Obama's Surprise Trip to Afghanistan: A Pro-War Pep Rally

[tekisui]

Source: Alternet

President Obama has taken a further plunge into the kind of war abyss that consumed predecessors named Johnson, Nixon and Bush.

On Sunday, during his first presidential trip to Afghanistan, Obama stood before thousands of American troops to proclaim the sanctity of the war effort. He played the role deftly -- a commander in chief, rallying the troops -- while wearing a bomber jacket.

There was something candidly macabre about the decision to wear that leather jacket, adorned with an American Eagle and the words "Air Force One." The man in the bomber jacket doesn't press the buttons that fire the missiles and drop the warheads, but he gives the orders that make it all possible.

One way or another, we're used to seeing presidents display such tacit accouterments of carnage.

And the president's words were also eerily familiar: with their cadence and confidence in the efficacy of mass violence, when provided by the Pentagon and meted out by a military so technologically supreme that dissociation can masquerade as ultimate erudition -- so powerful and so sophisticated that orders stay light years away from human consequences.

The war becomes its own rationale for continuing: to go on because it must go on.

A grisly counterpoint to Obama's brief Afghanistan visit is a day in 1966 when another president, in the midst of escalating another war, also took a long ride on Air Force One to laud and boost the troops.

In South Vietnam, at Cam Ranh Bay, President Johnson told the American soldiers: "Be sure to come home with that coonskin on the wall."

Then, too, thousands of soldiers responded to the president's exhortations by whooping it up. And then, too, the media coverage was upbeat.

(snip)

Fast forward 44 years.

"There's going to be setbacks," President Obama told the troops at Bagram Air Base. "We face a determined enemy. But we also know this: The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something."

The applause line lingered as the next words directly addressed the clapping troops: "You don't quit, the American armed services does not quit, we keep at it, we persevere, and together with our partners we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that."

The president added: "And we'll be there for you when you come home. It's why we're improving care for our wounded warriors, especially those with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. We’re moving forward with the post-9/11 GI Bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams."

Those words provide a kind of freeze frame for basic convolution: The government will help veterans with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries to pursue their dreams.

In the realm of careful abstraction, where actual people are rendered invisible, best not to acknowledge how much better it would be if those veterans could pursue their dreams without suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injuries in the first place.

more: http://www.alternet.org/world/146209/obama%27s_surprise_trip_to_afghanistan:_a_pro-war_pep_rally_

[ShortnFiery]

1. Yes, this is IMO, sadly true.

When President Obama invoked "9/11" during his speech to the troops yesterday, a chill went up my spine, "Meet the new boss ... SAME as the old boss." :(

[jenmito]

18. Ummm...it's one thing to invoke 9/11 when speaking to those fighting in IRAQ. It's quite another,

and quite appropriate, to invoke 9/11 when speaking to those fighting in Afghanistan. It's pathetic that you try so hard to equate Obama and Bush. :eyes:

[frylock]

24. what's pathetic is that people actually believe that this is a "just" war

you have no idea why we're there.

[jenmito]

35. No. What's pathetic is people HERE confusing Iraq with Afghanistan or claiming

they're interchangeable. Obama always called Afghanistan a just war as did the majority of Americans. It's Iraq that was invaded for no reason, with Bush et al using 9/11 to justify the invasion.

[frylock]

56. i'm not confusing one with the other..

and i've been against this war since sept 2001, so quite frankly i don't give two shits if obama or the majority of american people believe this is a just war, because anyone who has been paying attention know EXACTLY what this war is about. and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that a country with no CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT allowed al qaida to climb across a bunch of damn monkey bars.

[jenmito]

72. I'm talking about the poster I was replying to when you jumped in. n/t

[spoony]

69. No one is confused here

except for the people trying to spin this travesty of a war into a positive.

[polmaven]

136. Well why not explain it to us?

Apparently you are much more informed than the rest of us, so why not fill us in on all the secrets?

[ShortnFiery]

36. BULL! It was Al Qaeda NOT the average Afghan citizen who was responsible for 9/11.

How many more people must DIE to atone for 9/11? :thumbsdown:

[jenmito]

38. You conflated Afghanistan and Iraq just like Bush used to do. It's totally appropriate to

invoke 9/11 when talking to the troops in Afghanistan whether you agree or disagree with going in there after 9/11. But keep trying to equate Obama and Bush like I said. It's not working.

[ShortnFiery]

39. Oh stop with the "just like ..." that's so glaringly trite. No, it was al Qaeda now population 150

who were determined responsible for 9/11, not the AVERAGE Afghan Citizen. Again, how many more Afghan Citizens must we blow to Kingdom Come in order to atone for 9/11?

[jenmito]

41. No, I won't stop with the "just like" because it's true. For you to say you got a chill up your

spine when Obama invoked 9/11, calling him "same as the old boss," you showed how bitter and irrational you are. The troops aren't targeting the average Afghan citizen.

[tekisui]

42. Are you sure about that?

There have been several reports of raids that targeted and killed civilians.

