With apologies to the Grand old Duke of York:
The grand old Duke Barack, he had 30,000 men
He marched them to Afghanistan then marched them back again.
In the meantime, I'm researching this mysterious country he referenced many times in his speech last night, POCKESTAHN.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 2, 2009 09:09 AMAnybody with half a brain knows that you never tell the enemy what you are doing. That is what he is doing by announcing when he's leaving. That in itself is moronic.
As Rich D. says, every day he appears to be more incapable of leading a nation. This isn't Chicago community organizing, it's leading a world super power. He got this country so divided now, even the people over at HillaryBuzz are wishing Bush was back.
The guy is a boob Demo. He's Jimmy Carter too cute by half. Even Sarah Palin is looking experienced compared to this screwball.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 2, 2009 09:48 AMAnd this little nugget:
". . . knowing that by the time we train up the Afghanis, we're going to be gradually handing off, beginning in 2003".
This idiot doesn't even know what year it is and Sawyer being the expert, hard hitting journalist that she is didn't bother to follow up. Maybe AP will assign 11 fact checkers on this comedy skit.
And the left was saying that Palin wasn't ready to be Veep. These two are more like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum than leaders of the most powerful country on the earth.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 2, 2009 10:36 AMYou will never win this way.
Support your President. Disagree with him, respectfully.
But this hate for all things American is just disgusting to most of us.
hint: we are a netion at war.
Posted by: NOTWAY on December 2, 2009 11:09 AMThey didn't support the war in Irag and now they don't support the (just) war in Afghanistan. Obama is not prosecuting that war to win. He is causing service men and women to die by delaying reinforcements to our troops under the guise of
deliberation. Even then, he falls 10,000 soldiers short of fulfilling the request of his own hand-picked commander in Afghanistan.
Go bark at the wall, commie.
Posted by: Attila on December 2, 2009 11:14 AMWhatever your feelings are regarding Obama and our efforts currently in Afghanistan, you would need to be a fool to ignore that the only reason Obama has had a decision to make on that war is because it was poorly executed in the previous 7 years.
The place was more of a mess when he took office than it was in 2002.
Where were you in 2004? 2006?
Oh, and let's not forget the mess that is Pakistan now.
In 2009 it is easy to point fingers, yell Communism or ACORN, or post pithy snide little diddies , but patriotism requires more than that. Our brave men and women doing the fighting deserve our support (to include tax dollars) for the battle they are in or our support in getting them out.
Why am I the only man who can answer that?
Posted by: G on December 2, 2009 03:01 PMHis handpicked General over there asked for these troops 4 months ago. While Obama played sit and spin on his finger mulling over making a fairly simple decision, the troops were dealing with deadly situations that could have been alleviated had someone, anyone in the WH made a commnad decision. Obama doesn't have a clue how to make a decision on anything because he's never had to make them before. His thin resume is an open book with not many pages in it to be sitting in his position as commander in chief, but hey, he had a pretty smile, spoke eloquently and did I mention the most important aspect for those that practice identity politics when deciding a president in 2008? He's black. The least he could have done was make the same decision he made when asked by his hand-picked generals in theater, when they wanted it. Oh, and you never reveal your timeline to your enemy in a wartime situation, to do so is beyond foolhardy.
Oh, and let's not forget the mess that is Pakistan now.
Oh, you mean Pock-E-Stahn, didn't follow there for a minute. Isn't that the country he said he'd invade in order to capture Bin Laden? How's that fantasy going?
Our brave men and women doing the fighting deserve our support (to include tax dollars) for the battle they are in or our support in getting them out.
Tell it to your democrat party friends who are threatening to cut off their funding, Mike BS. Sounds like you're in the wrong forum to rally up support for the troops, you should be over at Goldy's waste treatment plant instead. They're the crowd that loathe the troops.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 2, 2009 03:11 PMHello? Do you support the troop buildup in Afghanistan?
No, I am not.
The expansion of the conflict in to a very unstable Pakistan and the political realities of the lack of significant popular support here and in the NATO alliance for the counter insurgency occupation lead me to believe that at best we can only hope to get lucky with the resources we are committing.
Two books I would recommend reading:
A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam
Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam
I believe an alternative strategy of containment would be more beneficial, effective and capable of maintaining the political support necessary for success.
That said, the recommendation made by McChrystal has be accepted and made by the President. Therefore, as someone who believes in pay as you go, I believe there must be taxes leveled to pay for our commitment. None of this BS deficit spending "War Bonds" crap we are hearing from Senators like Nelson from Nebraska.
What say you?
You never, ever, tell your enemies what you are going to do.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 2, 2009 03:53 PM
Too bad the President never used the word, "Victory" last night.
Posted by: Gary on December 2, 2009 04:02 PM1) Obama was not appealing to any "far left base" by identifying an initial withdraw date. Any number of opinion polls show either a significant minority to majority of Americans no longer support the continued escalation of commitment in Afghanistan.
2) Deriding the Commander In Chief in a decision you ostensibly support regarding troop deployment shall never help you build political support for the decision.
3) The smart political move for Obama, a Democrat, regarding his decision would have been to make the opposite decision. Unless he gets lucky, he is likely to get primaried and defeated in the general election unless this goes very well.
Didn't Obama chair the Senate sub-committee on Afghanistan for a few years? How many hearings did he have on that subject?
"Too bad the President never used the word, "Victory" last night."
Why? Because the last President who used the word,"Victory" repeatedly in his rhetoric about Iraq and Afghanistan brought it much quicker?
Gary, please feel free to take some time to describe what "Victory" in Afghanistan is. We wait.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 2, 2009 04:19 PMDidn't Obama chair the Senate sub-committee on Afghanistan for a few years? How many hearings did he have on that subject?
Hope you didn't wait too long. I don't type fast.
Posted by: Gary on December 2, 2009 04:23 PM"Didn't Obama chair the Senate sub-committee on Afghanistan for a few years?"
No.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 2, 2009 04:23 PM"I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts."
Is there a measurable difference in the phrase the President used and the definition you provided?
What is it?
Too bad you and I and disagree.
Posted by: Gary on December 2, 2009 05:05 PMThat's Obama's world. It is confounding these arrogant people that once it becomes obvious who they really are most Americans want nothing to do with them.
Posted by: bill Cruchon on December 2, 2009 07:23 PMEvery thing that this Goobah does is either or borders on, incompetent. Like he announces he's going to give the creation of jobs some thought . . . in a month. You can hear the unemployed scream nation-wide "A month! I need work NOW!" The guy just doesn't get it. Meanwhile his lovely wife tells us how to grow organic vegetables in our own little victory plots to save the planet while she and he take their own jets to New York to take in Broadway. Sheesh.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 2, 2009 07:25 PM
I reluctantly support this move, but reserve the right to reject it if this war goes south. I am dubious about the results, at least as much as I was dubious about the surge - who was carried out by Bush after he was prodded by McCain and other commanders.
