I did not think he would lose me so soon—sooner than Bill Clinton did.

[kpete]

Afghanistan: The Betrayal
Garry Wills
NYR

I did not think he would lose me so soon—sooner than Bill Clinton did. Like many people, I was deeply invested in the success of our first African-American president. I had written op-ed pieces and articles to support him in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books. My wife and I had maxed out in donations for him. Our children had been ardent for his cause.

Others I respect have given up on him before now. I can see why. His backtracking on the treatment of torture (and photographs of torture), his hesitations to give up on rendition, on detentions, on military commissions, and on signing statements, are disheartening continuations of George W. Bush’s heritage. But I kept hoping that he was using these concessions to buy leeway for his most important position, for the ground on which his presidential bid was predicated.

There was only one thing that brought him to the attention of the nation as a future president. It was opposition to the Iraq war. None of his serious rivals for the Democratic nomination had that credential—not Hillary Clinton, not Joseph Biden, not John Edwards. It set him apart. He put in clarion terms the truth about that war—that it was a dumb war, that it went after an enemy where he was not hiding, that it had no indigenous base of support, that it had no sensible goal and no foreseeable cutoff point.

He said that he would not oppose war in general, but dumb wars. On that basis, we went for him. And now he betrays us. Although he talked of a larger commitment to Afghanistan during his campaign, he has now officially adopted his very own war, one with all the disqualifications that he attacked in the Iraq engagement. This war too is a dumb one. It has even less indigenous props than Iraq did.Although Obama says he plans to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011, he will meanwhile be sending there not only soldiers but the contract employees that cling about us now like camp followers, corrupt adjuncts in perpetuity. Obama did not mention these plagues that now equal the number of military personnel we dispatch. We are sending off thousands of people to take and give bribes to drug dealers in Afghanistan.

more:
http://blogs.nybooks.com/post/265874686/afghanistan-the-betrayal

[niyad]

1. k and r

1. 2. 3...

[NJmaverick]

2. The Clinton Presidency was a resounding success

this man is a fool if he was lost. Lost might better describe is understanding of the world, then how he relates to Presidents

[mike_c]

6. as long as you were an American corporation....

Not so much for Iraqi children. Bill Clinton is a mass murderer. A "resoundingly successful" one.

[NJmaverick]

11. Or a young American not being burdened by debt or any American looking for work

or someone prefers peace and prosperity over war.

as for your "Bill Clinton is a mass murder" you have a seriously messed up view of the world and would also fall into that "lost" catagory.

[jgraz]

15. Yeah? How'd those Clinton economic policies work out in the long run?

[NJmaverick]

16. Wow! That clown Bush, who sat in the White House, had nothing to do with the "long run"?

Seriously you have allowed hatred and anger to consume your good judgment.

[jgraz]

18. Who repealed Glass-Steagall? Who signed the Commodities Modernization Act?

Was that Bush?

[RufusTFirefly]

28. Don't forget "Welfare Reform", NAFTA, and the Telecommunications Act,

which explains why I can count the number of influential media companies on the fingers of one hand.

Tim Robbins said Bill Clinton was the only Republican he ever voted for.

[jgraz]

43. Oh, it didn't

i just didn't want to overload NJmav's circuits.

[Jim Sagle]

93. Seeing as how he's just a five buck an hour DLC hogwash dispenser, they won't replace his circuits.

They'll just wheel in a replacement. ;)

[NJmaverick]

63. Welfore Reform has actually proven to help the people we wanted to help

not that facts really matter anymore

[Hannah Bell]

100. how's that?

[dflprincess]

114. How so?

Reducing the number receiving assistance has not necessarily improved anyone's standard of living. And, it's hard enough to find one job these days - forget the 2 or 3 the people knocked off assistance need to get by.

[ipaint]

117. No it hasn't.

It's been devastating to women and children.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?13+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol%27y+255\

Clinton's war on the poor is surpassed only by the mass murder of iraqi children due to punishing sanctions.

[eShirl]

142. HA!

[winyanstaz]

150. The fact is you are wrong....

Women with kids are being left out..vets are dying on the streets..families are living in their cars....the system has failed to help many that desperatly need help.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

163. Most hilarious DLC defender post of the day n/t

[Starry Messenger]

174. Bwah!

[mdmc]

238. i disagree

[beyond cynical]

88. Two out of three ain't bad.

NAFTA sucks.

[Enthusiast]

232. The Telecommunications Act was good? nt

[dysfunctional press]

101. or the wto...

or the defense of marriage act.

bill clinton was/is a dino.

[TankLV]

210. Yeah - PEACE, HOPE AND PROSPERITY ARE SOOO OVERRATED!!!

God I miss Bill...

[dysfunctional press]

212. that's what a tech boom that gets people working can do for a country...

i don't know how it can be attributed to clinton though...:shrug:

he just happened to be the guy in the big chair when it came along.

do you miss clinton, or the times? they are two different things.

[Greyhound]

215. Good point. I'd ask this;

didn't Clinton and his republik policies kill the tech boom in the U.S.?

[Gnome Sane]

240. IN A PHRASE: FOLLOW THE MONEY: FOLLOW THE MONEY

FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE MONEY....THE MONEY,THE MONEY,THE MONEY,....the money, the money...."...read 'em and weep is their adjustable slogan.." (to paraphrase that one and only FZ)

jesus, folks...wake the fuck up...WTO, Bilderburg, Council on Foreign Relations...WTC 1,2,7...False Flag Patriots. "I pledge allegiance... to a Flag, that may or may not be the one I'm supposed to be pledging to".

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:

[defendandprotect]

219. Betrayal by those closest to you . ..

is the only way you can really be betrayed . . .

Clinton did a huge amount of damage --

much of it NOT something the Repugs could have done without him -- !!

[NJmaverick]

30. and who was tasked with making sure that didn't cause any problems

by watching over the markets and their actions????????????????????????????????

[jgraz]

45. Nobody's going to argue that Bush wasn't a disaster

But are you saying that Clinton bears no responsibility for the collapse?

[John Q. Citizen]

129. Clinton is a neo liberal which is why most people voted change. Instead we get the same old same

old too often too much.

[Ignis]

103. "Who repealed Glass-Steagall?" No kidding!

I put the bulk of the blame for our current financial state on this move alone. :(

[snake in the grass]

189. Clinton had no choice but to sign the bill...

...repealing the Glass-Steagall act. It passed the Senate 90-8.

[karynnj]

203. Clinton pushed the Senate to pass it - had he argued against it, it wouldn't

have passed 90-8. The entire Clinton economic team lobbied for it.

[TankLV]

213. He did NOT "push" for it...nice revisionism there...

[Skelly]

247. Maybe not "push" but at least a not so gentle "nudge"...

"I think you should all be exceedingly proud of yourselves…today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority. This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition." - Bill Clinton

[Fire1]

42. Well, for the first time we agree on something. That one really

'stung.'

[beyond cynical]

86. Pretty good...until Bush came along.

"Bill Clinton in 2012"

[jgraz]

98. Ok, now that's just stupid

Go look up WHEN Clinton signed those measures into law. You're making the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that teabaggers make when they blame the current deficit on Obama.

[beyond cynical]

171. I don't understand. Are you suggesting that Bush I was responsible for

the Roaring Nineties?

[jgraz]

176. Oh FFS.

Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999. He signed the disastrous Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000. Did you expect the economy to collapse as soon as the ink from his signature had dried?

When he signed these laws, the exact disasters of 2008 were predicted by many economists. Clinton signed them anyway. The connection really shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend.

[Enthusiast]

233. Okay, but anyway you

look at it, those actions should have already been corrected by today's legislature and President Obama. The question is, why haven't they been corrected? Do we want to revisit this horrible mess in another few years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI

[Greyhound]

216. The "Roaring Nineties" were the result of cheap computing and the World Wide Web.

And he kidnapped it and shipped it overseas, on our dime no-less.

[TankLV]

211. Actually RESOUNDINGLY SUCCESSFULLY!!!

PEACE HOPE AND PROSPERITY ARE SOOOO OVERRATED, AREN'T THEY!

Thanks for asking...

You can go back to your clinton penis hatred now...

[jgraz]

244. Yeah, that's about as idiotic an assessment as you could possibly produce

Congrats on hitting the high-water mark.

You can go back to your DLC deep-throating now.

[arcadian]

22. Clinton kept a stranglehold on Iraq

So Bush Jr. could swoop in an invade in 2003. Haven't you noticed how chummy he is with the Bush family? He's one of them.

[NJmaverick]

27. wow!

:wow:

[EFerrari]

80. Half a million children died as a result of those sanctions.

Many of them from starvation.

[dem mba]

94. oh?

they died from the sanctions? and not from any of the actions or inactions of Saddam Hussein and his regime? no, not with me on this one??

Seems a bit odd to me the guy personally owned a dozen palatial estates, had a stranglehold over his entire country and yet Bill Clinton was able to kill off 500,000 innocent children in Hussein's country in cold blood.

I guess I'm naive but I think Hussein could have done any number of things to either lift the sanctions completely or at least relieve the sufferings of his people.

[EFerrari]

121. I'd go with naive.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

164. Yeah you're naive n/t

[superduperfarleft]

102. Oh, but I think that was worth it.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

123. --- Madeline Albright. Yep. Here's a good article from The Nation.

A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions
By David Cortright

This article appeared in the December 3, 2001 edition of The Nation.
November 15, 2001


The humanitarian disaster resulting from sanctions against Iraq has been frequently cited as a factor that motivated the September 11 terrorist attacks. Osama bin Laden himself mentioned the Iraq sanctions in a recent tirade against the United States. Critics of US policy in Iraq claim that sanctions have killed more than a million people, many of them children. Saddam Hussein puts the death toll at one and a half million. The actual numbers are lower than that, although still horrifying.