[jenmito]

43. I'm sure it's not our policy to target civilians. But I'd also bet there ARE some individual

troops who wrongly target and kill civilians. But your article is a load of bull. Going to Afghanistan to show the troops he supports them and will support them if injured when they get home is NOT war-mongering.

[tekisui]

44. Our policy is worthless to the families

of those innocent people that we kill.

[jenmito]

46. Yes, it is, which is why Obama went to tell the troops

he will only send them to war when necessary. And like I said above in my edit, your article is a load of bull. Going to Afghanistan to show the troops he supports them and will support them if injured when they get home is NOT war-mongering nor pro-war.

[tekisui]

49. It sure is pro-war.

It is telling them they are doing a noble thing. That we never quit and always win. It was a sales-pitch for war in addition to telling them about the support they will receive when they get home, if they make it.

[jenmito]

54. No, it's pro-troops. It was NOT a sales-pitch for war-it's telling the troops that they're

going to be taken care of when they get back if injured in NECESSARY war, which is different from Bush. If you don't recall, Obama was against the war in Iraq, which he wouldn't have been if he's "pro-war" and trying to "sell" war. Your article is bull.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

58. The war is bull.

You don't have to love every war to be pro-war. There are more troops and more contractors under Obama. New record contracts are being awarded as we speak.

Obama doubled the troop level and the for-profit contractors in just his first year. He went to Afghanistan to give the troops a pep rally for the big battles coming this summer. It was a pro-war speech to get the troop morale up for war.

[jenmito]

71. Obama is not "pro-war" any more than he's "pro-abortion." You're as far off as the RW

nuts are re: abortion. He feels it's necessary to be in Afghanistan so he, as CIC, is giving support to the troops whose lives he's responsible. Telling them he will only send them to war as a last resort, and will support them if injured, is far from "pro-war."

[tekisui]

75. What he says and what he did are different things.

I don't buy that doubling the troop force and signing new for-profit contracts was the last resort.

[DevonRex]

63. Of course you're right. Any thinking person can read what the Pres said

and understand that he's saying exactly that. Other thinking people will attempt to twist and distort what was said to suit their purposes, much like our political enemies on the right.

[ShortnFiery]

64. Yes, "thinking person" as opposed to the poor BLOODY infantry troops who gets to

fight the battles for the bloated and spoiled THINKING PEOPLE. :crazy:

But Sir! They run in the opposite direction when the bullets fly. :grr:

[Robb]

45. If the troops are targeting civilians, they're not very good at it.

...and they're getting worse. Pro-government forces in Afghanistan killed 596 civilians in 2009, 28% fewer than in 2008. Anti-government entities killed 1,630 civilians in 2009, 41% more than in 2008.

Would you like the troops to try harder? Would that help your argument?

[tekisui]

47. 596 innocent people killed for our actions.

Am I supposed to be proud of that number?

*Some* of those 596 were killed with full knowledge of them being civilians. I would like for us to not be killing civilians intentionally or on 'accident'. My argument is that it doesn't matter to a dead civilian whether it was on purpose or not.

[Robb]

50. I would like to have ice cream for breakfast every day.

[Forkboy]

85. Fucking cold, dude.

Sad.

[Robb]

105. It's a violent, dangerous part of the world.

I'd rather accidentally kill 1,000 people in a year than let 10,000 be killed in five. That's the calculus. You better believe it's fucking cold. I wish it wasn't.

[ShortnFiery]

107. Karma's gonna kick many pesudo tough-guys/gals in the ass ... in a BIG WAY.

It's a cold, hard knocks world but there's also BALANCING FORCES in the end.

We may not see it coming and it may not be in our lifetime ... but eventually LIGHT will overcome DARKNESS.

Have you EVER considered that if "we piss them off enough" they just may find a way to bring "the darkness" over here?

:( I pray that we find a peaceful resolution to ALL WARS.

[Robb]

109. You think I've got some kind of "tough guy" thing going?

You know as little about me, clearly, as you do about Afghanistan. Try to stick to the topic, if you can.

[ShortnFiery]

116. I did NOT specifically ID you. But the 1,000 to 10,000 ratio is not a sound rationale.

Truth is, we don't know. What we do know FOR SURE is that the longer our combat troops occupy countries in the middle east, the MORE DANGER Americans will be in, both at home and abroad.

Or do you think the folks in Iraq and Afghanistan think it's "Peachy Keen" to have the USA occupying their lands? :shrug:

[Robb]

117. We don't know that, either. That's an opinion.

And we're not talking about Iraq. And Afghanistan's not in the Middle East.

Christ. :D

[ShortnFiery]

119. I stand corrected. Either Country being occupied by USA combat troops makes Americans

less safe both at home and abroad. We differ in OPINION. ;)

[Forkboy]

143. The question is, what numbers are your base to start from?

Why do 10,000 have to be killed instead of accidentally killing 1,000? Why is this either/or paradigm the only one you now accept?

