Great! It is better to do so before we commit troops and treasure, or before a loved one decides to go join the services.

There certainly was a great deal of controversy before the election about Obama's position on escalation in Afghanistan. But I think Obama's most ardent supporters brushed thoseof us that disagreed about Afghanistan off - similar to how Obama has brushed off those who disagreed about single-payer.

Escalating in Afghanistan has not been popular with the American public recently. Why Obama chose to inject this in his campaign when he was elected to get out Iraq is something of puzzle considering the lack of broad public supportfor the idea, that so many years have past since 9/11, and those so few of Al Qaeda if any remain in Afghanistan.

It is even more surprising that Obama and his team did not recently check American and Democratic faithful sentiment before deciding to ratchet things up in Afghanistan amid the worst economy in the US since the Great Depression. Why would Americans want to take care of things in Afghanistan when things are not being taken care of here? Obama wants to "finish the job" in Afghanistan ironically at a time when there are few jobs in America. Perhaps the irony is lost on Obama, but the American people get it.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. How difficult is this to grasp?

Said during the first debate last year against McCain.

Q: Should more US troops be sent to Afghanistan?

Obama: We need more troops. The situation is getting worse. We had the highest fatalities among US troops this past year than at any time since 2002. I would send 2 to 3 additional brigades to Afghanistan. Keep in mind that we have 4 times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in. That is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the US, and that the place where we have to deal with these folks is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s not just more troops. We have to #1, press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people; #2, we’ve got to deal with a poppy trade that has exploded; #3, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan. Until we do, Americans at home are not safe.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Pres_1_War_+_Peace.htm

What did you think Pres. Obama meant when he said we need more troops? A group? One-hundred? C'mon now!

[Ken Burch]

7. There's no way that meant an LBJ-style escalation.

Once again, it's a massive commitment.

Once again, it's in the name of defending a government that nobody in the country that government supposedly governs supports.

Once again, we all know that what those troops will be fighting and dying for is a vague and unachievable goal, in a country where no one welcomes their presence.

Bobby Kennedy DIED trying to stop shit like this.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. Oh please.

You're delusional.

When you're saying Afghanistan needs more troops, you're conceding the number they have now isn't cutting it. The number in 2008 was 32,000 military personal. If 32,000 troops, in Obama's mind, isn't enough to get the job done, then you know the commitment is going to be large.

What good would increasing the troop size by say 10,000 do in a war Candidate Obama says is a necessity?

[avaistheone1]

11. The goals quoted in that Obama quote are unachievable.

I admit we were drunk with joy that we were getting rid of Bush. However, support for Afghanistan escalation has never been unanimous at DU, and controversial. The American public has felt the same way.

I am glad you posted that Obama quote. Whoever put those goals for Afghanistan together is delusional. We are never, ever going to achieve those goals. I resent our kids being sent off on a fool's errand for the glory of Lochheed, General Dynamics and all the money grubbing whores like Dick Cheney who live off our soldiers blood and off the poor taxpayers.

BTW Bin Laden is probably dead, and certainly not in Afghanistan, and it is highly unlikely Al Qaeda is there either.

[Oregone]

14. Well, what I thought he meant was the same thing he meant when he said...

"I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far."

Which translates to: "Please elect me".

The pro-Afghan war stance by Democrats was blatant political posturing to position them as not traditional anti-war leftist softies, yet allow room to pin the Iraq war on Republicans (a tool that hinges on the "right"-war philosophy). Afghanistan rhetoric allowed Democrats to flex hawkish muscles while be selectively hawkish. That doesn't mean most observers (non-morons) actually thought he would carry through with the lunacy after the idiocracy elected him.

Hey, you win some, and you lose some. The read out on the NAFTA spiel was spot-on, but he actually lied himself into doing the Afghani bit.

[Drunken Irishman]

37. That's your fault. Not his.

:eyes:

[Orsino]

65. It's easy to grasp. It's still wrong.

It's a politician pretending that war in Afghanistan has something to do with keeping us "safe" at home.

It's a lie, and it's doubly sad, coming from a president who has dealt with us with surprising honesty.