Posted by: KDS on December 2, 2009 08:15 PMWhat has Obama ever done? He was raised by a rich grandmother,(in Hawaii...that must have been tough), went to ivy league schools, got a law degree, (big surprise for a Democrat), became a "community organizer" and then a state senator, US Senator, and finally President. He's been coddled his whole life. He's never run a business, never had to meet a payroll, never managed anything. In short he's never lived in the real world the rest of us live in. Now he is lecturer in chief. He reminds me of 18 year olds that think they know everything.
The man hasn't a lick of common sense. He's simply the front man for the far left. They are using his "charisma" to attempt to shove as much of their agenda, (global warming, and single payer government healthcare), as they can get away with.
He didn't look so good last night. His poll numbers are dropping. Americans are discovering that they voted for a socialist and they are appalled.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 2, 2009 08:39 PM
The Taliban were routed, but despite our seven-year occupation which followed, nothing positive was done. Which administration was in charge during all of that time?
Given our abject failure to catch bin Laden, or to help the locals establish a viable government, how many of the commenters here continued to support our occupation, year after year after dismal year? How many voted for Bush in 2004, long after our failure in Afghanistan became obvious?
Bonus questions:
And she didn't go to Vassar, Harvard, or Yale. Ever notice how snooty liberals are?
Which of those schools did George W. Bush not attend? Or is he a liberal now? Or did liberals vote for him?
Posted by: tensor on December 2, 2009 09:15 PMThe question remains tensor. Are you perfectly content to telegraph to the Taliban when our military will leave Afghanistan?
Do you care that Afghan women will be oppressed? Or do you simply want to pull out and ignore the plight of these women?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 2, 2009 10:06 PMUgh. This is a policy statement, not specific strategy. All the armchair quarterbacks making pauncy statements about Sun Tzu are apparently oblivious to reality.
I mean, seriously. You make it sound like he's revealing the Super Sekrit Battle Plans, when he's actually just trying to get things done. (For a change.)
Americans are discovering that they voted for a socialist and they are appalled.
Bull. Only the far-right-wing morons can say that with a straight face. Obama's a moderate, and pretty far from "far left".
Posted by: demo kid on December 3, 2009 12:49 AMPlease cite when and where President Barack Hussein Obama promised to capture Osama bin Laden, "dead or alive."
You've had 10 months.
And how did Bush do, after how many years?
Are you perfectly content to telegraph to the Taliban when our military will leave Afghanistan?
Our military should have left that part of the world years ago. Who taught the Taliban they could outlast years of U.S. occupation, Bill?
Do you care that Afghan women will be oppressed?
The Taliban consolidated power in 1996, when the Clinton Administration condemned their oppression of women. Please feel free to quote copiously from American conservatives' criticism of the Taliban's treatment of women, from 1996 through 10 September 2001. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
Or do you simply want to pull out and ignore the plight of these women?
Be specific, Bill: the ones who died during the many long years while we failed to create a safe country for them, or the ones who miraculously survived our long, pitiable failure?
#40 forgets that Bill Clinton could have had Bin laden's head on a silver platter and passed up the opportunity intentionally.
That's been debunked so many times, it's sad to see anyone still falls for it. Go ahead, cite a source. Will it be the Moonie Times? Drugs Limbaugh? Some conspiracy-minded GOP congressman, long since driven from office? Do tell.
BTW, "Taliban" is plural for "talib", "religious student". Which American political party claims support from fundamentalist religious conservatives?
Posted by: tensor on December 3, 2009 12:54 AMActually, oblivious to reality would be not knowing that Sun Tzu's strategies have been studied, emulated and applied by military commanders around the world for centuries. It is also taught in our own US armed forces war colleges. Not surprisingly, Obama has never read it, which explains his indecisive, bungling nature.
I guess this is what we deserve for electing an unqualified, ill-prepared and inexperienced person as POTUS. This isn't high school government, afterall.
That's been debunked so many times, it's sad to see anyone still falls for it. Go ahead, cite a source.~ Tensor
Really? Maybe if you are one of those who've chosen to plunk their head in the sand to escape reality, but most know this to be common knowledge. The Times has a synopsis of the bungling Clinton years passing up killing Bin Laden numerous times. Of course, he had alot on his plate at the time, like, say, perjuring himself during a congressional grand jury testimonial and wagging his finger, while lying on national TV to the American people. But that was only one of many missed opportunities during his administration.
The Sudan offered him up on, as Bill C. said, a silver platter. Clinton administration response? Punt...
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2009 05:02 AMThe war on terror is likely to last a very long time because of the religious nature of islamic extremism.
As much as I hope for napalm to be dropped on USB, his death would not mean "victory" or the end of the war on terror.
By denying national safe havens for jihadi terrorists, we are attempting to limit their scope of action. We are also attempting to prevent jihadi access to nuclear weapons via Iran and Pakistan.
In the past, we could ignore places like Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it is sandwiched between a radical shiite regime in Iran that is very near to developing nuclear weapons and an unstable sunni regime in Pakistan that already has nuclear weapons.
A taliban dominated Afghanistan will further destablize Pakistan. It would also revert to it's pre-2001 status as a base and national safe haven for jihadi terrorists.
Unless we buttress a U.S.-friendly regime in Pakistan, deny nuclear weapons to Iran, and prevent a return of fanatic theocracy to Afghanistan, we are looking at a very dark future in which the death cult of islam is united with nuclear weapons.
We have all of the technology, bravery and competence in the world to win. But it means nothing without decisive resolve. That has to come from our leader. And like his partisan supporters on this blog, Pres. Obama is not very sure of whether we should be in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 3, 2009 06:53 AMBut selective reading is a conservative forte, right?
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. (II, 2-3)
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. (II, 6)
In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. (III, 1)
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. (III, 2)
So yeah, dumbass, in my mind conservatives haven't been reading the entire book.
@49: But he's clearly conflicted and without the kind of resolve that past war president have had. This is a strong signal to our enemies. But worse, it is a stronger signal to our troops us citizens here at home who back them up.
Bull. It's a strong sign to idiot conservatives that have ignored Afghanistan up until now that new policy will actually be responsible and reasonable. When Republicans were in control, massive mistakes were made. However, Obama taking more time to make a decision -- in part to put pressure on the Karzai administration and steer clear of issues of election fraud there -- is a "strong signal" to enemies?
