Is the right also torn about escalating in Afghanistan?

Congressional Democrats, like the Democrat in the White House, seem a bit uncertain about what course to take in Afghanistan, while on the surface at least Washington Republicans voice almost unanimous support for committing more troops.

Looking at the poll numbers, public support for escalation seems weak. In a Fox News poll conducted Sept. 15-16, 41 percent supported escalation while 50 percent opposed. In other polls, the numbers have been even more lopsided. A CBS poll at the end of August reported that only 25 percent support an increase in US troop levels, while 41 percent support a decrease.

An Ipsos/McClatchy poll in that same time frame — notably, before the massive fraud in the Afghan elections had become news — reported that 56 percent oppose escalation, while only 35 percent supported it.

But what has struck me in the debate is intensity, or the lack of it. Maybe I’m misreading it, and if so please correct me, but it seems to me that even on this blog, those who support escalation lack real fervor. Yes, there’s some understandable amusement and schadenfreude on the right that President Obama should find himself in this position after his campaign rhetoric, but I don’t see a real commitment even among conservatives to putting 40,000 or more additional troops into Afghanistan.

Politically speaking, I think the Republicans in Washington are a little out of touch with the mood even of their fellow conservatives back home. And should Obama decide that escalation is necessary, he’s going to have to do a sales job with the American people to build long-term support for what will be a long-term effort.

So, conservatives, am I wrong? Is there a passionate commitment on the right to escalating the Afghan war, a commitment that I’m just not seeing? Or are you just enjoying the sight of Obama squirming a little bit? Forty thousand more troops, yes or no?

182 comments Add your comment

NRB

September 29th, 2009
9:01 am

Well Jay, the surge won’t work. And what’s really the issue here is this: why is Obama so intent on killing our troops for oil?

Better yet, what happened to all the “war protesters”…seems they disappeared since January of this year?

Of course, all the libs on this lame little blog will dismiss these concerns with a wave of the hand…afterall, war is okay…as long as the Prez has a “D” after his name.

I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:

September 29th, 2009
9:01 am

Escalation with Rules of Engagement.

Gee, where have we had that futile combination before?

The real question, bookman, are you libs committed to WINNING in Afghanistan.

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:03 am

I’m no conservative , nor do I play one on tv, but no – no more troops – in fact, bring the ones home – even the couple of hundred I saw at Hartsfield on Thursday.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:03 am

“The real question, bookman, are you libs committed to WINNING in Afghanistan.”

actually, the real question is WHAT is “winning” in Afghanistan? is it uncontested elections? is it “defeating” the Taliban? is it girls being allowed to go to school? what is victory???

Normal

September 29th, 2009
9:04 am

Whiner, if the war was still winnable, I’ be there with you, but it’s not winnable anymore in a conventional warfare sense. Let’s live to fight another day.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 29th, 2009
9:05 am

NRB

Of course war is Ok as long as the President has a D after his name.
So is pestilence, plague and white pumps after Labor Day.

(i like multiple snarkasms in the morning)

Jay

September 29th, 2009
9:06 am

Seriously, Reporter, NRB:

Yes or no, simple question:

Forty thousand more U.S. troops?

Swami Dave

September 29th, 2009
9:07 am

The objective is to win. If escalation is the means to achieve that end, then that is the action that America should take.

Committing additional U.S. troops into harms way as a means to embarass a President (even one with whom I largely disagree) would be a terrible misuse of those men and women whose sacrifice earned and guarantees our freedom.

-SD

NRB

September 29th, 2009
9:08 am

Hope and change, guys.

In other words, Obama wants to change the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and hope you don’t notice.

Dunno why he’d care though…since you all just live to make excuses for the bum and his thug wife.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:08 am

Mrs. G -

“So is pestilence, plague and white pumps after Labor Day”

sorry, missy … but, I do have standards … white pumps are NEVER okay, before OR after Labor Day …

Peadawg

September 29th, 2009
9:09 am

No, bring them home.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 29th, 2009
9:09 am

“the bum and his thug wife”……there’s your sign!

Mrs. Godzilla

September 29th, 2009
9:09 am

Bring them home.

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2009
9:09 am

“why is Obama so intent on killing our troops for oil?”

What oil?

NRB

September 29th, 2009
9:09 am

Jay: the answer is NO.

