I'd give my left nut to see Cheney experience an emotion like that.

The MSM is already picking him apart. I do not remember the same skepticism for Bush's "surge."

I really get the sense that Obama has no other option--so sad.

I agree with JG. This was a no-win situation for Obama. I just hope we make it to July '11 with a minimal amount of pain.

I'm still learning here. Can you tell me the who, what, when of that photo? I get the emotion it projects, but just some basic facts would help.

I remember the MSM giving Bush hell when he was 'dithering' about the 'surge'. of course, they shut up after his speech where his beady eyed, no lip, dickish, smuggish, best bully getting stood up to face. goddamn fucker.

Jane, if you saw Cheney in that position, it would be for one of 2 reasons:

1. He was checking out his own package; or
2. His pacemaker stopped.

and I don't like that picture Bob...too sad

I almost miss cable tv right now...I hear good things about justifiable homicide.

Allonfla

that is LBJ in the White House, during Vietnam.

I did the smart thing and listened to it on cspan. I don't think I can stand to listen to another pundit flapping their lips in the wind just to hear themselves speak. He gave a strong argument. Now lets see how this all unfolds.

one can hope wolfe, but I am not sure he is still human. you know NASA has to have some hidden technology regarding hearts....

Wolfe, I can imagine him in that position, feigning concern (while sleeping) through an important briefing titled "Pakistan develops Nuclear Weapons."

@Wolfe:

3. Palin was giving him a bj.

Kat:
Yeah, but he'd have his beer can sitting on her head.

eewww not an image I wanted Kat, funny, but eewww

on a serious note, I don't like the escalation either. Obama said he would do this. I think he is asking questions of the military, which hasn't happened in these wars. I also think Pakistan is more important. We have to keep the nukes out of the wingnuts hands. The Pakistani president is not doing so well, the military is gaining force again. We have to stay and be close in case. We can't allow that or shrub will end up being correct, there will be a mushroom cloud. and that pisses me off more than anything. the idea that shrub fucked everything up and then will get credit for being right....it's like they planned it. except even I know, they aren't that smart.

Yeah, but he'd have his beer can sitting on her head

brilliant!

So let me see if I have this right...

One more big push in Afghanistan, one more surge into the Middle East, and then we pull out?

It's the "money shot" strategy.

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with McCain on this one - I'd like a little more detail on what we're looking for in the way of results. (Of course I want to know so we can judge the strategy in the end, while McCain wants something he can use as an excuse to extend our mission into 2109.)

I agree WillPen. I watched it on NY 1. I heard Charlie Gibson starting to yap and immediately changed the channel.

During the Bushco insanity, I recall responding to the "better to fight them there than here" dumb shits. I reminded them that Al Queda was working from Afghanistan, not Iraq. They responded by lighting a fart.

I also strongly opposed the Iraq surge. It appears that the generals may have been right there.

I'll go with Willpen here.

Richard Wolffe has an interesting take - more troops to get shit in order quicker then get the hell out.

McDouche said that a withdrawal date "emboldens our enemies & dispirits our allies". He doesn't seem to understand that the "enemies" LIVE there - it's their country and will therefore wait us out no matter how long it takes & our allies don't want to fight this fucking war!! Gah!

I agree with Bob 100%.
It is amazing that an intelligent discussion of a speech like that is apparently not broadcast anywhere.
When Chris Matthews started babbling incoherently we had to turn to other programming. My husband switched to the History Channel,and I went upstairs to watch Criminal Minds recorded on my DVR. I knew no station would have any analysis worth hearing.

also...the "civilian surge" bothers me. Teaching agriculture to the Afghanis, who seem to know how to grow poppies pretty good, really shouldn't be the job of the military. And i don't see the Peace Corps sending college kids in. So that leaves, oh, Blackwater (sorry, Xe!) or some subsidiary of Halliburton. In other words, we're still gonna be using many mercenaries. I don't like it.

JDS, the twitters said that CNN did an excellent job after it with Farid Zakarhia (sp?) and Christianne Ammenpour.

Obama gives good speeches. This is bad policy. How is it going to end well?

The fact that the people we all agree have bad ideas like this policy and the people we generally agree have good ideas oppose this policy should tell you something.

This is bad. It's not smart and it's not what we elected Barack Obama to do; conditions on the ground changed since he was elected. Stop blaming Bush and makes excuses for the President's decisions.