And Robb, I do like you, we're long timers, but please think about what you just said. What if one of those thousand acceptable innocent deaths was YOUR daughter, YOUR son, YOUR mother or father?

Seriously, I'm a damn cynical guy, but your two responses here make me question if I'm as cynical as think I am....because it doesn't get much more cynical than what you've just posted.

Peace, bro.

[Robb]

151. I hear you.

And they're not "acceptable" deaths, they're just fewer. I say that with complete conviction. Afghanistan's history even in my own lifetime is just awash in blood, real blood that isn't just on paper to me.

I know it sounds cynical, but the only time there were more civilian deaths than now is pre-2001, post-Soviet days -- and they weren't accidental. They were fucking awful deaths, man. Stuff that makes you wonder if there's any hope. :(

I've got no illusions about why we wound up having troops there -- speaking of cynical -- but I'm getting a good feeling for the first time in a long while that someone's actually doing the right things, making the right moves. It takes a lot of reading between the lines, and I'm almost certainly shaped by my own experiences in forming these opinions.

For example, I don't "know" that Karzai's on the outs, and that his more sensible cabinet members will step in and set things right. That's just what it looks like to me.

But I believe at least two things: one, that this administration is listening to the right people and making the right, painful, awful choices there. And two, that I'm glad beyond measure I don't have to be the one to make those choices. Being right doesn't mean there won't be demons coming at night, you know?

Cheers, man.

[Forkboy]

152. Thanks for your response, Robb.

"Being right doesn't mean there won't be demons coming at night, you know?"

You sure got that right. And I fear those demons more than you can imagine. I wish I could say we're right, no ifs, ands or buts.....but I can't. I think our mistake is there for all to see, if we look beyond the manipulation and distractions, including those coming from the current administration. There's a history in the Middle East that goes well beyond our 5 decades of interference. We're not helping anything. Just the opposite.

Thanks again, and you're no dingbat, no matter what those crazy Loungers keep telling me! ;)

[ShortnFiery]

159. "They were fucking awful deaths, man." No, they ALL were fucking awful SENSELESS deaths, man.

That's the difference between your and my opinion. There's no slack for SENSELESS deaths.

Post 2001 and since al Qaeda was pushed out, our true justification to continue to occupy Afghanistan was clearly un-sound. That is, if we choose to follow our own logic - we're presently conducting state sponsored terrorism against these people.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Yes, I did. Because you discount that many of us did not believe in an INVASION of

Afghanistan as "JUST." No, you don't invade an entire country because they had ONE FOREIGN faction staying there responsible for atrocities. We should have pulled ALL our troops out after "Tora Bora."

No, this is VILE. It's like invading the entire city of Detroit and laying it into ruins in order to take over one GMC Plant. It's a war crime. We should be making reparations, not continuing to occupy this sovereign nation.

But - no worries. As always MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. :puke:

[jenmito]

52. I hope you didn't vote for Obama knowing his position on the Afghan war and your

disgust to the point of misrepresentation to it, comparing it to Iraq. Nobody said "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" except YOU. :puke:

[ShortnFiery]

55. I didn't have a choice. Kucinich didn't stand a chance. It's voting for the

least worst.

Absolutely - Most people agree - MIGHT MAKES RIGHT :puke:

And The United States of America is the most FEARED Nation in the World. :nuke:

[jenmito]

73. You sound ridiculous. Keep trying. Nobody's buying.

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

96. No, I sound like a number of good Americans who don't have a variety of

candidates to choose from thanks to the stranglehold of the USA's right leaning corporate duopoly. :(

[jenmito]

97. No, you sound like a conspiracy theorist

with your "right leaning corporate duopoly" meme, thinking Obama is a part of it. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

101. Of course I do NOT. EVERYONE agreed that our enemy was "al Qaeda." The attack ...

at Tora Bora was justified to flush out ... <wait for it!?!> AL QAEDA! However, in came the term "mission creep" and all of a sudden we're also at war with ... THE TALIBAN.

No, I'm seeing this clearly. On a MINUTE SCALE, it's like confiscating an entire hotel complex (lock, stock and barrel) because the management allowed a rowdy rock group to stay there while they went out and robbed and burned down a gas station the same night.

It's morally UNSOUND to continue to occupy Afghanistan with our combat troops when there are, at most, 150 al Qaeda left in that country TOTAL!

YOU know that.
I know that.
DUers know that.
Americans know that.
THE WORLD COMMUNITY KNOWS THAT!

Why doesn't the UN stand up to us?

Because the USA has the biggest bad-ass military in the world ... today.

The foregoing makes many American people PROUD ... however, it makes me sad and sort of nauseous.

Just wait until one of your close friends or loved ones sacrifices his/her life or limb or mental sanity for "The Oil Wars?"

Then, I want to hear you accuse me of "conspiracy theories?"

