It’s only a matter of time before Bill Clinton will be at fault for Obama’s inevitable, miserable, massive fail in Afghanistan. So why wait? I’m sure that while he was President, he did, or didn’t do something or other that led to the current clusterfuckiness. Woohoo, Obama’s off the hook again!McChrystal had asked for 10,000 as a bare minimum. And yet this morning, a right-wing PR firm sent me an email offering an interview with an Afghanistan "expert" who assails Obama's 30,000 troop surge as insufficient. Apparently, the right still feels obligated to stump for a militarist solution -- which means that the Bush legacy remains part of the tea-baggers' baggage.
The previous link goes to an October poll which indicates that half the citizenry wants the troops home now. (I'm in that half.) A majority would have considered a 10,000 troop increase "acceptable" and a 40,000 troop increase "unacceptable." Obama's decision won't be popular.
14 comments:
"Bill Clinton failed to get Osama because he was too busy getting a hummer from Monica. So Bush had to invade Afghanistan after 9-11."
IACF
Well, Robert Parry is blaming Hillary today, and that's almost as good as blaming Bill. He's describing her as a war hawk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7UKllR0Edo
Instead of Blame Canada this could be Blame the Clintons.
It really is getting bizarre how the kool aide brigade cling to this republican urban legend-that the Clintons are gremlins lurking in every evil act since that apple eating episode.
Clinton haters are the scum of the earth. They will destroy any party.
"Apparently, the right still feels obligated to stump for a militarist solution -- which means that the Bush legacy remains part of the tea-baggers' baggage."
That's an incredibly bizarre statement. How exactly are tea-partiers involved with a milataristc Bush legacy. Particularly since part of the movement wants us to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan because we can't afford these wars?
You're obsessed Joe, and not in a good way.
Anon, YOU'RE the one who is obsessed. The teabag movement is a perfect example of right-wing populism. That's the problem, not the answer.
The right-wingers were peaceniks during the Clinton administration too.
I don't know, Joe. Smedley Butler- right wing or left wing populist?
At any rate, delineate. Hey I'm a poet!
Buchananites OPPOSED Clinton's attack on Serbia AND opposed Bush's Persian Gulf War AND opposed the Iraq War. That's "right wing" populism.
Their forbearers even opposed US entry into WW2 at the time. Along with left wing populists. Would you have?
William Kristol-led crowds are Likudnik faux populism, not the real thing.
http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2009/12/01/obama-to-thirty-thousand-more-enjoy-your-trip-through-the-meat-grinder/
The true populist Right has opposed the last four wars.
it also opposed US entry into WW2.
I hate to agree with Dick on anything but he is right. It is very troubling that Obama took this long to make a decision on something that the previous administration had already concluded was necessary.
And it is really problematic that he not only has taken nearly a full year to make a critical decision, one in which he should have made within a few hours of attaining all the available information and discussing it with his staff, is that he apparantly has totally blown the decision.
If they were going to need to increase troop levels why didn't they do it in Jan or Feb???? And if it is necessary NOW then why are they waiting another year to get all those troops into place? Something is totally screwy here. I guess I am to simple to understand all the political ramifications (sarcasm) that need to be weighed but if ramping up the troop levels was necessary to save lives then it should have already been done. If it isn't going to save lives then exactly what is going on here? Are they setting the stage for an invasion of Pakistan or Iran? Or both? Good grief the mistake our Supreme court and the idiots in this country made way back in 2000 is going to haunt us and the rest of the world forever.
The Pipeline dictates the schedule?
Any GOP critic of what Barack Obama does or does not do in Afghanistan should be served a healthy, hearty portion of STFU. Their boy had 7 and half years to complete the mission and failed.
Wait. . .wasn't he going to get us out of these wars...didn't he give that famous speech--not filmed contemporaneously but tastefully reenacted with realistic crowd sound effects and a megaphone Daley Plaza echo courtesy digital technology...That said, "why can't we all just get along."
I tell yeah, When Republican's trashed their own brand--and finally figured it out--they had to run a Democrat and their choice was--surprise--Obama.
Ocassionally, even bad faith actors like the GOP may resort to factually accurate lines of argument when it suits their purpose.
Frankly, they are right in my view when they scoff at a 30,000 'surge' 'solution' to the Afghanistan situation. The Soviets had no compunction to honor rules of war, spare innocent civilian lives, and they probably killed 1 million people there and lost. Just as we killed probably 6 million people in Vietnam and lost. It's a no-win situation now as it was in Vietnam.
No, the GOP and the right have no credible standing to be believed on this war, but they are nonetheless right when they make the above argument.
Democrats in general have to genuflect excessively to the war state, because of the McGovernite meme that still lingers to this day. This is all the more the case when the leading Democrat is a very junior person who never served in the military, and I would also argue, especially if that leading Democrat were a woman. The key to women who have led nations is that they take militaristic positions to overcome the (male) presumption that they would be too soft to protect their country. (Think Golda Meier, Margaret Thatcher, etc.)
It was said that only Nixon could do what he did with the People's Republic of China. That was true because Nixon himself would have led the charge against anyone else who did it. And perhaps only an Eisenhower had the standing to end the Korean conflict, in the face of the China Lobby and the fierce anti-communism of the day.
XI
Post a Comment