Changing American policy in Iraq is an urgent priority, both for humanitarian reasons and as a means of addressing an intensely felt political grievance against the United States. An opportunity for such a change may come soon, as the UN Security Council considers a "smart sanctions" plan to ease civilian sanctions. As we work to change US policy and relieve the pain of the Iraqi people, it is important that we use accurate figures and acknowledge the shifting pattern of responsibility for the continuing crisis.

The grim question of how many people have died in Iraq has sparked heated debate over the years. The controversy dates from 1995, when researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers, coldly stated, "The price is worth it."

Albright's comments were shocking, as were the numbers, but doubts were soon raised about their validity. A January 1996 letter to The Lancet found inconsistencies in the mortality figures. A follow-up study in 1996, using the same methodology, found much lower rates of child mortality. In October 1997 the authors of the initial letter wrote again to The Lancet, this time reporting that mortality rates in the follow-up study were "several-fold lower than the estimate for 1995--for unknown reasons." While the initial report of more than 567,000 deaths attracted major news coverage, the subsequent disavowal of those numbers passed unnoticed in the press.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright/print

[superduperfarleft]

152. Thanks. Bookmarked.

You're one of the good ones around here.

[intheflow]

91. Please.

Clinton colluded with corporations and Republicans to bring about this financial mess. He fucked over American workers with NAFTA and the destruction of the social safety nets. And yes, he was bombing Iraq long before Bush invaded it. Your worship of Clinton is just as repulsive as Repuke adoration of Bush--and just as unenlightened.

[KakistocracyHater]

270. Clinton was strangely silent when the Right was blabbering Dem 'pre nine'

nonsense. Why didn't he mention his 1996 attempt to reinforce commercial airline cockpit doors, that the Republican Congress stopped? Going golfing after Katrina hit was eye-opening to me.

[AndrewP]

17. Yeah, but it was just a lot of brown Muslims dying though, so it doesn't count

The stock market went up! YAY!

[NJmaverick]

62. Your position is so hard to defend you have to resort to false accusations of racism?

that should be a warning sign to any sensible person that their positions are wrong and need to be adjusted.

[AndrewP]

81. As already said....in case it was hard to read the first time

Can you argue with the actual evidence?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weeke...

When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."

[NavyDavy]

24. ok Pres Clinton is a mass murderer riiiiigggghhhht!

:wtf:

[jgraz]

47. Can you argue with the actual evidence?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."

[NJmaverick]

69. The art of the false choice- A great tactic if facts or honesty don't matter

the choices in Iraq were to lift the sanctions and allow another possible Iraq war (how many have died in those wars???)

Keep the sanctions (those numbers do not account for how many died as a result of Saddam diverting $$ and resources away from the children to fund his armies)

or they could invade Iraq (we saw how that turned out).


Hey if you are blinded by anger, hatred or exteme ideology, then facts don't really matter and your post makes perfect sense.

[jgraz]

72. Wait... you criticize a non-existent "false choice" by offering an actual false choice of your own?

Though you're right about one thing: Hey if you are blinded by anger, hatred or exteme ideology, then facts don't really matter and this post makes perfect sense.

Thanks, I was wondering how best to understand your posts. This is really helpful.

[NJmaverick]

75. You call someone a mass murder you better well have proof of that person killing or ordering

killings. That is if ethics and facts are important to you.

[jgraz]

79. Do you even understand what a "false choice" is?

Seriously, explain it to us.

[NJmaverick]

82. I understand and are capable of seeing the false claims that Bill Clinton is a mass murder

which is more than can be said for you.

[jgraz]

85. False claim is not false choice

I'm just trying to get a handle on which grammar-school grade I should target when responding to your posts.

[NJmaverick]

89. Correct the false choice would be in the article you posted

that equates the decision to maintain the sanctions directly with the deaths. Facts do matter, no matter how inconvient

[jgraz]

99. That would be a false correlation

Except it's not false at all.

[glitch]

116. Teh irony -- IT LIVES! nt

[dem mba]

97. by their definition I would guess they consider

every President this country has ever had a mass murderer. And indeed, an argument could be made that every US President has directly or indirectly killed multiple innocent people at some point.

But the same could be said of any leader of a geo-political nation-state. It's not like the United States is an aberration. Quick name a country of influence that hasn't tried to kill some of its own people or neighbors in the past 100 years for BS reasons? Not so easy to do, sadly.

[sabrina 1]

135. There are lots of countries that have not killed people for profit

This country did not need to be in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. We are there for profit, and yes, any president who runs for office knowing he will continue these wars of Empire, does the get the label of mass killer just as all leaders of nations who engage in the slaughter of people in foreign lands who have done nothing to threaten these Empires.

We are an Empire now no longer a democratic nation whose military is used only in its own defense ~ and if you want to be the Emperor you have to live with the consequences of agreeing to what that entails, unless you try to use your power to stop it. Clinton who I defended furiously for so long, is just one of a long line of temporary leaders who carry on the business of Empire, and that always involves other people dying. So yes, he is responsible for the massive number of deaths in Iraq that occurred as a result of the sanctions. And Madeleine Albright did not deny it, she believed those lives were worth it for our needs.

Clinton also rushed back to Arkansas to sigh the death warrant of a seriously retarded man. Clinton favored the death penalty. I have to say, I was not aware of all this when I stood up for him against the rabid rightwingnuts. And I didn't want to believe it either, but it's hard to deny when the evidence is there. And it's sad because it doesn't have to be this way.

[Hippo_Tron]

148. Most nations have killed people for equally dumb reasons

Those who haven't are pretty new. Give them time and they will.

[sabrina 1]

166. This country was meant to change that.

Saying others did it, doesn't excuse any of it. We still go around the world speaking as if we had some moral authority, pointing fingers, selectively of course, at people like Chavez, who to my knowledge hasn't been invading and killing citizens of other countries. But he has something we want. We don't point fingers at Karamov of Uzbekistan do we? Compare those two, Chavez V Karamov! There's not a word of condemnation against a man known to be one of the most brutal dictators of that region. But here, on a Democratic board, it is rare to see an OP asking why we are funding this guy, or criticizing him for what he is doing to his own people. Yet, on a regular basis, there are OPs spreading the propaganda about Chavez because he dares to refuse to hand over his country's resources for the benefit of Global Oil Interests.

I'm not sure what your post means, but if you find it acceptable for your government to invade and kill citizens of other countries, just because 'others do it', and if that is the attitude of the average American, that they do not expect better of their government, then we really will get the government we deserve, just like all those others who did the same thing. Eventually these global thugs turn on their own people. America was set up to try to prevent that from happening. Looks like the experiment will fail after all. Because as Ben Franklin said, it would be up to the people to defend what they had created.

[greyghost]

197. Corporate shill, no doubt about it.

Mass murderer, not even close.

[jgraz]

13. NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagall, Commodities Modernization Act, etc, etc, etc

This economic collapse is the responsibility of Clinton and his DLC corporate lackeys.

[mix]

23. True.

But the plotting against the New Deal and Great Society really took off under Reagan. Conservative neoliberal Dems like Clinton and Obama are continuing this.

[NJmaverick]

32. Jobs, peace and prosperity, economic growth, world respect

improved civil liberties. All of that wasn't enough for you. He managed all that with the burden of a GOP run congress. You have lost sight of the forest because of all those damn trees.

[jgraz]

50. And who's weak-ass policies led to the GOP-run Congress?

If Clinton had actually stayed with his base and not demoralized them with his right-wing, DLC bullshit, the GOP would not have been nearly as successful in 1994.

Bottom line: Clinton was a conservative. He wasn't an insane radical conservative like Bush, but he basically toed the Reagan line of low taxes on the rich, higher burdens on the poor and middle-class and laissez-faire economic policies. And it turned out to be a disaster.

[howmad1]

141. It would have helped a lot.......

.......if he would have kept his pecker in his pants.

[dysfunctional press]

104. the key to it all was jobs...and clinton wasn't responsible for the tech boom...

that created a LOT of those jobs.

he was in the right place at the right time- that's all.

[Tansy_Gold]

230. I thought the tech boom was a bubble?

How many of those tech jobs are still here? How many Americans fill them?


Just askin'.



Just curious,


Tansy Gold

[dysfunctional press]

255. the bubble didn't pop until clinton was mostly out the door, either.

and there were a couple other aspects of the 'tech boom'- y2k, and also the initial changeover to the 'digital age'...networks, servers, cables, i.t.- it provided a lot of jobs initially- but once it's all up and running- not quite as many are needed.

[jbnow]

66. I've talked to may liberals around Clinton's age who

brought up how much they believed in Clinton, how excited and hopeful they were and how let down they felt. The Telecommunications Act, the details of his welfare reform, his trade policies, the Iraq Embargo, rise of Monsanto and probably other things I can't recall. Don't remember if they brought up Glass-Steagall repeal because at the times I was talking to them that term was not so meaningful to me and it might not have sunk in. Some brought up the Monica thing or the foolish risks he took but that was fat fro the main issue.

I remember a lot of these because I just had warm fuzzy memories of Bill and looked up a lot of these things later. Most of these I heard from at a weekend workshop gathering (unrelated to politics but there were many past activists there)

They didn't come to hate him or anything but real;ly felt let down

[treestar]

76. If clinton lost this individual

Then that individual is just a loon. Dlinton didn't inherit a war and the economy was good. Some people are just unreasonable. And why is their shit being brought to DU?

[SandWalker1984]

78. Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill & cut capital gains for the rich.

If you applaud that, you must be one of the ultra rich.

[freddie mertz]

95. Hardly.

I stuck by him, but in retrospect, much of what we are now suffering from started back in those seemingly prosperous days.

I did like the strong dollar, though.

Doubt we will see that again any time soon.