It's all NEW, HORRID and MOST OBSCENE when it happens close to home. :(

[jenmito]

103. The conspiracy I'm talking about is not about al Qaeda. As I SAID, it's about

your "right leaning corporate duopoly" meme. You and some others here think Obama is part of it, and is the same as Bush, and is in Afghanistan for the oil. Ridiculous.

And you can't be so blind as to not see that there are families who have had family members die in Afghanistan who ARE for the war, can you? :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

106. Oh I'm sorry. Right leaning two parties? Yes! Favoring corporations above people? Yes. FACT!

There's no conspiracy about our political process being morphed into a right-leaning corporate duopoly.

We're THERE! :-)

The following is our future elucidated by Adrian Kuzminski:

The coming darkness is the eclipse of American political freedom and the unchecked reign of a venal, arrogant, and ignorant ruling class. Onerous as its depredations at home are likely to be, even more omnious is its immoral, illegal, and criminal policy of preemptive war abroad. There is no end to the war on terrorism, since a terrorist is increasingly defined as anyone who opposes the duopoly at home or abroad.

It has always been madness to try to remould the world in one's image, as we see most recently in the war in Iraq, but it is a vastly greater madness in a nuclear age. The lesson of 9/11 was that resentments born of decades if not centuries of perceived wrongs will find their target if those wrongs are not addressed.

The ultimate equalizer, in our time, is the nuclear bomb and this the terrorists will sooner or later obtain and use if they continue to be provoked. This will be the final, bitter fruit of the loss of our political freedom, and it will be made the ultimate justification for the tyranny now established upon us.

In a dark age, it is the responsibility of those who care about things like political freedom and democracy to struggle to ensure that those values somehow survive and are transmitted to future generations, even if they can no longer play an effective public role, much as the monks of the middle ages preserved the learning of antiquity for a better day. That day will come, but likely not in our time.

[jenmito]

108. Posting someone's opinion doesn't change the fact that you're a conspiracy theorist.

:rofl: That's all that's left to say to you.

[ShortnFiery]

110. It's inappropriate to disrespect a fellow member without provocation. Dare I say against the rules?

I'm speaking my opinion. However, that does not give you the right to disrespect me. Especially since I have shown you basic civility. You are behaving in an "intolerant manner." If that makes you happy, it explains a lot about your viewpoints.

[jenmito]

113. Calling you a "conspiracy theorist" is not disrespecting you. I'm stating a fact.

And I don't care what you or others think of me for doing so.

[ShortnFiery]

118. No that is not a fact but your PERSONAL opinion ...

but you knew that already. ;)

What cracks me up in "a silly way" is that you folks to "the right of political center" will disrespect us left leaning folks shamelessly. However, when an election rolls around, you think that you can intimidate us into voting for your right-leaning Third Way candidates.

Guess what? These upcoming elections will be different. You've used us up ... burned up all our good will.

Either the party turns left, or I'm writing in an appropriate democrat.

That's the situation and it's up to you Third Way people if you wish to WIN (more progressive legislation) or LOSE (remain on the corporate right)? :shrug:

[jenmito]

123. No, it's a fact. You have some crazy idea that all politicians who get elected are part of

the "corporate duopoly" or whatever. I am NOT right of the political center. I'm a liberal. And guess what-I'll vote for Obama AGAIN. As will millions of OTHER liberals. Check out the polls-the VAST majority of us liberals support Obama. You're on the fringe.

[ShortnFiery]

132. None are so blind that they WILL NOT SEE what's right in front of their eyes.

Tell me IN WHAT WAYS President Obama is a Progressive? Oh please, supply some FACTS to support it? You can't? Of course, because our country is controlled by a right leaning duopoly.

IT'S FACT!
BANK ON IT! :evilgrin:

[jenmito]

144. Then look at this:

Here are SOME things:

*
Signed on March 23, 2010
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
*
Signed on March 18, 2010
Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act
*
Signed on January 27, 2010
S. 2949 -Emergency Aid to American Survivors of the Haiti Earthquake Act
*
Signed on January 22, 2010
2009 Tax Breaks for Haiti Donations
*
Signed on October 30, 2009
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009

*
Signed on October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
*
Signed on August 06, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Extension
*
Signed on June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
*
Signed on May 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009



*
Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
*
Signed on May 20, 2009
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
*
Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
*
Signed on March 30, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
*
Signed on March 20, 2009
Small Business Act Temporary Extension

*
Signed on February 04, 2009
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
*
Signed on January 29, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act



http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

[ShortnFiery]

158. What do these acts have to do with ongoing occupations by our combat troops? eom

[jenmito]

163. You asked, "Tell me IN WHAT WAYS President Obama is a Progressive?" I showed you. n/t

[frylock]

60. i certainly won't make that mistake again

[jenmito]

74. Yeah. Better to elect a war-monger who wants to take over the world.

[frylock]

76. and therein lies the dilemma, right?

so i can either vote for obama, and then get called out for complaining about BS escalations, being reminded over and over that he TOLD us he was going to escalate the war in afghanistan, or i could vote for the republican who was going to do the same fucking thing.

this time around i'll go back to voting third party, with a clear conscience, because the right-of-center dems feel that my ideals are "too disruptive to the system."

