Skinner, Obama's war escalation will make the divisiveness during the primaries seem tame.

[David Zephyr]

The Democratic Party is now divided. There's a crack running straight through the unity we temporarily had and I don't see it repairing as long as President Obama's escalation in Afghanistan and his not-so-secret war inside of Pakistan continues. It's not just here at the Democratic Underground, either.

I know that it must be disconcerting to Obama's defenders to see so many on the Left becoming galvanized in opposition to many of Obama's decisions of late. From Democratic elected officials and prominent liberal commentators to progressive organizations like MoveOn.Org and to a large number of us here at the DU, this is not some academic debate. For many of us, we feel he is making tragic mistakes morally, strategically, economically and politically -- decisions that will haunt this President and our Democratically controlled congress now for a long time to come.

To those who support Obama here through thick and thin, I can only speak for myself when I tell you that I am not an "Obama hater" which is a term I see tossed around more and more. Anyone who knows my history here knows I was wildly in favor of Obama in the primaries. I still like him and want his presidency to be all that he promised it might be. And even though I am a realist and know he is a politician, I do still have high expectations of him. I think that the great majority of those of us who oppose his war (it is his war now) in Afghanistan, are some of Obama's biggest supporters. It's because we expect more from him that we push him, that we criticize him.

I am truly concerned by the individuals that President Obamae has chosen to surround himself with from his Goldman-Sachs advisers to Robert Gates, a Bush crony who has ugly ties to Iran-Contra. I can not and will not simply sit quietly and cheer this President on simply because he is a Democrat. That's not good enough.

On the other hand, I confess that I'm the guy who started calling Obama's die-hard defenders "disciples" which is probably as unfair as those who now call me an Obama hater. I want those who support Obama so fervently to know that, in a crazy way, I'm glad you do because I understand a lot of where you are coming from: we have to defend him because the other side, the right-wing, the GOP, the tea-baggers are so dedicated to destroying this good man. So when you defend him here so passionatley, in some screwy way, I am actually glad you are doing so. Of course, this only means I am in need of therapy, something I once told the very sane BlueBear he should seek out during the primaries only because he supported Hillary Clinton. He was the big person and forgave me for that by the way.

To those who defend Obama against the criticism that you see here more and more, try to remember that the great majority of us are on his side and want him to do more, to be a better president. I don't think there is a real Obama hater here at the DU; I hope not anyway. To those of us who are giving the President hell right now for what we see as corporatist decisions or for his abdication to a handful of Generals in Afghanistan, I hope we try to keep in mind that the great majority of those who are defending him at every turn are doing so for many reasons, but in most cases because they already see so much hate coming against him from the right wing, from the Fox propaganda machine, from the Republican party and from a sick percentage of our nation who truly are Obama haters, racial minority haters, GLBT haters, foreigner haters.

It's going to be a rough patch ahead. I am very unhappy with the President right now on so many dimensions, but I want his "disciples" here (just kidding) to know that I do love the guy and want him to be a better President than he has been this past year.

Skinner, if you think the primaries were divisive, I don't think we've seen anything yet. And if you wondered how the DU would stay interesting if the Democrats ever won back the White House and the Congress, well, wonder no more. I am writing a check to today to send to the DU. Skinner, please keep the forums as free-wheeling as you have all these years and, yet, please keep the more personal and unsavory commentary to a minimum.

And most of all, to the mods: how you do what you do is beyond me. It's going to get even tougher here than it has been. I thank you for all you do, for keeping the DU from becoming a tree-house of name-callers and yet keeping it vital for honest discourse, and yes, disagreement with our Party now divided on so many issues.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

2. So very well said, David.

Thank you.

[sandnsea]

3. If we can all learn to consider only truth

then we will all be the better for it. I will use only 2 examples regarding Afghanistan to make this particular point, recognizing that there are legitimate and truthful reasons to oppose our presence in that country. Two reasons that are not legitimate are:

Osama Bin Laden is dead. We don't know that so don't make that argument. It's useless and makes you look like a fool, to everybody.

Al Qaeda is a CIA operation. Sure, back in the 80s the CIA supported the mujahadeen against the USSR. No question. It's now 2010. Don't you suppose alliances and motives change in 30 years?

