Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Blind Ideological Justice




War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Obama Commits to Afghanistan Escalation

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 20, 2008
AP photo / Jae C. Hong

An Obama campaign plane sits on the tarmac in Chicago.

Before leaving Kabul for Baghdad, Barack Obama spoke to his intention to increase America’s troop commitment to Afghanistan by 10,000 soldiers. “We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent ... and I believe this has to be the central focus, the central front, in the battle against terrorism,” the candidate told CBS.

William Pfaff, in a recent column, argues that it would be folly to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Obama’s visit to Iraq comes on the heels of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s apparent endorsement of the senator’s withdrawal plan.


The Guardian:

Yesterday [Sunday] Obama went to the heavily guarded presidential palace in Kabul for a potentially awkward lunch with President Hamid Karzai, whom he accused last week of failing to leave his bunker to tackle the rebuilding of Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Afghan officials afterwards described the meeting as “positive”, saying they had discussed the war and how to tackle corruption and expanding poppy production. Afterwards, in an interview with the US network CBS, Obama signalled that the country would be at the forefront of his foreign policy: “We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent ... and I believe this has to be the central focus, the central front, in the battle against terrorism.”

He added: “I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we have to start doing something now.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 24, 2008 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

I gotta tell all of you, I just saw Obama’s Berlin speech and I just about threw my jockey shorts at the television. Maybe it was just a speech, but it was a great speech. Like Michelle Obama said, it really did make me feel proud to be an American for just about the first time in my life. You naysayers can just eat my shorts. I’m cheering my head off.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 24, 2008 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

Tony:  I couldn’t agree with you more.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 24, 2008 at 12:16 am Link to this comment

Hey, jg, I think you right this time. I do remember Obama saying he intended to increase the overall size of the army by 65,000 troops. As a peacenik, I hope he doesn’t. I would much rather see 65,000 more people in the Peace Corps.

Report this

By cyrena, July 23, 2008 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Re Rus7355, 1 of 2

It really is ALL about perception…YOURS, as well as every single other person who posts on this site. And, less than a handful of you PERCEIVE me as whatever you’ve chosen to perceive me as, based on my writing style, and YOUR perception of the written word.

Those of you who are annoyed by my writing and communication style are simply annoyed by unvarnished truth. So, you like to claim that everything I post is my ‘opinion’ and that I have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with me. That in and of itself is a perversion, but I’ve long ago accepted that it IS your perverted perception, and that you cannot or will not accept the distinction between fact and opinion, of which my own writing is always a combination.. It’s what I do rus, and I’m hardly making apologies for it, nor will I discontinue the quest for separating the truth from the various interpretations of it. It really IS that simple.

You all cannot (or choose not) to separate these gut reaction emotional responses from the facts, and so you are incapable of critical analysis. In other words, you can only communicate as engaged in emotional tit for tat, and you miss the entire point. It’s basically lost on the few of you whom you claim to represent. You mistake a presentation of simple and complex information for arrogance, which means you miss the point.

JG’s double response here is a clear example. What I said was simple enough. There is no indication anywhere in this piece of a commitment to increasing the military by 65,000 troops, though I have read that figure elsewhere, and questioned it at the time, based on its vagueness, because I’m trained to think critically and to spot those kinds of things, which our media is full of.

Yet, because I am conscientious, I did acknowledge that JG *COULD* have meant that the 10,000 troops that actually ARE cited in this piece, might be considered as ‘thousands’ and again, that number is relative, unless you, or I, or Jersey Girl has a working knowledge of the military operation in the lawless tribal areas at the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I already know that *I* don’t. If the two of you do, than that’s just spiffy, but any of us are well within reason to question that. Her response was to indignantly confirm what I had already suggested as a possibility. In other words, I was giving her the benefit of that doubt, or an alternative way of perceiving it. Yet you people are so stuck on the emotional, that it goes right over your head. Now you call that arrogance, and I call it my observation. One that I’m certain others have shared, whether they say anything about it or not.

More importantly here rus, is that you perceive any question or observation that I put out there as my ‘opinion’ to be agreed or disagreed with, and that’s not what I’m about, nor are the majority of people who post here. So, what you term as ‘arrogance’ is simply a statement of the facts, or the circumstances, or the reality, and then my opinions about them. Now some people can take that for what it is, minus the all of the emotional and subjective input that you like to employ in ‘diagnosing’ my personality. This forum is not about my personality.