Ugh. Twits like you would love to watch the world burn, I think.
Posted by: demo kid on December 3, 2009 08:00 AMBravo. Bravo. I think the sound we all hear is the last of what little credibility you have left draining away, Taliban Dan.
Posted by: demo kid on December 3, 2009 08:04 AMWe should never ask our soldiers to go patrolling around in a country that doesn't want them, to try to achieve some diffuse, unclear objective.
The government we are there to support won the "election" by fabricating 30% of the votes --nobody is even pretending they didn't steal it.
People on SP have gotten pretty worked up about a relatively tiny amount of alleged shenanigans in vote-counting here in King County, never proven. Yet when Americans want to have a debate about whether we should make our soldiers travel thousands of miles away from their loved ones to get blown up by IEDs, all to support a government that could only win by stuffing ballots, they want to shut down the debate.
I realize our armed forces are populated by great young energetic men and women bored by practice drills and eager to serve their country.
But it's our job to use that eagerness judiciously and not squander it, not backstab these kids by sending them on missions that could fail because they aren't really about defense anymore, if they ever were.
Those of us who are on the anti-war side lost here, make no mistake about it. The pullout date, looked at from the right, looks like capitulation to the enemy, but looked at from the left, guarantees absolutely nothing in the way of bringing the troops home.
Afghanistan is already the constant, distant, low-grade war against a mythic enemy that George Orwell described in the novel 1984, waged by a government bureaucracy that is very good at keeping war simmering at all times so the war budget is never questioned and it's ability to take and destroy young American lives remains sacrosanct.
Since we (the anti-war left) lost the fight, or more to the point didn't put up one, we are forced now to wish everyone who's going over there the very best, pray for their safe return, and hope that this will help Afghanistan emerge from its misery and confusion.
Thanks again,
new left conservative
Posted by: new left conservative on December 3, 2009 08:07 AMAfghanistan is going to become Obama's Vietnam. If he is not willing to conquer the Taliban, and then maintain a strong military presence history will repeat itself.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 08:17 AMAfghanistan is going to become Obama's Vietnam. If he is not willing to conquer the Taliban, and then maintain a strong military presence history will repeat itself.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 08:17 AMUgh. Twits like you would love to watch the world burn, I think.
Can anyone find an argument in all the ad hominem? Note that I offered a simple argument based on what many in the media described as a tepid speech and a strategy that places what might be an improper limit on the conflict. What I get back here is "idiot conservatives" and "twits who like to watch the world burn." Does this guy think anyone here reads the rest of his words when he pops a gasket and leads with the childish name calling?
But I have to admit I do like demo kid's handle. It really does reflect his unchecked passion, naivety and ignorance, all things that we find in kids.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 3, 2009 08:30 AMSorry, Demo tool, but I didn't quote a passage in 'the art of war'. On what planet do you spend most of your time on? Googling some Sun Tzu quotes on-line doesn't exactly make you an expert there, squirt. But it does make you look even more foolish than normal, which for you, is a daily occurence here.
So yeah, dumbass, in my mind conservatives haven't been reading the entire book.
Even if that were true, isn't the real dumbass the guy that is making the decisions as a commander in chief without ever haven broken the spine? Obama is conflicted because deep down inside he is a coward that lives in a mindset that the world is able to exist without conflict, which is extremely naive thinking. It goes against his very being to actually win this conflict in Afghanistan, which was evident in that borefest of a speech the other night. Uninspriring to say the least. He is the reincarnation of Nevil Chamberlain, who was also a similar minded fool that believed wars could be won by appeasing your enemies. How'd that go for Ol' Nevil anyway?
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2009 08:41 AMBull. It's a strong sign to idiot conservatives that have ignored Afghanistan up until now that new policy will actually be responsible and reasonable. When Republicans were in control, massive mistakes were made. However, Obama taking more time to make a decision -- in part to put pressure on the Karzai administration and steer clear of issues of election fraud there -- is a "strong signal" to enemies?
Ugh. Twits like you would love to watch the world burn, I think.
Can anyone find an argument in all the ad hominem? Note that I offered a simple argument based on what many in the media described as a tepid speech and a strategy that places what might be an improper limit on the conflict. What I get back here is "idiot conservatives" and "twits who like to watch the world burn." Does this guy think anyone here reads the rest of his words when he pops a gasket and leads with the childish name calling?
But I have to admit I do like demo kid's handle. It really does reflect his unchecked passion, naivety and ignorance, all things that we find in kids.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 3, 2009 08:45 AMUnder a treaty negotiated by a Republican administration, I might add.
If he is not willing to conquer the Taliban, and then maintain a strong military presence history will repeat itself.
This is the basic flaw that conservatives just can't seem to get over. "Conquering the Taliban"? This is NOT a military engagement! This is a social, economic, and political conflict, where the United States has had little to no consistent or realistic guiding policy for the past eight years. We assisted the Northern Alliance to retake the country... and then we proceeded to shift the military focus to Iraq. We talked about women's rights and freedom, and we've pretty much let that slip when convenient. We talked about economic development, and we let that take the form of the massive cultivation of opium. We talked about good government, and propped up someone that is now seen as little more than a US puppet.
The simple truth is that we already have a massive advantage in numbers over the Taliban, even without additional troops. Seriously. Look at any numbers about materiel or manpower, and the Taliban are sorely outmatched even now. They aren't even being propped up by a major power at this point, as opposed to the way it was twenty years ago.
What this has become now is an empire-building exercise, though, when we're loath to add a territory to the empire. To truly win, we would either need to kill everyone in the country, or we would need a massive ten to twenty year investment campaign to improve infrastructure, education, economic production, etc. across the entire country, and we would need an entire host of diplomats to do it effectively.
Now, I'm certainly of the "you break it you bought it" perspective, but tell me... if the basic strategic interests of the US can be carried out without essentially occupying an entire country or re-invading the countryside, what is the value of a massive investment in manpower and war financing?
@58: Oddly ironic that you rant about ad hominem attacks, and your post is just that.