We've gone from a mandate to a likely one term President who can't stand up to Republicans or conservative Democrats. Don't be placated by nice speeches - leadership is better.

goddamn Lee, you can kill a buzz dude

night all, I can't take Lee's "woe is me and I was right" lectures

Who the fuck was making excuses for anyone's decisions, Lee? Geez, I thought we were going to discuss the decision & the policy rather than just crapping on Obama.

What I've come to expect from our president, and indeed what I voted for. Candid clarification of a complex problem followed by practical and well thought out resolutions. Unfortunately, it doesn’t change my conviction that this is a mistake.

http://doubledutchpolitics.blogspot.com/

Oh shit Lee! Did you really say...

"It's not smart and it's not what we elected Barack Obama to do;"?

Obama said, time after time during his campaign, that he would increase the number of troops in Afghanistan.

Have you joined the Dick Cheney fan club?

I just don't fucking believe this!

You may have elected Barack Obama for a different reason, Lee, but it seems that he was pretty clear about his intentions (article from July 2008).

I can understand Lee's frustration...this is not what many progressives expected from Obama. This decision was obviously well thought over and they decided on trying to ramp things up quickly to see if we can't get a quick win. I don't know if it will work but I will stand by the president.

One thing we all can agree on: this is now Obama's war, he has made the decision and if it fails or we get into a never ending conflict then the blame will be squarely on his shoulders.

http://doubledutchpolitics.blogspot.com/

I am deffinantly not for an increase in troops in afghanistan. Infact I dont think we should have any troops in the middle east period.

But...

I have a really hard time critizing Obama for this move. The reason is this: He campaigned on this. During nearly every speech he gave, he pledged a new focus on Afghanistan. He is doing exactly what he said he would do.

Do I agree with it? No. But he did say he was going to do this, and I voted for him knowing full well that it was part of his campaign.

Lee - Stop blaming Bush? Blow it out your ass you self-righteous hypocrit.

Ryan, I completely understand the frustration. I was hoping that Obama would announce that he was going to begin a troop withdrawal tomorrow. I have people I care about currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I expect that other people dear to me will end up there before it is all said and done. And it is agonizing.

My point is that Obama never promised to remove all the troops immediately. In fact, he did the opposite. So while we may have hoped that he would do what we wished, we cannot be upset when he acted the way he told us he was going to all along. In fact, some might say that is a positive trait.

If I have to read anymore of this "this is not what many progressives expected from Obama" bullshit, I am going to fucking puke.

Claiming you didn't expect something which was a centerpiece of his entire campaign just makes you look like knee-jerk opportunist cry-baby.

If they didn't expect it, they weren't paying attention.

I keep seeing this picture now used as an admonishment of the President. First, the comparison to Johnson is...kind of weak. Second, wasn't it just a few weeks ago that we on the left were gushing over his walk through Arlington and stopping to speak with those paying their respects? I seem to recall something like that, so I don't think it's fair to imply that the decision does not weigh heavily on the President's conscience.

If there's a comparison to be made, it's with Nixon and his plan to end the war, which was really just code for escalation of the conflict. Plus, you get Cambodia which the left can say is like Pakistan! So, really, we should be comparing him to Nixon, if we on the left are now going to play the "What ridiculous comparisons can we make to the President?" He's Bush III, he's Johnson, he's Mao...maybe, just maybe he's his own man.

The other point I think needs made is that a lot of prominent libs are now posing with their opposition to this.

Let's take Michael Moore and Keith Olbermman first. We've known for a week this speech was coming and the President had made a decision. He's been deliberating it for months and yet...Michael waits until the day before the speech to write a letter and Keith waits until that evening to deliver a special comment. It's seems a little insincere to start railing about "No more troops" after you've found out the decision was already made.

Yet I'm pretty sure that instead of trying to influence the President's decision over the last couple months, Michael was more interested in promoting his film. And I guess Keith could have delivered his comment last week, but, hey, vacay and turkey are more important. It all seems like too little, too late and not intended to influence the President's decision but merely flash their progressive creds. Basically, pandering to the people who largely make their careers possible - progressives. I'm sure they both mean well, but neither was trying to change the President's mind; not when you know the decision has already been made.

Otherwise, I think people predicting that he is a one term president, that his first year has been an abysmal failure and even those now saying he needs to primaried in 2012 are fools.

First, there is an argument to be made that mandates are more political spin than anything (read Robert Dahl's essay, "The myth of the Presidential mandate). There are really only a few times in our history(during the modern presidency) when there were mandates - 1936, 1964 and possibly 2008. There are a lot of factors that going into and it's more than just winning by a decent margin.