There are terrorists. They flew planes into buildings. They've blown up railroads. They blew up Embassies. They attacked our Navy for chrissake. It's real. War in Afghanistan may not be the solution. But we can't pretend we don't have to find one, or that the CIA created the whole thing to fuel the Military Industrial Complex. That's just stupid and why people get called "Obama Hater" when they attack him personally and use such ridiculous arguments when they do it.

Health care, war, climate change, population overload, education, global housing, food supply. We've got HUGE problems and no time for political silliness. I think that's the frustration for most DUers who don't automatically follow whatever wsws outrage of the day.

[dysfunctional press]

9. th truth is, terrorists can't wage war.

they can only commit criminal acts.

the only ones waging war over it are us.

[sandnsea]

35. Prime example

That was useless.

Terrorists are killing people. Post the daily activities that you support that are preventing that. That gives people something concrete to believe in. That's useful.

[dysfunctional press]

37. drunk drivers are killing LOTS more.

should we activate the military to solve that problem too...?

[sandnsea]

43. Remember when freepers said that about Baghdad?

More people are killed in Detroit and DC, by drunk drivers, so why are liberals complaining about the deaths in Baghdad? That's how stupid your "arguments" are.

Terrorists. Can you post something concrete that is being done anywhere in the Middle East, by anybody, that you support. What is your solution to that specific problem?

Because that's the same thing we have to do for every problem we face. Deal with the specifics and stop getting distracted with irrelevant rants.

[dysfunctional press]

48. american lives are more in danger from drunk drivers than terrorists.

and no, i don't support a SINGLE thing that we are doing militarily in the middle east.
the ONLY thing that we're accomplishing is to create MORE terrorists.

if you're so bothered and concerned about terrorists- why do you see that as a GOOD thing?

[sandnsea]

60. "by anybody"

I didn't say militarily. I said by anybody. See how that works? You want to rant, not solve problems. That's why nobody listens to the left.

[Hekate]

52. +1

:thumbsup:

Hekate

[Duende azul]

76. Wow, a lot of strawmen you are beating up here.

Know what?

Consider that you may not be the person who decides, which arguments are legit against the war and which are not.

The truth?
Neither you nor I are in the know if Osama is dead.
But using "Osama is dead" to declare no war is necessary anymore is by far more honest then to trot out this scare guy "still alive" to justify the destruction of a country.

Don't get me started on AlQueda-Cia. All gone and forgotten? No consequences? No indictments? Remember, we are talking about the use of AQ under Clinton's watch in Bosnia. So your 30 years are somewhat misleading. And DU is a great source to research that topic.

There are terrorists. So what? So war is ok? That's Ghouliani-bush talk. And don't forget, the war against Afghanistan was planned before nineeleven. The US in this latest operations killed far more civilians then all terrorists combined. Since Obama invoked evil - what's the lesser evil?

But now we come to the point of your post:
You want a permit to call people "Obama-hater" if you don't like their arguments ( "Obama Hater" when they attack him personally and use such ridiculous arguments when they do it" )
Look, if I use an argument that you might find ridiculous, it's ok you try to argue against it. Ridicule my points as much as you wish.
But it is not ok to call me Obama hater. Because I'm not.
btw: That's a real problem, because it makes the struggle for the issues much more an uphill battle. Against Bush it was easier.

Another point to consider: Those leftists that get the flak for not falling in lockstep, those people called Obama-haters for being antiwar or disagree on healthcare, are just the people you will most probably have to rely on when things get ugly. They will take the streets against a rabid right much before any moderate. And they will defend Obama against rightwing attacks much before any bluedog will.

So it comes down to this: I'm tired of the "Obama hater/basher" meme. If I personally will be called that in the future, I'll let the mods deal with it.
I'm done wasting my time on this nonsense.
When you find more threads on DU dealing with this shit instead of the issues, some disruption might be going on.

Kudos to the mods in these hard times.

[sandnsea]

78. Speaking of disruption

As far as I'm concerned, when there are more DU threads about Bin Laden being a CIA operative than there are about sensible solutions to terrorism. And your post is just one more among many.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Were you for the 3 a.m. phone call candidate?