Unlike Iraq, there seems to be no clear, winnable goal.

Furthermore, since Bush had zero support from Dems during the Iraq mission…and liberals like MrsGodzilla were protesting in the streets carrying signs of Bush dressed like Hitler…I can’t really stomach being behind Obama on this potential fiasco.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:10 am

NRB –

“Obama wants to change the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and hope you don’t notice”

yeah … he’s kept it sooooooooooo under the radar … like this:

“The decision, outlined before thousands of camouflage-clad Marines here, underscored the transformation in national priorities a month after Mr. Obama took office as he prepared to shift resources and troops from increasingly stable Iraq to increasingly volatile Afghanistan”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html

Mrs. Godzilla

September 29th, 2009
9:10 am

USinUK

please forgive me……never meant to incite crimes of fashion.

Matilda

September 29th, 2009
9:10 am

I’m gonna let the righties answer this one. Then they can connect the dots with the faith in Jesus they pull out and hit us over the head with whenever they’re trying to tell the rest of us how we must live our personal lives, or how the religious freedom clause of the first amendment applies only to religions pre-approved by the righties. They can explain how war and collateral damage fit into their “every life is sacred” position. I try to be a good listener.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:12 am

Mrs G –

“please forgive me……never meant to incite crimes of fashion.”

I mean … plague and pestilence have their uses … but white pumps??? (the horror!!!)

Normal

September 29th, 2009
9:13 am

Matilda, WOW! I’m you new fan! :D

Mrs. Godzilla

September 29th, 2009
9:13 am

Paul

September 29th, 2009
9:14 am

No one ever said Washington Republicans didn’t follow their principles, regardless of the heat back home (well, not counting immigration…. and a couple other things). Washington Democrats, with the exception of the President – well, that’s another matter (with the exception of the twentysomething who are pushing a public option… and a couple other things).

I wonder if it follows consistency with what occurred in Iraq:

- We were mucking about with no seeming chance for progress. Administration asked for a new strategy. Pentagon came up with surge. Dems said ‘no way, get out’ (some Reps too) and Reps said ‘give it a shot. We’ve invested this much, let this be the last try.’ We did, it worked.

- Same may be the case in Afghanistan. Difference is more Republicans seem willing to say ‘enough’ at this point than they did with Iraq. Other difference is, the president during the Iraq surge had the support of his party, while this one does not.

And what if the President’s strategy review includes uncoupling from the Karzai government, working with local leaders, pulling back large conventional units, increasing special ops, increasing community action (hey, there’s a thought. The Administration could rename the nation building troops ‘community organizers.’ THAT would get Democrats on board! Heck, might even be a way to rehabilitate ACORN with a new contract).

But I digress. If the President’s new strategy included such elements, with a likely US casualty reduction, would his party be willing to give it a chance? Or would they be consistent with their pre-surge Iraq assessment, that ‘the war is lost,’ so it’s time to leave?

I noted an article last night at 8:36 pm that dealt with this (and @@’s already warned me I could be in trouble for citing the article directly) and noted: “I particularly liked the line “We are never impressed with campaign positions, or with the failure of the victorious candidate to live up to them. That’s the way American politics work. ”

But the following sentence, “But in this case, these promises have created a dual crisis that Obama must make decisions about now.” is quite sobering.”

So now we have even more linkage with Iran. Sobering, indeed.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 29th, 2009
9:14 am

Matilda

Well Said!

NRB

September 29th, 2009
9:14 am

Observe as the libs do the typical writhe and slither once the subject of this war comes up. Talk about everything BUT the fact that Obama is going to kill more of our troops in a useless war. Go ‘hed. Ignore it.

Normal

September 29th, 2009
9:14 am

White Pumps??? What? Fire pump? Water Pump? Fuel Pump? What???

Jay

September 29th, 2009
9:14 am

Swami, is that a yes or a no?

Taxpayer

September 29th, 2009
9:15 am

Well, the Republican congressmen are clearly waiting for word from their armchair generals back home to give them a majority sign as to how to proceed with the politicization of the Afghanistan conflict. Will more troops equate to more GOP votes or not. Inquiring minds in DC need a poll that they can trust on this issue. They yearn for soundbites from the tea partiers. Do they want war and are they willing to be taxed in order to pay for it and will they support a draft in order to get the troops needed for such a fight. Where is FOXY news on this issue and who will bow before Limbaugh if the wrong call is made. So, I can understand the hesitancy to commit from the right wingers.