[jenmito]

90. No...

if you spoke out against Obama being for increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan with a plan to withdraw, that's ONE thing. If you didn't say anything at the time, that's another. DID you speak out against it in '07, '08, etc.?

[frylock]

94. i've been speaking out since 2001!

as i stated before, i've been against this "war" since it started, and i'll continue to speak out against it regardless of which party is inhabiting the white house.

[harkadog]

139. Not the average citizens

Just wedding parties.

[Robb]

149. We're not the only ones.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4305347

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. So now he shouldn't visit the troops he commands?

Give me a fucking break.

[tekisui]

4. That's not how I read it.

The article is just calling the visit what it was, a Pro-War pep rally.

[Teaser]

26. that's not how you want to read it

*your* interpretation is *your* responsibility.

[tekisui]

27. I read what the article says.

I'm not the one that made the leap that Obama shouldn't go there.

I just don't like what he said. It was a pro-war pep rally.

[LibDemAlways]

3. "It's why we're improving care for our wounded warriors,

especially those with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries."

I can't believe he said that. I'm not sure that's the message those soldiers were wanting to hear at that moment.

In Vietnam the troops got morale boosting in the form of Bob Hope shows featuring popular entertainers and playboy models. These poor soldiers get a reminder that they may return with brain injuries.

I'm with the Alternet poster. Just bring them home.

[Jennicut]

5. If I was in the military I would want to hear that the President gives a damn about

me when I get home from fighting a war for my country. Much more important then fluffy entertainment, especially considering the mess Walter Reed was in. I am against the war in Afghanistan. But if a President is going to send the soldiers there they better have the care they deserve and it should be addressed.

[phleshdef]

7. Yea because until he said that, the troops had NO idea there was any risk of that.

[phleshdef]

6. His words made NO connection between PTSD treatment and "pursuit of dreams".

The pursuit of dreams comment was made in reference to the GI Bill. Whoever wrote the article lost all credibility when they attempted to make that connection. Their point is lost and the article is trash.

[tekisui]

8. Are you saying that those with PTSD clearly aren't

going to be able to pursue their dreams? The pursue their dreams applied to all the soldiers, including those with PTSD, that will benefit from the GI Bill.

You point to dismiss the entire article is weak.

[phleshdef]

9. If you and the author want to continue to willfully lack comprehension skills, be my guest.

[tekisui]

10. Let me help you:

"And we'll be there for you when you come home. It's why we're improving care for our wounded warriors, especially those with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. We’re moving forward with the post-9/11 GI Bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams."

Read it yourself. It may be you lacking. Break it down: "we're improving care for our wounded warriors, especially those with PTSD".

You following so far? He is talking to the wounded soldiers. Especially those with PTSD. The next words:"We’re moving forward with the post-9/11 GI Bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams."

We are moving forward with the GI-bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams. "You and your families" refers to wounded soldiers, especially those with PTSD.

Please find a new reason to attack the source. This one is stupid.

[phleshdef]

11. I need no other reason. The author LIED.

I won't back down from pointing that out and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Deal with it.

[tekisui]

12. He did not lie, you are full of shit.

You are just claiming he lied so you can ignore the harsh reality. Bury that head. It is easier that way.

[DevonRex]

15. It IS a lie - one that you obviously like and want to further. Here's the relevant portion:

>>>>

The president added: "And we'll be there for you when you come home. It's why we're improving care for our wounded warriors, especially those with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. We’re moving forward with the post-9/11 GI Bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams."

Those words provide a kind of freeze frame for basic convolution: The government will help veterans with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries to pursue their dreams.

>>>>>

Now, I know you're smart enough to know that a period ends one sentence and that the next sentence begins a new thought. Therefore, you're spreading the lie as much as the author of this piece. Shame on you.

[tekisui]

17. Wait. Do wounded soldiers, with PTSD not qualify for the

GI Bill?

If they do, they are included and his point is valid. If wounded warriors are not eligible for the GI Bill, then it is inaccurate. But, I would need a link with that info.

[DevonRex]

20. Oh good grief. That reply is too silly for words. nt

[tekisui]

22. As is your attempt to dismiss the entire article over

what you want to see.

[DevonRex]

30. I generally DO dismiss what's said by liars. nt

[tekisui]

33. You can't point to the lie.

Because there is not one.

[phleshdef]

51. "The govt will help veterans with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries to pursue their dreams."

The author is making a petty attempt to call out the President on that basis and that was not what President Obama said. So yea, thats being purposefully dishonest in order to justify criticism which makes one a liar.

[tekisui]

61. So we aren't going to help those with PTSD

pursue their dreams?

Was Obama not talking to ALL the soldiers? Or, was it just the non-wounded?

[Robb]

65. There is a point where a sensible person would stop digging.

For my part, I'm happy to kick this thread for all to see.

