diamond
ONE love, blood, life
otay.
Actually, no, it really isn't believable at all. And if you (general you) honestly think it is believable, I'd say you're the one with intelligence issues.
Some people just have too much time on their hands.
thats actually not too far from the truth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html?_r=1
same old shit, different face. looks like another endless war is about to begin. so much for your "hope and change"
.
We are in the era of a permanent presence in the Middle East, especially near Iran. Even though he was just sharing his opinion, it seems he was right five years ahead of time.
We are in the era of a permanent presence in the Middle East, especially near Iran.
i suspect this is part of the reason why our economy is so fucked up.
we'll see what happens.
one wishes Bush/Cheney would have dithered just a bit longer, though.
thats actually not too far from the truth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/politics/25policy.html?_r=1
same old shit, different face. looks like another endless war is about to begin. so much for your "hope and change"
too bad people are so caught up in the left/right bullshit that they dont even see what is really going on.
Its great to see Obama ignore the liberal democrats who got him elected and go with the Generals and Republicans when it comes to this nations security.
Many liberals and many conservatives are saying to either send 40K or to send zero. Middle-ground is pointless.
Middle ground is pointless?
I'm pretty sure he's privy to a little more info than you, Glenn Beck, and others, don't you think?
Do you think he did middle ground for political reasons?
True, except he didn't 100% do what the generals and republicans wanted. I don't understand the reasoning behind sending 30-35K and not the 40. By doing that, he only pisses off the left and the right. Many liberals and many conservatives are saying to either send 40K or to send zero. Middle-ground is pointless.
I'd like to know what advanced military insight he has that tells him 30K will do what 40K could.
As for the reasoning, I really have no clue. I'm pondering any sort of logic behind this call.
Middle-ground would have been 20,000. This looks like its going to be 35,000. It might be 35,000 and not 40,000 to throw a little bone to the liberals, although I think that will make them furious.
I suppose. I could be wrong, but I always assumed the dominant liberal position was to just get out and not send any more troops at all, and if that's the case I couldn't imagine cutting the request short by 5K would be much of a bone.
True, except he didn't 100% do what the generals and republicans wanted. I don't understand the reasoning behind sending 30-35K and not the 40. By doing that, he only pisses off the left and the right. Many liberals and many conservatives are saying to either send 40K or to send zero. Middle-ground is pointless.
Except upping the troops in Afghanistan is part of his campaign promise. If liberals are getting mad at this, they haven't been following him very closely. And conservatives who say that he is bending are ultimately wrong.I suppose. I could be wrong, but I always assumed the dominant liberal position was to just get out and not send any more troops at all, and if that's the case I couldn't imagine cutting the request short by 5K would be much of a bone.
I suppose. I could be wrong, but I always assumed the dominant liberal position was to just get out and not send any more troops at all, and if that's the case I couldn't imagine cutting the request short by 5K would be much of a bone.
Top Dem to Obama: 'There Ain't Going to Be Money for Nothing if We Pour It All Into Afghanistan'
ABC News
The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."
"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."
His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.
Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy.
This should help GOP chances in 2010