Woodward says Hillary's vote was decisive in decision on Afghanistan...

[kentuck]

Bob Woodward was a guest on one of the talk shows yesterday morning, it may have been MSNBC?, and they were discussing Obama's stance on sending troops into Afghanistan. He said that the President and VP Biden were skeptical about sending in more troops into that country but that the generals wanted more without a deadline for withdrawal and that Hillary's vote was with the generals, she was the more war hawk, and that was the decisive vote to expand the war in Afghanistan. Did anyone else see that excerpt yesterday morning??

[rug]

1. Ah, the Commander-in-Chief took a vote before deciding to throw 30,000 more bodies into Afghanistan.

I hope he expressed his displeasure sternly before doing so.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Hillary backed Gen. McChrystal, who wanted 80,000 "more bodies into Afghanistan" for 10+ years.

Good thing she never became president.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[girl_interrupted]

14. And Obama didn't have the balls to stand up to her?

Doesn't say much for him, does it? Biden & Obama cowering at the feet of Hillary, looks like she didn't even need to get elected to run everything, she just says something and those 2 guys fall in line. Sounds like a real bulllshit story Woodward has going there. I use to respect Woodward for the work he did in exposing Nixon for the psycho he truly was, but when it came to George W Bush, Woodward couldn't kiss his ass enough.

This is Obama's watch, like Truman said: "The Buck Stops Here" . Blaming other people doesn't get him off the hook. And if I remember correctly, Obama campaigned on sending more troops into Afghanistan, himself. It was suppose to be out of Iraq & 'finish' what we started in Afghanistan.

Woodward makes it sound like Obama & Biden are two wimps who can't stand up for themselves. Sorry I'm not buying it.

[ClarkUSA]

15. No, you're saying that, not the OP. I didn't see the interview, either.

Why don't you address the OP instead of me?

Here's another person's viewpoint which I think is salient:

She wasn't a deciding vote. She just made it harder for the President to go against the Generals. She took the State position that was normally a counter-weight to the Military and positioned it with the Military (thanks a lot, Hil)

Obama still wrote his own plan (because the Military never provided him with what he asked for) and created his own exit strategy (because the Military never provided him one even though he asked for it). She is definitely way to the right of the Democratic Party and Obama when it comes to getting out of Afghanistan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=472980&mesg_id=473048

[rug]

20. Well, which is it? Was she the decisive vote or not the deciding vote?

And since when are command decisions subject to anyone's vote? the fact is, it was Obama's decision, no one else's. He owns that decision and its consequences. I suppose he found it harder "to go against the Generals' than to go for peace and the national interest, unless you think those are different things.

[ClarkUSA]

23. The facts show that Hillary & Gen. McChrystal did not get all they wanted...

... but they did see a mild troop surge of 30K, not the 80,000 troops they were pushing for.

Thankfully, President Obama completely rejected DLC war hawk Hillary's wishes for an additional 10 years (at least) in Afghanistan - which Gen. McChrystal and the Pentagon also wanted - and refused to compromise on his campaign promise of ending the war by July 2011.

Biden did not get what he wanted completely, either, but the heavy use of Predator drones is his contribution to the overall strategy.

Ultimately, President Obama made the final decision but it's absurd to deny that some parts of it reflected the advice from his VP and SoS.

[rug]

25. Okay, then. Warfare by compromise it is.

[ClarkUSA]

26. What're are you going to say when President Obama ends the Afghanistan war next year as promised?

That's a big reason why I and so many other liberals are looking forward to Obama/Biden 2012. There will be no more wars and it will be all to President Obama's credit.

:)

[rug]

27. About the same thing I said when he ended the Iraq War, "as promised".

"What's today's body count?"

If you're interested, yesterday's was 9.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/

[ClarkUSA]

29. Then you must be overjoyed that the Pentagon's biggest ally in the WH isn't President.

Because that body count would be much higher if DLC hawk/warmonger Hillary had been in the position to make the decision to extend the Afghanistan war at least another 10 years and 80K troops as per Gen. McChrystal's wishes.

[rug]

30. Don't kid yourself. The U.S. will be in Afghanistan the next 10 years.

Along with the 50,000 Obama left in Iraq after he ended the war. And the name on the orders is not Clinton. It's Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Like the US is "in" South Korea, Japan and Germany now? What proof do you have this will happen?

You presume to know the future of that volatile region and what direction our foreign policy will take for the next decade? Really? :tinfoilhat:

<< Along with the 50,000 Obama left in Iraq after he ended the war. >>

Uh huh. How do you know this? Do you have proof of your claim? Or is this another unheralded glimpse into the future? :eyes:

<< And the name on the orders is not Clinton. It's Obama. >>

What orders? Show me. Can you see them right now? :rofl:

[rug]

33. I know 9 people weren't killed in Korea yesterday.

I guess I was mistaken. They're not there on the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.