[anonymous171]

127. Who are you to make that judgement? I thought you didn't like arrogance? nt

[swilton]

132. Don't Forget the Slaughter er a 'War' in the Balkans

Second use by the US (after Iraq War I) of depleted uranium

[marcg]

133. Resounding Success

NAFTA
Kosovo
GATT
1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
1994 Telecommunications Act
1999 Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act

A resounding success only if you don't have the facts it would seem

[swilton]

134. Don't Forget the War on the Former Yugoslavia -

Second use (after Gulf War I) by the US of depleted uranium -

[UpInArms]

146. yeppers, ol' slick willy was the best republican that could run on the

democratic ticket.

He brought the DLC (repub lite) into his warm and loving embrace. He kept Greenscum, he signed NAFTA and GATTS and did a pisspoor job on overhauling welfare - he signed the deathknell on the Fairness Doctrine, as well as letting Glass-Steagall be done away with - yeah, you are so right. That was a resoundingly successful presidency. He couldn't stay busy enough - he needed to be a "man" and then we had to deal with the reichwing hunters for the blue dress saga and the impeachment party that was thrown.

[pundaint]

271. Until our current president, that is

[bobbolink]

168. Why do you hate poor mothers and their children?

What have they ever done to you?

[emsimon33]

196. Yep, best Republican president in at least 50 years!

Obama may best him, though!

[earth mom]

220. Clinton was responsible for NAFTA which screwed over the middle class.

The OP is correct.

[YOY]

245. It's just a shame that he had to be so by doing the Republican's job for them.

Of course...some call it left after all these glorious redefining years. Most of the planet would call it right of center.

[bobbolink]

277. You chose not to answer why poor mothers and their children are of no consequence to you, eh?

[John N Morgan]

3. I'd like to unrec ... I still love Obama, but I can't unrec a valid rant.

[jpak]

4. what a stupid whiner

go vote for Nader - again, asshole

(not you kpete - the author)

:thumbsdown:

[digidigido]

218. I'm actually thinking maybe Nader was right

[pundaint]

272. Yeah what an asshole, go vote for your choice of candidate

when my candidate wont give you anything you want. Nothing worse in a Democracy than people voting for candidates willing to fight for what they want.


The preceding was sarcasm.


I must take issue with jpak's insightful argument, however.

If we ONLY voted for what we wanted, we'd have a much better chance of ever getting it, than by voting for a party because it isn't Republican. I hope that most of us don't see this as a sporting contest, that non-performers are returned to office just because they claim to be on our team; because if that's why we vote, we've lost meaning of government by the people.

[Captain Hilts]

5. I do not understand how so many people chose not to read his speeches or check his track record.

His track record was no more progressive than Kerry's, Clinton's or Edwards'.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Agreed.

[QC]

25. But those pretty, New Agey speechsermons he preached

made many people think he was some kind of progressive dream. Unfortunately, many of those people on DU who saw through it all and tried to point out the obvious got harassed off the board.

[arcadian]

26. What track record?

His two years in th U.S. Senate?

[NavyDavy]

33. oh I get it now your using right wing talking points to attack the Prez

[Captain Hilts]

41. BINGO. So it was all the easier for folks to make up one. nt

[hfojvt]

52. agreed, he sorta 'lost me' way way back

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/5

But then again, so did the Clintons, back in 1991 or so.

[blm]

70. His record showed him to be to the right of Kerry, to the left of Edwards and Clinton.

And anyone who paid attention to REAL issues and voting records knew it at the time.

[karynnj]

200. I agree with you - and there were posts on that on DU

The fact that many on DU seemed to miss is that of the candidates labeled serious at anytime in 2004 and 2008, the most liberal was John Kerry, who had a public record of his views that went back to 1971.

In 2008, after Kerry opted out, Obama was the leftmost of the three deemed serious if you went by their public record. Hillary has been more hawkish, not less, so in reality from January 2008 on - this is the best available. Obama has some difficult challenges, it may be once the dust clears, it might be seen that he really has done a good job resolving the problems that face him. It may well be that by November 2012, most troops are out of Iraq and Afghanistan, a healthcare bill has been passed, and it will be ever clearer that he pulled us back from the economic cliff we nearly went over. In addition, there are many things he dai by executive order - like those on the environment. He might be able mid next year to accomplish something on global warming in teh US and later in the world.

It is way to early to give up.

[FarLeftFist]

7. I don't see a betrayal....

Not only did he say he was going to war with Afghanistan, but he got a standing ovation damn near every time he mentioned it during the campaign.

[SIMPLYB1980]

12. +100

[NavyDavy]

+100000

[bvar22]

53. NO.

He said he was going to increase troop deployment by about 3 brigades (15,000) for security and training.
He fulfilled THAT promise in Jan when he sent 17,000 to Afghanistan.
Not many voiced their disapproval for this move.

His decision to escalate the WAR by sending 30,000+ MORE troops and expanding their mission was over and above anything he promised in his campaign.

[FarLeftFist]

58. But after 3 months of reviews, alternative strategies and briefings...

Should we not believe that the President, who would probably love nothing more than to end this war, might see the actual danger we are in. Sometimes sending in more troops can actually create lower U.S. casualty rates, as being unmanned is a sure advantage to the enemy. On that note I believe other countries should be sending far more troops to this war, especially Europe, they are at a much higher risk for terrorist attacks geographically. But a nuclear strike on any of our allies would undoubtedly be the start of WW3, not exactly a friendly enviroment to be raising children in.

[bvar22]

61. What we SHOULDN'T be doing....

...is trying to marginalize the Anti-WAR Democrats by saying "Obama campaigned on this."
NO.
He didn't.

The additional 30,000+ troops is over and above anything Obama campaigned on.

[jgraz]

65. Absolutely.

We've been conned

[FarLeftFist]

67. War is unpredictable.

If your child died in this war wouldn't you want a President that seeks to avenge their honor instead of 'pull a Palin' and let all of those who died go down in history as part of a failed war.

Edit: I believe we are at threat from anti-American plotters and these soldiers efforts will be remembered as part of a culmination that is curbing a threat to our freedom. I live in NYC and witnessed 9/11 with my own eyes, I also lost 2 friends from it. That can happen anywhere in the country and any means to put an end to that threat is greatly appreciated by me. I have kids to raise, it's all about the kids and their future generation and the future of our society and our society's progress forward. The sad fact is, is that we do live in a world where people want to harm us and destroy us, it has always been this way and always will.

[bvar22]

73. I don't see killing MORE people who had NOTHING....

...to do with 9-11 as a moral method of "avenge(ing) their honor".

Throwing good blood after bad is never a good idea.
Wasting the lives of MORE of our children in the deserts of Afghanistan will NOT bring honor OR ease the pain.
Bring the soldiers home,
and grieve those who were wasted by our Chicken Hawk politicians.

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia!"--- advice given to JFK by General McArthur.

[FarLeftFist]

90. We may not be killing people who had anything to do with 9/11...

But I believe were killing people who would carry out a second 9/11. Not to mention the Human rights violations these people cause. Should we stop taking guns off the streets b/c we haven't found the main gun-runners.

[leftstreet]

115. oh. my. god.

I never thought I'd read an endorsement for preemptive slaughter on DU

You are taking Obama Cheerleading to a truly nauseating level

:puke:

[FarLeftFist]

195. Really. And your avatar is an upside down flag.

Why not just burn a flag while your at it. I am not a pro-war person, believe me, I was arrested twice at the republican national convention in NYC in '04 protesting the invasion of Iraq, me and 1500 other people, and I wouldn't say I'm an Obama cheerleader, but the fact that your using that in an insulting manner makes me question your loyalty to the Democratic party and it's platform. First and foremost I am an anti-republican, then I'm a Democrat. If your views about National security differ from mine I can respect that, just try not to be a dick about it. We are not a party built on ignorance, and your cheap stabs at demeaning someone from behind your keyboard is far from impressive. So if you are not cheerleading for Obama in 2012 I hope your happy with your new republican president.

[Wednesdays]

248. *facepalm*

nt

[sabrina 1]

136. No, I would not want revenge for anyone I loved who died

in a war I was against in the first place. Revenge killing. Isn't that what we accuse terrorists of doing? They are getting revenge for all their friends and loved ones that WE killed when we bombed their countries, or supported the dictators who kept them enslaved.

But mainly, because when you invade someone else's country, they are going to fight you and maybe kill you. And if you go there, or you support your loved ones going there, you have to accept that. Unless you think people should not defend themselves against invaders. I don't fault the citizens of the countries we invade for fighting us. What would you do, if this country were invaded by a foreign army? Especially if you knew why they were there? You know we are not in the ME to benefit the people there, don't you? They have somethign we want and that's the only reason we're there and we are more than willing to kill anyone, including what we call 'collateral damage' which means civilians, citizens, who happen to be in our way. We are NOT the good guys in these wars. The world is not rooting for us.

[winyanstaz]

149. Killing more people because your child died in an illegal war...

is just wrong.
What is the matter with you? Afganistan had NOTHING to do with 9-11. sheesh...it is just scary how many people are wanting to murder all muslims because of 9-11...when we dont even know for a fact who did 9-11.
When so many of those the government claimed did 9-11 are now found to be walking around alive and well...obviously the official story is WRONG..and we DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH.
In the meantime we still have people wanting to blow up other human beings who had nothing to do with 9-11 because they are frightened.
That is just plain stupid.
Grow a pair and grow up.

[FarLeftFist]

198. WOW. That is the broadest brush I have ever seen....

Afghanistan is where terrorists train, plot, blueprint, and architect future terrorist attacks. That is proven, we've all seen the tapes and video's. I don't give a shit if they're Muslim, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with my position, if it was Argentina I would feel the same way. We know the group responsible for carrying out the terror attacks, should we not kill trained terrorists capable of doing the same damage just because they didn't have a direct connection to 9/11? Do you think 9/11 was a fluke that could never ever happen again? I am not a pro-war person, but I am a pro-freedom person. This isn't just about us either or just about our freedom, it's about the security of our allies and our fight against human rights violators, but since you sympathize with the opposition so much I get the feeling Al-Qaeda might like you.
Do you think if we stopped a war on counter-terrorism these "human beings" would just give up on their determination to carry out further terrorist attacks. I don't see that logic anywhere else in the world, if the Govt stopped their war on drugs do you think cocaine and heroin suppliers would just give up. Or if cops stopped their war on taking illegal guns off the streets that people would just stop carrying. Believe me I would love to live in your peaceful vision of the world, as many would, unfortunately I'm someone who watched people jump out of a window 800ft high while their bodies were on fire with my own 2 eyes in NYC, not on tv. If we could get to the root of that evil and try and make sure something like that never happens again in America or anywhere in the world than I am thankful for all those caught in the revolution.