Posted by: demo kid on December 3, 2009 09:05 AMI don't get the fascination on the right with massive troop buildups with no timetables for withdrawal. That is the exact "plan" we had for Iraq in 2003 and it resulted in the deaths of far too many. An open-ended commitment is a commitment to Afghanistan's government being ineffectual.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 09:05 AMThere's a difference between description and ad hominem. To say that you are acting like a child is description. To call me an idiot and a twit is ad hominem. There's no reason for the name calling. And it doesn't help you get your point across. If you like name calling, go to HA. Here, where many disagree with you, you are obliged to offer arguments, and not playground taunts.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 3, 2009 09:12 AMDemo kid gets it, Rick, and you don't. The Taliban has not been in power for eight years. There is no army to conquer. There is no side to defeat with massive bombing campaigns. The military strategy that turned the tide in Iraq was clear and hold, but the overall strategy that won the war was addressing the political and economic conflicts. Buying off Sunni tribal leaders went a long way toward getting a more stable Iraq, and there's no dispute to that. It is naive and wrong to think that military might won in Iraq -- the brave military was a part of the strategy, not the totality of it.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 09:13 AMJust exactly what "empire" are you referring to, demo kid?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 09:41 AMI don't know why you're getting this petty, but you're wrong. An ad hominem is a remark meant to dismiss the arguments of another based on who the person is and not what their argument is. Calling someone a "child" or an "idiot" or a "twit" all rise to that level. In fact, so does but rather than debate those points, your first reaction is to simply dismiss that with which you disagree. So no need to bother. Ad hominems color every comment here so I really don't think we need to get into the weeds of who is more dismissive. In reality, very few -- maybe none -- here few the arguments folks make on their own merits but rather who is making them.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 10:02 AM"Neville Chamberlain was as naive as Obama. Liberals routinely seem to side with bad guys."
Funny. In drawing the old Neville Chamberlain chestnut, you seem to think he was a LIBERAL.
Of course you know that Neville Chamberlain was actually a Conservative. Don't you?
And you must also know that it was liberals (Labour Party)and Churchill who opposed his appeasement approach. Don't you?
ACORN!! MARXISM!! Also too.
Cuz it is better to rant about anything than understand something.
I beg to differ, but anyway...
There's no reason for the name calling. And it doesn't help you get your point across. If you like name calling, go to HA. Here, where many disagree with you, you are obliged to offer arguments, and not playground taunts.
Hardly. Taunts and non-arguments are standard here. I'm not the worst offender by far.
@66: The irony too is that I actually agree with many of your points dk. The nature of this conflict is complicated. But rather than debate those points, your first reaction is to simply dismiss that with which you disagree.
"Dismiss that with which I disagree"? This entire thread consists of unfounded, pointless attacks on one element of a war policy by a new president. These same folks that are willing to say that Obama "lacks resolve" are all too willing to give the Bush Administration and conservatives a pass for very egregious errors in strategy, and a completely wishy-washy attitude towards a war that I would argue was far more necessary.
@67: Just exactly what "empire" are you referring to, demo kid?
I thought that being as ancient as you are, you would have lived through British and Russian designs on the area, if not Alexander the Great's problems in the region. :)
Simple fact is that over and over again, other powers have tried to conquer Afghanistan and add it to their empires. We're in the uncomfortable state of taking much the same actions of these other powers, but ceding control of the country when we're done if we're successful.
Posted by: demo kid on December 3, 2009 10:53 AMNot a single Conservative opposed. Not one.
But don't let facts stop you.
ACORN!! MARXISM!! Also too
The fact is that 30 members of the Conservative Party including Churchill abstained from voting on the Munich accord.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 11:31 AMI wasn't asking you anything about Britain, Russia, or Alexander the Great. I was asking you to be specific about your obvious reference to some kind of American empire. Or does the word "now" have no meaning when you use it. You did what liberals do so often. Change the nature of the question.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 11:46 AMYes Bill, Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative.
Yes Bill, Churchill was also a Conservative.
Yes Bill, Not a single Conservative voted against Chamberlain's Munich accord.
Yes Bill, some strong willed, principled Conservatives found their way to abstain.
Gee Bill, if there were no Conservatives with the back bone to vote against the Munich accord, and there were 150 votes against it, where did those votes come from?
Funny how it was LIBERALS in the British Labour Party had the back bone to vote against appeasement, and Conservatives not at all.
Tell us again how "Liberals routinely seem to side with bad guys." and how that relates to Neville Chamberlain and the Munich Accord....
ACORN!! MARXISM!! Also too
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 3, 2009 11:49 AMHow many foreign soldiers on American soil are you willing to accept?
How many countries does the USA have deployed on foreign soil?
some kind of American empire?
Guess it depends which side of the fence you're on.
MikeBoyScout. Why do we need foreign soldiers on American soil?
Posted by: Gary on December 3, 2009 12:02 PMYou mean like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe you don't mean that, since we've installed democracies. But we did install them. Obviously it's not our intention to found an American empire, but by invading countries we do open ourselves up to that accusation even though I supported the war in a Afghanistan. It's not our responsibility to have a foot in the pond of every place in the world. I support the new strategy in Afghanistan, but an un-ending commitment of life and limb that some seem to support is not a strategy.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 12:32 PM"That would certainly be news to the leaders of ..Japan..."
Cuz you live under a rock?
"President Barack Hussein Obama,
We are residents of Okinawa and we would like to express our views regarding the United States Marine Corps Futenma Air Station and the current agreement to build a new base in Nago City, Okinawa.
We urge you to withdraw all of USMC from Okinawa. The people of Okinawa have been and will continue to be firmly opposed to the current US plan to relocate the dangerous Futenma Air Station to another location within Okinawa. We demand that the Futenma Air Station be shut down and returned unconditionally. The USMC has been stationed in Okinawa since the mid 1950s. The only real solution to the Futenma problem is a total withdrawal of the USMC from Okinawa."
"Since smashing the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in August's elections, Okada and the Democratic Party of Japan have called for a re-examination
of the replacement plan."
"That would certainly be news to the leaders of...South Korea."
Cuz you live under a rock?
"Thousands of people protesting at the site of the planned new headquarters for the U.S. military in South Korea clashed yesterday with police.
Some 7,000 demonstrators threw steel pipes and stones at about 10,000 police guarding Camp Humphreys in Pyongtaek, about 50 miles south of Seoul.
"The government made an agreement with the United States without consensus from the residents," said one protester, Oh Jeong-sun, 56."
@61 Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 08:56 AM
"Neville Chamberlain was as naive as Obama. Liberals routinely seem to side with bad guys."
But yet, it was only ever a Conservative party led government that ever appeased. And yet, you connect it with Liberal.
Next, explain to us who the candidate was in the last presidential election who had a record of declaring success and muddling through in Afghanistan and which campaigned upon "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan". What does Conservative and Liberal have to do with it?
Decent protesters don't throw steel pipes and stones. Uh, just who were those people? Bet you won't want to answer, MikeBoyScout.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 02:05 PMNothing. South Korea has 3.5+ million active and reserve troop; the US and the rest of the world can support them without a base being there. I really have no opinion on foreign bases except they are expensive and the military under Rumsfeld has decided to shutter many of them.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 02:17 PM"Uh, just who were those people?"