So no rus, I’m not changing my own way of communicating, because it’s required in my own field, and my literary skills are not so ambidextrous that I can write on any and ALL venues, and do it successfully. For instance, I would NEVER attempt to write literature for children, and so I would leave that to those who are far better at it than I would be. If you don’t appreciate it, (because you’ve misinterpreted it) than I can only extend a measure of sympathy, and another reminder that you really shouldn’t take it PERSONALLY, unless it is personally directed to you in respect to something *other* than the actual topic at hand.

Report this

By cyrena, July 23, 2008 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

Re rus part 2 of 2

This started out with me questioning and pointing out a few obvious things. First, that 98% of the posts from both JG and JBlack, always include some lambasting of the so-called ‘supporters’ of Obama, which is the crux of what I’ve been trying to get across to you. It’s the conflation of an emotional ideology in a black/white lumping of everything from A to Z, without the ability to separate out individual details as they apply to individual issues and circumstances. It’s a lack of an ability to do any critical thinking or analysis.  But I’m not going to discontinue my own critical thinking, (especially when it is my profession) just because these realities in all of their shades of gray are uncomfortable for you. And quite honestly, having observed the comments from literally hundreds of posters at this site, for nearly 2 years, I find your own particular group or mindset to in the minority. That doesn’t make your opinions any less valuable to the whole, at least not in respect to the topics being discussed. But *I* should not be the topic, nor should my opinions or observations ever be confused with FACTS of reality. BECAUSE, we are ALL entitled to our OPINIONS, but we aren’t entitled to create our own FACTS. Those are what they are.

Speaking of which; I’d like to recommend a book that I’ve found really helpful for sorting some of this out. It’s entitled “ Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics” by Joel Best. (I think we can attribute the original phraseology to Mark Twain). Anyway, it’s been a really helpful little book that we’ve used over an extended period of time for entry level research skills courses. It’s been around for a while, but because it’s very nature is foundational, (concepts) it has continued to be one of the best ways to introduce this conception of critical thinking and analysis.

Here’s a link to it, (which is kind of nice, since this is somewhat new…I had to purchase the book, and I see that it’s free here on the Internet now..such a deal. wink )

http://books.google.com/books?id=685UteNN_4AC&dq=Damned+Lies+and+Statistics&pg=PP1&ots=BJBFAWRBNF&sig=w4-kbZmkkibQpF5qqHcyOg2dGbA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP13,M1

I also recommended (on a different thread) the very excellent documentary film by Alex Gibney; “Taxi to the Dark Side.” It’s worth every penny of whatever it costs. (and I don’t know how much that is).

Report this

By jersey girl, July 23, 2008 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

Russ: I wholeheartedly agree with your comment.

To everyone:  Sorry about the double post. The original one didn’t post right away.  However, perhaps the gods felt it deserved repeatign smile

Report this

By jersey girl, July 23, 2008 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

cyrena: You always reveal just how well read you are NOT.  Whether he acutally does it or not of course remains to be seen. Right now we have to take him at his word, do we not?  Or is he just the big O’fabricator so many of us believe him to be?:

“This piece doesn’t say anything about multiplying the military by 65,000, though I’ve certainly read a similar figure elsewhere, and it was equally vague. It doesn’t say anything about committing THOUSANDS, of troops to Afghanistan either, even though one could argue from a semantic view, that the number ’10,000’ could be also explained as ‘thousands more’” as JG writes. 

Well, this piece DOES:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/barackobama.uselections20082?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

And yea, 10,000 IS considered thousands.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 23, 2008 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

cyrena: You are so ignorant yet profess to be so “well read”.  And there you go questioning others research.  The link to the article is below your very as per usual arrogant words… and yea 10,000 IS thousands more 10g’s, whatever you wanna call it:

“This piece doesn’t say anything about multiplying the military by 65,000, though I’ve certainly read a similar figure elsewhere, and it was equally vague. It doesn’t say anything about committing THOUSANDS, of troops to Afghanistan either, even though one could argue from a semantic view, that the number ’10,000’ could be also explained as ‘thousands more’ as JG writes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/barackobama.uselections20082?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 22, 2008 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

jersey girl,

I agree 100% with the sentiments expressed here. I hope Obama will do all of the things Kevein Zeese lists your post, and I think it is realistic to hope that he will - after the election. Progressives should bombard the Obama campaign with posts of this constructive and reasonable nature nature. But still I would say that this is not the time to hold him accountable; this is the time to get him elected. It would be nice to hear him urge Israel not to bomb Iran, but I would suspect that if there is going to be any such urging it will be done privately. The next election, four years from now, after he has been President, will be the time to hold him accountable for what he has done as President.