[PSzymeczek]

156. Would it bring my child back?

No, s/he'd still be just as dead. More lives lost would do nothing to "avenge their honor."

[FarLeftFist]

201. If my child was murdered....

Even though they may not be coming back, I would feel a little better knowing that the person responsible will be unable to commit the same crime/s again. (unless Huckabee is your Governor)

[patrice]

172. No one informed me when I raised my hand and swore where the command's office of Why/How/What/When

was located, so I could go there to register my questions and criticism of the mission. Like military today, I also VOLUNTEERED to relinquish my autonomy. There were no asterisks, no ifs, ands, buts, nor ors. There was the understanding that operations would be such that success would be possible, but no promise that if it wasn't they would owe me anything outside of the benefits prescribed by our agreement. No promise that others would be marched to their deaths or killed, so that I or my survivors could feel whole about the bargain I had made. Aside from the fact that at least since Viet Nam, body-count has not equaled victory, the other reason none of that was promised is because civilian government is SUPPOSED to control the military, since, if it doesn't, it is possible and probably even inevitable for the military to become a threat to the people.

It's not like that anymore. The incestuous relationship between Military and Civilian Corporations (e.g. Erik Prince & the CIA) has erased the checks and balances. If you don't think Military runs itself, then consider how nearly 50% of revenues have been commanded by Military for at least a couple of decades. Consider NO BID, COST+15% contracts for War Profiteers. Consider how private military contractors quite likely fucked up the war on Iraq and got a whole lot more of our military killed.

That said, I believe you are right about threats from anti-American plotters, but I believe it is chicken or the egg question and I believe that the threats are not necessarily of a military nature. I suspect that you and I differ on that point, but consider anyway how America does not exist all alone on the globe. There ARE other nations and at least a few of those nations quite possibly have strong negative feelings about all of the violence generated by American Exceptionalism. Is it possible for them, especially in light of an American social disease that rose out of Wall Street and infected other nations with sick financial derivatives, is it possible for them to just standby as yet ONCE AGAIN this rogue nation we live in KILLS and helps others kill a bunch of people ON CREDIT for our oil economy and for domestic politics and then expects to just walk away with a change in our domestic political winds? Is it possible for other nations to continue to just let us do that sort of thing without any consequences? This is how our own military in service to trans-national corporations has become a threat to the American People.

I believe someones laid down the law to President Obama and the consequences of our Exceptional behavior are to deliver global economic dominance to China by securing the oil/gas pipeline the world wants. I think we don't have a lot of choice in this matter. I'm not certain what President Obama got in exchange for our services. I do think he got something, but, personally, I am not at all certain that whatever it was, it will be worth the loss of our humanity in the process.

[dreamnightwind]

226. +1

[JoeyT]

177. That's some strange reasoning you have there.

"If your child died in this war wouldn't you want a President that seeks to avenge their honor instead of 'pull a Palin' and let all of those who died go down in history as part of a failed war."

So if you knew someone that was killed in a robbery you'd want the police to go randomly shoot a bunch of people that happened to live in the same area code to return the victim's honor?
That seems to be what you're suggesting.

"I believe we are at threat from anti-American plotters"
Well yeah, after we've bombed the weddings and homes of innocent people for damn near a decade, I'm sure they do hate us. That sort of thing tends to piss people off. Pissing them off more by continuing to bomb random people won't make you any safer.

[FarLeftFist]

204. Another broad brush....

Why would police randomly shoot a bunch of people that happened to live in the same area code? Is that what you think of our troops? The same people that voluntarily put their lives on the line to stop trained future "robbers". And yes we have killed civilians, and they have killed our troops, and they kill there own people, and in America we kill our own people. You should try advocating for peace in your own community or town first and let me know how that works out before talking about random killings by people who are getting shot at on a daily basis, it might change your perspective about the fantasy of war. If you feel so bad for their civilians I'm sure you could find the time to be an inspirational peacemaker in your own community to our own civilians.

[JoeyT]

209. Not really a broad brush.

Just an extension of your logic: i.e. that a death is only made honorable when an authority figure goes and kills a bunch of people that have an arguable geographic proximity to the people that were actually responsible for said death.

The rest of your argument was more "How dare you speak ill of the troops!?!? Fetch me mah faintin couch!" which is flat out nonsense.
Not only is it a terrible argument, it's a straw man. It is the standard spew for warmongers that are backed into a corner, though. So we're not allowed to speak ill of Blackwater now either?

[FarLeftFist]

236. You can speak ill of whoever you like....

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and would never tell anyone not to speak their mind, so speak away. I am also against war-mongering and don't personally like some of the tactics we use, but in the bigger picture if it's us vs. them, I will choose us every time. Yes, I'm a Democrat and I am for strong National security. Also please note that most of these soldiers voluntarily joined the military after 9/11 and while we were fighting 2 wars, they firmly believe in honor, loyalty, and defending our country. Everyone has a different calling in life, most soldiers feel this was their's. It has nothing to do with killing people b/c of their geographic proximity, these terrorists are part of a militant terrorist organization that happen to operate out of that geographic location. If a gang member killed a group of innocent civilians here in the U.S. should we not try to take down the entire violent gang before they are able to commit more killings in our communities?

[Amonester]

207. Sorry for your dear ones loses, but these people did not attack us.

They did not fly a Boing in that wall:

"Someone(s) else "shot" somethin' "else"!

Before making accusations, there should be a new (AND true...) 911 investigation.

I dunno Who did it, but the neocons' "New Pearl Harbor" looks A LOT LIKE a new "Gulf of Tonkin" to me (if u c watta mean...), and I am not the only 1.

[FarLeftFist]

239. Thank you for your kind words.

But I lost friends in the WTC, not the Pentagon. Regardless of who did what, our eyes are now more open to the terrorist threats against us from around the world. I am firmly against the senseless killing of innocent people but I am for the senseless killing of people who train at terrorist training camps and whose life mission is to destroy civilized society, not just ours, but what remains of theirs and even our allies in Europe. They are not only terrorists but human rights violators that rape women and kill children.

[Amonester]

243. There are a lot of unanswered questions about the WTC too, and...

NORAD, etc.

Anyway, borrowing and spending a trillion - so far - to go after a rather small group of crazies is not rational.

These are the tasks of an international organization like Interpol, or the UN's Blue Berets, not the "New Empire of Neocons & Neolibs" imperial armies.

Who do you think will pay for this? (hint: Social Programs)

[FarLeftFist]

249. I agree completely. We should not be the only one's with a majority fighting this war...

Like I said, I am not a pro-war person but if these people want to harm us then we should neutralize the enemy and wind down this war. That's what I'm for. And if it is a small group of crazies then good, we should be able to meet the timeline. Believe me I want this war to end myself, but I also believe in counter-terrorism.

[SIMPLYB1980]

128. BS. That's just reality.

If you don't like it that's to bad.

[WonderGrunion]

147. He said by AT LEAST two brigades

30,000 troops is in line with that.

[Pirate Smile]

188. Oh, you and your facts. They don't care about that. They have fake betrayal to keep them angry

all day.

I wish people would just disagree with the policy but for goodness sake quit the bogus betrayal crap. It discredits the rest of what you say.

[BzaDem]

8. Maybe instead of wondering why Obama lost him, he should reexamine his own expectations

of what is possible.

If he is not going to support Obama (the most liberal president since Johnson), maybe he should ask himself why America hasn't elected a president that he could support for about five decades. And then maybe he can adjust his expectations to fit reality, just as right-wingers in England know that they are not going to roll back the social safety net there.

[leeroysphitz]

74. Or maybe Obama should quit acting like a republican. n/t

Most liberal president since Johnson? Please.

[catbyte]

9. Am I the only one not surprised by Obama's decision?

He made it really, really clear during the campaign that he thought Afghanistan was where the fight was--why all the hue and cry now? Because he kept a campaign promise? He never said he was going to withdraw from Afghanistan as far as I can recall. Am I wrong??

:shrug:

Diane

Anishnabe in MI

[NJmaverick]

14. No anyone that sees the world as it is, rather than how they want it to be

have not been surprised in the leasst. It is only the idealist that don't listen or see, that are surprised or shocked.

[Strelnikov_]

48. No, you are not.

And as for the bleatings of "Bush-Lite" and "Warmonger", remember the exchange below?

Contrary to the accusations that he is dithering or playing politics, he is actually following up on what was said in the campaign (also see 'bipartisanship'), unlike so many other politicians.

I think the Afghanistan escalation is a modern day 'Kerensky Offensive', in that it will be difficult to remain in power when it does not bring things to a resolution as far as the public is concerned. And like Kerensky, he really had no choice. This course was set when the Republicans took the ball and moved it to Iraq in 2002 instead of bringing things to a conclusion at that time.

Oh, regarding the other common bleating we see here about AfPak being about pipelines and a 'silk road' (ie money). If it was would the Republicans have abandoned the adventure for Iraq in 2002? The record shows they did not even want to deal with Afghanistan, but wanted to move on Iraq as soon as possible.

For Obama, it probably came down to trying to help Pakistan keep a lid on things combined with not turning the Afghan women back over to the Taliban, the 'good war'. Problem is, the 'good war' was probably lost six years ago.


+++++++++++++

South Carolina Democratic debate
April 26, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18352397/

Williams: Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?