Well Bill, one of them was "Oh Jeong-sun, 56" as identified in the article I gave you. Rather than baiting me with no-gain bets and spouting about what you know too little about, why don't you spend a little time at the library and learn on your own?
or
ACORN!! MARXISM!! Also too
Actually, Mike. You must live under a rock if you think the general consensus in Japan is to have the US armed forces leave that country. From your link:
We urge you to withdraw all of USMC from Okinawa. The people of Okinawa have been and will continue to be firmly opposed to the current US plan to relocate the dangerous Futenma Air Station to another location within Okinawa. We demand that the Futenma Air Station be shut down and returned unconditionally. The USMC has been stationed in Okinawa since the mid 1950s. The only real solution to the Futenma problem is a total withdrawal of the USMC from Okinawa.
Here we respectfully state the reasons for our demand. First, the current agreement between the US and Japanese governments regarding the construction of a new USMC base in Nago City was reached without consultation with the government or the people of Okinawa in 2005 and 2006.
First of all, the Okinawans despise mainland Japanese because they feel like second class citizens. Second, there has been a vocal Okinawan opposition to the U.S. bases since I was there on deployments about 20 years ago (and probably well before that), so this attitude isn't anything new. Third, it's not up to the "government of Okinawa" to decide whether bases are stationed there. That would be the decision of the Japanese government. If they didn't want us there, we wouldn't be there, so in essence, we are there at the behest of the Japanese Government that understand we serve as a protective barrier from the little midget wearing platform shoes and sporting a bowl cut who's armed with nukes over in N.Korea.
Basically, this all a whole lot of nothing and not representative of the general attitude amongst the Japanese people towards the military prescence. For that matter, there are also Air Force and Naval stations scattered along mainland Japan as well. So where are the protesters in the streets or letters to Obama demanding they leave too? Wouldn't that be a more reflective attitude of the military prescence and whether it is welcomed in Japan?
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2009 03:44 PM"If they didn't want us there, we wouldn't be there, so in essence, we are there at the behest of the Japanese Government ..."
Right.... Had nothing to do with our occupation of Japan as a result of WWII and unconditional surrender. So, in essence, the attack on Pearl Harbor was an invitation to occupy Japan and its empire.
It would probably surprise you to learn Ricky that the US occupation of Okinawa didn't end until 1972.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 3, 2009 04:48 PMYou forgot ACORN!! Also too
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 3, 2009 05:04 PMThis would not happen.
But let's pretend it did. You just read Rick D talk about the Japanese bases. How far is Japan from South Korea? You basically ignore that we have carriers and rapid deployment capabilities.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 05:23 PMTell me that isn't what you really think MikeBoyScout. My mother-in-law, who was Chinese, saw her best friend murdered by the Japanese who occupied China in the 1930's. She survived because she hid from those murderers. Do you have a clue about history? The Japanese flew bomb filled planes directly into US ships. Does the word kamikaze ring a bell?
You are like nearly every liberal, as I have pointed out over and over. You don't have a clue about good and evil. You have not learned a single thing from world history.
WTF are you babbling about? No, there is no condition Japan is under obligation to uphold as a result of WW2. The U.S. can be asked to and would leave whenever the Japanese government declares it to happen. Where did you get your education, MikeBS? You actually think the U.S. can say "nope, we're staying"? We have a history of leaving countries that no longer want us there and the best example is the Phillipines (been there too):
[O]n December 27, President Corazon Aquino, who had previously fought to delay the U.S. pullout to cushion the country's battered economy, issued a formal notice for the U.S. to leave by the end of 1992. Naval Station Subic Bay was the U.S.'s largest overseas defense facility after Clark Air Base was closed.
During 1992, tons of material including drydocks and equipment, were shipped to various Naval Stations. Ship-repair and maintenance yards as well as supply depots were relocated to other Asian countries including Japan and Singapore. Finally, on November 24, 1992, the American Flag was lowered in Subic for the last time and the last 1,416 Sailors and Marines at Subic Bay Naval Base left by plane from NAS Cubi Point and by the USS Belleau Wood. This withdrawal [at their request] marked the first time since the 16th Century that no foreign military forces were present in the Philippines.
We were in the Phillipines for many, many years. There were treaties signed that affirmed the prescence and when those were up for renewal, Aquino passed and we left. Now that you've been educated on a country we've left at their request, I challenge you to find one that we haven't done so even though no formal treaty or condition of surrender hasn't been signed by that country.
It would probably surprise you to learn Ricky that the US occupation of Okinawa didn't end until 1972.
Yes, and that is what the Japanese government agreed to in 1945, so what's your point exactly? The fact remains, we have been a guest of the Japanese government in order to protect their interests, and to a lesser extent, ours (We saw how well isolationism worked, now didn't we?). Okinaw consists of a population of 1.2 million while mainland Japan is ~ 125 million so while the Okinawans may want us gone, the majority of the Japanese citizens don't.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2009 05:29 PMProbably I'm a liberal marxist acorn for thinking that seems excessive and expensive.
All correct thinking Americans know that everyone else in the world wants our military installations in their backyard, and there could never be anything like blowback from such a reasonable exercise of force and status of forces agreements that prohibit judicial proceedings against US military personnel who violate the laws of the country they are in. Heck, if Mexican soldiers had a base in Snohomish we'd gladly accept those soldiers not being held accountable to our laws under our system.
It is definitely neither conservative nor right thinking to believe one could have a discussion about it that didn't include
ACORN!! MARXISM!! Also too.
It is always instructive to observe the manner in which liberals behave. The meanness, the immaturity, the anger, the lack of historical perspective, it's all there. It doesn't matter if it's MikeBoyScout, demo kid, John Jensen or a host of other liberals who comment.
Watch these people continue to lose it as Americans finally figure out how far left Obama and his gang of socialists actually are. The polls already show they will lose control of Congress next year.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 05:55 PMi.e. we can't win...
The U.S. is always the bad guy no matter the scenario, no matter who starts the conflict and no matter how much we do around the world with financial and human aid that is bankrupting us as a nation. Pretty silly and blatantly ignorant, but that is the mindset that is pushed in the school system these days.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 3, 2009 06:17 PMProbably, but it isn't relevant right now.
"Heck, if Mexican soldiers had a base in Snohomish we'd gladly accept those soldiers not being held accountable to our laws under our system."
-
Why would Mexican soldiers be in Snohomish?
Do you want all U.S. troops to only be stationed on American soil? I didn't quite get an answer between all of the your raving.
Posted by: Gary on December 3, 2009 06:27 PMDo I want to know the answer?