On withdrawal from Iraq, I think Obama is committed to do it in more or less the 16-month time frame he has consistently stuck to. We shall see how the “residual force” idea works out in practice. I think it might quickly go down to zero. I very much agree with the primary importance of non-military methods to stabilize Afghanistan, and I am fairly sure Obama’s advisors are intelligent enough to understand that.

Report this

By cyrena, July 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

by JBlack, July 22 at 5:56 am # part 1 of 2

•  “Jersey: Have you noticed how “Outraged” has not been heard from since Cyrena was outed here on TD? It truly is demented to use one login to support and congratulate ones self. That’s one sick and twisted puppy.”

~~~~~

JBlack…do you read at all, any of the other articles on this website, or do you just tune in where you think no one is likely to catch you at your perfidy? Do you have any clue to how incredibly stupid you make yourself look when you claim, (after a month of posting here) that Outraged is the same person that I am? It’s a favorite thing for you, (after your one month of posts here) totally unmindful of the fact that dozens and dozens of other readers/posters have been reading and writing here for months/years, and clearly know the difference.

I’ve gotta tell ya, Outraged is gonna be plenty pissed off when she reads this. (and, since you HADN’T noticed, she hasn’t disappeared…she’s posting everyday, and is…as usual, very informed on the subjects to which she is posting).

Too bad you arm-chair therapists like beerdoc and JG like to indulge in self-therapy by proxy. It would be far more useful for you to evaluate yourselves, instead of CONVINCING YOURSELVES, that, “It’s all about Cyrena.”  I know, I know. I’m supposed to be ‘flattered’. I’ve explained multiple times, that I am NOT. “Fans” like you of the bitter bone marrow’ I just don’t need.

Re Beer

•  “…When JBlack listed all the contradictions, or for that matter anyone else, suddenly the oracle we know and love as cyrena develops a sudden case of acute case of amnesia. She never heard of such a thing she says, where is the link?..

You’re all confused as usual beerdoc. JBlack hasn’t listed anything of any relevance to this topic YET. That’s exactly what I previously pointed out. He was going on and on about handgun laws and other stuff that has nothing to do with committing troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan.

And no, I never said that I’d ‘never heard of such a thing’. WHAT I questioned was this quote from Jersey Girl…

“….By jersey girl, July 21 at 5:03 am #
•  “…While Obama is meeting with General Betrayus,he is already committing to thousands more troops in afghanistan and multiplying the military by 65,000 more troops.

Later, she says this:

•  “…Cyrena: I guess I was assuming that you had read the article we are posting on.”
But here’s the thing beerdoc, the ‘article we are posting on’, (which *I* DID read, because unlike the rest of you, I’m from the old school that still DOES read) doesn’t claim anything of the sort. In fact, THIS is the only mention in the entire piece, of ‘troop numbers’ as suggested for this *particular* effort.

•  “Obama has promised that, if elected president in November, he will send 10,000 more US troops to Afghanistan to bolster the 36,000 already there and intends to press European countries to become more engaged in the fighting.

This is exactly what I point out about all of the careless rhetoric that comes from the likes of emotionally based ideological discourse. Like the fisherman’s tale that just keeps growing and growing these are the IED’s of the base of those ideologues. Innuendo, Exaggeration and Distortion.

This piece doesn’t say anything about multiplying the military by 65,000, though I’ve certainly read a similar figure elsewhere, and it was equally vague. It doesn’t say anything about committing THOUSANDS, of troops to Afghanistan either, even though one could argue from a semantic view, that the number ’10,000’ could be also explained as ‘thousands more’ as JG writes.

Report this

By cyrena, July 22, 2008 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2
Now of course at the end of the day, we know these details have nothing to do with the ultimate goal of you, JG or JBlack, or any of the rest of you who are only involved in posting on this site for the purposes of soothing your own personal frustrations.

Based on that, any person, (and it really wouldn’t matter if it was Barack Obama or anyone else) who would appear to be attempting something positive, even with all of the imperfections that such an effort would involve, is going to be as good a designated scapegoat as anyone else. You all just need a target, whether it’s Obama, or me, or whomever you decide. You all do the ‘designating’ and the ‘defining’ irrespective of whether or not there’s any substance to your decision, or even any connection to facts or changing circumstances. You pick a pinhead upon which to perch, and that’s where you plop your ideology, which is sealed in a way that doesn’t allow anything like the nuances of changing facts or circumstances to penetrate it. You’re incapable of understanding the context to anything, or removing your emotional bias from any of it, or even admitting to the context BASED on an inherent emotional or ideological bias.

