Olbermann: Afghan Troop withdrawls to begin between July of next year and January of 2011.

[Clio the Leo]

Here is the opening of Countdown tonight..

There were, in the end we've learned, four choices...

1. withdraw (immediately or nearly so.)

2. a commitment of 10,000 "trainers" to bring Afghan troops and security forces up to speed.

3. a tightening in the mission with NO change in troop levels and

4. the one President Obama, last night, informed his government and his military he had chosen, the choice he will report to the nation from West Point at this hour, tomorrow night.

Our 5th story on the countdown a troop escalation in Afghanistan, what's described by the White House tonight as "an aggressive timed push with an exit. Troop with-drawls to begin between July of next year and January of 2011.

There are nearly as many caveats as new troops. Congressional oversight would be intricate and pervasive. Budgeting strictly through ordinary, Congressionally approved means and the corporate hand would be kept out of the till. Essentially NO "no-bid" military contracting.

A Special Comment ahead...

(transcript mine)

[Cha]

1. Thanks for your transcript

Clio!

[vaberella]

3. Great news...isn't it. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

4. welcome but "July of 2010...."?

I had to listen to that three times to make sure I didn't hear it wrong.

If troop withdrawl comes as early as that, I think we can ALL agree to be happy about that (well, almost all of us lol)

[vaberella]

7. That would mean Obama ended TWO wars and saved us from Economic Collapse. Dare I say it,

"Thank you God---uh...I mean President Obama!" :rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

11. Well, it's so unexpected I'm going to wait to believe it....

.... until I hear it from the President tomorrow.

(and even then I may have to rewind it twice still lol)

[HopeOverFear]

14. I know right? I had to read that four different times to make sure I read it right.

[vaberella]

2. I think we're running low on crow supply Clio. Whatever will we do?

Thanks Clio!! :rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

6. now there you go again.........

.... shhh behave. ;)

[vaberella]

12. ...

:silly: :evilgrin: :fistbump:

[Clio the Leo]

56. ......

:spank: lol

[vaberella]

59. hahaha...I love that smiley---it's like I'm enjoying the spanking...n/t

[Clio the Leo]

67. Hey hey now.....

..... this is a FAMILY board! lol

[vaberella]

69. Hahhaha!!! n/t

[JuniperLea]

40. Crow season!

Hunting crow!

:rofl:

I'll even dip it in chocolate!

[vaberella]

46. Hahahaha!! n/t

[HopeOverFear]

5. Wow. thanks.

[vaberella]

8. It's 3am in France and because of this news I'm not going to sleep!

Fuckin' hell. Damn you DU for doing this to me.

[HopeOverFear]

23. go to sleep! lol

[vaberella]

31. seriously...it's not about to happen. n/t

[HopeOverFear]

34. The speech isn't until tomorrow lol

I order you to go to sleep lol

[vaberella]

44. I can't, I'm too excited. Plus I just took some excedrin---the caffeine in that shit fucks me up.

It's like I'm on speed. (Just so you know I'm normally hyper so I never take things with caffeine---except I suffer from severe migraines and excedrin is the only thing that works)! :D

[JuniperLea]

42. Chamomile tea!

I'm such a lightweight... one strong cup and I'm out! Try it!

[vaberella]

48. Will Do! I wish I could rec' this thread 20x over. n/t

[JuniperLea]

54. I forgot to rec!

So excited I forgot to freaking rec!

Thanks for reminding me! :rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

66. I wish you could too! :-P NT

[Clio the Leo]

60. I needed to drink two Sundrops just to type this OP....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Drop

[vaberella]

68. That looks like it does some serious damage to your innards.

:rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

70. Most definately. NT

[JuniperLea]

73. OMG! They outdid the Dew!

:rofl:

I'm afraid!

[SIMPLYB1980]

102. Nectar of the Gods!

Sundrop is awesome.

[Clio the Leo]

109. Yes, nectar of the gods....

.... the HILLBILLY gods!!!!

(Im in East TN lol)

[SIMPLYB1980]

117. LoL!

Sundrops first bottling company was in my home town. Well next door to it in the "Gas House". But it goes back to the early 40's.

http://www.sundrop.com/

The best thing to do is make a Cherry lemon Sundrop with real Cherry's and cherry juice.