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:17 am

NRB,

I guess all the lefties that have answered “NO” is a little much for you then huh?

Paul

September 29th, 2009
9:17 am

Matilda 9:10

An observation: our current evangelical president is a leftie, not a rightie.

Mrs. Godzilla

September 29th, 2009
9:19 am

Writhe and slither – wasn’t that a chubby checker tune?

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:19 am

Paul,

“We did, it worked”

Really? Did I miss that news conference?

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:19 am

Bosch –

“I guess all the lefties that have answered “NO” is a little much for you then huh?”

give him a break – he and whiner have been battling with RIF to get their refunds …

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:20 am

mrs g -

“wasn’t that a chubby checker tune”

I think it was the Beatles …

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:21 am

I would say it’s the squirming, but I can’t answer for them. More troops means more casualties, it’s that simple. But would it be worth it for a positive final outcome? Yes, at this point, but that’s far from a certainty. The Taliban was the ruling government on 09/11, rightly or wrongly, and pressure should have been put on them to cooperate in bringing the perps to justice. It was not our place to remove them and has only made a bad situation worse.

Agnes

September 29th, 2009
9:22 am

Come on Jay. The Right has been torn about Afghanistan since before day one of US Troops arriving there.

It was the Left that was in total agreement that Afghanistan was the place where we should be fighting. The only place where war made any sense.

GayGrayGeek

September 29th, 2009
9:23 am

NRB, now that you’ve voted “NO”, don’t you have more love-notes to write to Timothy McVeigh and/or Eric Rudolph?

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:23 am

NRB

September 29th, 2009
9:01 am

You’re wrong. Many Democrats have spoken out against the escalation. But others have been willing to give Obama a little more time. I look for a change in strategy (again) and a condemnation of the government Bush installed.

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:24 am

Another thing to realize is that Americans are all very fickle. Now, there is less support for troops in Afghanistan.

However, just imagine if Obama does pull out troops or does not escalate and we are attacked again – then everyone will be blaming him and yelling about how weak he is.

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:24 am

Agnes

September 29th, 2009
9:22 am

Not total. I was against it and have the documentation to prove it.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:24 am

agnes –

“The Right has been torn about Afghanistan since before day one of US Troops arriving there”

oh, REEELLY??? please, to provide evidence to support your statement … I’d like to see this …

Matilda

September 29th, 2009
9:25 am

Paul, you mean the “right” doesn’t OWN Jesus Christ? What a stunning revelation! (Do Rush, Beck, Hannity, and the morning crew on Fox & Friends know?) Mr. Bookman asked the righties to clarify their perspective today. I certainly hope y’all have something more to offer than presumptions about what “lefties” think. We’re listening.

joe matarotz

September 29th, 2009
9:25 am

During WWII, US marines invaded the island of Iwo Jima. It took 35 day to win the battle. Of the 22,000 Japanese defenders, over 21,000 were killed or committed ritual suicide.
Afghanistan is about 3,000 times as large as Iwo Jima, and is not surrounded by water. How many marines would it take, fighting in similar mountainous terrain, and for how long, to achieve a ‘victory’? Iwo Jima was of dubious strategic value, especially considering the high cost of U.S. casualties. How much strategic value does Afghanistan represent?
We have the tools and the technology to continue to disrupt Taliban activities in the region without putting large numbers of U.S. troops in harms way. You can’t win a war with air power alone, but you can lose one by committing troops to an ambiguous strategy (see Viet Nam). Let’s bring (most of) our guys home.

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:25 am

Agnes,

“It was the Left that was in total agreement that Afghanistan was the place where we should be fighting. The only place where war made any sense.”

Yeah, as opposed to Iraq? WTF?

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:26 am

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:24 am

Boy you got that fickle part right. Can you believe how quickly we change? Like the blowing of the wind.

GayGrayGeek

September 29th, 2009
9:26 am

BTW, Jay, since none of the wingnuts can define what “winning” is nor what “victory” would entail, other than “We’ve got to stay until we WIN!” or “We can’t pull out before VICTORY!”, then I also vote “NO”.

