Didn't Obama say he was going to focus on Afghanistan during his 08 campaign?

[uponit7771]

I'm not surprised or shocked at his move just will be disappointed IF....IF there's no TRUE acknowledgment that the situation in Afghanistan is one that America wont tolerate for another 2-3 years and there is no talk of time-lines or definitive goals.


Your take on Obama TELLING us that Afghanistan was going to be his focus during the 08 campaign?


TIA

[HopeOverFear]

1. Someone in GD said

"it just figures this would be the only campaign promise he kept"

I had to :rofl: at the sheer absurdity of that whiny, childish statement.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Cute how you turned that terminology around.

You are, and always will be, at the vanguard of the pony brigade.

The stunt of trying to apply what you are called to the other side is one of the more tedious RW patholoies... like Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and tea-baggers associating Obama with Hitler

[avaistheone1]

15. ^5

[treestar]

3. Pretty much

I could accept a reasoned and rational let's change his mind about this approach. But not the accusations that is is Obama's war, etc.

[avaistheone1]

16. Once he escalates the war. It is Obama's war.

An escalation is not needed or wise.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. It was good politics.

I don't know if it is good policy, but since Hillary is (also) an Afghanistan hawk we never really had a choice on the topic.

Everyone who could plausibly have ended up as President wanted to ramp up the situation in Afghanistan.

(My first choice, Joe Biden, probably wouldn't have but he had roughly the same chance as Kucinich.)

[Oregone]

5. He also said he would renegotiate NAFTA

Why is killing people and burning money in foreign lands more important that protecting domestic jobs and enforcing environmental standards?

[avaistheone1]

7. We voted for Obama to get us out of Iraq, not to start or escalate wars elsewhere.

Unfortunately the ballot is prefixed menu where you vote for a candidate or against the candidate. You don't get to vote on which particular issues you like and which ones you do not. That is our job after the election. Instead of thorough debate this war is being thrown down our throats.

Consistently the polling shows that Obama was voted in to get us out of Iraq, not to engage or escalate us elsewhere. Obama may have talked of Afghanistan, but it was never the front burner issue. Even Democratic supporters of Obama here at DU were divided on the escalation pre-election, as was the American public.

With the economy in crisis, no jobs, people unable to eat here at home, Americans are even more disinterested in an Afghan escalation.
How come Obama's team is so out of touch with the people, and what the people want and need? Obama should have backed off his plan for Afghanistan long ago.

No one should be surprised that Democrats and the general public are not united in support of the escalation.

[avaistheone1]

9. --

[avaistheone1]

13. .

[HopeOverFear]

8. We are about to find out who WAS listening to Obama during the campaign

...and who WASN'T.

[Oregone]

11. I mean, who really gives a flying fuck about a political campaign to get elected?

Does it have any bearing to the facts on the ground in a war? Does it define good public policy?

What a trashbag of a pro-war argument

[avaistheone1]

12. We are about to hear that Obama didn't listen to the American people on the ground

during the election. After the election the Obama administration is still not listening to the people - as conditions have seriously deteriorated here at home. Americans want their resources and money used here. We have plenty of homeless, jobless and hungry to take care of.

If Obama wants to turn his back on Americans and escalate war with Afghanistan, don't be surprised what happens when voters reject him in 2012.

[treestar]

17. Oh come on!

Geez it's one thing to be against the war, but to use illogic only weakens your position. They shouldn't have voted for him if they wanted him to end Afghanistan too.

[tekisui]

24. He wouldn't have won then.

[avaistheone1]

29. You do not understand the polls and why the American people elected Obama to office.

The Democrats and the American people never supported an escalation during the Obama campaign, or thereafter. That may have been Obama's dream but it not shared broadly by Democrats or the American people.

Obama was elected to get us our of Iraq, not to escalate in Afghanistan. That was the polls showed then, and show now.

It is your logic that is defective, no matter how you wish it otherwise.

[AlphaCentauri]

10. I believe it, I just forgot Iraq for a moment n/t

[avaistheone1]

14. Obama also said lobbyists would not be part of his administration. He broke that promise.

He said there would be 16-month Iraq pullout. That promise hasn't materialized either.

[Clio the Leo]

20. Yes DARN Him for not completing a 16 month removal strategy...

.... by month 10.

That's a cute turn of a phrase. lol

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[avaistheone1]

28. Business as usual. The corporations particularly the military industrial complex gets their pony

first. So their are no ponies for everyone else.

:wtf:

[4lbs]

27. He broke the lobbyist promise? Really?

"Lobbyists pushed off advisory panels
White House initiative to limit influence could affect thousands"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112602362.html

[avaistheone1]

30. They are still part of his administration. Jeez - just look at all the Goldman Sachs

guys in Treasury and in the Obama administration.

:shrug:

[4lbs]

31. Yeah, but they have more of an influence on the advisory panels.

There are thousands of advisory panels employing 60,000 people. About 10% of those are lobbyists right now, or 6,000.

These federal advisory panels make recommendations to Congress and the White House. So, I would think that's more important to rid them from those panels.

[avaistheone1]

33. So what do you think the Summers, Geithner and lobbyists in his admin are doing?

:think:

[4lbs]

34. How many lobbyists? I know for sure there aren't thousands.

In addition, President Obama did say he would have all viewpoints listened to and respected. That includes people from Wall Street and the banking industry.

However, we went from an administration that had literally hundreds of lobbyists per week visiting the White House to one which has had a handful.

Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll give him no credit for removing these thousands of lobbyists from the federal advisory panels where they can do the most damage. Please continue to criticize and whine about everything he says and does. :eyes:

[Laelth]

18. He did. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. k&u n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Clio the Leo]

19. Although I'm afraid it will be a little bit longer than 2-3 years.....

.... I think an exit strategy is exactly how he plans to frame the whole thing.

Time lines and definitive goals are in keeping with the first Afghanistan speech and I suspect it will be included in the second one.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12515

[SIMPLYB1980]

22. K&R for the truth.

Though it matters little to those you are talking about.:thumbsup: But I do think your time frame is a little short. More like 5 to 7.

[AllentownJake]

23. He also said he was against Insurance Mandates

:shrug:

His campaign promises are only as good as his political ability to pull them off.

[freddie mertz]

26. AND against taxing private health insurance benefits.

Maybe we should start one of those "lists"...

[AllentownJake]

32. well even if you did

1) It only shows he is pragmatic
2) It's only been X months

[freddie mertz]

35. Besides, the back and forth over this is getting old.

The pep squad has a lot more time and energy for this sort of thing than I ever could or would want to.

They may not have the facts or be able to make a lot of sense, but that doesn't seem to slow them down a whit.

[Clio the Leo]

25. Gibbs: "You can be sure that the President is going to talk about...."

"the fact that this is NOT an open-ended commitment."

(Per his briefing today)