Best parts of Obama's Afghanistan speech

[DarrinS]

If I didn't hear it with my own two ears, I'd have never believe the last two quotes could be attributed to our Apologizer-in-Chief.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously. First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

[EmptyMan]

a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

How is this...possible? America is an evil capitalistic resource grabbing abomination. Boutons, Obama lies!?

[Crookshanks]

DarrinS - I think the TOTUS played a trick on Obama and used an old, unused Bush speech.

[panic giraffe]

DarrinS - I think the TOTUS played a trick on Obama and used an old, unused Bush speech.

nah, low on jingoism, high on logic, no fake wannabe texan "ya'lls". with the exception of the campaign promised escalation it doesn't scream of bush at all.

[spursncowboys]

DarrinS - I think the TOTUS played a trick on Obama and used an old, unused Bush speech.

[Wild Cobra]

If I didn't hear it with my own two ears, I'd have never believe the last two quotes could be attributed to our Apologizer-in-Chief.

You mean you didn't know he's trying to be a global socialist?

[spursncowboys]

nah, low on jingoism, high on logic, no fake wannabe texan "ya'lls". with the exception of the campaign promised escalation it does scream of bush at all.

What is your definition of jingoism because he has more soldiers deployed than GWB ever did. The only difference is the terrorists were let go at a lesser rate under GWB.

[panic giraffe]

What is your definition of jingoism because he has more soldiers deployed than GWB ever did. The only difference is the terrorists were let go at a lesser rate under GWB.

well i mean, "no rah rah, we're gonna win because we're god's army"

and i was talking about the speech.

[jack sommerset]

This is exactly how I felt watching this bag talk last night.

[spursncowboys]

Those guys are F'ed!!!

[clambake]

jack could use some butt hurt cream.

[panic giraffe]

those guys are f'ed!!!

got that right.

[Yonivore]

I didn't hear anything in the speech that justified the delay in meeting General McChrystal's request months ago.

Did anyone else?

[jack sommerset]

jack could use some butt hurt cream.

I'm sure you would like to apply it to me, .

[ChumpDumper]

What is your definition of jingoism because he has more soldiers deployed than GWB ever did. The only difference is the terrorists were let go at a lesser rate under GWB.

Which terrorists were let go?

Be specific. Tell us all what acts of terror they committed.

[Winehole23]

I didn't hear anything in the speech that justified the delay in meeting General McChrystal's request months ago.

Did anyone else?

Has the delay been harmful to us? More so, would you say, than the previous six years of dithering and neglect?

What, in your mind, justified President Bush's refusal of Gen. McKiernan's request for 20,000 more troops a couple of years ago?

[spursncowboys]

The terrorists that are let go everyday in the FOBs because of the ridiculous roe's. Not having evidence to keep them after a certain amount of days, so letting them go. Just because it didn't get printed in the NYT doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Bush didn't tie the military's hands in war. It seems all BHO does is that. Subsequently, our stand in the world with anti americans is still the same.

[Winehole23]

It seems all BHO does is that.

How so?

BHO will have doubled US forces in Afghanistan from last year's levels within six months, and escalation is coming. Defense spending went up 4% this year (as recalled by heart). Predator drone strikes in Pakistan are up dramatically, Special Forces recently struck within Somalia.

Are you sore about the F-22? The Iraq drawdown? What?

How is BHO tying the military's hands behind its back?

[boutons_deux]

"markets open"

... US corps dump US jobs to overseas low-wage countries


"billions lifted from poverty"

the US Banksters have lifted nobody from poverty

"advancing frontiers of human liberty"

where? not in USA, as the corps and US govt spy on innocent citizens' every move.

[spursncowboys]

New Obama Military Rules of Engagement:, Don’t shoot back
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2384383/posts
Obama gives military's interrogation rules to CIA
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ons/index.html

Taking 100days to decide to keep or not keep plan for afghanistan.

I don't have time to keep trying to find sources for this, so I ask you. What has BHO done to help the military fulfill it's missions? Anything specifically?

[boutons_deux]

"dithering" is a bull charge from the Repugs making nasty politics.

We all know the Repugs ed up Aghanistan by not finishing the business they started there, to rush, not dither, Afghanistan to the back burner to start a bogus Iraq invasion-for-oil

[Winehole23]

I don't have time to keep trying to find sources for this, so I ask you. What has BHO done to help the military fulfill it's missions? Anything specifically?

As you well know, I'm for pulling out, but 60,000 more troops in Afghanistan isn't nothing.

[Winehole23]

New Obama Military Rules of Engagement:, Don’t shoot back
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2384383/posts

Out of curiousity, because, honestly, I don't know: who writes the rules of engagement? President Obama?

Are these rules of engagement significantly different from those in place in Iraq toward the end of GWB's term?

Also, is it possible there is some political consideration that outweighs military expedience here? And properly so? We can't kill all the bad guys, and if we are not very careful not to kill civilian noncombatants while trying to do so, our own tactical successes can become strategic defeats over time. We lose the support we need from the Afghans if they perceive our attacks to be indiscriminate.

Obama gives military's interrogation rules to CIA
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ons/index.html

Is there something wrong with the interrogation rules in the Army Field Manual? Does it require brisk, genital massages for prisoners?

[spursncowboys]

As you well know, I'm for pulling out, but 60,000 more troops in Afghanistan isn't nothing.

I stated that BHO ties the militaries hand. Not that he doesn't increase the number of troops. The troops mean nothing if it is so he can get reelected. Mchrystle asked for an amount on troops with an amount of time. BHO gave him 30k and 18 months. What commander ever did that in america's history? What do you think the enemy is doing after hearing a timetable? Ill stay on point though. What I meant was that he is making Rules of Engagement (ROE) more difficult to hold terrorists. BHO has made it more difficult to hold and detain terrorists in a war zone.

[Winehole23]

What I meant was that he is making Rules of Engagement (ROE) more difficult to hold terrorists. BHO has made it more difficult to hold and detain terrorists in a war zone.

Is everyone who fights us in Afghanistan a terrorist?