Obama: Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.

Williams: We are out of time, thank you.

. . .

Senator Clinton, same question.

Clinton: Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.

I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.

Williams: Out of time, Senator. Thank you.


Post-Democratic Candidates' Debate Coverage

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18351722/

Fineman: Authentic victory for Hillary.

Barack Obama, in some respects, was off his game. He was off his rhythm. He is good in one on one. His thought pauses...

Matthews: Was he frustrated by the fact there were eight people sharing 90 minutes?

Fineman: Yes, exactly. He’s not used to that.

And he also blew the question initially on, what would you do if two American cities were bombed and we knew it was al Qaeda? What happened was, he got that question first. It was from out of the blue. He got it. He didn’t answer it forcefully enough, in terms of retaliation and military force. Neither did John Edwards.

The people in the Clinton spin room couldn’t they were hoping and praying that Hillary would also get that question. And she did. And she used the word retaliate. And Edwards excuse me and Obama spent the rest of the debate making up for what he knew was an inadequate inadequate answer on the question of military force.


+++++++++++++


"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

- Sir Winston Churchill

[newtothegame]

10. I think that's where we failed though. I think we made electing a "historic" president our priority.

We invested ourselves in making history, instead of making change, all mantras aside. That's where we let ourselves and the country down.

[SammyWinstonJack]

77. +1000 .

:thumbsup: Worked out well, hasn't it?

[Number23]

145. Wow.

[AspenRose]

167. I know. HRC would have been "historic" as well

Wonder if they'd feel the same way or make the same comments about her, were she CinC?

[Number23]

173. Girl, you and I both already know the answer to that. Standards only appear to have been lowered

when Negroes get involved, apparently.

[karynnj]

202. What were our choices?

In reality, the choice was Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Biden, Dodd and Richardson quickly showed that they could not convince anywhere enough people. Biden had WP and Time magazine people backing him; Dodd had the Firefighters Unions. Both had more experience, but neither ever won over enough people.

For those of us who ruled out Edwards, because we thought him a phony or a lightweight, that left Clinton, who we knew was far on the hawkish side of the party. The reality is that it was clear that unless it came down to HRC vs one opponent, she was inevitable. The ironic thing is that to many, Obama was the ABH candidate. Because Hillary was "acceptable" for some people preferring "not Hillary" and because there were many strong Hillary people, Obama had to convince people he was ready and that he had the potential to lead a more visionary Presidency.

[NavyDavy]

20. B.S. we have to do what we have to do to secure Afghanistan and

not abandon our allies there.Its ridiculous to suggest swift withdrawel,IMHO, it puts more local people in danger due to reprisals that would come down hard on the villages that helped us and welcomed us there, that would makes us no better than the Taliban. I agree we should withdrawel, but do it wisely, I know this isn't popular, but if you never been in the military or studied military history you know stupid withdrawels sometime cause more casualties than the actual combat. As for the hanger ons, every army has had them from the ancient Egyptians until now. These are just my thoughts you can disagree with them, and I respect your right to do so, but you don't know me so please no personal attacks.

[SandWalker1984]

87. Not abandon our allies? You mean Unocal? BP?

Pipeline-Istan: Everything you need to know about oil, gas, Russia, China, Iran Afghanistan & Obama


TAPI's (Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Pakistan - Iran Pipeline) roller-coaster history actually begins in the mid-1990s, the Clinton era, when the Taliban were dined (but not wined) by the California-based energy company Unocal and the Clinton machine. In 1995, Unocal first came up with the pipeline idea, even then a product of Washington's fatal urge to bypass both Iran and Russia. Next, Unocal talked to the Turkmenbashi, then to the Taliban, and so launched a classic New Great Game gambit that has yet to end and without which you can't understand the Afghan war Obama has inherited.

A Taliban delegation, thanks to Unocal, enjoyed Houston's hospitality in early 1997 and then Washington's in December of that year. When it came to energy negotiations, the Taliban's leadership was anything but medieval. They were tough bargainers, also cannily courting the Argentinean private oil company Bridas, which had secured the right to explore and exploit oil reserves in eastern Turkmenistan.

In August 1997, financially unstable Bridas sold 60% of its stock to Amoco, which merged the next year with British Petroleum. A key Amoco consultant happened to be that ubiquitous Eurasian player, former national security advisor Zbig Brzezinski, while another such luminary, Henry Kissinger, just happened to be a consultant for Unocal. BP-Amoco, already developing the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, now became the major player in what had already been dubbed the Trans-Afghan Pipeline or TAP. Inevitably, Unocal and BP-Amoco went to war and let the lawyers settle things in a Texas court, where, in October 1998 as the Clinton years drew to an end, BP-Amoco seemed to emerge with the upper hand.

Under newly elected president George W. Bush, however, Unocal snuck back into the game and, as early as January 2001, was cozying up to the Taliban yet again, this time supported by a star-studded governmental cast of characters, including Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage, himself a former Unocal lobbyist. The Taliban were duly invited back to Washington in March 2001 via Rahmatullah Hashimi, a top aide to "The Shadow," the movement's leader Mullah Omar.

Negotiations eventually broke down because of those pesky transit fees the Taliban demanded. Beware the Empire's fury. At a Group of Eight summit meeting in Genoa in July 2001, Western diplomats indicated that the Bush administration had decided to take the Taliban down before year's end. (Pakistani diplomats in Islamabad would later confirm this to me.)

The attacks of September 11, 2001 just slightly accelerated the schedule. Nicknamed "the kebab seller" in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, a former CIA asset and Unocal representative, who had entertained visiting Taliban members at barbecues in Houston, was soon forced down Afghan throats as the country's new leader.

Among the first fruits of Donald Rumsfeld's bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 was the signing by Karzai, Pakistani President Musharraf and Turkmenistan's Nyazov of an agreement committing themselves to build TAP, and so was formally launched a Pipelineistan extension from Central to South Asia with brand USA stamped all over it.



Please click on the link to read the rest of the story:

http://www.bushstole04.com/Obama_Presidency.htm/obama_oil_gas.htm

[anonymous171]

130. We have no allies there. There will be a bloodbath not matter when we leave

6 months, 1 year, or 100 years, it won't matter. The moment we leave, the state of Afghanistan will implode and be replaced by the taliban.

[winyanstaz]

151. Dear NavyDavy....

We have no right to be invading other countries and stealing their oil and having our soldiers protecting the drug trade. Period.
signed..yours truly...
Navy widow.

[WinkyDink]

158. What about the Soviets' defeat is hard to understand?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. And, now, the Democratic Party has become the War Party and have their "Tough" creds.

Just like their co-party.

[johnnie]

29. Oh..well if this is what Garry Wills feels then..

...who the hell is Garry Wills?

[QC]

31. You've never heard of Garry Wills? n/t

[johnnie]

35. Nope

I'm guessing he is another person that writes about their thoughts on politics.

[Zomby Woof]

143. He's a historian and author

In his book "A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government" (the only Wills book on my shelf), he cites that the anti-war protesters of the LBJ and Nixon eras PROLONGED Vietnam.

Which is interesting when you consider his handwringing about Obama.

[RufusTFirefly]

125. Ever heard of a search engine? Ever read a book?

I'm surprised that someone would be willing to broadcast his/her ignorance so proudly.

Wills is the author of more than 30 books, the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America, the winner of three National Book Critics Circle Awards, and the recipient of the National Medal for Humanities.

[johnnie]

138. Ever heard of "I don't give a shit"?

I'm surprised that you care who I know about and don't. My point was, I don't give a crap what this guy had to say.

[butterfly77]

34. Maybe he lost him because..

he doesn't have any patience,knowing what that he is dealing with at least 10 or more major crises at once,just like a lot of other silly ass people who would not be saying a damn thing if it were Hillary or Bill but..."we have to give him/her time" we probably wouldn't have heard a peep until right about now.


They have been on Obama's ass before he was even sworn into office but,didn't say a damn word to ASSHOLE BUSH who is strutting his shitty ass around as though he the authority on whatever..

[QC]

38. Garry Wills spent eight years stripping the bark off Bush,

back when few people in the media would raise a peep about him.

I guess we can add Wills to that increasingly long list of good liberals now residing under the Hopemobile.

[jgraz]

64. The ignorance on the board can sometimes get depressing

I mean, seriously, is it too much to ask that a poster at least do a Google on Wills before attacking his motives?

[QC]

68. Seems like quite a few people here used to read.

Of course, back when Paul Krugman dared to disagree with the specifics of the stimulus plan, people were actually posting things along the lines of "Where was he when Bush was messing everything up? Why didn't he ever criticize Bush?"

Krugman, of course, was whipping Bush's ass twice a week on the most influential editorial page in the country, but one would have to read a bit now and then to be aware of that, which pretty much eliminates the most vocal of the fan club types.

[glitch]

118. It is surreal constantly having to educate the late to the party types.

Expecially when they have no more interest in learning than they did when it was all happening.

[QC]

119. Yeah, like these people who think that Andrew Sullivan is the cat's pajamas

and have no idea that he's been one of the vilest of all right wing assholes for twenty years. They just noticed that he said one or two nice things about Obama and think that makes him a good guy.

Some people wake up in a new world every morning.

[Captain Hilts]

231. Amen, sister. nt

[TankLV]

214. Yes - YOU prove that constantly...

[cartach]

274. Nobody noticed!

Because of the hordes of others who were stripping bark as well because it was so easy to do. All Wills did was get on the band wagon,he didn't have to make much effort nor was he required to have much smarts. The latter is quite apparent given his disregard for common sense and logic exhibited by his latest blurb.

[patrice]

179. To be fair, not all of it is personal against the President, with serious fractures in BOTH parties

there's a lot of 3rd partyers around trying to make hay while the sun shines.