I think she would have seen Obama's 30K troops and raised him 10. Glad to have her on board.

[Starry Messenger]

6. David was not a Clinton supporter. At all.

I believe he explains that in the body of the post.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Well, he was certainly no wild supporter of Obama to begin with

There were 25 of us, and, being disciples and all, we all wore the same uniform.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Mmm.

Excuse me while I experience a private moment of amusement.

[David Zephyr]

19. LOL.

Hey! I wore that uniform, too. You should see the photos of me with my head shaved, peddling incense at LAX and chanting 'yes, we can' to the crowds.

[BeyondGeography]

29. Those were the days

You knew it could only go downhill from there, right? I mean, this is America.

[EFerrari]

7. I wasn't and feel about the same way David does.

I hope we can try to stay a little patient with each other.

[JVS]

5. K&R

[MineralMan]

8. Isn't the appropriate way to reach Skinner through a PM?

He may not see this at all, but he's sure to see his PMs. Or, did you intend this to start a big flameware? If that's the case, soldier on...I'm sure you'll succeed.

[janx]

11. . . ."will" ?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

14. How can anyone read flame war into that measured OP?

:)

[varelse]

26. I think it's a great open letter to Skinner

and that in many ways, it supports DU. We definitely will see things heat up here - it's already happening and will continue to grow in intensity. I see no reason to avoid talking about that.

[MineralMan]

31. Yes, I agree. However, addressing the post to Skinner

seems silly. Why not address it to those who are engaging in the behavior he/she finds wanting? Appealing to the admin of the site regarding the decorum of other posters seems a bit...well...overweening, perhaps.

Pretty much all threads that start with "Skinner" end up being about someone feeling put upon in some way by something or someone on the site. Why not just title such a thread "Can't we all just get along," or some other bon mot?

Sorry.

[varelse]

40. I don't see this as a wistful, "why can't we all just get along" post

He's done three things here that I appreciate:

Recognized the growing divide among progressives (it's not just happening on this forum, although his point was about division on DU)
Affirmed his support of DU (publically pledging to donate again)
Expressed appreciation and support for the moderators who are working hard for zero monetary compensation, and who will find their tasks increasingly more challenging as division continues to grow

That's why I don't see this thread as flame bait, and I do believe it is a perfectly valid expression of both the OP's concern for the forum's future, and his support of our forum.

[Hekate]

55. +1

:thumbsup:

Hekate

[intheflow]

79. I look at it like a LTTE.

Published without editorial pre-approval. :)

[Ignis]

61. This approach is a long DU tradition.

The archives are your friend.

[Individualist]

10. K&R

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. Well said.

K&R

[janx]

15. Um, I don't think so.

The last primaries were so bad that I didn't even look at DU for many months. One thing I have observed over the years: Disruptors love the divisiveness and partake freely. So we ought to keep that in mind. ;-)

[G_j]

25. yep

it's amazing to see how much time will be spent responding to one person's hit & run, half-sentence snipe. I'll do it too.
It's like spinning wheels in the mud.

[janx]

53. AND--people will respond to and agree with anything that

fits their mindset at the time. I've seen this happen for many years around DU. The same holds true for sources.

[seeinfweggos]

17. obama is extremely popular with democrats - especially liberals

big bucket of fail, your post

[EFerrari]

20. No guaguanco in Miami today?

Just a wild guess!

[seeinfweggos]

28. could you put that in english please?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeHereNow]

18. Oh man! This is the KICK-ASS post of the day!!!

You speak for me, David Zephyr.
Thank you for saying it all.
BHN:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

75. Thanks.

There's clearly a division. I hope we can keep it civil.

[Starry Messenger]

21. I think calling people on DU Obama haters should be against the rules.

Leftbagger needs to go, too. :thumbsdown: Only someone with the mind of a Freeper would come up with that.

[BeHereNow]

27. Oh I would be SOOOOO down with that.

Skinner, this is a REALLY GOOD idea~
BHN

[MineralMan]

33. No doubt you would. You seem to be a major player when it

comes to denigrating Obama. I wouldn't call you an Obama-hater. Perhaps just an Obama-strong-disliker. Would that be more appropriate, do you think?