Little Hillbilly's like it to.

[Cha]

32. Get some shuteye, Vab..

so you'll be perky for the Speech tomorrow night. I have no idea what time in France that will be.

[vaberella]

45. 6 hour difference...with me ahead by that number. n/t

[tekisui]

9. If that is accurate, he is asking for one more year,

and 34,000 troops. That time frame is incredibly ambitious. What will 34,000 troops be able to do in a few months that can't be done now?

[vaberella]

16. Clean up crew?! Didn't we send it about 20,000 troops to Iraq to help with withdrawal?!

Further more, there's the peace keeping initiatives and development initiatives where we need several soldiers to protect the citizens there. However, I'm unsure. We'll find out, won't we.

[janx]

17. It is ambitious, yes.

And your final question is an interesting one.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Keep the place from collapsing before Obama runs for re-election in 2012

And make it look like we didn't just completely bail. I suppose in the best case the country will remain in the hands of the people we paid rather than those we don't pay. This is Obama's "peace with honor" or put another way leaving without looking like a coward.

BTW, this isn't a slam on Obama. In his place I would probably wind up doing the same thing. Of course I would never run for President because the stress of having to make those choices between bad and worse would kill me.

[ProSense]

10. If President Obama goes with any of the plans Olbermann mentioned,

it will be a major blow to Obama owns this war crowd. Sorry Republicans.

Trainers and exit strategy = good news.

[bigjohn16]

15. He'll own this war tomorrow night. Sorry. nt

[ProSense]

20. Nonsense.

He'll own ending this war.

[bigjohn16]

24. One year and 30,000 more troops will change nothing.

If he wants to get out more troops is not the way to do it.

[ProSense]

26. Yes, it will

train and exit.

[bigjohn16]

29. When they stand up we stand down?

I've heard that before.

[JuniperLea]

49. Oh stop wishing so loudly that Obama will fail...

This isn't a football game... your "team" will not suffer if Obama fixes this mess.

:eyes:

[bigjohn16]

51. My team? Care to be plain with your response? nt

[JuniperLea]

57. You are flying in the face of what would normally be considered good news for the entire nation here

So I suspect your agenda isn't as pure as it should be.

I cannot be any more clear than my original post... please try reading again.

[bigjohn16]

61. Sending more troops into a quagmire is good news?

Not in my world but this is the new DU so I'm not surprised.

[JuniperLea]

72. First you have to admit that there are people smarter than you are...

That there are strategic moves that can be made to end this, and that just simply pulling everyone out all at once is a horrifically stupid idea. Then you have to think in terms of fresh soldiers doing this instead of the war torn crew there now.

I will find it absolutely delicious to be able to serve you up a chocolate flavored crow...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x26740



I expect you'll find more to hate on Obama for, since you're so adamant.

I do find your disregard for honesty and your joy of evil assumptions vile and repugnant, however.

[bigjohn16]

79. I don't hate the President nor do I love him.

I just hate the choice he's making on Afghanistan. I hope I get to eat that chocolate crow because it would mean that no more lives were lost in a quagmire that the President now owns.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

119. "The new DU' indeed

Where warhawks and the maligning of the "liberals" is now accepted and encouraged.

[bigjohn16]

120. I never thought I'd see the word "liberal" used as an insult here.

It amazes me what one election can do to people.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

121. Me either

I thought that was an "insult" saved for teabaggers. Never thought I would read that here, DU is currently unrecognizable as the site I first encountered in 06.

[janx]

21. He owns it now,

doesn't he? :shrug:

[bigwillq]

28. Yes, he does.

We're still there under his watch. He had the chance to end it on Jan. 20. He didn't, so essentially he does "own the war", and yes, I do know about his campaign "promises" so no need to tell me that I got what I voted. Thanks! :P ;) :)

[HamdenRice]

100. "He had the chance to end it on Jan. 20" -- Huh?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That's laughably foolish. This is why a huge chunk of DU opinion is not to be taken seriously by any thinking adult.

[bigjohn16]

47. He'll make it official to the public on Tuesday. nt

[Clio the Leo]

27. He owned it on January 20th.

Afghanistan and all of the rest of the crap Bush left him.