[ClarkUSA]

35. FACT: The US is no longer at war with Iraq. Why don't you answer the questions I've asked?

[rug]

36. Then what's killing them?

Why don't you answer that?

[ClarkUSA]

39. Ask Hillary's allies at the Pentagon, if you're so curious, rug. No proof for your claims yet, eh?

Here's a reminder of what you're trying to ignore...

Your claims:

rug (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-11-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #29

30. Don't kid yourself. The U.S. will be in Afghanistan the next 10 years.

Along with the 50,000 Obama left in Iraq after he ended the war. And the name on the orders is not Clinton. It's Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=472980&mesg_id=473276

My questions:

ClarkUSA (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-11-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
Edited on Mon Oct-11-10 07:29 PM by ClarkUSA

31. Like the US is "in" South Korea, Japan and Germany now? What proof do you have this will happen?

You presume to know the future of that volatile region and what direction our foreign policy will take for the next decade? Really? :tinfoilhat:

<< Along with the 50,000 Obama left in Iraq after he ended the war. >>

Uh huh. How do you know this? Do you have proof of your claim? Or is this another unheralded glimpse into the future? :eyes:

<< And the name on the orders is not Clinton. It's Obama. >>

What orders? Show me. Can you see them right now? :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=472980&mesg_id=473291

[vaberella]

34. oh and those troops in iraq are out this summer---confirmed by military on maddow's show. n/t

[rug]

37. are you saying 50,000 us troops are leaving Iraq by next summer?

I want to bookmark your answer.

[vaberella]

45. Yes. I'll get the video. I posted this in it's own thread and was virtually ignored then.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x416179 <---I posted on it here.


Here is my post on the topic: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=416352&mesg_id=416352

[jeanpalmer]

41. Why is he going to end it next year?

Why not this year or last year? What happens next year that the troops get to come home? Will the war be won?

[vaberella]

46. It's juat a procedural draw down.

that's like asking why a teacher uses two single file lines rather than 1 or 3 or why some are boy/girl and others mixed. It's just the procedure that was decided on.

[Raine1967]

2. I didn't see it, but I must ask: what was her stance during the campaign?

I am pretty sure that it probably was the same --

I would love to see a video of the segment you are talking about, because I am not sure of the context of which you are asking this.

(edited to add the word WAS to my header.)

[karynnj]

11. I think it was Chris Matthew's NBC show

I don't recall the word "vote", but the point was that, unlike the common case where the secretary of State and Defense have different interests and opinions, Clinton was as hawkish as Gates. The point was that with the military, Gates, and Clinton on the same side, most of what Obama heard in the national security part of the cabinet was for an aggressive action. Biden seemed to be a lone voice against it. Obama also heard from Senators Reed and Kerry, who were both, because of Vietnam and because of their own knowledge, against the major surge.

The point was that had Clinton backed Biden's arguments or even backed a variation of it or Kerry's or Reed's, things could have gone the other way.

That said, it is Obama who gets to make the decision - and he did not need the majority of his cabinet to agree. He could have gone with his own gut and gone either with Biden's counter-terrorism or Kerry's variation of that that included working with those communities with good enough governance where their were adequate Afghani troops to take charge after the area was clear. It would though have been very tough to go against the advise of so many in the military. I'm not convinced that had Hillary been on Biden's side it would have changed much. (The fact Obama, Clinton and Biden had no military experience might have made that harder. )

[Pirate Smile]

12. Yep, it was Tweety's show. Here it is - video is online.

http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/index.php

http://video.thechrismatthewsshow.com/player/?fid=31183

[jeanpalmer]

44. The idea floated by Woodward

that Obama went against himself is preposterous. In the end, Obama went with the escalation because his gut told him that was the best decision. If he had really believed that the best decision was to hold fast or start withdrawal, then he went against his own best judgment by escalating. What's to be said about someone who believes one thing but does something else, especially on war?

Regarding Hillary and the generals, they probably really wanted 30,000 - 40,000 troops. So they asked for 80,000. And Obama met them halfway and gave them 30,000. (At the time, it was reported in the media that the generals wanted 40,000.)

Obama wanted to escalate so he could withdraw before the 2012 election. There were 30,000 troops there when he took office. Now there are 100,000. In 2012, he can withdraw 15,000 - 20,000 and say he's winding down the war. It's a decision that will be based on politics because nothing is happening on the ground to indicate the tide is turning and withdrawals are warranted.

[Upton]

5. Now I remember why I opposed Hillary in the primaries..

thanks for the reminder!

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. It looks like you got what you voted against anyway

Heads: I win

Tails: You lose

[ClarkUSA]

13. Um, no. We didn't get the DLC warmonger who backed Gen. MCChrystal's 10+year, 80K troop surge.

[paulk]

16. did you oppose Obama also?

because he campaigned on sending more troops into Afghanistan...

[bigwillq]

6. Didn't see it but always knew

Hillary was a hawk.