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:27 am

Well EIGHT years ago, I was for bringing down the Taliban – which we did – now, like most grown ups do – we look at the situation in the present day context and realize it’s not something we can control.

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:28 am

I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:

September 29th, 2009
9:01 am

I think you’re misunderestimating Onama’s competitiveness.

ByteMe

September 29th, 2009
9:28 am

The problem is that the political institutions in Afghanistan are not as strong as they were in Iraq. A central government outside the major cities has never really existed before and people there are hesitant to go along with that. So what you have is a “country” in name only. Until the Afghanistan security forces are large enough and trained enough to take control of the entire country, we have no chance of winning anything there.

We should do what we can to help increase the size and scope of their own military capabilities, and if adding 40K more troops buys enough time to get them there, then that’s the right course to take. But if it won’t get them to the point where a central government — even if it’s one run by the Taliban — control their own country and borders, then there’s no point throwing good bodies after dead ones.

And, yes, we need to cut a deal with factions of the Taliban and let them fight over the country after we’re gone.

Paul

September 29th, 2009
9:30 am

Jay

Sorry, didn’t answer the question.

I have deep reservations about our alignment with the current gov’t. Over a million fraudulent votes… but now a call for a run-off election. Can they have a semi-honest election? Even if they can, we’re still putting a lot of stock in our central democratic government model. Can we do the other things we want to do absent that element? It may be possible. But it won’t happen in months, as it did in Iraq. And that’s the other great weakness.

So do I support 40k more troops in pursuit of a strategy I think has a serious long-term flaw? No. (Could the strategy work? Yes. Could it work in the time Americans – let alone NATO – would be willing to give it? Doubtful).

Would I support more troops in pursuit of a modified strategy involving a far smaller footprint aimed at making Afg inhospitable for AQ? Yes. (but the idea the practical differences between AQ and the Taliban are slight to none is troubling).

No one said this was simple or did not have great risks. Or involve factors (such as the election, regardless of how predictable that was) that can change perceptions overnight.

TW

September 29th, 2009
9:30 am

GOP 2009 – laid with dogs, woke with fleas…

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:30 am

“And, yes, we need to cut a deal with factions of the Taliban and let them fight over the country after we’re gone.”

Amen. Oh, sorry Paul- So say we all!

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:33 am

paul –

“(but the idea the practical differences between AQ and the Taliban are slight to none is troubling)”

you win!!! that has to be the biggest understatement I’ve read to date.

TnGelding

September 29th, 2009
9:38 am

Well, according to THE commander, 40,000 more troops wouldn’t be nearly enough.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:03 am

Originally winning would have been annihilating al Qaeda, but now it includes the Taliban. It was a law enforcement problem that the military had a covert role in. Bush overreacted and escalated it into an unwinnable war. But I think Obama will be able to exit with honor, if not victory.

Paul

September 29th, 2009
9:38 am

Bosch

[[Really? Did I miss that news conference?]]

Possibly.

What was the Iraq surge intended to do? Minimize AQ? Give the gov’t time to, if they chose, to put in place actions to stabilize their country?

Is AQ as strong or stronger than they were presurge? Is the government functioning more effectively than it did presurge?

You probably missed that news conference because not much is being reported about Iraq these days. And the reason for that is…. the post surge conditions are remarkably different and we’re on our way out.

Agnes 9:22

[[It was the Left that was in total agreement that Afghanistan was the place where we should be fighting. The only place where war made any sense.]]

Then why do so many Democrats, especially those on the far Left and in Congress, want to pull out?

Matilda 9:25

[[I certainly hope y’all have something more to offer than presumptions about what “lefties” think. We’re listening.]]

Not my place to speak for evangelical Lefties. My point was you seemed to lay the whole ‘policy by Jesus’ thing on the evangelical Right. While we have an evangelical Leftie as President who talks about ‘religious duty in public policy’ a whole lot more than his predecessor did.

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:43 am

Paul,

Let me reiterate: I guess I missed the victory parade.

“Minimize AQ?”

They are still there – and all over the world – did that surge minimize global AQ? No.