[Cha]

41. That's right..he inherited it and now he's doing his

very best to make it right.

[bigjohn16]

43. He had a decision to make on January 20 he didn't own the war.

In my opinion from what I've heard he's made the wrong choice.

[Cha]

58. Yes, he did..he takes his responsibilities

very seriously.

[vaberella]

19. Well wasn't that the major aspect of all the talks and the media mentioned it--Jenmito had told me.

So along with the increase there is a definitive strategy to remove our troops from this invasion. I was just watching Gordon on c-span and he's also increasing troops by 500, I'm assuming after talks with O, in order to help also with removal and help Pakistan.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Kolesar]

13. Lose to win, Keith? eom

[Kolesar]

18. McChrystal covered up the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan

I did not know that.

[boppers]

97. McChrystal covered up the death of Pat Tillman? No. Yes. Not quite that simple.

Tillman died in a fuckup where special operations forces (Rangers, in this case) got in a firefight with... themselves.

The media ran with "NFL Hero dies in firefight with enemy" angle. The Army (via Abizaid, and then passed to McChrystal, because it was Special Operations) gave him posthumous awards, based on the preliminary story offered by Jones, which was passed to Abizaid, which was passed to McChrystal.

McChrystal, however, warned that it might have not been an enemy engagement, a day later.

The boots on the ground hid the facts. Angry people started demanding more complete answers. The investigation dragged on.

Complaints that a "coverup" was happening emerged because the investigation was taking a while, and some participants had actively conspired to hide the fuckup.

Media keeps running the BS "Hero Enemy Firefight" story, because it's good TV.

Autopsies, depositions, witness statements, investigations, reports, and the gears of bureaucracy grind. For weeks, then months.

Eventually, the story breaks that it was friendly fire.

Fingers start pointing. They get pointed at the soldiers who thought Tillman was a target. They get pointed at the attorneys that worked on the case. They get pointed damn near everywhere, at everybody involved in the chain of command.

The soldiers are blamed, and busted in various ways.

Rumsfeld is blamed, but eventually leaves office.

Bush is blamed, but eventually leaves office.

So, now the fingers are now pointing at McChrystal, the highest skeptic to first think "wait a second..." about the whole thing.

[Kolesar]

99. I suspected that Keith was over the top tonight

McChrystal, the highest skeptic to first think "wait a second..."

[CaliforniaPeggy]

22. If this is true, it's much better than I'd thought it would be.

We shall see.

Thank you for your synopsis.

[HopeOverFear]

25. Agreed, same here.

[vaberella]

35. Yeah...this post makes your OP claims on the thread moot. n/t

[jenmito]

33. K&R. I heard it, too. Thanks for writing the transcript.

:yourock:

[vaberella]

37. Hi Jen!!! Woohoo!!

:party: :toast: :grouphug:

[jenmito]

50. Hey, vaberella!!!

WooHoo!!! There is NO WAY Obama is going into this blindly. He studied very carefully-this will NOT be another Vietnam. He learned from history. :fistbump:

[vaberella]

52. You know a good number of DUers would disagree---he is Bush3/Bushlite after all.

All sarcasm aside...I definitely agree with you and knew this is why I voted for him. No matter his decision there would never be a postive win--there's always a problem. But this news, if it proves to be true---which it will be, is definitely a good balance/compromise of the situation at best and I had this feeling upon watching Gordon Brown in front of Parliament on c-span today.

http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/11/30/HP/A/26615/British+PM+Gordon+Brown+Address+on+Afghanistan.aspx

[jenmito]

62. Sadly, I know...

I saw one poster tonight say s/he didn't vote for Obama in '08 and now definitely won't vote for him in '12 if he sends in more troops. (I guess while s/he was at the McCain/Palin rallies, s/he wasn't paying attention to Obama's statements about how he was going to concentrate on the Afghan war, and increase troop levels.)

Thanks for the link. I'll watch it later (after Maddow's show). :hi:

[ProSense]

36. This would put President Obama on the same page as Gordon Brown

details

[vaberella]

39. Yup. I was just watching it on C-Span today. Gordon was talking to Parliament about this. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

53. "Nine months: 400 provincial and district governors appointed"

.... wow ........ it's all coming together huh.

