Former Vice President Cheney has critisized President Obama for not making a decision faster about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Chenny has accused Obama of "dithering." Is Cheney right?
Cheney has no credibility! The draft dodger! He would love it if we flexed our muscle to the rest of the world, whether or not there is an attainable goal in sight, a strategy and plan for exit, post security and stability. What Cheney hates is that President Obama does not act rashly when it it comes to committing our men and women to a course of action that could very clearly cost them their lives. Cheney is looking for support and maybe even thanks for his debacle in getting us out of Afghanistan, where we needed to be, and into Iraq. Of course, Haliburton made a truck load on money on Iraq. Cheney knows who his friends are. He's got their back!
Instead of attacking the source of the criticism, wouldn't it be more productive to consider the substance of what Cheney said? What is taking Obama so long to make a decision? How much study does this matter take? If Afghanistan is a "war of necessity," then let's get on with it. Cheney is right. Obama is dithering.
Obama is taking time to "get it right." When it comes to risking American lives, this is a good thing. By the way, most Americans aren't eager to escalate troops in Afghanistan. At a minimum, I want my President to look at all options, the cost in terms of human life and our resources and the likeihood of achieving success. And there is nothing wrong in disregarding the advice, sentiments or opinions of someone who got it so terribly wrong and cost us so dearly. If Cheney were a NFL football coach, he would have been fired long ago. If that is criticizing the messenger, so be it.
I hope that all of these Democrats "ganging up" against you with regard to Cheney doesn't cause you to abandon this blog; however, I think it is very difficult in this instance not to consider the messenger when considering the message.
The following is an excerpt from the NY Times that relates to the arm twisting by President Obama, a United Nations backed panel and American and European backed countries to pressure Afghan Leader Karzai to accept a re-count of votes in Afghan's election. Diplomacy at work!
In Afghanistan, you take your victories where you can get them, even if, as was the case in Kabul last week, victory amounts to little more than a catastrophe averted...
Eight years after the American-led coalition pushed the Taliban from Kabul, democracy in Afghanistan is still a very fragile thing. So fragile, indeed, that the deadlock last week seemed to raise fundamental questions about the wisdom and the direction of the American-led project here.
The political deadlock — precipitated first by the fraud and then by Mr. Karzai’s refusal to recognize it — unfolded just as President Obama was debating whether to grant a request by his chief field commander here, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to dispatch as many as 40,000 additional troops. Those new soldiers and marines would join the 65,000 Americans, and the roughly 35,000 Europeans, already here.
In his report to the president, General McChrystal warned that the Western-backed project in Afghanistan could fall without a fresh infusion of men and material. But the astonishing level of fraud perpetrated on Mr. Karzai’s behalf, coupled with his near-refusal to accept the election results, might reasonably be expected to prompt Americans to wonder exactly what those extra troops would be fighting for. Mr. Karzai’s government is already widely seen as among the most corrupt in the world.
The Obama administration seemed to be pondering just those issues. Last week, as the political crisis in Kabul was unfolding, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, made clear that President Obama would hold off on General McChyrstal’s request until the political deadlock in Kabul was resolved. Mr. Emanuel suggested that Mr. Obama would not want to dispatch more Americans to fight and die for a government widely seen as illegitimate by the Afghan people.
“It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven’t done a thorough analysis of whether there’s an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create,” Mr. Emanuel said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?”...
Beyond the politics is the war itself. The Taliban, feeding off the widespread discontent with Mr. Karzai’s government, is now stronger than they have been at any point since 2001. American soldiers and marines are dying at a faster rate than ever before. The ability of the Afghan state to govern — to keep order, to build roads, to deliver basic services — is virtually nonexistent outside the capital.
Ultimately, the events of last week demonstrated that politics in Kabul and the war in the countryside are inextricably intertwined. As Mr. Emanuel suggested, no number of foreign troops can defeat the Taliban unless the government they are defending retains the support of ordinary Afghans.
No need to worry about me abandoning this blog. Frankly, I enjoy "discussing" issues with my Northville Democratic neighbors. I was surprised to learn that there are Democrats in Northville let alone that you are organized into a club. I looked for a Northville Republican club but I couldn't find one. Does one exist?