[Starry Messenger]

57. I see ignored disagrees with me.

Why is it always personal with some folk? This is politics, not the fucking crusades.

[BeHereNow]

71. What "ignore" has to say is why I can't see it.

Never anything of substance, just contentious for the sake of being so...
I don't have time for it.

I don't come to DU to read nonsense.

BHN

[sandnsea]

38. As does disciple, worshipper, cheerleader,

and every other ignorant name that is used when someone simply posts a truthful article to correct the latest rants and rumors.

[janx]

54. You forgot warmonger and war pig.

;-)

[varelse]

22. Great post

And right on the money. DU's membership is polarizing and this trend is likely to accelerate in 2010.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. "Disagreements are what make horseraces." Mark Twain

Some here would rather keep the horses in the stables, preferably sedated.

[LiberalAndProud]

24. I disagree.

"I don't think there is a real Obama hater here at the DU"


I have an inauguration photo of Obama and Biden framed and displayed in a discrete place in my home. It reminds me every day of the utter and absolute dispair I felt for the future while Bush was in office and his cronies(R) and cohorts(D) enabled him at every turn. I am grateful for our voices from the left who hold the ground for peace firm underfoot, reminding me that, perhaps, my trust truly has been misplaced. (ouch!) You aren't the Obama-haters of whom I speak.

My former sister-in-law(R) caught sight of the photo and asked me, "Do you like him?" Our political discussions are always short (three or four sentences), because we like each other quite a lot, and we don't have a common political affiliation. So in reply, I said, "He's a far cry better than what came before him." Our conversation concluded with her response, "That may be, but I just don't like him.

And this is the same mindset that, it seems to me, some DUers find themselves. There is not a good thing about Obama and not one single solitary policy that they will support, much less praise.


edited for grammar. homonyms give me a headache.

[BeHereNow]

32. I think you really defined the conflict well.

I think so many of us LIKE the guy.
We are DISAPPOINTED in his actions.
And SAY so on DU.

That nails it for me.

BHN

[CJCRANE]

34. That's the opposite of what he said!

He said some people don't like Obama no matter what he does.

[BeHereNow]

39. I don't think we read the same OP the same way...

I'll wait for David to check in for clarification.

BHN

[CJCRANE]

44. Not the OP - post #58. I think you replied to it by mistake instead of the OP.

So I take back what I said!

[MineralMan]

42. Yes, there are certainly a lot of people like that around.

Fewer here, perhaps, than on some other discussion sites, where the majority fits into that category.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. This thread is unfuckingbelievable

No, not the OP. He did a tremendous job of articulating the feelings of many Democrats on this board. It's some of the responses from the Message Discipline, LLC crowd that have me shaking my head. Perhaps they need to read the OP again, until they get it. :evilfrown:

[BeHereNow]

45. That's the trouble- they DON'T read.

Obviously.

BHN, shaking head, shoulder to shoulder with you.

[Duende azul]

77. Maybe it's part of message discipline not to get it?

[eleny]

41. K&R - and IBTL

[Hekate]

46. A nice thoughtful post that has of course struck a nerve, as so many deleted messages show!

I'm less than halfway through reading the replies and quite a few have already vanished. :eyes:

Hekate

[BeHereNow]

50. The post definitely struck a nerve.

Savor it while you can.
Threads with multiple deletes usually get locked.
Funny how that happens a lot around here these days.

BHN

[JohnnyLib2]

47. K & R

Enough said at this point.

[NYC_SKP]

49. DU administrators and moderators are doing a terrific job.

Some of the membership, however, has begun to get quite personal.

We've all witnessed this.

OP is spot on in that the divisiveness has grown and will eclipse anything we saw during the primaries.

I've also seen members correct themselves, delete posts on second thought that started out poorly, and apologize for poor judgment.

Thus, I have great confidence that for the most part, we'll survive and perhaps become stronger over time.

:grouphug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. A lot of people should have paid attention sooner, no?

Obama said what his policy on Afghanistan was going to be. As well as his policy re Pakistan. Said it quite clearly.

Obama: Afghanistan, not Iraq, should be focus
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor July 15, 2008 02:54 PM

Barack Obama and John McCain today offered diametrically opposite views of the war in Iraq, even as both called for sending thousands more US troops to Afghanistan.