I just wish Olbermann had cited a source. What if Brown's speech WAS his source?

Answering my own question: Brown's speech didn't detail Obama's four choices did it? ... He must have talked to someone inside. hmmmm....

[dsc]

38. I am going to continue to wait until we hear from Obama

this is the first comment I have made in an Afghanistan thread. I will admit, one year seems ambitious to get 34k troups in and out and finish a war but again I will for his speech.

[Clio the Leo]

55. Yeah.......

.... I'm not EVER going to be popping champagne bottles over the matter lol .... but I WILL hold out my belief is Olbermann's claim until it comes from the President or the WH.

Interesting turn to say the least.

[dsc]

75. I won't deny I would love to hear this out of Obama's mouth

[IndianaGreen]

63. According to MSNBC, the troop surge will go on well into 2011

There are no time tables for troop withdrawals, not only that, there are no penalties for missing any of the benchmarks listed below.

Afghanistan summit to plan for withdrawal

Gordon Brown sets out benchmarks for Kabul government to take control of disputed territory

Nicholas Watt and Mark Townsend
The Observer, Sunday 29 November 2009

Brown, who was speaking at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, was more cautious than the White House, which said last week that Obama's announcement would herald the eventual withdrawal of troops.

But the prime minister set out five benchmarks – the last of which would pave the way for a lengthy process of withdrawal to begin – that the Afghan government will be asked to meet at the conference in London on 28 January:

■ Within three months Kabul must identify additional troops to send to Helmand province for training. So far this year, 98 British soldiers have been killed in the province, the heaviest annual death toll since the conflict began eight years ago. Brown said: "This is part of our idea that we will build up the Afghan army by nearly 50,000 over the course of the next year."

■ Within six months there must be clear plans for police training.

■ Within nine months President Hamid Karzai must have appointed almost 400 provincial and district governors.

■ Within 12 months 5,000 additional Afghan troops will be trained by Britain in Helmand and thousands more in other parts of the country.

■ By the end of 2010 Afghan security forces must be taking the lead in five out of the country's 34 provinces. Control in one or two districts in Helmand will also be handed over.

Brown stressed that the conference, which is expected to be attended by Karzai, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and foreign ministers of the other 42 countries involved in Afghanistan, would not set a timetable for withdrawal. But he indicated that the process of "Afghanisation", whereby local troops and police assume control, would allow international troops to begin to leave.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/afghanistan-withdrawal-summit-gordon-brown

[Clio the Leo]

71. Nine months from now.....

.... is July, 2010.

If 400 provincial governors are appointed in nine months, then it presumes they will be to the point where the full troop level is not needed. (at least that's my take on the two reports.)

I found the news just as shocking as you probably did.

I wish Rachel had cited her source just as I wish Keith had.

[jeanpalmer]

98. Karzai's head must be spinning

For 8 years, all he's had to do was take his cut of the graft, put his brother in charge of the drug trade, stuff a few ballot boxes, and make occasional appearances in that goofy tribal costume.

Now, they want this figurehead to implement the 10-point plan to victory -- and do it in six months. He's got to be saying WTF.

These plans always look great on paper. We must have had a gazillion such plans during Nam. They're always put out at just as the public is about to turn on the whole project. But they do buy some time, until the next crisis. As ole GW said, you can fool some of the people all the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.

[Clio the Leo]

108. He's got bigger problems than that....

.... I think the WH is trying to weaken the central Afghan government and strengthen provincial governors so that Afghanistan is too busy fighting itself in civil war and al Qaeda wont want to have anything to do with them.

It's the OPPOSITE of nation building. ;)

[knightinwhitesatin]

64. I can't wait for the walk back on this one

If it takes 1.5 years to complete the surge.....one brigade every four months then the drawdown cannot begin until the end of 2011. Don't let math get in the way. :)

[vaberella]

65. Uh huh.

We'll hear what the President says. If he confirms this information---I would have assumed after the SEVERAL weeks/months, even, of meetings on this topic that his Generals, advisors and him agree that this is doable. This is the problem I have with your OP and this post. Rachel is not Pres and she can be wrong. If there is a set exit strategy and this happens to be the case as the above and confirmed by our President then he was given the confirmation that this would be a successful procedure---wouldn't you think?