Please keep in mind that although I am a proud Republican, I am not a Limbaugh, Beck or Fox news Republican. However, I am for small government and low taxes. I was shocked when Northville residents passed the bond issue to purchase the hospital property.
The issues that you present are interesting and worthy of comment. Keep up the good work.
Obama "looking at options" in Afghanistan before responding to his Generals? Isn't The National Security apparatus supposed to be looking at all options all the time, and be ready? What has changed? The election and political corruption? Did anyone in the Obama Admistartion REALLY think that politicians there were saints? ... Well, they were ready, having considered all options, to be ready to nominate a Supreme Court candidate in a very short time (and I applaud that). But, not for a decision in the "war of necessity", as the President has called it. Go figure. Go call it "being indecisive", if you don't like the word "dithering". ... Another Proud Republican (Good to know Northville has more than one!)
Obama is not dithering. Being the radical liberal that he is, he is adverse to using US military power under most all circumstances and really does not like being in Afghanistan at all. During the campaign, he used his "Afghanistan is the right war / Iraq is the wrong war" meme as a way to get elected and to not appear soft on national security which is a political weakness with all Democrats. Everything Obama does is done with a purpose in mind and he has no intentions of staying in Afghanistan and winning the war against the Taliban. That's why we will soon hear him saying that (a) Bush wasn't up front with us during the transition and things are worse than we thought and (b) I tried in my first month to send some troops but I was misled and this didn't work so we are pulling out of Afghanistan.
If you don't agree that Obama is a calculating radical leftist, then you are left with realizing that he is a very inexperienced leader and perhaps he truly does not know what to do in Afghanistan which is equally scary.
But for those of you who voted for him -- it was clear to the rest of us that (a) he is a radical and (b) he is inexperienced. We tried to tell you this but you would not listen.
Obama is a centrist. He may lack foreign policy experience but he has the intelligence to analyze complex situations, seek council and build coalitions before risking American lives. I applaud him. As for the Proud Republican's comment on the purchase of the hospital property. I too voted against it for numerous reasons.
Cheney has no credibility! The draft dodger! He would love it if we flexed our muscle to the rest of the world, whether or not there is an attainable goal in sight, a strategy and plan for exit, post security and stability. What Cheney hates is that President Obama does not act rashly when it it comes to committing our men and women to a course of action that could very clearly cost them their lives. Cheney is looking for support and maybe even thanks for his debacle in getting us out of Afghanistan, where we needed to be, and into Iraq. Of course, Haliburton made a truck load on money on Iraq. Cheney knows who his friends are. He's got their back!
ReplyDeleteCheney is a gift to Obama. He has been completely discredited. Unfortunately, even the GOP doesn't claim him as one of their own.
ReplyDeleteInstead of attacking the source of the criticism, wouldn't it be more productive to consider the substance of what Cheney said? What is taking Obama so long to make a decision? How much study does this matter take? If Afghanistan is a "war of necessity," then let's get on with it. Cheney is right. Obama is dithering.
ReplyDeleteObama is taking time to "get it right." When it comes to risking American lives, this is a good thing. By the way, most Americans aren't eager to escalate troops in Afghanistan. At a minimum, I want my President to look at all options, the cost in terms of human life and our resources and the likeihood of achieving success. And there is nothing wrong in disregarding the advice, sentiments or opinions of someone who got it so terribly wrong and cost us so dearly. If Cheney were a NFL football coach, he would have been fired long ago. If that is criticizing the messenger, so be it.
ReplyDeleteDear Proud Republican:
ReplyDeleteI hope that all of these Democrats "ganging up" against you with regard to Cheney doesn't cause you to abandon this blog; however, I think it is very difficult in this instance not to consider the messenger when considering the message.
The following is an excerpt from the NY Times that relates to the arm twisting by President Obama, a United Nations backed panel and American and European backed countries to pressure Afghan Leader Karzai to accept a re-count of votes in Afghan's election. Diplomacy at work!
ReplyDeleteIn Afghanistan, you take your victories where you can get them, even if, as was the case in Kabul last week, victory amounts to little more than a catastrophe averted...
Eight years after the American-led coalition pushed the Taliban from Kabul, democracy in Afghanistan is still a very fragile thing. So fragile, indeed, that the deadlock last week seemed to raise fundamental questions about the wisdom and the direction of the American-led project here.
