I have waited so long for this. So long. One of the things I’ll never forgive 
Bush for is that he let Bin Laden get away. The man and the network responsible for the worst terror attack in our history still breathes, and its an insult to the dead and their loved ones every day that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are still around.
President Barack Obama on Friday is to unveil a new offensive against terror havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, aiming to deal a death blow to Al-Qaeda more than seven years after the September 11 attacks.
To win a war aides said was “adrift” the new president will dispatch 4,000 extra troops to train the Afghan army, on top of 17,000 deployments already authorized, in a bold move in defiance of critics who fear a quagmire.
Obama also will send hundreds more civilian officials into Afghanistan and stump up billions of dollars of extra aid to help anti-terror ally Pakistan secure its democracy, senior administration officials said.
“It is a clear, concise, attainable goal, and that goal is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda in its safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.
I can’t wait to hear how Jay and Dennis will criticize Obama for going after the actual perpetrator of 9/11. I’m guessing it’ll be a throw-back to the 90’s, and the IOKIYAR philosophy that only Republican presidents are allowed to utilize the military, and when Dem presidents do so it’s actually not “fighting for our freedoms,” but “nation building.”
That sad, thank God adults are back in charge of America. Time to get this mofo.
err, “that said” even.
Sorry, Jaim, I’ll just repeat the old aphorism that “amateurs study battles, experts study logistics.” I’ll be interested to see how Obama fights the battle in Afghanistan after alienating/losing most of the nations that surround Afghanistan and, therefore, control the logistics of the war.
Pakistan, China, Iran, Russia, the various ’stans…
I agree that Obama has the right idea with Afghanistan. I just worry that he’s managed to cripple our ability to sustain them. Look at the base-leasing mess with Kazakhstan, just for example — Russia managed to outmaneuver us over those.
J.
“I’ll be interested to see how Obama fights the battle in Afghanistan after alienating/losing most of the nations that surround Afghanistan and, therefore, control the logistics of the war.”
You’re deranged. Iran is one of their neighbors, and there are signs that they are (in a limited way) paying more (positive) attention to America. The Iranians hate the Taliban, and there’s a potential for some behind-the-scenes intelligence exchange that would have been impossible under child-like “axis of evil” policies.
Pakistan? Pakistan collapsed deeper into a pro-terror state under Bush II’s watch.
The whole freakin’ point of Obama wanting to get bin Laden is that he will no longer be beholden guys like Musharaf (sp.). Bush didn’t lift a finger without making sure he wouldn’t piss off his oil-buddies in Saudi Arabia. We don’t have that in Obama.
To put it another way, Bush II mangled Afghanistan. Absolute failure. The freakin’ Taliban are back in power for God’s sake!
And you’re criticizing Obama, after two months in power, for making the capture or death of bin Laden a policy point?
The limiting of the goals is encouraging. They may after all NOT be a people hungering for the Jeffersonian ideals of republicanism and populist democracy. Who knew.
Beautiful! I also can’t wait to hear Obama spell out his plan.
I’m hoping he takes the the hard-line, no nonsense approach taken by all other liberal president in the past.
So, let’s sit back, pop a cold one, and enjoy the show.
Oh, and let’s not forget that right now 4,000 soldiers in Ft. Bragg are packing up and heading to Afghanistan.
“I’m hoping he takes the the hard-line, no nonsense approach taken by all other liberal president in the past.”
Like our last president who was too terrified of Musharif to actually go in and get bin Laden?
If by “liberal” presidents you mean Dem, I’d suggest you Google “World War II.” Here’s a hint — it wasn’t Herbert Hoover who was in charge at the time.
I’m hoping he takes the the hard-line, no nonsense approach taken by all other liberal president in the past.
“Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Inside U.S.”
Dumbass.
Laden
Sorry, but prior to, and including John Kennedy, those Democrats weren’t liberals.
Sorry, but prior to, and including John Kennedy, those Democrats weren’t liberals.
Well, just because you thought Japanese Internment was, like, totally awesome, doesn’t mean that a few of FDR’s programs didn’t lean left.
Also, I’m pretty sure a non-liberal was in charge on August 6, 2001. Dumbass.
those Democrats weren’t liberals.
Social Security. The New Deal. WPA. Yes, very conservative of FDR. Idiot.
Social Security. The New Deal. WPA. Yes, very conservative of FDR.
Indeed, looks like we can have joaquin’s support for similar initiatives from President Obama. Huzzah!
Jay- Obama did not lose the base in Kyrgyzstan (I am guessign you mean this incident…), that was in the works long before the election, let alone inauguration. Thanks for the talking point, though… Usually you make better points than that.
See:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/03/14/just-imagine-3/
Say what you want about Larison. Liberal / Democrat / Left-Wing aren’t 3 of them.
“Sorry, but prior to, and including John Kennedy, those Democrats weren’t liberals.”
I’m pretty sure if you go bace and check, that’s not what the contemporary conservatives were saying.
Name calling, the last bastion of a small mind, Mr. Wills.
If you know anything about any of those programs, which you obviously don’t, you would recognize that they were not intended to be the monsters they have become under modern liberalism.
Now run along.
You guys just don’t understand where joaquin is coming from. The FDR who passed progressive reforms and extended the great depression (my all-time favorite wingnut talking point) was a liberal. The one who won WWII was clearly a conservative. It’s just a simple extrapolation from the basic meme of “Liberal=bad, Conservative=good”. When possible, just change what is bad to good and vice versa, if not just change who is liberal and conservative.