[DevonRex]

66. Robb, you're on a roll.

And you're cracking me up. :hi:

[tekisui]

67. No one has shown a lie, but keep claiming it is there.

I am happy for the kicks. Had it not been for the obsession of a couple of posters to find some point to dismiss the article, it would have dropped off the page long ago.

[ShortnFiery]

120. ...

Ha! :toast:

[Robb]

121. I have shown you two lies. Only one was the OPs.

Yet you continue. Astounding.

[tekisui]

126. No you haven't.

[DevonRex]

13. I agree with you. The author lied so the article is trash. And flame-bait. nt

[tekisui]

14. Where is the lie?

[DevonRex]

16. I told you above. But here it is again.

>>>>>

The president added: "And we'll be there for you when you come home. It's why we're improving care for our wounded warriors, especially those with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. We’re moving forward with the post-9/11 GI Bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams."

Those words provide a kind of freeze frame for basic convolution: The government will help veterans with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries to pursue their dreams.

>>>>>

The part about PTSD and traumatic brain injuries is NOT in the same sentence about the GI bill. The GI bill is what helps them and their families pursue their dreams.

[tekisui]

19. The GI Bill helps WHOM?

Soldiers, including wounded soldiers and those with PTSD. All the sentences have the same subject.

[DevonRex]

21. Silly. But obviously not beneath you. nt

[tekisui]

23. Are you trying to guilt me or something?

What are you talking about "not beneath you"?

You and your buddy are claiming the article is trash based on this obvious lie. Yet, there is no lie there. It is the typical way: dismiss any criticism for any reason. If you can't find a reason, make one up.

[Robb]

25. Look who's talking.

[tekisui]

29. What are you trying to say, Robb?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

28. Clearly the GI bill helps the VA budget.

...By your OP's logic. Observe, I can string the next two sentences together in the same manner they strung the previous two:

We’re moving forward with the Post-9/11 GI Bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams. And we’ve made the biggest increase in the VA budget in 30 years, because we’re going to keep our sacred trust with all those who serve.

Those words provide a kind of freeze frame: The government will help the VA budget pursue its dreams. :crazy:

[DevonRex]

31. Well done, Robb.

:rofl:

[tekisui]

34. Can you tell me who was being addressed in the

sentence about the GI Bill?

Does it include wounded soldiers? Or, is it specific to only those not wounded?

[tekisui]

32. First off, that wasn't the quote in question.

Second, Obama was addressing soldiers in both sentences. You can claim they were two independent and unique thoughts. I don't read it that way, but it is fine if you do.

Regardless, both sentences are speaking to soldiers, the first sentence specifically the wounded. The second sentence could be in reference to wounded soldiers, or to ALL soldier, including the wounded.

The article points out that those with PTSD would be in a better position to pursue their dreams if they weren't physically and mentally wounded.

[zulchzulu]

40. As on against that war, I knew it was a boilerplate speech to rally the troops

I'm very aware that there is a timetable for withdrawal in 2011. That's all I really can do anything about at this point.

[BeyondGeography]

53. That's not what Karzai's saying today

[ShortnFiery]

59. Karzai will say and do what WE tell him.

He's our (the USA's) puppeteering THUG.

[Moochy]

62. K&R

kick to balance all the Health Care Reform Triumphalism around here.

[polichick]

68. MUST WATCH: "The Secret Government" (Moyers chilling doc about the war machine)

What's changed is that they've substituted "terrorism" for "communism" to justify endless war.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430&ei=3J49StneI464rgKE2pGvCg&q=The+Secret+Government&hl=en#

[DevonRex]

70. Hey polichik!

I will certainly watch that. I love Moyers. But I'm interested in your take on it. Also, when was this produced?

[polichick]

86. This piece was done in the late 80s following the Iran Contra hearings...

It was suggested on a thread here last week and I finished watching over the weekend. It reinforces Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex, focusing on what is done secretly by the executive branch using profit-oriented secret partners.

Makes you wonder what secret wars are going on today - 'course most of us have heard about a secret CIA war in Pakistan.

[greencharlie]

77. well...

sounded like the speech was written by Karl Rove.

[Cha]

99. No, it didn't..it was written by President Obama and if

you can't tell the difference then that's your problem. The President actually backs up what he says.

[Cha]

78. Good for President Obama going to Afghanistan

to face the Troops and telling them we support them back home and the clarity of Mission.

[greencharlie]

79. Clarity of the mission?

Ok, I'll bite. What IS the mission?

[treestar]

80. Why does it have to be a pro-war pep rally merely because he went to see them?

[tekisui]

81. It doesn't have to be, but what he said made it so.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. Out of curiosity, other than "we're leaving now", what do you think he should have said?

What could Obama have said to the troops that would've not made this a pro-war pep rally?

[tekisui]

93. He would have had to speak in contradiction to his actions.

He really isn't in a position to give another type of speech to the troops.

But, he could have left out the we never give up and the we will prevail war talk. He claimed that our troops being there are making Americans safer. I don't buy that. It was more of the same justifications we have heard for years.