“Give the gov’t time to, if they chose, to put in place actions to stabilize their country? ”

The government will be stable over time, it’s inevitable – but 5, 10 years down the road – who knows what their government will be like, and for all we know we could have someone 100 times worse than Saddam. Saddam, like most ME dictators like to talk big while grabbing themselves as a testament to their power – he was no threat to us.

david wayne osedach

September 29th, 2009
9:43 am

Afghanistan is Obama’s war. And he is suffering mightily in the polls because of it. No one has ever won a war in Afghanistan.

Agnes

September 29th, 2009
9:43 am

Oh my, I must have touched a nerve. I think I will wait to see if Jay has a position on the Left’s support of Afghanistan, particularly over the last 2.5 years.

As far as the the Right’s less than total support of Afghanistan, I was not for putting troops there. And my guess is that others who post here from the Correct side did not support a ground war in Afghanistan.

jconservative

September 29th, 2009
9:44 am

Too simple a question Jay. But to play along, NO.

Other questions must be answered before that question is answered.
What do we expect to get in return for sending 40,000 more troops? If it is to insure a win, define win. We went in to get bin Laden & failed. Why did we not then withdraw?
Why do we feel it necessary to build a new nation if Afghanistan?
Bin Laden is allegedly in Pakistan – what are we doing about that?

I will stop for now, but you get the idea.

Rightwing Troll

September 29th, 2009
9:44 am

“and liberals like MrsGodzilla were protesting in the streets carrying signs of Bush dressed like Hitler…I can’t really stomach being behind Obama on this potential fiasco.”

So NRB’s political leanings won’t allow him to support the troops?

Why does NRB hate American Soldiers?

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:46 am

And Kudos to Mike Luckovich – keep the government out of my healthcare – but please get them in my flooded basement!!! Too funny!!!

A testament to Perdue’s hypocrisy.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:46 am

TnG –

to me, it all boils down to why the taliban rose to power in the first place: they brought order and security in a country that had been ravaged by war for more than 2 decades

“In the villages near the southern city of Kandahar, Omar and his small but growing band earned a reputation for standing up to corrupt warlords, rescuing local village girls from soldiers who kidnapped them for sex, and reopening roads that were controlled by local commanders demanding exorbitant “tolls” from anyone who passed.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38162-2001Sep15

I remember reading an article similar to this one that talked about villages where the bodies of people killed by warlords would lie in the streets and be eaten by dogs because people were too afraid to leave their houses to do anything about them.

If the US could do something to destroy the poppy crop and provide some kind of stability to the country, then I would support an escalation of troops. If all they are going to do is swat at the Taliban, then they’re just going to swarm back in after we leave and it will be a wasted effort.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:47 am

Bosch – I loved today’s Luckovich, as well – SOOOOO to the point!

Rightwing Troll

September 29th, 2009
9:47 am

“Afghanistan is Obama’s war.”

Can you explain exactly why it’s Obama’s war?

Last I knew we were attacked from Afghanistan soil.

Perhaps if the greatest hero President ever (where’s GEORGE AMERICAN when you need him?) George W Bush, had not of allowed OBL to escape at Tora Bora, we wouldn’t even be discussing this…

jt

September 29th, 2009
9:48 am

40,000 more troops…………..NO.

Instead, send 1,000,000,000 cheap televisions. Bombard the afgans 24- seven with American television shows and “news”. After 90 days of Kate plus eight, Ghost-Hunters, Couger, SpongeBob, Cnn, Fox, etc….,,,, the Afgans will lick the hand that feeds them.

Just like Americans.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:49 am

JAY –

can you please de-moderate my comment??? there is nothing in there that is illegal, immoral or fattening …

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:50 am

jt,

I think you have a plan!

stands for decibels

September 29th, 2009
9:51 am

Why does NRB hate American Soldiers?

Same reason the sociopath hates American Toddlers, presumably.

Paul

September 29th, 2009
9:51 am

Bosch 9:43

[[They are still there – and all over the world – did that surge minimize global AQ? No. ]]

Wasn’t the point of the surge. It was confined to Iraq. As far as the gov’t, who knows what it will look like then? But I think our point was to have it stable while we did a handoff and left. After that it’s (oh no… sports metaphor) their ball game.

Had you left the other day when I posted about V coming back?

http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2008/10/10/v-returns-to-tv-on-abc/

Gee, maybe that’ll provide grist for current day political analogous discussions! (more groans from the gallery…) It might even entice RW-(the original) to return.