Mark my words, this will eventually lead joaquin and his ilk to define George W Bush as a “liberal president”.
The WPA doesn’t exist any more.
And you’re trying to argue that FDR was a closet conservative. The guy who enacted Social Security and the New Deal. I’d love to know where you got your degree in American history.
Calling you a dumbass isn’t the mark of a small mind, it’s pointing out the obvious.
“And you’re trying to argue that FDR was a closet conservative.”
When did I even insinuate that, Mr. Jaim? WAAAA HAAAA HAAA!
Go back to remedial reading.
One of the things I’ll never forgive Bush for is that he let Bin Laden get away.
He had to. Bin Ladin’s father called in a favor.
“You DO remember who took Armbuster off your hands, right George?”
Name calling, the last bastion of a small mind, Mr. Wills.
Go back to remedial reading.
ed, you’re grasping at non existing straws, but since it’s Friday and I’m in a great mood, allow me to assist you.
name-call⋅ing
–noun
the use of abusive names to belittle or humiliate another person in a political campaign, an argument, etc.
Asking someone to ‘go back to remedial reading’ doesn’t apply.
*clap* *clap*
Nice try.
joaquin, March 27, 2009 at 10:17 am
Sorry, but prior to, and including John Kennedy, those Democrats weren’t liberals.
Sorry, but you’ll have to provide some sort of proof for this wild assed unfounded statement if you expect it to be taken as anything but standard Republican’t willful inaccuracy.
Were they not liberals in your opinion, or are you actually trying to pretend that there is a factual basis for your kimchee? Are you trying to make some sort of claim that they were not liberals here, without providing anything to back up your contention?
Republican’ts unequivocally stating something as fact, and expecting it to be taken as fact, never has cut it around here. I can’t believe Republican’ts like Joaquim still think they can pull bullshit like this out of their asses and expect it to be treated with anything but the derision it deserves.
Asking someone to ‘go back to remedial reading’ doesn’t apply.
I imply, you infer. (Get it?)
Joaquin, your trolling is showing.
Tom, sorry to burst your bubble, but I quit the Republican party years ago. You will now have to start over.
Michael Over Here – I come here for sport and entertainment and it’s a hoooot!
Sorry, but prior to, and including John Kennedy, those Democrats weren’t liberals.
Joaquin, here’s a few quotes for you from that totally-non-liberal-at-all president FDR. And yes, ten more seconds on google.
-”A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.”
-”I do not look upon these United States as a finished product. We are still in the making.”
-”I believe that in every country the people themselves are more peaceably and liberally inclined than their governments.”
-”A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.”
-”If I went to work in a factory the first thing I’d do is join a union.”
-”The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.”
Yeah, claiming FDR wasn’t liberal is a brand new brand of stupid. I mean, it was one brand of dumb to try and pretend like the New Deal didnt alleviate the Hoover Depression, but to pretend FDR wasn’t liberal. That’s something.
joaquin: “Tom, sorry to burst your bubble, but I quit the Republican party years ago. You will now have to start over.”
Good lord, what party did you join? And if this is you post-Republican, I would hate to have seen you as a full member.
Tom, sorry to burst your bubble, but I quit the Republican party years ago. You will now have to start over.
Which is kind of weird since you espouse everything the modern Republican party is about.
Did you get my last comment, “I imply, you infer”?
I thought claiming MLK for their own was the pinnacle of asshatery. Guess I stand corrected.
@ joaquin:
Run along? It’s HIS blog, dumbass.
joaquin, March 27, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Tom, sorry to burst your bubble, but I quit the Republican party years ago. You will now have to start over.
If it walks, talks, and throws around Republican’t bullshit without a shred of proof (or even a basis in reality), then it can say it’s not a Republican’t all it wants – and we’ll know that it’s just some more Republican’t bullshit from a Republican’t.
Funny how you’ve ‘quit the Republican’t party’, but you still spout their mindless dreck. Almost like your deeds don’t match your words.
I would also like to point out to the studio audience that Joaquim still has not provided any sort of proof about his wild asses claim that Democrats were not liberals up to and including Kennedy, and still bobs and weaves when asked to put up or shut up. How about it, Limbaugh licker? Are you going to try and use, you know, facts and stuff, to try and validate your bullshit claim? Or are you just going to continue with the same Republican’t strategery we’ve come to know so well?
Perhaps it would be a bit better if you were to take your own advice, and start over.
Smarter Republican’ts pretending to be independent while spouting mindless Republican’t bullshit, please…
Oliver, I think it’s time once again for the “Chill the F* out” Pic from the DN Convention….please post!!! Barack’s got this!!!
“Tom, sorry to burst your bubble, but I quit the Republican party years ago.”
Better long-term career opportunities in the Klan, obviously.
Amazing. As bad as joaquin’s historical revision attempt is, it’s JayTea that takes the cake. Joaquin reached back a long way to revise. JayTea covered a very recent period covering 8 years ago to present. Not only did he transfer blame for a broad range of Bush era policy fuckups to Obama, he claimed Obama’s current course is the right one (even though Obama is too incompetent to pull it off) when he was an active cheerleader for the Bush era policies that were the exact opposite essentially led to the magnitude of the problem. Just WOW.
Tom, sorry to burst your bubble, but I quit the Republican party years ago. You will now have to start over.
Really? Who’d you vote for in the general election? Did you even vote? And if not, why do you hate America? And freedom?
ahhhh
I miss the insanity of this site.