Do you want U.S. soldiers out of the U.S. too?
Obama is a perfect example of everything I've ever said about the left. They don't believe in "climate change" it is simply a way for them to gain power over people. Leftists live for it. It's why leftists are lawyers, academics, and journalists. It's why my 10 year old niece has been brainwashed into believing that "Sarah Palin shoots wolves".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 06:46 PM1) To never respond to a comment from Gary which consists solely asks a handful of leading questions rather than any substance
2) To never, ever engage Bill Crunchon on any topic whatsoever. He a politically bigoted fool and it's not worth attempting to engage in any reasoned debate with him.
Though putting these items side-by-side is a massive disservice to Gary. Sorry, Gary, my sincerest apologies. MikeBoyScout, you should consider joining me in this compact. We can pool our risk.
---
I think some military bases in foreign countries are expensive prospects that sometimes don't help us strategically. The major wars since Korea have been insurgent engagements, not Power vs. Power wars. Since the mid-century, our carrier capacity and our ability to rapidly deploy troops has increased substantially. Further we have a significantly larger special forces segment of the military.
It is ridiculous to say that South Korea would be at any substantial danger if our presence in that state were vacated. We have another based in Japan. We have bases in Afghanistan. We have carriers and an entire navy and air force. We can deploy brigades within weeks, and other military options can come literally within hours. But frankly, it is not our job to spend tens of billions remotely for South Korean peace of mind if it even provides that. It has its own strong economy, its own military that is compulsory to serve in, and its own diplomatic ties. Do they send us a check for the security you say provide, Rick?
You're equating us shuttering a strategically useless base with us choosing to no longer be allies with South Korea. We don't have bases in Israel nor France, but certainly those nations have our protection from significant military incursion.
Our country has limited resources. Every dollar we spend on bases that we might not need is a dollar not spent in Afghanistan to win an actual shooting war. (Or, more plainly, is every dollar spent into the deficit.)
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 08:20 PMAsking leftists to give a specific answer can provide an amazing amount of confirming amusement. They bob and weave, and try to change the subject. When that fails they call you names.
You don't see conservatives argue a point in that manner. Conservatives will discuss a political point head on and if they are wrong they will admit it. Leftists in my experience will not admit it if they are wrong.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 08:26 PMOkay.
MikeBoyScout, you've talked about how people in countries where we are based may not like use there. So I ask, do you want all U.S. soldiers to only be stationed on U.S. soil.
Let the record show that I did not direct this question to John. MikeBoyScout, do you need John's help to make your arguments?
I assume "politically bigoted fool" is a reference to anyone who does not agree with the political views of John Jensen.
Despite the efforts of the leftist media the actual bigots in this country reside on the political left.
Perhaps John Jensen you might do a bit of research and discover how much the murder rate among African Americans has skyrocketed since LBJ introduced his welfare state. You can see it for yourself if you have the courage. Was it an African American male from a single parent home that killed those four law enforcement officers last weekend? Of course it was.
True bigotry John Jensen resides in a liberal mindset that revels in keeping African Americans dependent on welfare, food stamps and single parenthood. Liberals love having a permanent voting bloc. Do they feel guilty about the murders that take place in the African American community every single weekend? Are liberals outraged? Heck no. They don't even care.
Don't you dare call me a bigot, John Jensen. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 08:43 PMNow, do you want to continue to accuse me of bigotry?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2009 08:50 PMANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD!
Have you ever served in this nation's military?
Posted by: pbj on December 3, 2009 09:13 PMThis would not happen.
Is that based upon your extensive military background, John? Oh, that's right, you never served, not even in a support capacity. You have no military experience.
But let's pretend it did. You just read Rick D talk about the Japanese bases. How far is Japan from South Korea? You basically ignore that we have carriers and rapid deployment capabilities.
Someone with a military background understands that surrendered territory if twice as hard to recapture, and if that is done from an ocean landing it's 10 times harder.
But you never served, did you John?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 3, 2009 09:31 PMThere has not been a single, major conventional war since the Korean War in the 1950's. The Cold War is over and strategies need to adapt to the times. The thing we need to worry about from North Korea is nuclear weapons, not a conventional ground-based assault.
And to be frank, what is our current strategic interest in protecting South Korea so overtly? Communism is dead.
It may be that bases in Germany and South Korea provide a lot of launching opportunities for the war in central Asia or have long-term strategic goals that should be obvious. But no one is articulating them, instead they're focusing on American pride and laughable scenarios where an evil North Korea invades South Korea without any resistance.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 01:51 AMHave you ever served in the military?
Can you answer that question that you've been asked for weeks?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 4, 2009 03:25 AMAnd again, John, you speak about a subject you haven't a clue about. The reason the U.S. has a prescence around the world is to ensure that a country doesn't build its power up like that seen in WW1 and WW2, where the casualties will be much greater on both sides if/when one or the other decides to expand their empire (see Hitler). Rather than engaging them like on the beaches of normandy and Omaha in WW2, and losing 6-7K personnel in one military engagement, we now prefer to just have treaties with countries strategically placed around the world (for their protection and ours long term) in order to provide containment. This should be obvious to most, and is, but apparently not to some.
...instead they're focusing on American pride and laughable scenarios where an evil North Korea invades South Korea without any resistance.
What's wrong with American pride, John? Like I alluded to above, you're the product of a school system that believes this country is inherently bad and is the catalyst for much of the strife in this world. It's not only incorrect thinking, but an extremely ignorant position to take. We have served as the beacon of freedom for the world to emulate, and some have, while many have not. We put out the small fires around the world before a raging inferno takes hold, John. You may not like that, but that is the reality.
...and who, pray tell, implied the North would invade the South "without any resistance" from the South? I certainly didn't. Laughable indeed.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2009 05:22 AMBack to the original discussion. Obama telegraphed in his Tuesday speech when he would begin to pull out of Afghanistan. That was a sop to his far left base who don't believe we need a military, probably don't think we need police, and don't want law abiding citizens to own firearms. Does Obama want to utterly defeat the Taliban? I don't believe he said so. If he doesn't, are many of those 30,000 troops going to die for nothing? If we have no intention of winning and ultimately will leave the country to the Taliban what is the point?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2009 09:13 AMWe have not had a major war in 50 years that has been "Country A" vs. "Country B." That is not what modern wars are about. The Cold War is over. Wars of today, including our generational commitment to fight terrorism, do not require the same type of resources as the Cold War did. Not adapting our military to be more flexible is a decision made at our peril.
