It will be interesting to see how Obama and others answer this one, as they have routinely claimed that the Afghanistan war is legitimate, and the one we should be fighting.

Will they praise the President for recognizing our priority should be in Afghanistan? Or will they attack him, arguing that this will stretch our already thin forces even thinner?

farking great...

DeltaXi65:Will they praise the President for recognizing our priority should be in Afghanistan? Or will they attack him, arguing that this will stretch our already thin forces even thinner?

I fail to see the contradiction between these two statements. Just because Afghanistan was a more appropriate response to 9/11 doesn't mean that our military isn't strained to the breaking point due to the war in Iraq. And how exactly does this warrant Bush any praise? Afghanistan has been on the backburner since 2003 and now all of a sudden he gives a fark? Hardly praiseworthy.

It's working in Iraq. Good on him - I hope it works as well in Crapghanistan.

Nestea Plunge:It's a moot point that Iraq would distract from Afghanistan, but at the time, you guys just weren't interested in hearing about it.

"There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

---D. Rumsfeld.

They didn't care about fighting America's enemies, they just wanted to blow some shiat up real good.

Kanyon:Afghanistan has been on the backburner since 2003 and now all of a sudden he gives a fark?

It's slowly starting to dawn on the miserable little gray-haired turd that history is already going to judge him as a colossal fark-up and borderline war criminal when it comes to Iraq, so he's trying to salvage himself by renewing his interest in the war he started that actually did need to be fought.

Nestea Plunge

I'm looking at this from a perspective of how the announcement will affect the election. Everything Bush says from now until November will have ramifications, so I am interested in seeing what the response will be from Obama. I honestly can't predict it.

God forbid someone comments on something political without pushing a position.

Kanyon

If Obama wants to argue that Afghanistan should be our #1 priority, not Iraq, then he should praise the President's action as finally recognizing it and making the correct choice about our priorities.

He can, of course, criticize that this is 'too little too late,' or that Bush should have done this from the beginning, but he's going to have to either support the move or condemn the move.

I'm interested in seeing how he plays this off, because it will be very telling about how savvy his staff is.

Anybody who thinks that this move is anything other than a way to put Obama on the spot is fooling themselves. That's why I care about how it gets handled.

DeltaXi65:It will be interesting to see how Obama and others answer this one, as they have routinely claimed that the Afghanistan war is legitimate, and the one we should be fighting.

Will they praise the President for recognizing our priority should be in Afghanistan? Or will they attack him, arguing that this will stretch our already thin forces even thinner?

i'd imagine they'd remind him that unless he is willing to pull troops out of iraq first, we don't have the manpower to surge in afghanistan.

DeltaXi65:Kanyon

If Obama wants to argue that Afghanistan should be our #1 priority, not Iraq, then he should praise the President's action as finally recognizing it and making the correct choice about our priorities.

He can, of course, criticize that this is 'too little too late,' or that Bush should have done this from the beginning, but he's going to have to either support the move or condemn the move.

I'm interested in seeing how he plays this off, because it will be very telling about how savvy his staff is.

Anybody who thinks that this move is anything other than a way to put Obama on the spot is fooling themselves. That's why I care about how it gets handled.

Interesting.

Why don't we bring back agent orange?

DeltaXi65:God forbid someone comments on something political without pushing a position.

You just broke my bullshiat meter, Mr. Let's-see-how-I-can-possibly-bring-Obama-into-this-tarpit.

Skleenar:DeltaXi65:God forbid someone comments on something political without pushing a position.

You just broke my bullshiat meter, Mr. Let's-see-how-I-can-possibly-bring-Obama-into-this-tarpit.

???? The man is one of the two nominees for the President. This shiat IS relevant.

DeltaXi65:Anybody who thinks that this move is anything other than a way to put Obama on the spot is fooling themselves.

I doubt that it isfor two reasons.

1. It is an obvious response to worsening conditions in Afghanistan. It is exactly in keeping with Bush's mindset that more soldiers = less killing, or something like that.

2. It doesn't put Obama on the spot because he has been calling for a greater focus on Afghanistan for a while now.

But kudos for assuming first that partisan politics is a prime motivator for GWB. That is usually a safe assumption.

And may be in this case, too, except that I think the strategery involves trying to paint the GOP as resolute in the face of evil, and the Dems weak and indecisive.

Tacoby Bellisbury:???? The man is one of the two nominees for the President. This shiat IS relevant.

Then why not ask how McCain would respond to it.

Isn't that just as interesting?

Skleenar:And may be in this case, too, except that I think the strategery involves trying to paint the GOP as resolute in the face of evil, and the Dems weak and indecisive.

They don't have to paint anything. What happened to all the calls to end the war by dems right up into the 2006 elections? And what progress have they made on that front? A couple non-binding resolutions?

Skleenar:Then why not ask how McCain would respond to it.

Isn't that just as interesting?

