Just FYI....

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

Before anybody else pisses himself because of Obama's strategy in Afghanistan, you might want to read this. From the Obama-McCain Debate on September 26, 2008 --

Obama: We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. Senator McCain, in the rush to go into Iraq, said, you know what? We've been successful in Afghanistan. There is nobody who can pose a threat to us there.

This is a time when bin Laden was still out, and now they've reconstituted themselves. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there.

But we can't do it if we are not willing to give Iraq back its country. Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put -- provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

And right now, the commanders in Afghanistan, as well as Admiral Mullen, have acknowledged that we don't have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan because we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge.

Lehrer: Do you think more troops -- more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?

Obama: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place -- Al Qaida and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.

And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no Al Qaida before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that Al Qaida is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front -- that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

Jeff in Milwaukee: This was Obama's stated policy from the beginning, so will you meatheads please stop acting shocked?!

[Cha]

1. Thanks for the transcript, Jeff.

I'll read it again.

[bigjohn16]

2. I'm not shocked. He was wrong then and he's still wrong now. nt

[monmouth]

3. Lots of drama here today.....thanks for the post...n/t

[Ken Burch]

25. The prospect of massive senseless death for no reason is dramatic

It's only natural and sensible that people would have dramatic reactions to it.

[AVID]

4. k&r

[Splinter Cell]

5. Thanks for posting something of reason...

DU could use more of that these days.

[xiamiam]

9. we are entitled to our opinion that escalation is not a good idea

whether Obama thinks so or not..or is following through with his plan..no good will come from this move, either here or in Afghanistan..

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. And I absolutely have no argument with you on that account...

In fact, I have doubts myself as to whether this will be successful.

The OP is really directed to those people who are so shocked (shocked, I tells ya) that Obama would do such a thing.

[elocs]

6. Is there a difference between being shocked or being disappointed?

:shrug:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

13. Shocked could be defined as seeing me naked...

Disappointed could be defined as....

Come to think of it, there's no difference.

[elocs]

14. I see, I mean I don't see, I mean evidently I don't want to see...

:rofl:

[CitizenLeft]

23. ROTFL!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. I thought this thread could use some gratuitous nudity...

[Ken Burch]

26. Well, that was a little more information than we needed, Jeff

:eyes:

I suppose I respect the honesty, though.

[azmouse]

7. I wish I could rec more than once.

Thank you for Obama's own words.

[azmouse]

27. kick

[mike_c]

8. I'm not shocked-- just terribly disappointed....

It's the wrong policy, period. I don't care how long he's been committed to it. The length of time has nothing to do with anything-- it's just a smoke screen to avoid facing how bad a decision this is.

[DJ13]

10. Im only shocked because we seem to think we need another 30,000 troops

....to deal with the estimated 100 Al Qaeda members remaining in the country.

To me this signals the escalation is more of a wefare program for MIC campaign supporters than any actual need for more boots on the ground to root out terrorists.

[vaberella]

17. Maybe there's a legitimate reason...don't you think? n/t

[yellerpup]

12. That's the way I remember it.

K&R

[LooseWilly]

15. References to the campaign are swell, but a crooked national election changes things.

I mean... was the rigged re-election of Karzai completely irrelevant? Is this a thread for people who don't give a shit if the governments that US troops are legitimate or not?

If the government isn't legitimate... and many of the people want us to go... and we can't really afford to stay... what the hell is the point? The Taliban and the corrupt government will fight it out whenever we leave. The government, at this point, seems to be run by drug lords and warlords... Why can't we just leave and let them use the heroin money to buy supplies to fight the Taliban with?

:shrug:

[freddie mertz]

18. Stop confusing them with FACTS.

That might force them to think for themselves, and the "shock" might be too much for them.

[LooseWilly]

20. Well, those old FACTS were just better... why do people keep having to make new ones??

[freddie mertz]

21. Yeah. Maybe we should just plug up our eyes and ears

And put some "cosy little footies" on our minds, so we don't have to confront the implications of that phony election of Karzai and all the other stuff that has happened since Obama made his "promise" (really a matter of campaign rhetoric, but whatever..)

[freddie mertz]

16. More meaningless poop

Just because he supported a bad idea before, we should support him for it now?

Many of us voted for him not BECAUSE he took this position, but DESPITE it.

Others may have looked into the changing, worsening situation there and changed their OWN minds since last year.

But none of that means a thing to you.

All you want to do is to invalidate ANY argument against escalation, and since you have precious little to go on, on the merits, you resort to this lame "technicality" argument.

Glenn Greenwald calls this the "most bizarre" defense of this policy.

I call it the most STUPID one.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. Thanks for telling me what it is that I want to do...

because, you know, I was just typing away and then it occured to me, "Shit, I have no idea why I'm typing this. I sure wish someone - perferably somebody I've NEVER MET - would come along and explain my motivation to me."

Thanks. Seriously. Thanks so much for that.

My motivation - and I'll try to use small words here - is to show that Obama is just doing as President what he said he would do as a candidate. You might not agree with it -- I'm not sure that I agree with it -- but you have no right to be shocked or surprised that he's doing it.

[fl_dem]

19. thanks for the reminder