Matilda

September 29th, 2009
9:51 am

Paul, fair enough re: Obama’s use of the moral imperative. But I don’t think it’s fair to say he’s using it “a whole lot more than his predecessor.” Bush invoked the Christian faith when it suited him — fundraisers mostly, and pandering to the relgious vote — but conveniently omitted it when the teachings of his faith conflicted with his public policy, especially re: the poor. Amost every political figure is going to do this to some degree. Personally, I appreciate when Democrat attempts to dispell the myth that so many (at least on TV) seem to hold that the Republican Party has exclusive rights to JC the Almighty. NOBODY has exclusive rights, but I rather think that our actions and deeds mean more in this regard than whom we condemn in His name. Just my opinion.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:51 am

agnes –

“Oh my, I must have touched a nerve”

asking you to support your contention that the right was not unified about afghanistan /= “touching a nerve” …

nice try, though.

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:52 am

USinUK,

Did you ever read that book, “The Kite Runner” – that book gave me bad dreams, but I remember a part of that book talking about how the Taliban would shoot people who attempted to remove the bodies off the street. I haven’t had the guts to read Hosseini’s other books or see that movie.

Gale

September 29th, 2009
9:55 am

Bears repeating: No one has ever won a war in Afghanistan.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:55 am

jt –

“Instead, send 1,000,000,000 cheap televisions. Bombard the afgans 24- seven with American television shows and “news”. After 90 days of Kate plus eight, Ghost-Hunters, Couger, SpongeBob, Cnn, Fox, etc….,,,, the Afgans will lick the hand that feeds them.”

I thought you were going to say “show them a non-stop loop of Jon and Kate + 8, 24/7 – they’ll be jumping off cliffs before we know it!”

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
9:56 am

Bosch –

“that book gave me bad dreams”

and that’s why I haven’t read it …

mm

September 29th, 2009
9:57 am

Jay,

You know wingnuts can’t put together a cognizant thought without hearing it first on one of their favorite shows.

The only thing they know to do is attack the left. They can’t think for themselves.

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
9:58 am

Paul,

Well of course it was confined to Iraq – but as far as getting rid of AQ – or even minimizing them, that’s a fool’s dream.

In the memory goo of my brain, the government was stable before 2006 when all hell broke loose – why didn’t we turn it over then?

And V? I know not what you speak of, but I’m interested. The only V reference I know is vampire blood sold as a drug on the black market in “True Blood.”

Mrs. Godzilla

September 29th, 2009
10:01 am

Bosch

that book made me cry……glass on the kite strings…..

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2009
10:01 am

“No one has ever won a war in Afghanistan.”

The Afghans have.

Normal

September 29th, 2009
10:02 am

It looks like the majority here says no to the surge and it seems that most of them are in favor of bringing them all home. Every day I have been posting MR. PRESIDENT, BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW! here and on the White House site, but we all need to do that. Everyday send your message. It is time, it truly is.

Agnes

September 29th, 2009
10:03 am

USinUK;
I responded to you about The Right similar to the way TNGelding responded to me about the Left. His response is posted just above yours.

Unless you are restricting the Right to Republicans in the US House and Senate, I think you know there were people on the Right who opposed war in Afghanistan, if for no reason other than worry about a repeat of what happened to the USSR.

Paul

September 29th, 2009
10:03 am

Matilda

I think playing to an audience for raising cash or securing their support to get elected (remember all those articles about how the religious right felt betrayed by Rove and the Bush Administration when the election was over?) is on a different level than using one’s faith principles to justify one’s public policy initiatives (Pres Obama on health care, for example).

There is a difference, I think, in having religiously-based principles that might guide one’s actions in a broad sense, and keeping that private, than expressing one’s religious views to support one’s legislative agenda.

[[but conveniently omitted it when the teachings of his faith conflicted with his public policy, especially re: the poor.]] Remember that oft-cited example of committing hundreds of millions of dollars and saving literally millions of lives? Congruent with Pres Bush’s religious beliefs, but not explicitly stated? Pres Bush is a very popular figure in Africa (as I believe the Obama team was surprised to discover during his recent tour).

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
10:04 am

Doggone/GA,

Exactly. I thought the same thing.