[Pisces]

36. I suggest to all of you delusional people, go form a commune and move to the jungle.

Then you can enact all of your ideals and no one will disappoint you but yourselves. Sorry the real world doesn't work exactly as you want. Obama is not your puppet either. He has to make decisions based on information you will never know about. I don't like war and I don't like an escalation of an occupation, however, I have the intelligence to know that I do not have all of the info.

[NavyDavy]

39. hear hear!!!!!!!!!!!

[jgraz]

51. I'll move to the jungle when you move to the front lines

http://www.army.com/enlist/

[Pisces]

54. Even if there were a draft, I am too old. Still doesn't change the premise of my post.

[jgraz]

60. Your premise seems to be whoever bought that HOPE and CHANGE crap is a dumb fuck

Did I read that right?

[Paladin]

55. Well Said, jgraz.

All of you people supporting Obama's stance on Afghanistan need to hop a troop plane and get after it. I mean, any plan that gets the support of Sarah Palin and Joe Lieberman is something worth dying for, right?

Compared to Afghanistan, Viet Nam is Great Britain. We just never fucking learn, do we?

[QC]

56. Thank you. n/t

[rtassi]

92. Well met!

[Ignis]

106. No, no, we're talking about the "Real World" here.

You know, the one in which other people's kids fight wars for us.

[SIMPLYB1980]

108. After you join the peace core.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.howvol

[jgraz]

120. It's the "Peace Corps", Brain Trust.

And you still can't comprehend why your analogy is retarded.

And, BTW: if I thought for a second that you had the stones to follow through on your proposition, I'd sign up today.

[SIMPLYB1980]

122. Hey look you had to edit your post.

Not going to bother with mine though. :rofl:

[jgraz]

124. Yes, I added this

"And, BTW: if I thought for a second that you had the stones to follow through on your proposition, I'd sign up today."

[SIMPLYB1980]

126. LoL!

:rofl:

[Binka]

190. Why Bother With This Poster?

It is perfectly clear something is wrong with him/her. The incessant demands for attention and the juvenile posts just scream IGNORE. YMMV but they are clearly in need of an education. I've gone with ignore after reading this thread. My eight year old has more smarts.

[jgraz]

193. Eh, you're probably right.

But then what would I do about MY incessant demands for attention? :P

[YOY]

251. Spot On Binka.

It's obvious that they watched the movie "Volunteers" and know what the Peace Corps are about.

That's the equivalent of calling yourself keen on how intel works after watching "Spies Like Us."

[YOY]

246. You are insulting people who have served in the US Peace Corps.

Something that you clearly don't even try to understand.

[EFerrari]

84. Do you have the intelligence to count all the cop outs in your own post?

[Ignis]

105. We've been "delusional" for years here at DU. Welcome.

But we're not likely to rush to the center just because the guy wearing our colors is now in charge.

:eyes:

[anonymous171]

131. OBAMA IS MY FUCKING PRESIDENT WHICH MEANS THAT HE IS MY GODDAMN PUPPET

THIS IS A DEMOCRACY NOT A FUCKING OBAMOCRACY. Jesus fucking christ

[HipChick]

154. Thank you for that dose of reality...

[anonymous171]

175. The moment you enlist I will head off to the jungle and join a commune

[frylock]

178. love it or leave it..

america, fuck yeah.

[patrice]

181. Why is it that when people like you say things like that you never see that the same could be said

of you?

It only works in one direction? Why is that?

Your statement would have had much more validity if you hadn't chosen to display your bigotry against "dirty fucking hippies".

[bvar22]

260. YEAH!

America...Love it or Leave it.
We REAL Amuricans need to GET THIS WAR ON!
Obama says so, and thats good enough for ME!

Hoo-Ha!
Kill em ALL and let GOD sort em out!

[YOY]

268. Why is it you folks always claim to have a better hold on reality than us?

There certainly doesn't seem to be any demonstrative evidence towards this. In fact a large mess to the contrary does indeed exist.

[TwilightGardener]

37. This guy feels betrayed, because he wasn't lied to.

:crazy:

[MilesColtrane]

40. At least the author admits that he was projecting qualities onto Obama...

that were never there.

[Romulox]

44. The idea that the President's campaign speeches become the boundary lines for acceptable criticism

is profoundly stupid.

In other word, I have a right to criticize this President, whatever he said in his campaign notwithstanding. At any rate, it's not like he hasn't brazen broken several of his campaign promises already--specifically with regard to NAFTA, lobbyists in his cabinet... :hi:

[cali]

46. grow up Mr Wills.

he told us exactly what he'd do in Afghanistan. I think he's tragically wrong, but I won't pretend it's a betrayal.

[Divine Discontent]

113. And so General Wes Clark, Senator Feingold, etc etc, do they need to grow up, too? We need

collectively, to stop him from succeeding in his efforts to further entrench our country in pointless warfare in Poppyland. Hopefully Congress will hear from enough of us to make that happen. President Obama, based on the actions that have infuriated so many Democrats already, is doing his darndest to lose our majority (or shall we say Rahm is)

[cali]

224. Senator Feingold has said nothing like what Wills said here

haven't followed what Clark has said, but do please provide the quotes.

And the idiotic Rahm thing shows a paucity of thinking of any kind. Emanuel works for the president. He's not some Svengali.

And I, btw, am firmly against war in Afghanistan- or Poppyland as you so fatuously put it.

[kenny blankenship]

170. C.V.

Garry Wills
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934 in Atlanta, Georgia) is a prolific author, journalist, and historian specializing in American politics, American political history and ideology and the Roman Catholic Church. Classically trained at Jesuit schools, he is proficient in Greek and Latin, but not Hebrew. He has written nearly 40 books and has been a frequent reviewer for the New York Review of Books since 1973.<1>

A conservative and early protégé of William F. Buckley, Jr as a young man, Wills became increasingly liberal through the 1960s, driven by his coverage of the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam War movements. Although a devout Catholic, he has been an excoriating critic of the Vatican and its policies and theology.

Biography

Wills grew up in Michigan and Wisconsin and graduated from Campion High School, a Jesuit institution, in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin in 1951. He entered and then left the Jesuit order. William F. Buckley, Jr. hired him as a drama critic for National Review magazine at the age of 23. He received his PhD in classics from Yale in 1961. Wills has been awarded the honorary degree of L.H.D. by the College of the Holy Cross (1982) and by Bates College (1995).

Ideologically, he started out his adult life as a conservative, but through the 1960s he became more and more a liberal, driven by covering the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement.<2>
His biography of president Richard M. Nixon, Nixon Agonistes (1970) landed him on the master list of Nixon political opponents. Wills joined the faculty of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980. He is now an emeritus professor.

Children: John Wills, Garry Wills, Lydia Wills
Public appraisal

The New York Times literary critic John Leonard said in 1970 that Wills "reads like a combination of H. L. Mencken, John Locke and Albert Camus."<3>

The Roman Catholic journalist, John L. Allen, Jr. considers Wills to be "perhaps the most distinguished Catholic intellectual in America over the last 50 years" (as of 2008).<2>

Awards

He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction<4> for Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America (1993), which describes the background and effect of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863. He was awarded the National Medal for the Humanities in 1998. He has twice won the National Book Critics Circle Award, including as a cowinner for nonfiction in 1978 for Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.
Books

* Chesterton: Man and Mask, Doubleday, 1961. ISBN 978-0-385-50290-0
* Animals of the Bible by Garry Wills (1962)
* Politics and Catholic Freedom (1964)
* Roman Culture: Weapons and the Man (1966), ISBN 0-8076-0367-8
* The Second Civil War: Arming for Armageddon (1968)
* Jack Ruby (bio by Garry Wills)|Jack Ruby (1968), ISBN 0-306-80564-2
* Nixon Agonistes: The Crisis of the Self-made Man (1970, 1979), ISBN 0-451-61750-9
* Bare Ruined Choirs: Doubt, Prophecy, and Radical Religion (1972), ISBN 0-385-08970-8
* Values Americans Live By (1973), ISBN 0-405-04166-7
* Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (1978), ISBN 0-385-08976-7
* Confessions of a Conservative (1979), ISBN 0-385-08977-5
* At Button's (1979), ISBN 0-8362-6108-9
* Explaining America: The Federalist (1981), ISBN 0-385-14689-2
* The Kennedy Imprisonment: A Meditation on Power (1982), ISBN 0-316-94385-1
* Lead Time: A Journalist's Education (1983), ISBN 0-385-17695-3
* Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment (1984), ISBN 0-385-17562-0
* Reagan's America: Innocents at Home (1987), ISBN 0-385-18286-4
* Under God: Religion and American Politics (1990), ISBN 0-671-65705-4
* Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America (1992), ISBN 0-671-76956-1
* Certain Trumpets: The Call of Leaders (1994), ISBN 0-671-65702-X
* Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare's Macbeth (1995), ISBN 0-19-508879-4
* John Wayne's America: The Politics of Celebrity (1997), ISBN 0-684-80823-4
* Saint Augustine (bio by Garry Wills)|Saint Augustine (1999), ISBN 0-670-88610-6
* A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government (1999), ISBN 0-684-84489-3
* Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit (2000), ISBN 0-385-49410-6
* Venice: Lion City: The Religion of Empire (2001), ISBN 0-684-87190-4
* Why I Am a Catholic (2002), ISBN 0-618-13429-8
* Mr. Jefferson's University (2002), ISBN 0-7922-6531-9
* James Madison (bio by Garry Wills)|James Madison (2002), ISBN 0-8050-6905-4
* Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power (2003), ISBN 0-618-34398-9
* Henry Adams and the Making of America (2005), ISBN 0-618-13430-1
* The Rosary: Prayer Comes Round (2005), ISBN 0-670-03449-5
* What Jesus Meant (2006), ISBN 0-670-03496-7
* What Paul Meant (2006), ISBN 0-670-03793-1
* Head and Heart: American Christianities (2007), ISBN 978-1594201462
* What the Gospels Meant (2008), ISBN 978-0-0670-01871-0

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
(so you don't need to worry about quoting more than 4 paragraphs)

[cali]

229. So what?

And btw, I'm quite familiar with Wills and his writing. Thank you very much.