[greencharlie]

82. judging by what was SAID there. nt

[Cha]

83. It's pro reality rally..

Here it is..see for yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x449005

[Jennicut]

87. If you are against this war so be it. I am and I think this notion that the

President cannot talk about the real dangers there is kind of BS. Not only that, this is an all volunteer army. The soldiers know the risks and if they don't they are beyond idiots. The author combined two separate sentences as if they were one. It is beyond petty. This gets us no where. I would rather talk about if the strategy McCrystal has is terrible or when Obama sees us actually ending this war, if ever. This article is just lame.

[DevonRex]

88. Exactly. The combination of 2 separate sentences as if they were one

was dishonest and petty. And yes, lame. :hi:

[Jennicut]

92. Hey!

:)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

89. Yes.....because we should be clear

that when the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief goes to visit the troops, he should just say things like, "What the fuck. This is pointless. Let's all surrender."

:eyes:

[grahamhgreen]

91. How many Americans should die for the Islamic republic we've set up in Afghanistan?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

148. How many Afghans should die because the US didn't fix what they broke? n/t

[grahamhgreen]

154. We ARE the problem, like a parent who's beating a child, it's time for us to go.

[ClarkUSA]

95. In related "all war is bad" news: Pres. Abraham Lincoln gave "pro-war pep rally" at Gettysberg, PA

:crazy:

[ShortnFiery]

98. Compare an unjust invasion and occupation of a country across the globe to us WITH our civil war?

Now that's one STRAINED COMPARISON. :crazy: :smoke:

[ClarkUSA]

102. Pursuing Al-Qaida and its allies -- after BushCo took their eye off the ball -- is "unjust"?

I respectfully disagree. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

111. Eye off the ball? Check! But now we have chased out al Qaeda and it's time to

pack up the combat troops and go home. There's no JUST reason to remain unless we buy-into "mission creep" that suggest the Taliban were buddies with the al Qaeda. :wtf: We know the foregoing is untrue. They merely tolerated their existence but now there's only 150 INDIVIDUALS tops. It's past time to declare victory and go home. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

147. What is the intel that states "we have chased out al Qaeda" in AfPak?

Granted, the U.S. has made noticeable strides under President Obama but as Al Qaeda is still sending threatening messages to the U.S., I think there's more work to do in that direction.

<<There's no JUST reason to remain unless we buy-into "mission creep" that suggest the Taliban were buddies with the al Qaeda. We know the foregoing is untrue.>>

The Taliban sheltered Al Qaeda in AfPak after 9/11 and they have been doing it http://politifi.com/news/Pakistan-seizes-key-Taliban-AlQaeda-base-240237.html">ever since. The good news is that some U.S. officials have reported seeing http://politifi.com/news/Some-US-officials-see-a-growing-TalibanAl-Qaeda-rift-275077.html">a growing Taliban-Al Qaeda rift this month.

<< It's past time to declare victory and go home.>>

With OBL still sending messages and promising http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/25/mideast.bin.laden/index.html">destruction, I've got to disagree with you again. I can understand your not wanting war in the region of your birth, though.

[Cha]

114. Not at all unjust..just a way for

many who never liked the President in the first place to continue their ranting. Not all..some really do think they know more than the President about what's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Robb]

124. LOL

...Even I won't go that far. Whoever he has advising him, from what I can tell, knows AfPak.

[ShortnFiery]

127. Yes, we don't know squat.

Some of us were actually BORN over THERE :scared: ... you know? Where YOU SAID ABOVE the areas AF-PAC + :wtf: ... THESE PLACES are *violent.* :wtf:

:rofl: I was kind of surprised you didn't follow-up with the line *savages live in them-thar parts!* :evilgrin:

[Robb]

129. Some of us were.

You were born in the FATA?

[ShortnFiery]

134. No, nice guess but no cigar.

Let's just say, I don't want the place of my birth being blown to kibbles and bits. I think that the people there are not to blame. We don't need to KILL thousands of people just because we can't tolerate their leadership.

Call me, sentimental ... nostalgic even. :eyes:

[Robb]

135. Let's just say you're implying you were born in Afghanistan or Pakistan

....And let's just say unless you were spirited away at birth and began learning about Central Asia sometime this week, let's just say I don't believe you.

So you can try pulling the other one. Find someone else to BS.

[ShortnFiery]

138. No, I was saying that I was ...

born in THAT part of the world ("over there" ... you know as that "violent" land?) , not to be confused with North or South America. Duh.

You really do need to find another way to communicate. "Caustic" does not become you.

You don't have to believe me but I was born within an USA Army Clinic in Tehran, Iran during the Shah's rule.

Albeit I'm a full American Citizen, for some strange reason, I don't want to see this *AF-PAK bunk* scenario escalate into firing up tensions more with Iran. As I mentioned before, for some STRANGE reason, I don't want to see my place of birth bombed to kibbles and bits. GO FIGURE. :silly: :P

[Cha]

128. Exactly and the President is no

slouch in getting the facts and making important decisions based on those facts.