Second, no one on the left should be surprised that the President is pursuing this policy. I'm really not sure what to say to you...if you were so opposed to it, why did you vote for him? Do you really want to go around saying you were duped? The great all-knowing progressives were fooled by someone who turned out to be just another politician?

Thanks Lee, for setting off another shit storm.

I was just about to put away my cocktail glass.

Now I am blissfully shit faced. Love you man.

I am so sick of our TV media--and the reason it pisses me off so much is they are directly shaping public opinion.

I used to be a cable news and Sunday show junkie--I can't do it anymore--just keep deleting them on the DVR. It's the SAME f-ng villagers with their zombie narratives--honestly even on PBS I see the same village BS--like Gwen Ifill. Unreal--they are ruining this country.

This country needs a draft--if we had one, the village chicken hawks would be singing an entirely different tune.

I support the escalation. In fact, I expected it to take place in February/March. I'm surprised he "dithered" this long.

The bottom line is that the Taliban is a tumor that requires removal. The real problem, of course, lies in Pakistan generally and the ISI in particular. A resurgent US right next door watching like hawks should chasten them sufficiently.

I've said it before, but I don't get the "progressives" who have been crying into their soup for the past two months about Afghanistan. Why all of a sudden? Where the hell were you people in 2008? No significant factors on the ground have changed at all in the past 2 years at least. The Taliban are running amok, Afghanistan's "government" is problematic, and the NATO military commitment too small. That's been the case for a long time; Obama intends to change that dynamic.

ceu-
Thanks. I recorded CNN so I will check it out. I saw they did have some people on who know lot. They just don't always get to talk.
It is astonishing that so many people who followed the campaign say they are shocked about Obama's decision to do what he said he would do.
To a dilemma there are no certain solutions and he is doing what he believes is best. These are two insightful articles providing additional info on strategy.
"Smart Power"
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2009/12/a-reaction-from-europe.html
http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/01/opinion-a-surge-of-a-different-sort-for-afghanistan/

No matter how much effort we put into this hellhole, it will always be a hellhole. If we pull out, things will fall apart, the Taliban will take over, or war lords will take over, poppies will be grown, women will be oppressed, and they will continue their savage ways just like they have done for thousands of years.
We are so terrified of "terrorists" that we have ceased to make rational decisions concerning our place in the world. We should be rethinking the military mindset that we have fallen into.

Yeah, okay...so he never claimed he was going to totally withdraw from Afghan...but jeez-oh-peeze, people...c'mon...how many of you can say with a straight face that inserting more troops into that quagmire is actually going to make a whole helluva lotta difference...and on a timetable, no less? Has no one here ever read a history book?? Alexander couldn't do it, the Russians couldn't do it...many have tried and all have failed...that's not spin...just a cold hard fact -look it up!

I have to admit, I was suckered in to the whole "change we can believe in" message... and I've been willing to overlook alot (Geithner, Sumners, Patriot Act, Bush & Co accountability etc), but when exactly do we get to criticize our new President for making a boneheaded decision without being lambasted as defeatists? Bottom line - if Karl Rove is ready to "stand up and cheer" about this surge...then there's something inherently wrong with this decision.

Keep the faith, Lee, you are NOT just a lone voice in the wilderness.

Ryan, define "quick win"...in fact..define ANY "win" in Afghanistan. So what exactly is the outcome we are looking for? Are we fighting Al Quaeda, or the Taliban? And when do we declare "mission accomplished"...when there are only 10 Taliban left..or 15? Or is it 10 or 15 Al Quaeda? I'm confused! Is Kharzai corrupt or not?

Seriously, do we honestly STILL think we can "win" hearts and minds at the end of a gun??

And now that we've telegraphed our intentions to the "enemy" do you think they will have any problem recruiting more soldiers to the cause?

FFS....this is insanity!

Imagine if you will...a team of Xe mercenaries shows up on your doorstep and tells you (at the point of a gun) that your lifestyle is wrong and has always been wrong and you need to change it...what would you do - you'd fight like hell to get them off your land....'nough said!

We need to leave...yesterday!

Chauncey -

Minor nitpick. Alexander succeeded. After his death, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom lasted a good while, forming a vital link on the Silk Road. Indeed, the marriage of Greek thought and Buddhism in the region is a fascinating one, historically.

For that matter, Afghanistan was part of the Caliphate, and later the Timurid and Mughal Empires all without significant problems. Its history is no more complex or difficult than any other.