The critical thinker can and DOES ‘adjust’ for what they know to be their own bias. In doing that, one can accomplish a more thorough analysis. But you people can’t do that, because you’re too distracted by the bullshit, that doesn’t matter to anyone OTHER THAN YOUSELVES! So, you miss the point of the entire discussion. And, to the average person who IS capable of critical thinking, your handicaps are very transparent. So it’s true that I don’t really have to ‘point them out’, but sometimes, just for the hell of it, I do. That’s what gets you all so wound up.

But, I’ll cut you some slack for a while, since I honestly do have a life that allows for and incorporates intelligent discourse with the non-ideologically handicapped. So, I’m gonna get to it.

Toodles.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 22, 2008 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

Now is the Time: Hold Barack Obama Accountable to His Promise

by Kevin Zeese  

http://www.opednews.com
 
 


In recent comments you have urged voters to “hold you accountable” and make policy demands on you.  On January 31, 2008 you said “I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.”  This is the standard we urge you live-up to - the statement for which we write to hold you accountable.

Your recent writings and speeches on Iraq indicate that you have not backtracked, and it is critical that you do not do so.  Many in the peace movement are reasonably concerned with some of your positions, particularly the incomplete withdrawal that leaves tens of thousands of residual troops in Iraq, more than 100,000 private military forces, and a combat strike force in Kuwait, while continuing to threaten Iran.  DO NOT TAKE AMERICANS OPPOSED TO WAR FOR GRANTED.  Anti-war voters - the growing majority of Americans - have many options.  We do not have to donate time or money to your campaign. We can vote for clearly anti-war third party and independent candidates or we can not vote at all.


As you travel through Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan as the putative Democratic nominee, now is the time to begin to “end the mindset” of war.  When you visit Israel, urge them to not bomb Iran; tell the Israelis and Palestinians that peace is the priority.  Urge U.S. commanders in Iraq to speed up the withdrawal that you have proposed and to make it a complete withdrawal—do not leave residual troops, mercenaries, a strike force in Kuwait or any long-term bases. When you are in Afghanistan, emphasize non-military solutions to the conflict there.  Militarism dominates U.S. statecraft. Now is the time for greater emphasis on negotiation, diplomacy, multi-lateralism and foreign aid.  The people demand it.

War is not the answer to any of these conflicts.  The U.S. is not made more secure by creating new enemies and draining our treasury.  The U.S. military budget is sapping the economic strength of the nation and making it impossible to face up to the urgent needs of a new energy economy, upgraded infrastructure, health care for all and other necessities of the American people.  When you “end the mindset” that led to the Iraq War, it will allow for a re-prioritization of resources at home and abroad, moving the U.S. away from a military economy toward a civilian one.  Now is the time to begin to end the mindset of war.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 22, 2008 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

Beer:  Normally I call them Obamatrons.  I was trying to show them some respect by calling them supporters. Oh well, so much for civility.

Jt: As far as cyrena goes. I truly believe she may have have narcissistic personality disorder with delusions of grandeur. Does this sound familiar?

“Most people with this disorder advertise themselves… They seek to be the center of attention. In search of constant approval and praise to reinforce their false grandiose sense of self, they’re “on- stage,” dominating the conversation, often exaggerating their importance.”

Yep, thought so.


Cyrena is so distraught that she can’t chase those mean people who so vehemently disagree with her away. boohooo..

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 22, 2008 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

No Jersey Girl, it is not about Obama, or that dreaded word “supporters” it is all about cyrena all the time. When JBlack listed all the contradictions, or for that matter anyone else, suddenly the oracle we know and love as cyrena develops a sudden case of acute case of amnesia. She never heard of such a thing she says, where is the link?
In the future it might be wise to strike the word “supporters” from the lexicon. Instead it might be more accurate to refer to the Obama apologists.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 22, 2008 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

cyrena: I guess I was assuming that you had read the article we are posting on here and others that have stated what obama has said in that regard.  My bad. Are you saying you haven’t noticed Obama’s war hawking?  Staying in Iraq, sending more troops to Afghanistan, willing to blow the shit out of Iran for Israel and Pakistan as well.  Wake up from that hypnotic spell he’s got you under already.

It is all about Obama and what he says.. oh yes, indeed it is.  It’s all we have to go on to vote or not vote for him is it not?

BTW I didn’t think it necessary to regurgitate such well known facts to those who keep up with what’s going on.

Report this

By cyrena, July 21, 2008 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

JG #170404
•  “While Obama is meeting with General Betrayus,he is already committing to thousands more troops in afghanistan and multiplying the military by 65,000 more troops.

No reference source for this ‘already committing’ or the numbers, or anything else. No confirmation whatsoever.