[kenny blankenship]

250. Don't you feel foolish now?

You should.

[patrice]

183. 1+

:hi: cali

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dgibby]

57. I do not support the escalation,

but it would be disingenuous of me to think of this as a betrayal. Obama did, indeed, state in no uncertain terms, that he would focus on Afghanistan. I cannot fault him for being honest in his intentions in this matter, regardless of how much I may disagree.

I knew when I supported him and voted for him that this was going to be problematic for me, but I agreed with him on other issues, and realized there would never be a canditate with whom I agreed 100%. To do so would be unrealistic, to say the least.

[dionysus]

59. well, bully for him.

[treestar]

71. What a bunch of crap

The fourth paragraph is just illogical.

[Skidmore]

83. Oh, jeez. I hope when you all are done working on getting us

the new improved version of the Rs in power again, you'll remember this post.

[EFerrari]

160. What do you mean, when?

[Greyhound]

96. K&R

[emilyg]

107. +1

[superduperfarleft]

109. I don't get how the escalation was a betrayal.

For the record, I disagree wholeheartedly with it, and I'm definitely not one of those "he said it during the campaign and you voted for him so shut up!" people, but saying things like "betrayal" and "he lost me" is just melodramatic. He clearly indicated that he was going to keep this war going, and even though I voted for him despite this (and a lot of other things), I don't feel the least bit "betrayed."

Anyway, anyone who has paid attention to US politics for more than a few years understands that all US presidents love war and throwing gay people under the bus, so again, no surprise here.

[change_notfinetuning]

110. My point exactly. Obama promised no "dumb wars". Sorry, but Afghanistan is

dragging him into as dumb a war as we could get into at this point.

So all you Obama-right-or-wrongers, the disagreement for me isn't about what he said he'd do to Afghanistan during the campaign. I know what he said. The dispute is whether this is a dumb war, and for those who believe it is, we have every right to be Obama supporters in other areas where we find common ground, and to heave all conceivable criticism at this Peace Prize winner for dragging this nation into a "dumb war". He promised he wouldn't. That's the promise I want him to honor.

[Divine Discontent]

111. and that's why I stand by my OP a week ago that said I wasn't voting again for him, many agreed,

many didn't. but sadly, the ones that didn't will eventually see the light. This man is losing his party with these center and center-right policies, to where the only ones left are going to be the ones who are in love with the idea of the man being the best president ever, the first minority candidate in American history who won, etc etc etc... he's a nice man, a brilliant guy, but his judgment is showing, as clearly shown through the actions in the 1st paragraph of this article, to be rather suspect.

I hope we hold onto our majority in Congress despite President Obama's going to the right.

[Deja Q]

112. Afghanistan is arguable. The following is not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C6PzLBr_zg

Why did Obama be so direct about mcCain wanting to cut medicare when, after being elected, Obama ends up doing the same thing?

Unless there's real change, a proper overhaul of the insurance system and I don't mean a giveaway to the gaggle of insurers who can't keep costs down despite saying "competition lowers costs"... *sigh*

[ShortnFiery]

137. Well put! K & R. eom

[G_j]

139. why doesn't Obama ever mention all the contractors?

inquiring minds want to know.

:shrug:

[bos1]

140. It's f-ing childish, self-defeating and stupd. nt

[d_b]

144. He'll lose me when he signs a piece of shit 'healthcare' bill

[patrice]

187. That's one of my trade-offs here. We're not getting what we want in Afghanistan, so

I'm looking eagerly forward to calling my Republican senators and telling them to vote against that piece of junk HCR bill they have in front of them. No real competition for InsCo, No support!

[BeatleBoot]

153. He'll lose me when he becomes a Republican

Or even an independent, like Joe Lieberman.

[BlueJac]

155. Obama is a tool for the corporate rulers

[WinkyDink]

157. Yes, but whoever is still alive after 18 mos gets to come home!

SARCASM.

[quickesst]

159. The reality?

"I was deeply invested in the success of our first African-American president."

That was the only thing many people were invested in. The rest was supposed to be automatic. Peace, prosperity, and an awakening as a nation with a mission of global harmony, and woe to anyone who questioned it. Too bad they couldn't see beyond the fantasy. If people, for better or worse, don't get behind the democrat currently occupying the White House, forget 2012, but by the time 2016 rolls around, their may not be anything left for the next democratic savior to save. Thanks.
quickesst

[EFerrari]

161. It's supposed to work the other way around. He's supposed to get behind us.

[patrice]

185. 1++ Well said!

[NYC Liberal]

162. Too bad that Obama get finally ENDING both wars

For 8 years in Afghanistan and for 6 years in Iraq, there has been no real plan, no strategy, and certainly no exit plan. Now, Obama has drawn up and is implementing an exit plan to end both wars. Apparently some here thing that the right thing to do is to just up and leave in Afghanistan, to say "Sorry to have bombed your country for 8 years, but we're leaving now! Oh and have fun with the Taliban." So not only will the Afghan people have no hope of preventing the Taliban from cementing their control and officially taking over the government again, as was the situation in 2001 before we went in, they'll also be faced with all of the destruction Bush has wrought there.

So I am very glad we finally have an actual exit plan with a real timetable that is being implemented by a president who knows what the hell he is doing.

[EFerrari]

184. The mafia that is in power now is only barely more humane

or democratic than the Taliban. Maybe. RAWA hates them both for their rapes, and kidnappings, and acid attacks on schoolgirls. That's what Obama wants to "strengthen". They had to steal the election, capiche?

And who was the prescient DUer that predicted last week that this escalation would be framed as a withdrawal?

On the other hand, the surge will go in just in time to secure crucial work on the pipeline. So, everyone will be happy. :sarcasm:

[NYC Liberal]

191. Obama is ending both wars and some people can't stand it.

We're finally getting out of Afghanistan after 8 years of Bush doing nothing there but letting it all go to hell.

And we're leaving Iraq too.

It kills the "endless war" meme for sure, but ending the wars is the right thing to do and Obama is doing it.

[EFerrari]

194. And that is your talking point and it has nothing to do with reality on the ground.

[NYC Liberal]

205. Nope, wars are ending, that's the reality.

Like I said, it kills the "endless war" meme but oh well. Obama is doing what Bush refused to do for 8 years and is implementing an exit plan to get us out of Afghanistan and Iran.

[EFerrari]

225. He gave a speech. And as far as killing the "endless war meme"

crack a history book.

[NYC Liberal]

256. He gave a speech outlining the plan that is now being implemented.

As for cracking a history book - yes, there will always be wars. But this war is ending, and it's ending with a better plan than "Get out now!"

[EFerrari]

257. Good luck with that. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

258. No luck needed, just a sound strategy

which we now have.

[EFerrari]

261. Propping up an illegitimate criminal government and training a national army

where no nation exists. Enjoy.

[NYC Liberal]

265. It was an illegitimate criminal government

that got us into this whole mess in the first place. Now Obama is forced to clean up after them, which he is doing.

[EFerrari]

266. Propping up a criminal illegitimate government is not cleaning up.

[natrat]

237. what are you talking about? he is escalating

how can you possibly believe the nonsense about a withdraw date when most everything else of importance has been a lie and when people in the military are saying there is no withdraw date

[NYC Liberal]

254. Do you really not know what the plan is?

Just because it's not "immediate withdrawal right this second" does not mean it is not an exit plan. Yes, there is a plan ... something that has been lacking for 8 years because Bush, dumb ass that he is, never wanted to implement a real strategy, nor a plan to get out.

You should go re-read the transcript of Obama's speech, or go to WH.gov where there is plenty posted about the actual plan.

[patrice]

186. Don't you think some other serious actors on this Earth are also very against us just

up and leaving as you describe?

Plus, they want those pipelines secure!

[NYC Liberal]

192. Sure, I'm sure there are "other serious actors"

who are against us up and leaving right this second. Some perhaps do have more nefarious purposes in standing against an immediate withdrawal. That doesn't mean they and Obama have the same motives.

Kucinich voted against the HCR bill. The Republicans voted against the HCR bill. But their purposes were not the same.

[patrice]

259. I am not refering to those with nefarious purposes. Only those who have a stake in

the civilized resolution of issues surrounding terrorism, those who can, and therefore have a responsibility to, do what they can about rogue nations (with or without the UN).

The time for an unconditional withdrawal is long long long past.

The domestic political pressure for withdrawal says something like this to the rest of the world, "We are the U.S. and we are exceptional. We go where we decide to go. We do what we decide to do. We leave whenever we want to. Not only do you have no say in any of this, but we also expect you to keep on financing our status as the world's number one debtor nation." Debt built out of gambling with phony derivatives that affected no only Wall Street but also other nations, mind you.

I think there are other nations who, though they have no, or have chosen not to use, official means of response to our rogue nation status, have acted, perhaps even in concert, to tell us that we cannot invade and occupy another sovereign nation and kill or enable others to kill a million people, displace millions of refugees, and create millions of orphans (some of whom have sold themselves into child prostitution in order to survive), we are not allowed to do these things without consequences and one of those consequences is that we are not allowed to leave Afghanistan just because domestic politics demands it. I think the American People and incidentally domestic policy, such as HCR, are being held hostage, either under the threat of physical violence, under the auspices of "plausible deniability" for which there is plenty of historic precedent, or financial violence in world money-markets.

Time to pay the piper and the price is to deliver Pipelinestan. President Obama was hired to be the Project Manager on this one.

[midnight]

165. The escalation of this war over 100 bad men in Afghanistan may be

seen as the last wake up call to the type of change we are going to have to live with. This country some how placed an unimportance on the Constitution. This is where those who choose to allow illegal acts to go unchallenged, in are courts, weaken our futures....