[AllentownJake]

12. The Democratic Party is a coalition

and Presidential Elections force people to vote on more liberal and more conservative positions than they would in an ordinary election, therefore in 2008 the American people were given the choice between a candidate that supported two wars and a candidate that supported one war.

People acted pragmatically that were opposed to two wars. Just as people acted pragmatically with their vote if they supported Gay Marriage, Restoration of the New Deal economic regulations, Single Payer, Ending the Death Penalty, Fair Trade, Unions and a whole host of other issues.

Having lived in 4 states in my lifetime, I can tell you the political language in each of those states was radically different. Things a candidate says in Indiana would look ridiculous in PA and even more preposterous in CT. Even within a state, Allentown politics are much different than the politics of Philadelphia.

What some people on DU do not seem to get, is when the election is over, people go back to advocating for what they believed in before the election was held. It isn't because they hate the politician who was elected, or for some reason they are about to leave the party. The election was a choice between two policy positions of two persons and there was an endorsement that one policy position was the better more rational course of action than the one of the other candidate. It doesn't mean the person accepts that the candidate they voted for policy solution is correct. In some cases they simply view it as less destructive policy than that of the opponent.

We are a coalition and things like the Afghan war will always test that coalition. Particularly when a majority of the members of that coalition wasn't crazy about the idea to begin with. When this happens you can expect members of that coalition to express their dis-satisfaction with the chosen course of action.

[Ken Burch]

13. Good point.

The real agenda of those who say "if you voted for Obama you have no right to be outraged about escalation" crowd is to try to establish the idea that only supporters of Nader, McKinney or other fringe parties are legitimately entitled to say they oppose escalation out of sincere conviction. This then gives the war apologists the chance to argue that ALL antiwar people who voted for Obama are crypto-Naderites or worse and ultimately to start a new McCarthyism against the growing antiwar movement.

Oh, and I predict that by Wednesday, they'll have dragged the "nervous nellies" and "nattering nabobs" slurs out of the attic.

[AllentownJake]

15. It is a ridiculous argument

President Obama could not win state-wide office in North Carolina nor Vermont with his policy position and Senator John McCain couldn't win state-wide office in either Alabama or Missouri with his.

These national positions are carefully tailored to form the biggest coalition possible. Which is in reality the only thing the democratic party has going for it right now, is that the other party has abandoned forming coalitions and has decided to focus on a decreasing number of people who have bought into a failed policy position and psychotic worldview.

The thing the democratic party has to be wary of is forming too broad of a coalition. For once they do that, ideologically speaking the actions that are necessary to keep the coalition together become so unacceptable to a large portion of the coalition, that they simply stop showing up.

[Oregone]

16. It is all they have

They cannot argue on the facts of the war alone, so they invoke he said/she said primary quotes, as if they have any relevance to the facts on the ground and sane policy.

[AllentownJake]

17. Meh

Let them say what they want to say, if they truly support this war, they should be happy because they are getting their way. Never seen a group of more people so miserable that they were getting their way in my entire life which is more revealing of their poker face than those posts.

[Lilith Velkor]

33. "Never seen a group of people so miserable that they were getting their way in my entire life"

Neither have I, Jake. Neither have I.

On a related note, I think I may be getting addicted to schadenfreude, since I get a huge hit of it whenever I log on here.

[unapatriciated]

18. good point

I did not vote or campaign for him because I liked his position on Afghanistan. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
It was the reason I did not support him at the beginning of the primaries. I hoped we could change his thinking on this. The window for Afghanistan closed in the bush administration.

[AllentownJake]

19. The same people waving campaign rhetoric in your face now

Were the same people waving it is better than the alternative a year ago.

In an election you have a choice between two options. When being asked to support a policy position by either explicit consent of endorsing it or implicit consent of being quiet, your choices are the current status or the new paradigm being sold to you.

Morally if you think the new paradigm is worse than the current status, than you should probably speak out against it.

[bvar22]

24. It is also the same people who said....

"Hey, Obama is just saying that so the Republicans can't paint him as Anti-WAR.
He isn't going to do anything stupid after the election.
He is just "running to The Center" in the general.
The IMPORTANT thing is to just get him elected and not cause a split in the Party.
Trust us."