Britain arguably wasn't terribly interested in conquest, or they'd have put forth more effort. They went in, lost a battle, and got out.

The Soviet argument is weak, since the US actively supported the mujahideen with money, training and arms.

Our endgame is to reduce the Taliban and work to stabilize Pakistan. That's more easily done when we have forces next door, and ever-closer ties to India.

Thanks Chauncey. If sending 30,000 more troops in was the centerpiece of Obama's campaign, I missed it. If capitulating to the GOP was part of the campaign, I didn't see it either.

Rather than making it about me, I think people need to look at the policy and the consequences for the Democrats in the next two elections. The Republicans aren't cheering this because it mean an easy Obama victory in 2012. Believe me - THEY remember LBJ. In 2012, a candiate wearing a red tie will say "Obama's got us into a mess about he doesn't know how to win it - I do, vote for me."

@ Bob

So how many troops are "just enough" to "rebuild" the country? Can I tell ya...I lived in Khabul working with an NGO for six years...and there is not and never will be a centralised government in that region. It is a region ruled by tribalism, period. Hard to rebuild a country when the country doesn't even recognise itself as such. So how exactly do we rebuild something that never was?

I'll ask you the same question I asked ryan, how do we define a "win" in an unwinnable conflict? Once again, we are imposing our own values on another people without fully comprehending the damage our interference is causing. We need to get out now.

@GK

Not to nitpick either, but no, Alexander did not succeed (see Green, Badian, et al). He never actually "conquered" the area, merely skirted around the more difficult pockets of resistance. The so-called "Greco-Bactrian" kingdom was shaky at best, and barely lasted into the second generation of the Successors. Incidentally, Alexander (Iskander) was Macedonian, not Greek, and Buddhism didn't appear until centuries after Alexander's Companions. Cultural influences aside, the area has been and still remains ungovernable.

I actually shake my head thinking about how I'm attacked for 1) wanting a robust public option and 2) opposing contusing Buch's wars...

And then I'm called 'Dick Cheney'. Some of you people are so confused it's sad.

Chauncey -

Since it spent ~70 years under the Seleucids before independence, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom didn't exist until after the second generation of successors. The Greco-Bactrian and later Indo-Greek kingdoms lasted longer than the US has. Buddhism was officially patronized by Menander just over 150 years after Alexander. As far as shaky, that goes for every contemporary political entity (Rome, China, the assorted kingdoms of the Subcontinent, the other Successor states, etc). Monarchies can be pain in the ass that way.

Pointing out that Alexander was Macedonian is irrelevant - he spoke Greek, thought in Greek, was educated from boyhood in Greek and by Greeks. It was Greek culture he carried to Asia and Egypt. That's why they call it the Hellenistic Age, as opposed to Macedonian.

All in all, I stand by my point. Effective control was maintained for ~3 centuries by forces that succeeded Alexander's invasion. They controlled the routes and collected taxes as opposed to being holed up in a couple fortresses. As far as the ancient world goes, that's about as good as it gets.

That said, it's a minor nitpick.

Lee, you're attacked because you oppose health care for not being exactly what you think it should be. If we can't get Lieberman and others on board for even a trigger, how do you think we could've gotten robust or single payer? You're advocating we kill a decent plan because it isn't ideal. Simply ridiculous.

As for Afghanistan, I don't think anyone can claim they know how this will turn out. I know many of us opposed the surge in Iraq and that seems to have actually done some good. They're TOTALLY different situations but we just don't know what will happen over the next year. We will definitely have to pay off tribal leaders to get them on our side like we did in Iraq. I'm assuming that's part of the plan.

All our presence in Central Asia does is piss off the Islamic world. While we are there "fighting terrorism", terrorists are recruiting and building their networks, plotting the next attack against us. They are doing this all over the world, including the good old USA. They don't need Afghanistan to build explosive devices, or to take a gun and shoot. Just because it's Obama instead of Bush doesn't make them hate us any less.

So, Lee, what happens to Pakistan's nukes? What happens to Afghanistan's infrastructure? Have you read anything about Charlie Wilson?

I don't necessarily support this plan, but I at least understand the insane conundrum over there. We're screwed no matter what. And this is Bush's fault.

And just because you weren't paying attention to what the president said about Af-Pak during the campaign doesn't mean he didn't say it.

While he never specifically said the number "30,000" he never once promised that he'd withdraw irrespective of the status of the war. In fact, a withdrawal specifically beginning in 2011 was never part of his campaign either.