In this comment, that’s the ONLY line of anything to do with Afghanistan. Then it goes on to the normal subjective stuff about the man and the associated people, who ‘sound’ hawkish or dovish, or how nothing is changing, and most importantly of course, another mention of Obama’s “SUPPORTERS”, which has less NOTHING to do with the article referencing Obama policy or current position on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Next up -  JBlack with # 170413

•  “It’s A good thing many of Barack Obama’s supporters don’t care much about issues, because their candidate has been changing his position on them with dizzying speed.

Yep..first thing out of the gate from JBlack is Barack Obama’s SUPPORTERS.

There rest is more of the same, and doesn’t even mention the issue of troop commitments to Afghanistan/Pakistan. Nope, not a single solitary word of the entire 3,640 character post references a single mention of the topic of the article.

Now all of this has occurred on the comment thread, before *I* even post an exclamation point.

Moving along, we here from JG again, at #170439

•  “…beerdoctor: That’s exactly what his SUPPORTERS are implying….That he is much smarter than we mere peons and that it’s all an “act” to get him elected….”

Are we seeing a pattern here? (I’ve certainly read this in each and every post). Maybe I should interject that at this point in the thread, *I* still haven’t posted a word, and not a single other comment to this point, identifies the poster as an ‘Obama supporter’, nor do any of them seem to be at all ‘supportive’ of this particular position on Afghanistan.

And again, JG in #170442

•  “…I almost forot Pakistan…. From Obama’s own lips to your ears;”

She –fogot- Pakistan…minor detail of course. No matter that’s the seat of the daily suicide bombings taking place all over Afghanistan, or that they have that little bomb. But, that’s all she says on this one, choosing to provide a quote she says is from Obama, though of course there’s never a reference to where it came from. No matter. The good news is, she actually quoted him, and not his ‘supporters’.

Ah…finally, (I) Cyrena post something, at #170447, which is primarily comprised of an opinion taken from another web site, that actually discusses the ISSUES, rather than “Obama” or his ‘SUPPORTERS’. And so I preface the poster (Edward’s) comments with this:

•  “…While one certainly wouldn’t know it by the comments posted here, there actually *is* an on-going and very informative discussion about this position respective to Afghanistan/Pakistan, at the International Relations Forum..”

Now of course the reason I said this, was because so many comments had already been posted here, and with the exception of a few, the reference was to ‘the man – Obama’ (and of course his ‘SUPPORTERS’)  and NOT to the issue of this commitment to Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Then I went on to say that while some of the forum members on the IR forum from which I was quoting, ‘might’ be considered to be supporters of Obama’s candidacy, there was a very sharp distinction between the context of their comments in discussing the ISSUES, (many of whom do not agree with this position, and a few who do) and the content of SOME of the comments here on TD, which have ZERO to do with the issue, and everything to do with Obama and his ‘SUPPORTERS”. ‘SUPPORTERS’ as having been ‘defined’ by JG,  rather than the ones that are actually being so defined.

And then I proceed to post the very excellent comment from Edward over at the IR forum. (sorry I didn’t have space for others from that forum…all are good and insightful comments).

Report this

By cyrena, July 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

Moving along, my own post is IMMEDIATELY followed with this, (more from JBlack at #170450)

•  “..Cyrena: I bet if asked most here would say they’re tired of your self-righteous, bombastic and pretentious sermons.”

Same standard personal attacks from JBlack. (after my ONE post) He bet if he ‘asked most here’…blah, blah.  Now this is the same guy who spilled tons of ink on this site, accusing me of being another poster Outraged, and went on and on with a castigation of how ‘loathsome’ I was to be maintaining multiple identities. So JBlack, should we ask Outraged as well? How about Louise? (JG accused me of being Louise AND Outraged).

Fits the pattern of the standard ideological stalker, filled with rage against SPECIFIC PERSONS, (lucky me) for REASONS UNKNOWN! In fact, there would almost seem to be NO OTHER PURPOSE for the presence of JBlack on this forum, other than to…ATTACK ME!

Moving along after just one single post that doesn’t ‘support’ the suggestion of escalating the military presence in South Asia, but does provide a link to an article which provides another context, we get JG AGAIN. (mind you, I’ve made just the ONE comment so far, and my own is not a ‘support’ of this position either, since I’ve got plenty of qualms of my own.)

•  “…  Calling our opinions (which is what we are supposed to give here on each individual article) emotionally immature because they don’t gel with the person in question’s opinion, is in itself, emotionally immature.”

More hysteria, same old lame allegations that any of this is a matter of who ‘agrees’ with who’s opinion. Telling that JG claims this is what ‘we are SUPPOSED to do.” I wonder if those are the instructions from the ‘center’ where they also give the creative writing courses? Rehab maybe? Are the repugs so desperate they’re using rehab residents to do the swiftboating tactics this time around?

Then, she proves my point again, about the histrionics, and the hate-Obama agenda, while she flips off the padded walls,