A lot of technology has changed since WWII. Our carriers and navy are even more dominant. We have air superiority over even the most advanced nations. Our capabilities to deploy to various countries is much more advanced than it was 70 years ago. Many recognize that a war like WWII is simply impossible nowadays with nuclear weaponry -- the threat to an advancing nation is simply too great.
And our intelligence capacity is too high to not recognize a significant military buildup in preparation for war. We would certainly be able to be prepare long before some theoretical incursion into France began. (If we had no foresight, our bases would be among the first things attacked anyway and wouldn't be very useful.)
What's wrong with American pride, John?
Absolutely nothing, but it is not a justification for maintain bases we may not need. This isn't a country music song, it's our defense budget.
Like I alluded to above, you're the product of a school system that believes this country is inherently bad and is the catalyst for much of the strife in this world.
That's really not true, Rick. I've been pretty mellow this entire conversation so I'd appreciate you not claiming I hate America. I've said nothing that indicates I hold the views you claim I do, and I don't.
We put out the small fires around the world before a raging inferno takes hold, John. You may not like that, but that is the reality.
Yes, the small fires. We may not need massive military installations like ones in South Korea, as our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown.
It's almost condescending though, because we have ignored small fires throughout the world recently as our troops have been committed to two shooting wars.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 10:09 AMThat's really not true, Rick. I've been pretty mellow this entire conversation so I'd appreciate you not claiming I hate America. I've said nothing that indicates I hold the views you claim I do, and I don't.
Since I didn't say anything you stated above, I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll need to refer to the specific sentence that claimed I said you "hate America". I said you were the product of the school system that taught this kind of attitude, and for that matter, I too was a product of that same system. I realized through personal experiences and education that the view pushed on me were false. Spread by ideologues in academia upon fertile, impressionable minds.
We may not need massive military installations like ones in South Korea, as our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown.
It's not either of our calls what bases are needed and which are not. You simply want your political philosophy to be American policy. I'll let the experts decide where the bases should be in order to hand international contingencies, because that's there jobs- Keeping this country safe. As far as the defense budget is concerned, I'd be all for whittling it down if we also commit to whittling down the enormous Social services budget that is 100 Billion dollars bigger than defense. Both are contributing the largest part of our federal deficit.
It's almost condescending though, because we have ignored small fires throughout the world recently as our troops have been committed to two shooting wars.
So you're lamenting the fact that we're engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan while on the other hand suggesting we should be putting out "small fires [elsewhere] throughout the world". A little cognitive disssonance going on there, John? You want us out of Iraq only to go the Rwanda? We don't go to war to settle civil disputes within a country, unless it happens to be to protect our national security or our national interests.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2009 11:16 AMSure, let the experts decide. Stop letting Congress decide. More foreign bases would be closed, not less.
As far as the defense budget is concerned, I'd be all for whittling it down if we also commit to whittling down the enormous Social services budget that is 100 Billion dollars bigger than defense. Both are contributing the largest part of our federal deficit
The problem is we need social security but we don't need bases in South Korea. We don't need to do much to reduce the massive spending of the military. Stop funding bases and programs the military doesn't want.
We don't go to war to settle civil disputes within a country, unless it happens to be to protect our national security or our national interests.
Right, so we should stay in South Korea why exactly?
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 11:50 AMI didn't say social security. That is separate from Social services, which comprises the largest chunk of our federal deficit and has grown exponentially over time. People need to start being helf accountable for their choices. If you make $8.30 an hour, you can barely sustain your own life, so don't be bringing another 3 mouths to feed into the world.
We don't need to do much to reduce the massive spending of the military. Stop funding bases and programs the military doesn't want.
Where do you get your information the military doesn't want funding for bases and programs? A source for this would be great. Alot of this misspending is done by those in Congress that misspend the American peoples hard earned tax money on earmarks. You're the one that is a big fan of earmarks, John. You know how the game is played.
I believe it was your candidate that signed this wasteful "stimulus bil" that added 900 billion dollars to an already booming deficit and for what? Phony job creation? A silly slush fund and set aside monies to bribe politicians to vote a certain way? We have much bigger problems than bases in S. Korea, John. They're right here in our own backyard. Only you choose not to discuss them because they're being done by the political party you self identify with. Tell me, John. What is your opinion of the John Murtha airport?Is that a wise use of taxpayer's money?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/murtha.airport/index.html
This is not an excuse to waste military dollars.
Where do you get your information the military doesn't want funding for bases and programs?
You can look up how military bases are closed. The Pentagon sends "recommendations." Congress doesn't close all of them.
You can look up the F-22 or C-130 program where the military explicitly said, "no" and Congress kept on funding the programs. You can look up the alternative F-35 (or is it JSF) engine that the military does it doesn't want -- that Congress funded.
Yes, they're earmarks.
You're the one that is a big fan of earmarks, John.
Well, that statement was made up and is not true.
I believe it was your candidate that signed this wasteful "stimulus bil" that added 900 billion dollars to an already booming deficit and for what?
There were no earmarks in the stimulus bill. That is, $20bn did not go to F-22's or a movie theater in Ohio. All the grants were competitive. You obviously don't like the bill, but it's practically angelic compared to the defense spending authorizations which are littered with earmarks toward specific and unnecessary programs.
We have much bigger problems than bases in S. Korea, John. They're right here in our own backyard. Only you choose not to discuss them because they're being done by the political party you self identify with.
First of all, we're talking about the military because that's the subject. Second, the defense budget is the biggest appropriation made annually. It's the biggest piece of the pie and has the most low-hanging fruit.
We should tackle earmarks in general, but earmarks for the military are worse than your typical earmark for a few reasons. (1) They garner serious political support from the country because people think that new jets much be good for our defense and (2) they are typically much, much larger in cost than other wasteful earmarks.
What is your opinion of the John Murtha airport?
John Murtha is one of the worst Congressmen in the country and I wish Democrats would kick him from the caucus. If your argument is that two wrongs make a right, you're off base. The GOP certainly wasn't spend-thift when they had power, and I hope Democrats do better than your party over the coming years. That said, pretending that military earmarks aren't a problem contributes to the problem.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 12:48 PM"Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire,
and to exist only until, and no later than, Dec. 31st, 1943"
EXACTLY!!
Look what happened when President Bush negotiated and announced the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq which by announcing U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 announced a surrender date.
Look at what happened!!!
pfft
...and that is not an excuse to excuse excessive monies spent (the most) on social services programs.
The Pentagon sends "recommendations." Congress doesn't close all of them.
Well, then when was the last time you wrote your congressman a letter in response to this? My guess? never. Must not be that important to you, John if it hasn't stirred you to action. Of course complaing on a blog is easier than just shouting "Cut the military spending!" on a street intersection in downtown Seattle and almost as effective.