Democrat Obama declared that the failed policy in Iraq -- which he argued was never the central front in the war on terror -- has distracted attention from the growing terrorist threat in Afghanistan and proves the need to withdraw from Iraq. "If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned," he said in a speech in Washington. "And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."
<snip>
In what is being billed as a major policy speech, Obama declared this morning that if elected president, he would redirect attention and US forces to Afghanistan.

"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said. "Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/obama_afghanist.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Yeah the war is just starting

and you know what? History does repeat itself... in many ways... at least the patterns.

1960s anyone? And I mean '65 on.

[JVS]

58. Prediction.

The war will either become a subforum issue like guns/ palestine, or maybe and hopefully not, it will be considered old news and discussion of the decision to escalate will be as verboten as primary rehashing.

[still_one]

59. Maybe among Democrats, but as far as the polls indicate, the independents are not against it

I think a much more divisive issue among ALL citizens will be inadequate or no healthcare reform. That has a direct correlation with the unemployment rate, and those who were covered by their employer, and now no longer have that coverage

[Ignis]

62. Thanks for trying, David.

I know your heart is in the right place, so don't let the bastards get you down as they pile on.

You're a mensch. :patriot:

[David Zephyr]

70. A mensch?

Well, thank you.

[upi402]

63. Obama can't run on the "not Bush" platform next time

and the media is sinking him faster than I thought. He better check himself and dance with who brung him. Republicans will never play fair, haven't for over 30 years.

[emulatorloo]

65. Good points.

However there is always the "not Palin" platform for next time.

[emulatorloo]

64. Thoughtful post. However, I don't know if the Democratic Party is divided. DU is NOT the Democrati

Democratic party and is not reflective of it. DU exists in a bubble just as many political internet boards do.

Additionally a fair number of members simply aren't Democrats, and don't have much interest in Democrats or the Democratic Platform. That is one of the things that makes DU what it is, a diverse place with diverse opinions.

There is a lot to discuss, I too hope that it can be done with insult and personal attacks.

If Skinner would grant me one wish, I'd like to see a ban on 'devil smilies' 'rolling on my fucking floor laughing at you smilies' and 'my eyes are rolling around in my frigging head because you are so fucking stupid smilies' Doesn't do much for rational discussion.

[Number23]

66. I disagree with the premise of your OP but love what you said and how you said it. Happy to kick

Neither Democrats nor the country seem particularly divided on Afghanistan. And the idea that there are no Obama haters on this site is not something that I think jives very well with some of the posts that are posted here regularly.

[H2O Man]

67. Nominated. Well said.

I support President Barack Obama. But I am strongly opposed to his policy regarding Afghanistan.

[MissDeeds]

68. Excellent post

Thanks for posting it here for all of us to read.

K&R :hi:

[berni_mccoy]

69. "but I want his disciples here (just kidding)" -- says it all about you: create division

with a post that claims division will be created.

[Stinky The Clown]

72. Well put. K&R

[Vidar]

73. Obama's neoliberalism is only slightly less repulsive than the neoconservatives.

[ProSense]

74. This is what happens in an echo chamber

I know that it must be disconcerting to Obama's defenders to see so many on the Left becoming galvanized in opposition to many of Obama's decisions of late.

Critics are feeding off each other and creating the impression that there is wide-spread discontent among Democrats.

There really isn't. Most people who strongly supported Obama, still do. Disagreement on Afghanistan is noted, but the likelihood of this becoming a divisive issue depends largely on what happens over the next 18 months.

The media reports aren't helping either, as they tend to also try to create the same impression by reporting drops in approval without context.

[emulatorloo]

81. "the echo chamber has become so powerful they‘ve lost the ability to speak outside of the very small

outside of the very small group of people that already agree with them."

Chris Hayes on the Conservative movement

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29533358/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/


HAYES: You know, what I think it does suggest and this is true of Limbaugh and it‘s true a bit more broadly of conservatism right now in America, which is that they‘ve kind of—the echo chamber has become so powerful they‘ve lost the ability to speak outside of the very small group of people that already agree with them.