[JuniperLea]

74. I don't know what "ignored" said...

But I like what you said back!

:rofl:

[vaberella]

77. I understand why you ignored.

S/he said this, "I can't wait for the walk back on this one <---subject
If it takes 1.5 years to complete the surge.....one brigade every four months then the drawdown cannot begin until the end of 2011. Don't let math get in the way."

If it's confirmed by Obama----I would assume this bit of a problem (if it is one) would have come up during the meetings. I'm surprised the OP didn't think about that.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

81. The thought did cross my mind as well. n/t

[knightinwhitesatin]

87. Sure

a picture of me in Iraq isn't going to help with you guys

[knightinwhitesatin]

89. n/m

nevermind

[knightinwhitesatin]

90. not gonna change mind

by posting pictures

self delete

[vaberella]

110. Did I ask for proof? I didn't think so...I just said it crossed my mind. n/t

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

78. + Infinity. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

82. lol, CHILDREN!!!

Can y'all take it DOWN a notch! lol

Can we at least HEAR it from the President before we go into full "Bring it On!" formation ........ ha ha ..... and then IF he confirms Olbermann's report ... not even then!

If the President doesn't say "out as early as July 2010" or worse, says the OPPOSITE .... we ... and by "We" I mean YALL ..... are gonna be SCREWED. lol

sheesh! :spank:

[mcablue]

104. Wait..does this mean that your support for the escalation might decrease

...if this report turns out to be false and Obama does not announce that we will begin withdrawing next year? Or do you support the escalation regardless of the veracity of this?

[Better Believe It]

83. The build-up of U.S. troops will take 12 to 18 months to complete.

So any talk of beginning the withdrawl anytime before 2011 would have to ignore the logistics of the troop escalation in Afghanistan.

[Clio the Leo]

84. KO started his show with what I posted....

.... and then ended it with that Special Comment.

CLEARLY this was all done to screw with us; watch the proverbial fur fly. ;)

[vaberella]

85. Response to that at Post. #64....

My response to that statement that's being touted around.

Another similar response because of the apart spam of the same message on several threads by that one poster: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=26589&mesg_id=26971

[jillan]

86. I just wish that all the naysayers would just let Obama be heard tomorrow.

He is not Bush, and I want to hear his plan....I mean he took his time to make this decision. He listened to alot of different viewpoints. He obviously thought this thru. Maybe his whole strategy is designed to get us out of there without leaving too much chaos behind.

I'm waiting to hear from the man himself before I jump to any conclusions, and I'm certainly not going to bash his plan before hearing what he has to say.

[Peacetrain]

88. I hear that..but this is how it goes every single time..

[JohnnyLib2]

92. Hasta manana, y'all.

:boring:

[Clio the Leo]

93. I just hope the Countdown staff didn't get confused.....

.... with the Iraq withdrawl timeline (which is essentially the same.)

Just seems odd that I cant find ANY other reporting on this claim anywhere.

We shall see.........

[Cha]

96. If they did get mixed

up..they'll have some explaining to do.

[Garam_Masala]

94. When will troop withdrawal begin from Okinawa, Germany, Kosovo,

and 50 other places where US troops are STILL deployed!
Why is that expenditure justified with the humongous federal
budget deficits?

[Clio the Leo]

95. Funny isn't it? ;-) NT

[Moochy]

114. Which Country would you want to be stationed in?

Nothing but distractions from the war glee club.

[Garam_Masala]

122. I don't want us to fund troops in Korea, Germany, Okinawa

and dozens of other countries, half a century or more later in some cases,
after the hostilities have ended.

Especially now since the country is broke and begging for money from China.

Afghanistan is the correct war AT THIS TIME as president Obama campaigned on
and is now fulfilling his campaign promises.

[HopeOverFear]

101. Clio I think Keith was talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan

[Inuca]

103. No, he was not n/t

[mcablue]

105. The OP may or may not have made a huge mistake

We will find out tonight once Obama is done with his speech. If he does not mention withdrawal in July 2010, a big clarification will be in order.