•  “…It’s the man who is running for president that is making all the right wing war mongering statements that has turned his base against him. If he loses to McCain, it’s because he said f*** you to those of us who would have supported him otherwise…”

Well, I’ve never heard Obama tell his base to fuck themselves, (maybe he told her that privately) and I would debate the contention that he’s ‘tuned his base against him’. It’s clear that he’s turned Jersey Girl against him though, in a really HUGE way. That kind of hate energy could power a triple-decker 747 stretch.

But alas…the story never plays out (despite these dozens and dozens of posts) to find out exactly what it is, that Obama DID to JG, to get her all worn out and hysterical.

And so, we end it again, with the same old common thread *attacking his ‘supporters’* ( always me, though I remain unnamed these days, after one of her last unruly diatribes) with this in #170475:

•  “…Many of us long ago noticed that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But those that refuse to admit that fact prefer to defensively call us names instead of demanding accountability from their candidate…”

Humm, ‘those who refuse to admit the FACT that Emperor Obama has no clothes…now who might THEY be? Well, according to JG here, it’s the same people who (defensively?? what the hell?) call her and her ‘support team’ *names* (not sure what names, since she doesn’t say) instead of DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY from (presumably) Emperor Obama.

And there we have the latest saga of Alice in the Rabbit Hole. Whew!

Now, if anybody has any energy left after following THAT dramatic route of the rabbit through the hole, ya’ll better get out there and DEMAND SOME ACCOUNTABILITY from Emperor Obama! Dammit! And tell him to put on some clothes! He’s just got JG in such a sweat.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2008 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

jg,

Another reason for my equanimity is that no matter what Obama says, what he actually does will depend on unforseen conditions starting the day he takes office. So I don’t pay that much attention to it. I have already made the judgment that he will be a good president. I might very well be wrong, but we won’t find out one way or another until he has been in office for a while. Right now I’m feeling optimistic.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2008 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

Re jersey girl, July 21 at 5:09 pm #

jg,

The way I see it, I’m way over on the left side of his coalition but I’m still part of it. I’m trying to move it in the most progressive direction possible. But as long as I’m part of it, Obama is my leader. Just at the moment I’m very happy about the joyful reception he’s getting on his world tour, which I think represents the good will of a lot of people everywhere.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 21, 2008 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

tony: When he’s president it will be too late. We aren’t even able to hold our congress accountable how will you hold the president accountable?

  Are you telling me there is nothing the man has said that you feel is a betrayal to progressives that you should be calling him on now?  Not even his terrorist fear mongering, his aipac pandering, his nafta flip flopping or even his FISA vote?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2008 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

Re jersey girl, July 21 at 2:23 pm #


dihey:  Thank you for your support. Many of us long ago noticed that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But those that refuse to admit that fact prefer to defensively call us names instead of demanding accountability from their candidate.
——————————————————————————-
What “accountability”? He hasn’t even done anything yet. I’m willing to wait until he’s President at least.

Report this

By Marshall, July 21, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

“without any plan of how to end it all.”

dihey, Can you please explain what “it” is?  Terrorism?  U.S. troop involvement in Afghanistan?  U.S. troop involvement anywhere outside our borders? ...

Report this

By jersey girl, July 21, 2008 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

dihey:  Thank you for your support. Many of us long ago noticed that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But those that refuse to admit that fact prefer to defensively call us names instead of demanding accountability from their candidate.

Report this

By dihey, July 21, 2008 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Jersey Girl: you remind me of the wonderful Christian Anderson’s story in which the child calls out: “But he is naked!” Keep yelling Jersey Girl, I will shout with you that this Obama is a gigantic fraud who plans to move the obscene killing fields from Iraq to Afghanistan without any plan of how to end it all.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2008 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

By thebeerdoctor, July 21 at 1:08 am #

“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your riffle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.”
RUDYARD KIPLING
——————————————————————————-