[PVnRT]

60. +1

Of course, I expect this post to be completely ignored by those here who support everything Obama does without question.

[treestar]

23. It's the DU issue de jour, is all

No one cared about Afghanistan the week the Stupak Amendment came up in the news. It'll be something else next week.

DU hasn't been rabid over Afghanistan until Obama brought it up.

[bvar22]

31. Pure Partisan Nonsense .

"No one cared about Afghanistan the week the Stupak Amendment came up in the news."

A pathetically FALSE claim.
Propaganda usually has some basis in reality.
The above claim does not.

[treestar]

32. DU was not up in arms about it

and hasn't been for years, until Obama said what he was going to do.

[spoony]

35. You really do think everything on DU is about Obama and nothing but him

don't you? Did you even read the OP? Are you aware that you're proving his point?

[Ken Burch]

53. The outrage would be the same no matter who was president

We'd be giving DENNIS hell if he tried this.

It's never been just because it was THIS president.

[PVnRT]

61. ...says someone who's been here since 2006

Whatever.

[Ken Burch]

46. He focused us on this by floating the escalation numbers

It's absurd to say people are only sincere if they were speaking constantly against escalation BEFORE the election or before "Obama brought it up".

Lose your paranoia. There IS no anti-Obama conspiracy on the Left.

[polichick]

25. It's just an excuse because they have no excuse for the prez. nt

[spoony]

36. Too true, +1 nt

[Hatchling]

29. During the Primary wars

I wasn't that vocal because frankly it was scary here. I went from Kucinich to Biden to Hillary as the choices narrowed. Finally I was left with Obama and I got firmly behind him. But I did voice a concern about his Afghanistan position and was told that he was just throwing a bone to the "hawks" and didn't really mean it.

But it really came down to this: Vote for the man who advocated an Afghan escalation or vote for the side that was just one heart attack away from President Caribou-Barbie.

And there was the statement: "Make me do it." That gave me hope he would really listen to us. Har-har! that's really worked, hasn't it?

I got over the Primary Wars, but I don't think I'm going to get over the Afghan war.

[AlphaCentauri]

30. it's never too late to see the light

[spoony]

34. Indeed, the arguments used against anti-war people here are so ridiculous

To be against the Afghanistan war on DU, you apparently have to have papers showing that you a) were as vocal about it every previous day of the war and, most importantly, b) really do love Obama and aren't being anti-war just to "hate" and "bash" on him.

But they're the only tactics they can use because the few times they try to actually defend the policy they get cross-cut shredded.

[MNDemNY]

38. Some people here use ANY argument to support ANY thing said by this White House.

They even drag up the old, well he knows better than "us". Did they say that under the shrub?WAKE THE FUCK UP !!!!!

[freddie mertz]

41. Obviously. That is just a pep-squad harassment tactic.

They hijack threads and try to shut down informed criticism and discussion with absurd tactics, including ad hominem attacks on the motives of their DU colleagues.

[unc70]

56. They hijacked threads during the primaries, too

The same tactics, often by the same posters, were used during the primaries to obscure and shutdown debate. I sparred a few times with them, but one was routinely gang tackled in response. A couple of traces of this remain on my journal.

[winyanstaz]

50. Well guess no one bothered to read any of my posts at that time...

Because I have ALWAYS been against wars...ALL WARS...Then...now..and always.
But then again...I was not posting in DU at that time but I was posting in other places on the net.

[TheKentuckian]

51. I'm not a peacenik and I don't hate Obama,

I just with each passing day think that counter insurgency/occupation is a ticket to a more jacked up America with less opportunity with less of a chance to be a top notch place to live.

I'll be listening for a rational case to be made. I might not even agree with the case made but at least a cogent case will be out there. Something that I can wrap my mind around and apply logic to, like it or not. As is all I get from conversations and watching the hearings is a bunch of what I call nonsense and extremely wishful thinking at extreme costs.

I'm just smelling very stinky policy and good money going after bad.