[Clio the Leo]

107. From Keith.....

.... I posted what he said. I was not arguing the point one way or the other which is why I offered no commentary in my OP. I said later in the thread I found the report shocking.

But I know, kill the messenger. ;)

Again, here's the video..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34213823

[HopeOverFear]

118. Clio I didn't mean to step on your toes, sweetie

I guess I'm just kinda feeling like that news is too good to be true, if it's true. Sigh, I can't wait until tonight.

[Clio the Leo]

106. That's the only sense I can make of it.....

..... sense NO ONE else is saying it.

But he was clearly talking about the President's decision regarding Afghanistan. He made no mention of Iraq.

Here is the video....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34213823

The only other sense I can make if it (because Gibbs has made several references to it being a quick deployment) is that the maximum number of troops you'd have would be in June of next year (at the earliest) and the number would decrease over a span of years until everyone was out.

We shall see......

[vaberella]

111. Do you think the troop count might be less than projected by the media? n/t

[Clio the Leo]

112. Nope.

30,000 seems to be the official word this morning. (I just got a CNN Twitter alert to that fact on my phone so that makes it official! lol)

And IF we presume that deployment is shorter, rather than longer, we have to also presume the troop number will be higher, rather than lower.

[Moochy]

113. I don't buy it

I think I've added all the pro-escalation peeps to my list. This thread is now unreadable in the extreme, but yay!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

115. As Keith said in his special comment

Escalation for Withdrawl is Catch 22 insanity.

[Beetwasher]

116. I Have A Feeling This Is Pretty Much How It's Going To Be Framed

This is not an open ended commitment, but rather an escalation in order to shore things up to make as orderly a withdrawal as possible as quickly as possible.

Think of Afghanistan as a collapsing mine. In order to get your men out, you first need to get MORE men and materiel in to shore it up.

[ipaint]

123. Lucky for Obama the great recession is still

crushing the lower classes. Plenty of cannon fodder. And without a deficit neutral requirement the cost is well...whatever it takes.

Spin it as we need more troops in order to withdraw and it's bizarro world, up is down and black is white. If Bush ever justified a surge in troops with this lame reasoning his head on a platter would have been called for by just about every single democrat in the country.

Grayson said it best.

"I think that the aid program is a fig leaf trying to make Congress and the American people feel better about the war and about killing. I think that diplomacy in the areas of fig leaf to try to make the American people think that there is some constructive alternative to the war when the war itself is destructive and not constructive.


I think that the basic premise that we can alter afghan society is greatly flawed. Afghanistan is simply the part of Asia that was never occupied by the Russians or the English in the Great Game. It's not a country; it's not even a place. It's just an empty place on the map. It's terra incognita. People who live there are a welter of different tribes, different language groups, different religious beliefs.

All over the country you find different people who have nothing to do with each other except for the fact that we call them Afghans, and they don't even call themselves Afghans. They're Tajiks or they're Pashtuns, or they're Hazzaras or someone else. The things that hold them together are simply the things that we try to create artificially.

And the idea that we could transform that society or any other society through aid I think is entirely questionable. I've never seen it happen; probably never will happen. If you go to the Stan countries north of Afghanistan, and I've been to all of them; what you find is that the way that the Russians altered that society was by crushing it. Stalin killed half a million Muslims in Kazakhstan, in Turkmenistan, in Kyrgyzstan, in Uzbekistan.

He simply sliced off the head of that society in order to remake it in the image that he wanted. And I think that we would have to do no less if we wanted to remake Afghanistan in our image. We'd have to destroy it in order to save it, and I don't think the American people are ever going to do that to anybody. So I think that the underlining premise is simply wrong.

I've been to 175 countries all around the world including Afghanistan, including every country in that region, and what I've seen everywhere I go is that there are some commonalities everywhere you go. Everywhere you go people want to fall in love. It's an interesting thing. Everywhere you go, people love children. Everywhere, they love children. Everywhere you go, there's a taboo against violence. Every single place you go. And everywhere you go, people want to be left alone. And that's the best foreign policy of all. Just to leave people alone."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/alan-grayson-on-afghanist_b_315087.html




My heart goes out to the families and children in Afghanistan who will pay dearly with their lives and futures for our continued arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.