Not really, because seeing how he was in favor of the OG surge, I;m 99% sure he'll agree with this one. Obama's response is a lot less predictible, and therefore, more interesting.

Nestea Plunge:And this has what to do with Afghanistan getting worse?

I was referring to the fact that Dems look weak and indecisive. Try not to cherry pick and rush to assumption so fast.

Tacoby Bellisbury:What happened to all the calls to end the war by dems right up into the 2006 elections? And what progress have they made on that front? A couple non-binding resolutions?

Good point. If the Democrats were just more decisive, they could eliminate the whole "legislative process" thing and the whole "3 branches of government" thing and unilaterally impose their will on the nation.

Pussies.

Skleenar:Tacoby Bellisbury:What happened to all the calls to end the war by dems right up into the 2006 elections? And what progress have they made on that front? A couple non-binding resolutions?

Good point. If the Democrats were just more decisive, they could eliminate the whole "legislative process" thing and the whole "3 branches of government" thing and unilaterally impose their will on the nation.

Pussies.

Srsly.

Nestea Plunge

You're still missing my point - anything that Bush says is fair game for the election. I'm interested in seeing what impact this will have on the election. You're getting butthurt because I mentioned Obama in a thread about Bush. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

Skleenar

We don't have to ask how McCain will respond to it. He'll support it. McCain supporting Bush's foreign policy isn't news.

Skleenar:Isn't that just as interesting?

I'm sure the deep thinker probably just chose one of the candidates at random and it happened to be Obama, no reason to be suspicious.

Don't let these libs get to you, Mr. Concerned Amurkan, go back to Fox news and get some fresh talking points so you can pwn them good.

Tacoby Bellisbury:Not really, because seeing how he was in favor of the OG surge, I;m 99% sure he'll agree with this one. Obama's response is a lot less predictible, and therefore, more interesting.

Obama has been saying we need to focus more on Afghanistan than on Iraq for a long time. His response is not unpredictable at all.

The attempt by your colleague to bring Obama into the discussion was a transparent ploy to change the subject, and it appears to have worked.

Yay political misdirection!

Skleenar:Then why not ask how McCain would respond to it.

Because no one cares what the Senator from Arizona has to say about Afghanistan. People wonder what the next president of the United States has to say about Afghanistan.

Nestea Plunge:And this has what to do with Afghanistan getting worse?

I never said it did.... Why do you keep asking it? I was counter-commenting on a statement made by someone else, why are you so intent on tying it Afghanistan? I think in a politics thread regarding US forigen policy, we should be allowed to talk about the political parties involved

Skleenar:Obama has been saying we need to focus more on Afghanistan than on Iraq for a long time. His response is not unpredictable at all.

The attempt by your colleague to bring Obama into the discussion was a transparent ploy to change the subject, and it appears to have worked.

Yay political misdirection!

???

How can a discussion about politics be misdirected in a politics thread? Both candidate's stance on this is important, although McCain's is a bit easier to guess. That's all. My god, you guys are like a swarm of bees

Skleenar

It puts Obama on the spot because if he's asked about it, he's either going to have to say he agrees with Bush, and this is a good idea (which will piss some of his supporters off), or he disagrees with the move, and then he opens himself up to more flip-flop charges.

I think how he handles this question when it comes up, and it will because some reporter is guaranteed to ask him about it, is important.

DeltaXi65:Skleenar

It puts Obama on the spot because if he's asked about it, he's either going to have to say he agrees with Bush, and this is a good idea (which will piss some of his supporters off), or he disagrees with the move, and then he opens himself up to more flip-flop charges.

I think how he handles this question when it comes up, and it will because some reporter is guaranteed to ask him about it, is important.

Yup, in a nutshell.

Nestea Plunge

If you honestly think that Obama's stance on a possible Afghanistan 'surge' is irrelevant, you're deluding yourself.

You'd think I came into the thread and said "It will be interesting to see how Paris Hilton answers this." That would be irrelevant.

DeltaXi65:(which will piss some of his supporters off)

1. Obama has not had a problem 'pissing some of his supporters off'. In fact, some claim that is exactly his strategy now that he is in the General.

2. You are projecting too much here. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, and backed up with links to support it, Obama has long said that a focus on Afghanistan is exactly what we should be doing. In fact, if I wanted to be a disingenuous hack, I might say that Bush is in trouble with his supporters for validating Obama's foreign policy.

But it is obvious that all you are really doing is trying to somehow paint this as a Democratic problem when it is a GOP problem from the inception.

Skleenar:But it is obvious that all you are really doing is trying to somehow paint this as a Democratic problem when it is a GOP problem from the inception.

NO he's not! He's jsut wondering what Obama is going to say. That's all. You're reading way too far into this shiat.

Tacoby Bellisbury:You're reading way too far into this shiat.