As quoted by Michael Scheuer, the chief of the CIA bin Laden desk from 1996 to 1999. At the beginning of his book, Imperial Hubris. I was very impressed by that book when it came out because of the way it portrays bin Laden as a noble, courageous warrior for his people, perhaps the greatest Muslim military leader since Salahudin. I like Kipling and I found Scheur’s book to be very well written. I was also following the bin Laden videotapes closely and I found bin Laden’s political perspective fascinating - his idea of a “Crusader-Zionist alliance” really piqued my imagination. Scheuer portrays 9-11 as a strategic master-stroke by bin Laden intended to draw the U.S. into a quagmire in Afghanistan where he thought he could defeat them as the USSR was defeated. Iraq he portrays as an unexpected Christmas present for bin Laden, giving the U.S. two quagmires instead of one and uniting the whole Muslim world against it. This still seems plausible. But somewhere along the line I lost faith in both Scheuer and bin Laden. Scheuer is after all CIA, and therefore an agent of disinformation, however charming I found that book. And however charming I found the heroic portait of bin Laden, I now suspect him of being no more than an international criminal who has had connections with the CIA and the ISI since the late 80’s.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2008 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

I think the key is to have international institutions such as the World Court where charges of terrorism are brought and consequences prescribed which are sanctioned by the international community and enforced by an internationally sanctioned force. Someday we might find Bush and bin Laden standing trial there together.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 21, 2008 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment

The problem with equivocating a candidate’s idiotic positions, you eventually become an alibi shill for policies that never had any grounding in reality in the first place. Thus, if you advocate escalating war in a country so poor it has 70% unemployment, as part of a so-called “war on terror”, you reveal what an inhuman misguided simpleton you truly are. It reminds me of the late, former Cincinnati Reds owner, Marge Schott, who said this famous remark about Adolph Hitler: “He was good. At first. Then he went too far.”

Report this

By jersey girl, July 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

Hmmmm…Interesting.  Calling our opinions (which is what we are supposed to give here on each individual article) emotionally immature because they don’t gel with the person in question’s opinion, is in itself, emotionally immature.

It’s the man who is running for president that is making all the right wing war mongering statements that has turned his base against him. If he loses to McCain, it’s because he said f*** you to those of us who would have supported him otherwise.

Report this

By Sol, July 21, 2008 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

I thought first of all that OBama was a Democrat, now I know that along with Pelosi’s mafia he is a Republican as well. Furthermore I thought he was smarter than the iliterate George Bush and the idiot John McCain, you know the one with Pakistan bordering Iraq!! Now I know that Obama is probably worse. He is going to put the US on the list of defeated Empires in Afghanistan!! Really smart Mr. Obama. I cannot wait.

Report this

By eliana, July 21, 2008 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Assuming that your Afghanistan memories are just as hazy as ours, we’ve taken the liberty of putting together a little refresher course on America’s “other war” that was pushed out of the headlines by our quest for cheap oil to liberate the Iraqi people: http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/20/remember_afghanistana_walk_dow_1_7820.php

Report this

By cyrena, July 21, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

While one certainly wouldn’t know it by the comments posted here, there actually *is* an on-going and very informative discussion about this position respective to Afghanistan/Pakistan, at the International Relations Forum at the mybarackobama site. (this and *multiple* other public forums were formulated nearly 2 years ago, at the initiation of the campaign)

That said, there is a wide range of opinion about foreign policy (on multi-issues) just among the constituency of Democrats in America. Some of these people *may* be active supporters of Obama, but in reading the comments, we are struck by the huge difference between the discussions among them, and what passes for discussion based on the comments so far posted on this particular (and other) threads at TD, involving the same emotionally based rhetoric that has everything to do about ‘the man’ rather than the issues or the concepts worthy of public discourse.

In other words, these discussions on these forums are actually about the issues, and there is a wide range of opinion, from those who agree to those who don’t, across the spectrum. The discussion is productive and informative simply because it bypasses this emotionally immature bias, the ‘gottcha’ - HE said this, or HE said that.

So, I’ll share a few excepts

“Subject: Obama’s foreign policy

What might be a potential problem with Obama’s foreign policy as currently stated is the expressed willingness to increase military operations in Afghanistan.  Some argue this is necessary to continue the “war on terror”.  Others argue that it will lead to nothing more than another Vietnam quagmire.  Within the Democratic party, there are strong viewpoints in both directions.  If one is on the side of non -interventionism, believing that troops should be brought home, that foreign wars are too expensive and that the money can be spent better at home, then a substantial escalation of hostilities, and American casualties, in Afghanistan and Waziristan is a problem. If one is on the side of the house that is in favor of war, arguing that the war in Iraq was mis-managed, but that the “real” war should have been fought in Afghanistan, then the policy seems to be OK.  In any case, apart from quibbling over strategy in Iraq, there seems to be virtually no difference between Obama and McCain over Afghanistan.  They both are calling for a substantial increase in U.S. military expenditures and intervention.” 