[harun]

8. Anyone paying attention knew Hillary was much more of a Hawk than Obama.

If she was President we would be at war with Iran already.

[Bitwit1234]

9. AND I AM THE PRESIDENT and I don't make the real decisions

I do what other people want. give me a break. Woodward is trying to inject himself into everything he can now to self his G.D. book.

[Pirate Smile]

10. Was it on Chris Matthews' Sunday show? I think it might have been.

This is the one spot where and why I didn't want Hillary.

She aligned with the Pentagon and Military against Biden and, yes, Rahm, etc.

It reaffirms that I was right in 08' when I decided who to caucus for in Iowa - Obama.

I like her but I'm glad she isn't the final vote on these decisions.

It will be interesting to see what she does in December when the review starts and the White House, essentially, has to battle the Pentagon to start a draw down in Afghanistan. For more on that - see here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x472574 "we may be headed for one of the greatest civilian-military showdowns in decades" - a knife fight.

edit to add - She wasn't a deciding vote. She just made it harder for the President to go against the Generals. She took the State position that was normally a counter-weight to the Military and positioned it with the Military (thanks a lot, Hil)

Obama still wrote his own plan (because the Military never provided him with what he asked for) and created his own exit strategy (because the Military never provided him one even though he asked for it). She is definitely way to the right of the Democratic Party and Obama when it comes to getting out of Afghanistan.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

17. Wow, it sounds like SOS Clinton is boss to Barack and Joe!

[ClarkUSA]

18. No, "it sounds like" Hillary's pro-Pentagon advocacy made it tougher for Pres. Obama to reject them.

Here's another person's viewpoint which I think is salient:

She wasn't a deciding vote. She just made it harder for the President to go against the Generals. She took the State position that was normally a counter-weight to the Military and positioned it with the Military (thanks a lot, Hil)

Obama still wrote his own plan (because the Military never provided him with what he asked for) and created his own exit strategy (because the Military never provided him one even though he asked for it). She is definitely way to the right of the Democratic Party and Obama when it comes to getting out of Afghanistan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=472980&mesg_id=473048

[Beacool]

19. Ahhhhh, one more chance to trash a Clinton.

Of course it's never Obama's doing. The guy is always being led by the nose by Rahm, Hillary, Gates, Geithner, etc.

Poor, poor, fellow he can't stand up to any of them.

:eyes:

[jaxx]

21. Looks to me like he stood up to all of them and wrote the plan

he wanted implemented in Afghanistan. That nose ring thing.......wanna take it back?

[blm]

28. Obama DIDN'T give Hillary and Gates the EXPANDED military operation they wanted. Aren't you glad?

I wish Obama HADN'T tapped a committed warhawk as Sec of State.

[vaberella]

32. Uh you did read the article....HRC's plan was squashed..or we'd be seeing an endless war here.

We are not. Troops will becoming out this summer.

[suzie]

43. But would endless war help her get on the ticket for 2012?

[vaberella]

48. Hardly. Nor is Obama pushing the war. He's ending it. n/t

[suzie]

51. I agree and am thankful about Obama. Please excuse my lack of the sarcasm thingy in my first post.

[Beacool]

50. Why announce the troops' departure if not for political reasons?

It sure as hell doesn't make any military sense to announce to the Taliban that they just need to hold off a little longer. Not precisely a winning strategy.

:(

[Baltoman991]

42. Oh poor poor

Clinton lover. Get the hell over it. Is comprehension something you have problems with? Perhaps you didn't really read the OP? In any case you're clueless on this one.

Obama stood up to Clinton and the rest who wanted a totally different plan.

To use your words: "Ahhhhhh, one more chance to trash Obama".

And as usual, you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Beacool]

49. Since you phrased your point so politely,

go jump in a lake.

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

22. Woodward sucks.

Whatever happened, Barack Obama was elected with voters understanding that he wasn't gonna cut and run out of Afghanistan as soon as he swore the oath. He selected Hillary as his SOS, so at the end of the day, Woodward ain't saying nothing that anyone should greatly care about....cause none of it is really news.

Now, let's aim our sights back on the Republicans.

Thank you! :hi:

[vaberella]

24. Thank you Frenchie!!

Ugh..the OP's post was well known and Clinton would have put us in an endless war. We're not in one now, she's not president thankfully, if this case was true, and we can focus on the real issue. Blanche Lincoln and her Republican dwarfs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. That coward! He's supposed to know that advisers are only there for decoration!

The administration isn't a democracy. Her "vote" was relevant to the extent that her voice is that of the Secretary of State.

[jeanpalmer]

40. Meanwhile he didn't pay any attention

to millions of us who wanted the troops out of there. It was all Hillary and the generals. He didn't give us the time of day. And he can't understand why Democrats have lost support.

[vaberella]

47. You didn't read the article and yet you post. Ugh. n/t