From DeltaXi65's profile:

In my career so far, I've been a warehouse worker, a little league umpire, an intern, a college student, a security guard, a customer service representative, a secretary, a college administrator, a graduate student, a property manager, a political action committee administrator, a government affairs director, a lobbyist, a trade association executive, a political appointee, and a law student.

Nothing like the 21st century workforce.

No, I'm not.

Skleenar:No, I'm not.

Yes, yes you are. It's actually pathetic, in an oddly charming sort of way

Tacoby Bellisbury:Yes, yes you are.

Well, if you insist, it must be true.

Skleenar

Yes, you are. I ran a labor union's PAC. I lobbied for a union for five years. Yes, I'm a Republican, but I'm also pro-labor. I am not supporting Obama or McCain for President, but I did vote for Obama in the Virginia primary (we can cross over).

I'm interested less in the race because I want my side to win, and more from the strategy side of things. When I post on here, 99% of the time I'm not advocating a side. I'm arguing against what I think is unfair criticism, trying to educate about lobbying and the business of government, or just procrastinating from the practice final exam I should be taking right now but don't want to.

As for Obama not having a problem pissing his supporters off, you apparently missed the whole FISA/telecom immunity debate here a few days ago.

DeltaXi65:As for Obama not having a problem pissing his supporters off, you apparently missed the whole FISA/telecom immunity debate here a few days ago.

That was exactly my point.

Maybe I should have phrased it: "Obama doesn't seem to mind pissing off some of his supporters"

But I thought my next sentence about his general election strategy should have cleared up any confusion over my meaning.

Let's start shifting some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. It'd sure be great if we could get some special ops forces to go find these asshats in Pakistan too.

Skleenar

Point taken - I think I skipped over that line to read the next sentence.

Do you think that his doing so is a good idea?

KaponoFor3:Let's start shifting some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. It'd sure be great if we could get some special ops forces to go find these asshats in Pakistan too.

I'm cameroncrazy1984 and I approve this message.

DeltaXi65:Do you think that his doing so is a good idea?

If by "good" do you mean "likely to be electorally successful"?

Yes.

If by "good" you mean "morally correct",

No.

cameroncrazy1984:I'm cameroncrazy1984 and I approve this message.

Has hell frozen over? Did I just see pigs flying outside of my window?

KaponoFor3:cameroncrazy1984:I'm cameroncrazy1984 and I approve this message.

Has hell frozen over? Did I just see pigs flying outside of my window?

Your inane babble-to-rational discourse ratio still leaves something to be desired, but at least it goes to show that conservatives do have their moments of lucidity.

PurplePimpSaber:Your inane babble-to-rational discourse ratio still leaves something to be desired, but at least it goes to show that conservatives do have their moments of lucidity.

Ha! It just goes to show that conservatives, true conservatives (not those guys parading around the GOP spending like drunken sailors), are realists if nothing else.

KaponoFor3:Let's start shifting some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. It'd sure be great if we could get some special ops forces to go find these asshats in Pakistan too.

Dude, seriously. I don't care which president does it, somebody has to get this shiat over with.

The President should be praised for attacking the right country, then neglecting it for the invasion of the wrong country and then, after the Taliban regain a foothold in Afghanistan saying, "My bad, let's go back to the right country"?

fark off.

Kanyon:DeltaXi65:Will they praise the President for recognizing our priority should be in Afghanistan? Or will they attack him, arguing that this will stretch our already thin forces even thinner?

I fail to see the contradiction between these two statements. Just because Afghanistan was a more appropriate response to 9/11 doesn't mean that our military isn't strained to the breaking point due to the war in Iraq. And how exactly does this warrant Bush any praise? Afghanistan has been on the backburner since 2003 and now all of a sudden he gives a fark? Hardly praiseworthy.

This! If he wants to increase our presence in one area, he needs to decrease it somewhere else, because if he thinks he can just shiat out rainbows of fresh recruits for the army, he's even more of a moron than we thought.

Afghanistan is ungovernable and always has been.

How many different empires have attempted to conquer it and failed?

On the one hand, we should have been in afghanistan to begin with and not bothered with Iraq. So that's a thumbs up to go back and actually finish the job this time.

Other than other hand, we're already stretched thin as it is.

QU!RK1019:KaponoFor3:Let's start shifting some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. It'd sure be great if we could get some special ops forces to go find these asshats in Pakistan too.

Dude, seriously. I don't care which president does it, somebody has to get this shiat over with.

This

Mugato:The President should be praised for attacking the right country, then neglecting it for the invasion of the wrong country and then, after the Taliban regain a foothold in Afghanistan saying, "My bad, let's go back to the right country"?

fark off.

and That

vernonFL:Afghanistan is ungovernable and always has been.

How many different empires have attempted to conquer it and failed?

Being lazy, I checked Wiki:

"It also has been conquered by a host of people, including the Median and Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, Kushans, Hepthalites[White Huns], Arabs, Turks, and Mongols. "