I

[sulphurdunn]

169. The original and ancient strategy for war

is to wage it with maximum force, the shorter the duration being the better for all involved because of the cost. That was before the waging of war itself and not just its spoils became profitable.

[Generator]

180. You know for me I knew that he was for upping the troops

to Afghanistan when he campaigned. But something about it is a bait and switch. Yes, Obama was against Iraq-thought he never had to put that to a test. This was his test and he escalates. Certainly the Iraq war is being traded for this one. Nostalgically I guess I was thinking it was 2003 or 2004 or some earlier time when YES, it did seem like Afghanistan was the forgotten war that Bush fucked up. We needed to win it! But that was the campaign and this is reality. This is going to be 2010/2011. Ten years. The chance (and it was very small to being with) to have a positive effect on that country is over. And like Iraq I have sense learned some history and realize now that it's hawkish utopian fantasy to think we can "save" Afghanistan with more war. War is not the answer. We aren't going to win the world over dropping bombs on it from drones that we don't even admit to. We are certainly not much more than terrorists when it comes to that.

I thought Obama was smarter. More of a leader. That he would have EVOLVED since the campaign rhetoric to win the independents and realized that this war is not anything that can be won. It's a chimera. It's stupidity. And it's going to be the death knell of not only his presidency but the Democratic party. The difference between Republican and Democrat are so thin now that I don't see what we have left. YES, the Republicans are bat shit insane and evil. But it's a Democrat continuing war. And if war isn't evil and insane then I don't know what is.

So this is Christmas..and what have you done...another year older...a new one just begun...

war is over...if you want it...

And 40 years later it's still the same song.

[Jamastiene]

217. I wish this was an OP so I could K&R it.

Very well said.

[WoodyM]

182. Obama campaigned on Change.

He has continued so many of Bush’s policies and practices the only change I can see is that we now have a president who can make a wonderful speech.

[onehandle]

199. Yawn. Bill Clinton was a great President and Obama is on his way as well.

Like I said before the election. There is no liberal revolution coming.

Anyone who thought so was fooling themselves.

[Overseas]

206. Fervent K&R for my feelings, with reservations.

But those reservations let Clinton's Conservadem stuff slip through.

i.e. He is under such attack. Must stay with him to show solidarity. Other options now available seem worse.

But this is ugly, brutal, bankrupting, enemy-producing, warfare. Again, we hear we are just sending advisors. To help the local army regain control.

Regret that I've heard that before, and things did not go well at all.

Related to the concept in Matt Taibbi's You Tube clip about "Bait and Switch." So many things feel that way at this point. This would have been an excellent time for Democrats to go fiercely FDR on the country. Whatever Dems do will be shouted down as Socialist Commie, so I'd hoped President Obama would go big. FDR's ideas can be very pragmatic, if you want a thriving middle class to emerge again.

It would have been so simple to sell. Banks got a bailout. People need a bailout-- Medicare Part E, for everyone. It's the right thing to do.

Green jobs, for crying out loud. Take the hard core brutal military cash from Afghanistan and get it working over here. Just leave the school building and infrastructure project cash in the Af-Pak budget.

Sigh...

We could have gone very successfully Mega FDR at this point. Yet our genius president did not. Are the Powers That Be that much more powerful than I ever imagined?

[TankLV]

208. The planned withdrawl is ONLY for the 30 Thou he's sending in NOW

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PERSONNELL THAT ARE THERE BEFORE NOW!!!

THE PRESENT CONTINGENT WILL CONTINUE WELL AFTER THIS "DEADLINE"!!!

[smalll]

221. This should not be at 116+ positive Recs.

I'll knock it down to 115 -- it's the least (and the best) I can do.

[QC]

252. It's probably just those useless young people sitting around blowing one another

that are responsible for it.

[earcandle]

222. don't ya know what a disappointment it all is. what can we do?

[Blue_Tires]

223. I've had a LOT of helpess-feeling anger and disappointments over the years

But Clinton never "lost me" because after looking at all the plusses and minuses I knew the final tally was still WELL on the 'plus' side after 8 years

And as incredibly pissed as I was over the big bankers, healthcare mess and this week's news (with the accompanying praise from the most racist of congresscritters), I seriously doubt Obama will ever "lose me" either when I add up the wins and losses during his time in office...That isn't to say those three decisions haven't left me angry, confused, hurt and with a bush-era level of angst...I guess I'm not sure of anything anymore...or very tired...

[gleaner]

227. He lost me before this, but this ,,,,

would have made it inevitable even if nothing else did. This war is wrong. I doubt that there will be a withdrawal by the date we have been given because it is going to be like sinking in quicksand. You can't withdraw from a quagmire you jumped head first into and have staked your reputation on. I think he feels he has to do this to justify his refusal to support prosecution of the Bush administration for their illegal actions within the US and their crimes against humanity outside of the US. It is a justification for his recertification of the Patriot Act which I was hoping against hope that he would allow to expire and his refusal to provide any type of governmental accountability for abuses of power and actions that are illegal and need to be repudiated.

[waronbanks]

228. I knew with his backing down on FISA

that he was not what he seemed. But there was no way I was going to let a doddering old fool and an ignorant, incompetent right wing robot in high heels win that election. Obama is very disappointing, but not so surprising.

This land is no longer our land...it now belongs to the banks and the military.

[Shagbark Hickory]

234. Author (and his wife) are suckers. And they evidently didn't listen to many of his campaign speeches

Max out contributions before they even know what the candidate is going to be like?
Hasn't this person learned anything from the false promises of presidents past?

[Enthusiast]

235. Did anyone ever consider

the possibility that the right wing attacks on Clinton, and the entire "get Clinton" effort, might have been part a massive smokescreen to achieve the destructive legislation goals?

If Clinton was, in fact, a player in such a scheme, shouldn't we be on guard for a repeat performance? The scheme was perfectly executed. Unfortunately the results of this legislative effort destroyed the American middle class. I mean, look around folks. And watch this fucking video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI

This is Senator Byron Dorgan expressing his opposition to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.

[NikRik]

241. got it all wrong on President Cliniton !

I honestly believe President Cliniton will go down as one of the best Presidents in recent history and the opposite for the person that followed him, bush. If not for term limits any of Clinitons policies that he was convinced did not do as he felt they should he would have revized. He had a great ability as a open minded person who would listen to many others B/4 making a decision that he felt was important to al !Facts remain while in office Clinton accomplished many good things and many people where happy ,now we have millions in dispare ,out of work ,loss of their homes ! If you where to review the Clinton/Gore record while in office you would see a improvement in all aspects of our countries most urgent needs.Iam still hanging in there for President Obama, however it seems change is coming to slow ,people need jobs yesterday not down the road somewhere ,this should be declared a nationial disaster and a danger to uour ssecurity and imediate relief set in motion. Once the emplyment situation is corrected you will be amazed at how many of our other problems will also get better. President Cliniton policies created some 20 million jobs ,now would'nt that be nice at this time. Thanks to All and Happy Holiays !
Sincerely NikRik

[Knight Hawk]

242. Know Thyself

I have no doubt that Obama intended to do many of the things he promised.But several things happened he was not prepared for, at least partially due to his lack of experience.First he was giving some very serious intelligence info ,which could have been heavily slanted,that changed his thinking about many things to do with the wars,Middle East,Afghanistan etc. Not to mention Wall Street. He was put into a position by the generals,CIA,money men and the entire Washington/New York "club" that it was very difficult to fight or wiggle out of.They can and will undermine you.They can sabotage you and leave no fingerprints ,its all about money,power and ego.He did not have the experience to fight this and quite frankly in my humble opinion does not have the personality or temperament to fight it .He is a cerebral not a visceral person,and over estimates what an analytical,cerebral person can do as far as LEADING a country,tribe,clan etc.He is not LBJ and no amount of training will ever make him one.He does not "scare" people whether its Netanyahu ,Putin ,leaders of Congress or his generals .He will not be able to "analyze " his way out of the country's problems .He tries to please everyone a little too much and therefore pleases no one.MAYBE he will grow into the job.

[LWolf]

253. I knew. nt

[gulliver]

262. Shows how stupid the guy is WRT his expectations...

I'll bet the Great Pumpkin disappointed him again this year too.

[SkyDaddy7]

263. Whatever!

Obama is doing a jam up job! And Yes, I like Geithner & Bernanke! NO SARCASM!

[Greyhound]

267. Any particular reason (beyond the obvious attention seeking)? n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

276. "Beyond the obvious Attention seeking"????

Really? I hold the opinions I do for attention? Then why feed the problem by replying to my attention seeking post? More important, why waste your time?

I think it might be time to look in the mirror when it comes to seeking attention.

[timeforpeace]

264. Arise.

[demwing]

269. Oh god, he lost you

the president of the Unites States lost you. Not sure how Obama is going to survive this. KPete, I know this article was written by Gary Wills not you, (unless you ARE Wills), but I have to think you agree, else why make the post?

You know, more and more I'm thinking that the average viewpoint on DU does not represent the average Democratic viewpoint, what to speak of the viewpoint of the average American.

Maybe there SHOULD be a splinter group that breaks from the left of the party. Not a purge, but an affirmation of left leaning ideologies. Maybe there are some who are in the Democratic party who should create their own faction, or simply join the Greens. If such an ideology is strong and viable, and represents a significant portion of the American public, then it will survive. If not, it will falter and fail.

Perhaps it is time for those who are Greens at heart, and Dems in name only, to follow their heart.

[cartach]

273. Same old,same old !

Sounds like the blogger is afflicted with the "I'm taking my bat and going home" syndrome or following the lead of Sarah Palin and just plain quitting. Complete with all the usual moaning and groaning and whining and complaining. If instant gratification is required, try sucking your thumb.

[POAS]

275. So you knew Obama

would lose you at some point, you just didn't think it would be so fast.

Doesn't sound like someone that ever really gave much support in the first place.

I guess you'll be supporting another candidate in 2012, perhaps even the Republican one, now that Obama has lost you.