I actually shake my head thinking about how I'm attacked for 1) wanting a robust public option and 2) opposing contusing Buch's wars...

And then I'm called 'Dick Cheney'. Some of you people are so confused it's sad.

It's not what you say, Lee, it's HOW you say it. You don't ask for a robust public option, you instead accuse the president of being a sell-out while demanding that 'killing the bill' will somehow be a good thing. You don't oppose the Bush wars, you instead borrow wingnut talking points about the president's oratory skills. Speaking for myself, this is infuriating. And -- yes -- I'm increasingly convinced that you post this way in order to troll for responses.

Oh, and the photograph is of LBJ clearly being crushed by Vietnam.

@Bob_Cesca

Hear hear! The thing about Lee is he finds the exact way to say something that may share liberal interests at heart, but completely shits on/pisses off people who believe in those same liberal interests.

Frankly, I think the phrase "Don't feed the Troll" to be more and more aptly appropriate for many of Lee's comments over the last month or so.

Can we all start to ignore the TrollLee when it rears it's head so that we can have rational discussions and lower our blood pressures?

Warning: rambling rant ahead.

During the campaign we were called messiah worshipers and now Obamabots but I have decided that the real supporters of Obama listened more closely than average Dems. True supporters knew exactly what he promised on Afghanistan and we knew that Pakistan would be a big factor. He was never an anti-war president, he was always ant-Iraq invasion. We didn't necessarily like like the idea of more in Afghanistan but there wasn't any uproar about it, was there? What happened between then and now? What's with all the shock and awe that he's increasing troops? Where was the outrage earlier in the year when he increased troops by double what he's now proposing? Some accuse Obama supporters of liking the war now simply because it's a new president. I accuse the people yelling about this new plan of wanting to hate just to hate. We all know how things would have been under McCain. I suggest things wouldn't have been much better with Hillary. So I just don't get all the people out there cutting up their voter registration cards. Oh, they aren't Dems anymore because he isn't getting troops out tomorrow -- as if that would be a logistical possibility. I am also seeing a lot of groaning about country building. That is not the new strategy. I didn't hear anything last night about creating democracy. The only rebuilding is for their security forces and new agriculture.

I listened and took notes last night and then avoided the pundits for the obvious reasons. What pisses me off the most, though, is the obvious, "I heard what I wanted to hear" crap from the left on blogs. The same people heard what they wanted to hear during the campaign as well and I am tired of that. I am f'ing pissed off about having to defend the president within my own damn party. I do not agree with everything he does but I get why he does most of it. Anyone who thinks he is a consumer sell-out, Bush III, war-mongering failure isn't seeing big picture and sounds like the kind of people who will complain about nothing just so they have something to do. Because he isn't knee-jerk and hasn't rushed to judgement, Dems think he's a failure. Well, that rush to judgment is what we hated about Bush. Heaven forbid we appreciate a president who is paced and a long-term thinker.

I'm just sick of it.

Jennifer

I have a friend who got into medical school but decided she wanted to be a writer. Her parents told her that she had a year--one year--to sell a book. In that year, they would support her. If she hadn't sold a book, she would go to medical school or she could try on her own.

I think that's the president's plan here. We fucked some things up in Afghanistan, they fucked some things up themselves. He's giving them, and us, a chance to put some things (not all, he's not promising magic) in order. After that, it's up to Afghanistan. Might it all go to shit again? Sure. Might it not? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is, in the next 18 months-3 years, we're going to to try to accomplish some of the things we claimed we were working on over the last seven. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I don't like this war. I don't like any war. I'd be just as happy if everyone came home tomorrow. But does that make this the wrong decision? I don't think so.

very nicely said, Jennifer!

No one wants war -- except maybe Bush, Cheney and Rove (and their moron brainless followers).

Seems to me that we, as citizens, are not privvy to the information that lead to this decision. And seeing how there are so many morons and crazy people out there I can understand why national security issues are not shared with the general public.

I want one person to come up with a better idea, a better plan.

It's real easy to go in with guns blazing, but once there, how do you get out?

Come on. I want to hear it. Lee? Anyone?

I just want to thank the posters here. It's nice to see honesty and level-headedness. So many here have articulated that supporting the troop increase and change in strategy does not mean we like it or want it. It just means we accept what has to be done.

Last night my husband said that some on the left are acting as crazy as some on the right. I said that the difference is that those on the right are at least laughable. Those that are freaking out on the left are just hostile and no fun.