The political deadlock — precipitated first by the fraud and then by Mr. Karzai’s refusal to recognize it — unfolded just as President Obama was debating whether to grant a request by his chief field commander here, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to dispatch as many as 40,000 additional troops. Those new soldiers and marines would join the 65,000 Americans, and the roughly 35,000 Europeans, already here.
In his report to the president, General McChrystal warned that the Western-backed project in Afghanistan could fall without a fresh infusion of men and material. But the astonishing level of fraud perpetrated on Mr. Karzai’s behalf, coupled with his near-refusal to accept the election results, might reasonably be expected to prompt Americans to wonder exactly what those extra troops would be fighting for. Mr. Karzai’s government is already widely seen as among the most corrupt in the world.
The Obama administration seemed to be pondering just those issues. Last week, as the political crisis in Kabul was unfolding, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, made clear that President Obama would hold off on General McChyrstal’s request until the political deadlock in Kabul was resolved. Mr. Emanuel suggested that Mr. Obama would not want to dispatch more Americans to fight and die for a government widely seen as illegitimate by the Afghan people.
“It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven’t done a thorough analysis of whether there’s an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create,” Mr. Emanuel said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?”...
Beyond the politics is the war itself. The Taliban, feeding off the widespread discontent with Mr. Karzai’s government, is now stronger than they have been at any point since 2001. American soldiers and marines are dying at a faster rate than ever before. The ability of the Afghan state to govern — to keep order, to build roads, to deliver basic services — is virtually nonexistent outside the capital.
Ultimately, the events of last week demonstrated that politics in Kabul and the war in the countryside are inextricably intertwined. As Mr. Emanuel suggested, no number of foreign troops can defeat the Taliban unless the government they are defending retains the support of ordinary Afghans.
Hello Northville Democratic Club Blog:
ReplyDeleteNo need to worry about me abandoning this blog. Frankly, I enjoy "discussing" issues with my Northville Democratic neighbors. I was surprised to learn that there are Democrats in Northville let alone that you are organized into a club. I looked for a Northville Republican club but I couldn't find one. Does one exist?
Please keep in mind that although I am a proud Republican, I am not a Limbaugh, Beck or Fox news Republican. However, I am for small government and low taxes. I was shocked when Northville residents passed the bond issue to purchase the hospital property.
The issues that you present are interesting and worthy of comment. Keep up the good work.
Obama "looking at options" in Afghanistan before responding to his Generals? Isn't The National Security apparatus supposed to be looking at all options all the time, and be ready? What has changed? The election and political corruption? Did anyone in the Obama Admistartion REALLY think that politicians there were saints? ... Well, they were ready, having considered all options, to be ready to nominate a Supreme Court candidate in a very short time (and I applaud that). But, not for a decision in the "war of necessity", as the President has called it. Go figure. Go call it "being indecisive", if you don't like the word "dithering". ... Another Proud Republican (Good to know Northville has more than one!)
ReplyDeleteObama is not dithering. Being the radical liberal that he is, he is adverse to using US military power under most all circumstances and really does not like being in Afghanistan at all. During the campaign, he used his "Afghanistan is the right war / Iraq is the wrong war" meme as a way to get elected and to not appear soft on national security which is a political weakness with all Democrats. Everything Obama does is done with a purpose in mind and he has no intentions of staying in Afghanistan and winning the war against the Taliban. That's why we will soon hear him saying that (a) Bush wasn't up front with us during the transition and things are worse than we thought and (b) I tried in my first month to send some troops but I was misled and this didn't work so we are pulling out of Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't agree that Obama is a calculating radical leftist, then you are left with realizing that he is a very inexperienced leader and perhaps he truly does not know what to do in Afghanistan which is equally scary.
But for those of you who voted for him -- it was clear to the rest of us that (a) he is a radical and (b) he is inexperienced. We tried to tell you this but you would not listen.
Obama is a centrist. He may lack foreign policy experience but he has the intelligence to analyze complex situations, seek council and build coalitions before risking American lives. I applaud him. As for the Proud Republican's comment on the purchase of the hospital property. I too voted against it for numerous reasons.
ReplyDelete