Doing something because you said you would not because it is the best thing to advance the interests of our country isn't the right thing to do. Also, while I really think highly of Obama, it doesn't mean I'm going to always agree with him or support what I think are bad choices and I have to oppose anything that I think is stupid, illogical, unaffordable, wrongheaded, and most importantly unworkable.

I have nothing against giving generals the resources they need for the missions they are tasked but when the mission is toxic and prone to wasteful failure then I think its a responsibility to demand answers to what have to be simpler questions than those neck deep in the nuts and bolts have to be finding real world answers for or oppose crappy, lamebrained, moneysink, plausible evil death campaigns.

Call me a nitpicker but when swallowing putrid pigshit like this I at least want to hear a reasonable chance at actually doing what is being attempted and some tangible return like resources, area, security, trade, or for the love of all that is good fucking something. This isn't vanquishing the forces of entropy or perish into the night enemies nor do they threaten to consume the world so we don't have the call of all or nothing here. The freaking Republicans sound like they're marching on fucking Sauron or attacking the Death Star. They are much more ragtag rebel than oppressive empire. All the melodrama-smirk-wink-9/11 crap is weak.

I'm all about listening but hell if there ain't some selling to do.

What the hell difference does what anyone Obama, me, Tom, Jane, Mary, Dick, Sue or Harry said during the election? How has it not become increasingly clear that we have a stupid mess brewing over there?

100 Al Queda in the country, the people don't care about what we're talking about (at BEST), paying off the Taliban to position and resource fighting them, all up in the poppy trade, and a completely failed government all to start with plenty more pressing concerns like what the hell is going on with Pakistan really and how does all this nonsense make those nukes more secure and how all the real organized terror is crapped out or moved elsewhere and that we're way too stretched to do almost anything about it.

How is this charade going to increase safety, foster prosperity, or improve civilization? I don't buy this safe harbor for Al Queda blather. We aren't going to take control of any plausible country where this can happen because the resources don't exist and the trade would suck if we did.

This is far from the going after organized terror proposed during the campaign anyway. The game has changed or has at least been elaborated on to the point of not being easily reconizable. Go fish and Texas Hold 'em are both playing cards but they ain't the same fucking game.

[noamnety]

54. I especially appreciate this point:

"Nobody now thinks it was illegitimate for Democrats to join the anti-Vietnam War movement in the years after 1964."

Likewise, when Americans wised up and began overwhelmingly opposing the Iraq war, we didn't gang up and say they weren't allowed to oppose it not because they didn't speak out against it at day one. We welcomed them into the light.

When people on DU post that they voted for Bush and regret it and reregistered democrat, those become epic threads with lots of recommendations; we don't gang up and tell them they aren't allowed to be a democrat now.

----------
More importantly though, I don't believe any children who are about to lose their parents in Afghanistan care one way or another whether a person on the internet opposed the war during the Approved Time To Oppose The War, or whether they oppose it now. All they care about is that it stops.

That's what many of the posters on DU have lost track of. The petty issue is attacking other DUers by demanding they prove which month they first specifically posted their opposition to the war. This is a diversion, but more importantly, it's an insult to people who are concerned with issues of humanity, survival, their own mortality. Anyone who thinks this fight is about the honor of people who post on DU does not understand what war is about.

[Ken Burch]

55. Well put...thoughtful and with great humanity

n/t.

[quaker bill]

57. I was against the wars

before they started. I have not changed in this regard. That being said, I expected this decision from President Obama before I voted for him, and still did so with great enthusiasm.

No person with a remote chance of being elected President or re-elected President would leave Afghanistan with Bin Laden putatively alive and free. It is not now and likely never will be in the cards. My continued hope is that Bin Laden is killed or captured soon, because only then will we be leaving. The sooner he is captured or killed, the fewer innocent people will die as collateral damage.

While I am a pacifist at heart, Bin Laden has repeatedly requested the fate he will be delivered unto. While I would not personally pull the trigger, I would find something better to do than standing in the way of those who will, given they get the opportunity.

[Orsino]

62. Anyone who didn't see the outrage over promised escalation wasn't paying attention. n/t

[avalonofmists]

63. I agree with you. When posters say that, they only

mean to shut down a discussion.