And this something that happens to political movements of all sorts of stripes. It‘s something that was—that the left was accused of for many years, particularly in the late ‘70s, during the rise of Reaganism, which is this sort of—you lose sight of what kind of vocabulary and rhetoric has a general appeal to people that aren‘t obsessively downloading from Townhall.com and listening to Rush Limbaugh every second. And you see that. You see the fact that they just are really caught in this kind of “hall of mirrors” of conservative references.

=====

[Martin Eden]

80. "his abdication to a handful of Generals in Afghanistan"

If President Obama abdicated to General McChrystal, he would be sending 40,000 troops on a mission with a target date for withdrawal much further out than 18 months. I don't know if McChrystal wants us to be in Afghanistan for several more years; he was tasked to come up with a plan for defeating the Taliban, and that's what he did.

Obama's plan is based on a less ambitious goal:

After one revelatory discussion about the mission's goals, administration officials changed their chief objective from trying to eliminate the Taliban to making sure insurgents could no longer threaten the Afghan government's survival.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/05/AR2009120501376.html?hpid=topnews"

The article is worth reading, as it describes the meetings that shaped Obama's Afghanistan policy. However, I don't think it really gets to the bottom of Obama's decision, which IMO was shaped by the rejection of 3 other options he found unacceptable -- status quo; McChrystal's plan; and immediate withdrawal.

I understand why so many here at DU prefer that last option, and to tell you the truth I don't think Obama's less ambitious goal in Afghanistan can be achieved. Our military is capable of gaining ground in the country and achieving some of what is laid out in the plan, but I have almost zero confidence that the Karzai government is capable of maintaining those gains and governing the country. I think it is essentially a no-win situation and that the Taliban will eventually retake Kabul after we leave (if we leave).

But I also understand why the consequences of immediate withdrawal were unacceptable to the president. An Afghanistan once again firmly in the grip of the Taliban is a tough pill to swallow, with very uncertain consequences for nuclear-armed Pakistan and for our national security. This of course begs the question that if so much is at stake, why the scaled-down shorter-term surge? Well, the president is better informed than any of us at DU -- maybe he has good reason to believe his plan can succeed.

I really don't know, but I think Obama was essentially choosing what he saw as the least worst among a terrible set of options. If he decided to "cut and run" the unacceptable consequences in Afghanistan were pretty much guaranteed, and the political consequences at home could be disastrous for Democrats and for the future direction of our foreign policy. Sure, many on the left would applaud the decision and stick by the president because of it, but it would also provide the rethugs with some very potent ammunition -- especially when the Taliban celebrated our "defeat" in the streets of Kabul, burning American flags. You know what the rightwing spin would be and how it would shape public perception -- Obama lacks the courage to stand up to our enemies and the Democrats simply cannot be trusted with national security. Yes, of course it's all bullshit. GW Bush got us into this unwinnable quagmire, and bringing the troops home now would take a great deal more political courage than trying one more surge. Nevertheless, that move could very well revive the political fortunes of the Republican Party and put a warhawk in the White House in 2012. Any hope for a sane foreign policy and a progressive domestic agenda would be lost.

Again, I really don't know if such political considerations played a part in the president's decision. I'm merely speculating on what those political consequences would be. I did this in a thread a week or so ago and one person painted me as beneath contempt, playing politics with the lives of real people. Let me be absolutely clear about this: I do not advocate extending this war on the basis of domestic political consequences. However, I think a discussion of those consequences is appropriate and perhaps necessary -- if only to be prepared for countering their effects.

The whole situation is a tragic mess on many levels, and I wouldn't want to be the president having to make these decisions. If Afghanistan is ultimately a no-win situation then we indeed should get out now, and a true leader would level with the American people about the consequences and why it is nevertheless the right decision. I don't know for certain whether President Obama was completely leveling with us in his speech that announced his Afghan strategy. I guess we will see what happens.


David Zephyr,
I really liked your post and recommended it, but felt compelled to add my two cents on this issue.

[Waiting For Everyman]

82. K&R

And btw, synchronicity! I earlier today tried to donate to DU but there was a glitch with it. I'll be trying again as soon as I can verify that the first charge didn't somehow go through.