(cont - switch to trade)
“As a consequence, discussions of the differences between the two candidates in foreign policy might profitably look elsewhere:  international trade is a good candidate.  In international trade policy, there is a severe and distinctive difference in philosophy separating the two candidates, with Obama taking a more stridently nationalistic tone, which translates into less focus on unbridled so- called “free trade” and more focus on health and safety regulations, labor rights, modification of tax incentives for companies that export.

jobs, and other strategies for industrial policy, including a much stronger government role in getting out of this self-inflicted energy crisis by promoting a new generation of energy infrastructure creation.  McCain on the other hand is still clinging blindly to the “free enterprise” argument, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of complete free market failure.  If people still think the free market is the best option, look at our current situation!

In my view, this is a more fruitful discussion than getting bogged down into an endless discussion of how FAST we should escalate military operations in the re mote foothills of Pakistan and Afghanistan while at home mothers are taking food from their children to pay for gas.”

Posted by Edward

Report this

By jersey girl, July 21, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

I almost forot Pakistan…. From Obama’s own lips to your ears;

“The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.”

Vote Obama - Vote McCain..vote endless war.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 21, 2008 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

beerdoctor: That’s exactly what his supporters are implying.  That he is much smarter than we mere peons and that it’s all an “act” to get him elected.  THEN when he’s president, he will reverse his support for the policies that are very right wing and upsetting his base.  OR that they will hold him accountable if he doesn’t. Probably just like the ‘06 congress was held accountable. 

I stopped believing in fairytales when I found out Santa and the Easter Bunny weren’t real.

Report this

By C Quil, July 21, 2008 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

Not satisfied with inheriting a second-hand war in Iraq, Obama seems determined to spearhead his very own quagmire in Afghanistan.

So - how is he different?

Report this

By msgmi, July 21, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

McCain wanted to ‘bomba’ Iran and now O’Bama is talking of more ‘bomba’ for Afghanistan…both candidates are in strategic denial and are pandering to the macho-voter. Ghengis Khan had more common sense and strategic vision: attack, destroy, pillage, and leave with no spin.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 21, 2008 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

As everyone who has posted on this thread knows, “watch out for what you wish for, you just might get it.” JBlack lays out in almost chronological order the contradictions that I discovered too, but when you state this to the Obama supporters, they also question your veracity. (Don’t like the message, so attack the messenger eh?)
Believe me, I wish I hadn’t discovered what I found. I wish that the Illinois Senator was that new political force for change that his rhetoric and image purport to be. But obviously this is not the case, unless you believe what he says now is lying, and when he gets into office he will pull some big abracadabra… good luck on that.

Report this

By webbedouin, July 21, 2008 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

Be not decieved, you will not get Peace or Progress by voting Democrap or Repugnican.

McCain & Obama bring more of the same, these are corporate candidates.  Brought to you by the Military Industrial Entertainment Complex.

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 21, 2008 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the Kipling quote, beerdoc.

You’re kidding me, right?  The guy has Air Force Change?  Sorry, that’s tacky.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 21, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

While Obama is meeting with General Betrayus,he is already committing to thousands more troops in afghanistan and multiplying the military by 65,000 more troops. Where would they be coming from, I ask?  A draft?  Of course he has already stated he will be leaving “residual” forces in Iraq, whatever that means.  All the while, taking the administration’s route of pumping up the volume on the “Iran is a threat” rhethoric. 

Sounds very war hawkish to me. Not surprising considering his advisors are Brezinski and Albright.  Not exactly two doves. 

I see more of the same “we have to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” bs from Obama.
Of course, his supporters would say it’s all an act just so he can get elected.

I wouldn’t say that. I wouldn’t say that at all.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 21, 2008 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your riffle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.”
RUDYARD KIPLING

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.