[ShortnFiery]

130. Yes, Important decisions that include Killing and Dying for an UNJUST Cause.

It won't take that long before our "allies" will fade away not unlike "the coalition of the willing" in Iraq. Unfortunately by then we will have pissed away another TRILLION of our hard earned tax dollars on the Military Industrial Complex.

Then our troops MAY come back, but no war will have been won.

At that time, the President and Congress will want to EAT INTO our Social Security Pay.

And you know what, YOU and others TOO TRUSTING like YOU, will give it to them.

Good Citizens? OR Lambs to the corporate slaughter?

[ShortnFiery]

125. Oh stop with that drivel. Many of us like Candidate Obama A LOT. To include waiting

in the rain to hear him speak at one of his rallies.

Face the FACT that many people who voted for President Obama are "left of center" on the political spectrum - it's the true BASE of the democratic party.

All I can say is that, disrespect those of us who want an end to these VILE occupations and "The Patriot Act" at your peril.

I love the democratic party, but I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for a "democrat" who is going to continue to deny me, my friends and family of OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

It's time WE ALL encourage our President and Congress to END THESE OCCUPATIONS?

Come aboard and work with us ... or prepare to lose our vote come 2012.

ENDING these Occupations and repealing The Patriot Act are, for me, non-negotiable for Obama's 2nd Term VOTE.

[Cha]

100. I just read that President Obama's speech sounded like

it was written by rove..and I wrote, "no it didn't".. that it was written by Obama and he backs up what he says.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Common Sense Party]

122. Yay, War!!!!

Hooray for Change!

[Cha]

131. That's trite and has nothing to do with reality.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Common Sense Party]

137. Truth hurts.

Try some Bactene.

[phleshdef]

140. Actually the truth feels pretty damn good.

[ShortnFiery]

141. When do you deploy for that first Recon Patrol out in Enemy Territory?

That should feel Gawd Damn Exhilarating. :nuke: :evilgrin:

[tekisui]

142. You think the families of the 1,000 dead US servicemembers

think it feels pretty damn good?

Do you think the tens of thousands Afghans killed feels pretty damn good?

Do you think the expansion and escalation of war feels pretty damn good?

[Cha]

146. Doesn't it phlesh!

Love the truth..and facts..oh boy..those too!:)

Dealing in facts instead of what extremists are telling us..and finally we're dealing in reality.

That's why the President went to Afghanistan..he's knows the terrible losses and still thinks it has to be done.

[tekisui]

150. Extremists?

What extremists?

[Cha]

145. It doesn't hurt me but that doesn't make your

statement any less trite.

[spoony]

155. Whatever infection DU's hawks have

it's far too deep to treat with topicals :(

[Forkboy]

160. Who told you to put the balm on? I didn't tell you to put the balm on!

[jody]

153. Bush and now Obama feel good about troops under their command dying for naught in Afghanistan.

:puke:

[akbacchus_BC]

156. I really wish the current President would pull out the troops out of

Afghanistan rather than the sorry excuse. He too is American, guess once you American you can walk rough shod over other countries. America should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan since yesterday and help the people to rebuild their country, not go in and show fire power.

Same shit with our Canadian government, we were supposed to be peace keepers, then we went into Afghanistan as soldiers!

I am sick and tired of these two occupations. President Obama needs to pull the troops out rather than having more Americans slaughter innocents and more soldiers getting killed! Honestly, Americans, if a country invaded you, won't you fight back?

This is my opinion! And may I ask what is happening with Gitmo, wasn't it supposed to be closed by now?

Please do not get me wrong, I admire President Obama and he inherited a boatload of shit to clean up and he is trying his best. Too bad he does not have a pitbull to watch his back like former Presidents did. Damn if he does and damn if he doesn't.

One thing though, he should use his Presidential powers to overturn DADT. This kinda shit of Gays going under the bus is no longer acceptable.

End of rant, please free to rant as well!

[jeanpalmer]

157. It wasn't a pep rally for the troops

so much as one for the people back home. America is getting tired of this war. The soldiers aren't going to quit, there is no possibility of that happening. The people who want to "quit" are rational people back home. And that's whom this lecture was directed at. Now that the health care distraction is gone, people are going to start focusing on the war again. And it's going to become an issue. Especially with his 16-month deadline for getting all combat troops out of Iraq approaching. He has made a bad decision to escalate the war, and he's going to start feeling the heat. He's trying to head that off by implying people are quitters.

[Forkboy]

161. Hey, the dead are by the hands of a Democrat....lighten up!

[jeanpalmer]

162. The message was also directed at Europe

where support for the war has declined sharply. The Dutch government just collapsed over its troop commitment. 80% of Germans want their troops out. Europe is on the verge of "quitting." If Europe leaves, the collective nature of the effort will be undermined; and many more Americans will be asking "why are we there?" Obama doesn't want to be left with Fiji as his only ally in Afghanistan.