There were no earmarks in the stimulus bill.
That you can say that with a straight face is almost laughable. Unfortunately the "stimulus bill" was cobbled together by the same Congress you're complaining are using earmarks to keep open military bases. Obama signed off on a 900 billion dollar earmark to the detriment of our future generations that get to pick up the tab.
First of all, we're talking about the military because that's the subject.
Well, you can't key on just one aspect of wasteful spending without looking at the big picture. Military spending isn't the largest contributor to our deficit, social services is. I think we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, John. Or at least I can.
The GOP certainly wasn't spend-thift when they had power, and I hope Democrats do better than your party over the coming years.
No, they were not and it contributed to their loss in 2008. We got control of the white house and congress and became finacial irresponsibile democrats. Of coure, the Democrats will do the same spending, only on a much larger scale. If you ever look at the biggest porkers, their all Democrats.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2009 01:17 PM"they're overwhelmingly Democrats."
Posted by: Rick D on December 4, 2009 01:20 PMAs long a you are making corrections to another of your factually incorrect comments,
how about going back and correcting when the Republicans lost the Congress?
While cosmetically it enhances your factually correct concurrence with John's comment that Democrats are implicated for being profligate spenders, it does nothing for the sad comparison Republican spending was.
But no worries. Just poke your head out the window and scream
ACORN!! MARXISM!! Also too LEFTIST!!
and bad spending will magically disappear with a tax cut. Cuz all that was missing during the Bush Republican led Congress years were people screaming/writing
ACORN!! MARXISM!! Also too LEFTIST!!
I'm saying the practice is wrong, not that I can fix it personally. I don't see how this is relevant.
That you can say that with a straight face is almost laughable. Unfortunately the "stimulus bill" was cobbled together by the same Congress you're complaining are using earmarks to keep open military bases. Obama signed off on a 900 billion dollar earmark to the detriment of our future generations that get to pick up the tab.
Find a earmark in the stimulus.
An earmark is not "$8bn on high speed rail through competitive grants," it is "$124mn to high speed rail connecting Seattle to Portland." It's not "$10bn to the National Institute of Health," it's "$100mn to the cancer research center in Seattle." The difference between competitive grants and having Congress just pick a winner doesn't really need to be explored. I understand the stimulus had a lot of spending, but literally none of it was earmarked for specific projects.
Well, you can't key on just one aspect of wasteful spending without looking at the big picture. Military spending isn't the largest contributor to our deficit, social services is. I think we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, John. Or at least I can.
Social spending is mandatory. There is no way to add earmarks to it. Defense spending is appropriated. Earmarks get added every year.
Sure we can address both. Obama is apparently planning to make the deficit the highlight of his state of the union address next month. The problem is that defense spending is considered "off-limits" by many in Washington even when there is a lot of wasteful dollars that Congress forces onto the military. Even if the bidding process, the military itself agrees is terrible. But the politics are simple: Obama tries to reduce wasteful spending in the military without GOP buy-in, and they'll attack him for "cutting" the military in a time of war. Any why would anyone in Congress buy-in to reduce their ability to send earmarks to their constitutients? So major problems don't get solved over petty political battles. It'd be helpful if we recognized the problems rather than deflected them.
If you ever look at the biggest porkers, their all Democrats.
And when the GOP was in power, it was them. Pork is a bipartisan problem. The F-22 was pork (both parties), he bridge to nowhere was pork (GOP), and Murtha's airport was pork (Dems).
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 01:34 PMI'm afraid that you are wrong. Obama has had a self professed commie in his administration up until just a little bit ago and he's now been reported to be advising from the back door. And he still has a sympathizer officially in his employ as of today. Oh, and I almost forgot, the one person who has visited the White House the most (according to their own records) is quite popular over at CPA and has expressed commie views in the past.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 4, 2009 02:58 PMIf communist politics meant anything in the 21st century it would be interesting to see the proof of your claim. As it is not, and I sincerely doubt you have a reliable source for your claim,
please just amuse the reader with your sources.
Yeah, thought so.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 4, 2009 03:12 PM
I don't know.
Could it be your Beanie is defective?
Bill, I think you should stop commenting and go de-brainwash your 10 year old niece. There is no time to waste here. Remember, family first! :-p
But, but... beautiful things can be dangerous!
I saw it on the teevee, from no less than an EFF presented speaker.
Look, the USSR may be gone but we can't wait for the smoking gun of Communism to be a mushroom cloud.
Please repeat, ACORN!! MARXIST!! Also too LEFTIST!!
You might save yourself some time and go to the final sentence in this piece: "And in the final analysis, in order to achieve real change, we must end Capitalism."
There is no need make anything up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2009 05:41 PMReally? A website says that? Oh dear.
No doubt if the dirty socialists sneak into power, they'll find a way to cause a collapse of the financial system and then justify their action by saying something like 'I've abandoned my free market principles to save the free market'.
When that happens we'll know we've been had by the dirty anti-capitalist socialists.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010428162_wahmee05m.html
One of the most important jobs of government should be its responsibility to protect decent citizens from harm. It doesn't work that way when liberals run things. They let that monster that killed 4 policemen in cold blood out. Now just days later they want to release one of the killers that participated in the most horrific massacre in Seattle history. 13 people died, including one of my relatives.
Why do liberals want to let killers and rapists back on the street to prey on innocent citizens, as they nearly always do?
My wife and I turned on the TV early Sunday morning to watch the Seahawks game. We were stunned to learn that 4 police officers had been gunned down. We looked at each other and both of us shook our heads. We guessed the suspect would be African American. We guessed he would have a violent criminal record. Of course we were right.
Liberals and the African American community are in a constant state of denial. Young male African Americans drop out of school, embrace thug culture, and end up dying before they reach 30 years old. In the meantime they've fathered children that will likely share their fate. What a horrific waste of human potential. Does Obama care? Do liberals care? Do African American leaders care? I don't see much evidence of it.
If you doubt what I am saying you have all the tools to look up the statistics. The Jim Crow south didn't kill as many black people as die on our city streets. And that's the brutal truth.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2009 08:44 PMANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD!
Have you ever served in this nation's military?
Posted by: pbj on December 4, 2009 10:41 PMAnd it just gets worse Attila. In the wake of 5 law enforcement officers being brutally murdered in the past month
Interesting little factoid... Over the last two months, it's been safer to be a soldier in Iraq than a police officer in the Puget Sound area (4 combat deaths in Iraq versus 5 in Seattle/Lakewood).
I wonder if we'll have the Leftists marching in the streets demanding no blood for coffee and that we pull our police officers out now?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 5, 2009 07:17 AM