Jennifer

Yes Lee Stranahan, many feel the same way as you. We are feeling duped by this administration. The sell outs to the corporations, banks and military have left us with a feeling of despair. Keep doing and saying what you believe.
Bob Cesca? sellout

Well, I spent an entire evening in on line debate with right wingers, waiting for lefty to show up and spout like trahan here. Something I haven't done since Nov 4th of last year (ok, a couple of nyah nyah na nyah nah rounds on the 5th). I had followed bob from his article at huffpo earlier and left this page open. Imagine my surprise to read these comments and find that I explicitly agree with 99% of them. That, and we get a great discussion on Alexander.

So as a little token of my appreciation, would anyone mind if I handle this one?

"Yes Lee Stranahan, many feel the same way as you. We are feeling duped by this administration. The sell outs to the corporations, banks and military have left us with a feeling of despair. Keep doing and saying what you believe.
Bob Cesca? sellout"-written by trahan

Despair? You don't know despair. Not yet.
This may be one of the least thought out and maybe the most disingenuous post I have read to day on this subject and I have read a lot of them. You may disagree with the policies but if you were "duped" you weren't paying attention. The depths of your naivete is shown when you say Obama has "sold out" to the military. He's the Commander in Chief, trahan. He IS the military now, but any leader who doesn't think that its' nations military is not a political force is in deep trouble. Kennedy faced a much more insidious threat from his Pentagon and frankly didn't handle it as well as Obama has so far. You act like Kennedy did, was forced to really, when he would not allow air support during the bay of pigs invasion, your administration ends just like Kennedys did. This is NOT childs play and this is not a high school civics class.
You should maybe grow up about that issue.

The banks? He needed to slap a coat of paint on that whore house. We all knew what was up, we all knew it was distasteful and we all knew that thieves being thieves, would steal. Now he's already regulated the banks more than any president since FDR and there is much more to come. How'd clinton do on that issue? That brings us to the corporations.

There will soon be regulations in place barring the pharmaceutical companies from running those insidious ads that shill diseases as much as they sell drugs. This is a huge blow, not only to the companies themselves but to Madison Ave. I believe I am correct when I say that the pharmaceutical companies are Madison Avenues biggest customers. Let's not forget the amount of money they spend in all forms of media advertising.

Number four. Bob is a fu cking prince! Whatcha you mouth!

Man, I've been waiting all night for a liberal to beat up on. Thanks trahan, you too are appreciated!

Bob, could you tell Ariana I'm sorry I said all of those mean things about her? Naw, I'm not sorry. They were all true.
Great post, great site.

"Last night my husband said that some on the left are acting as crazy as some on the right. I said that the difference is that those on the right are at least laughable. Those that are freaking out on the left are just hostile and no fun."
Jennifer

There was a Jennifer on the last site I was on said the same thing. Are you from Santa Rosa? That would be too weird. As a matter of fact I was thinking the same thing before she (or you if it's that weird of a night) said it. The right doesn't matter right now, does it? It's all about maintaining the political bloc and the left is the only true threat to that.
Here's a link to the article that got all of that debate started. And a quote. I love this one.
"Colleen Fernald of Sebastopol, a registered Democrat who calls herself as “omnipartisan,” said that a safe withdrawal from Afghanistan should start with a ceasefire."
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20091202/ARTICLES/912029854/1350?Title=Santa-Rosa-protesters-decry-Obama-s-Afghan-buildup
Omnipartisan, You gotta love it.

You have to click on the "view all comments" link to read the posts. Comments got so ugly and racist at this paper that they had to hide the comments. This thread was fun though.

@GK - you need to step away from the History Channel and pursue some actual critical academic research into the area and it's history. I've already given you some reputable authors to reference. If you would like more, I'm happy to oblige.

Your "conclusions" are spurious, at best, and lack relevant data to back them up. Come back with a few links and them maybe we can have in intelligent conversation.

So Bob...I'll ask you again...just how many troops does it take to "rebuild" Afghanistan, and how do we know when it's been "rebuilt"?

The other question I have is...just what makes us think the Taliban (or Al Quaeda) has the wherewithal to actually rollover the entire Pakistani army and capture a "nuke"? and once they have it in their hot little hands..how exactly are they going to deploy it?

You are pandering to the right-wingnut-fear-mongering machine..and it's not pretty.

We need to leave Aghanistan now....then maybe we have a chance at winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people..although I'm thinking that "winning" their hearts and minds somehow revolves around teaching them to shop teh WalMart crap!

Would be nice if the powers that be actually consulted those who have been on the front lines and have actually been working with the Afghan people.