Bruce

September 29th, 2009
10:04 am

As a conservative from Canada, I am turning very skeptical about this war. I understand the moral aspect of it, the idea that we are going to try and liberate the afghan people from the taliban is praiseworthy. I understand the security of it as well, I remember Sept. 11th and take the threat of subsequent attacks seriously. However I am starting to doubt the wisdom of the campaign there. These people do not seem to have a culture that could support democracy and as long as the border with pakistan stays open, there will be a constant supply of extremists. Demographically, there is no contest between us and them, the birth rate in afghanistan and western pakistan is through the roof so they can lose lots of young men without it mattering much, especially given the popularity of polygamy there. We on the other hand are expending a very very precious demograpic, we don’t have enough young people as it is. Furthermore, even if we did stabilize afghanistan, we would still have west pakistan, somalia, sudan, gaza, south lebanon and now maybe yemen as potential terrorist bases. The arc of instability is simply too wide that plugging a small part of it wont necessarily make another attack less likely. I think we need to solve this problem by changing our immigration systems and keeping people from areas which have large numbers of islamic extremists out of western countries. Pull our troops out and stop immigration from these places. Our number one ethical priority is to keep our citizens safe and that extends to our soldiers; if people from these countries want to live in a liberal democratic society, they are welcome to build one.

I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:

September 29th, 2009
10:06 am

Forty thousand more U.S. troops?

No.

Forty thousand more fighter bombers?

Yes.

(Jaggie- I know that the US air force does not have 40,000 fighter bombers, but thanks for nitpicking, anyway.)

Normal

September 29th, 2009
10:06 am

“V” I remember a mini series in the late ’70s, early ’80s called that. About aliens who supposedly looked like us and were “visiting” to bring us peace and happiness, but they were really lizards and they brought a Hitler type regime to the world. It was quite good as I remember…

Paul

September 29th, 2009
10:06 am

DoggoneGA 10:01

Zing!!!!!

Bosch

Click on the link…..a 40 audience share… wow -

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
10:07 am

Wow. Bruce is my new hero.

pat

September 29th, 2009
10:07 am

Yes, more troops. They need them, send them. They also need more weapons, more planes and more reasonable rules of engagement. War is a dirty business. We have to get our hands dirty to fix. All this bring the troops home crap is beyond stupid. If we do that, the tliban will take over, al qaeda will restrengthen and we will be attacked.
We just twarted an attack on our soil by a weakened al qaeda. Do you really think they are just going to leave us alone? If you do your stupidity is pityable.
But I am not worried about the 5 or 6 of you on this blog. I am worried about a president who takes none of this seriously and sees fit to go to Demark to make a sales pitch for the Olympic rather then take on the very serious issues we are facing. Who in Chicago does he owe a favor to? His priorities are gravely out of whack. Who cares if the Olympics are here or not?

Bosch

September 29th, 2009
10:10 am

Paul,

I did. I don’t remember it, but I’m skeptical of ABC doing a good job (although Lost is good, but it’s gotten freaky). When does it start?

And, “a 40 audience share” what is that strange language you speak?

Taxpayer

September 29th, 2009
10:11 am

Well, we all know that the point of the surge was to get us out of Iraq in something less than a decade and it looks like it might just work. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. After all, Bush is still hoping for something that he can label as his legacy that he wants to have labeled as his legacy. I have some suggestions for him. For example, he could claim that he got rid of the killer dictator that Reagan and Rumsfeld, et al, created. That is a positive accomplishment.

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2009
10:11 am

Paul…Zing!!!!!

Thank you sir! I tend to the support side of this question, precisely BECAUSE of my belief that if the Afghans wanted us out we’d be on our way by now.

I think at this point they are more afraid of the Taliban coming back in power than they are angry at being “invaded.” Even in the most conservative parts of the country.

Again, yet again, they have proven they are capable of driving even a “super” power out of their country if they want to. They have not, or not yet, reached that stage with THIS super power. I interpret that as support for our presence and for that reason I think we owe them the support we have NOT given them for the past 8 years.

A “holding” action for 8 years does NOT constitute success…not in my eyes anyway.

Lockheed stock holder

September 29th, 2009
10:13 am

Forty thousand more fighter bombers. Oh, be still my beating heart. It’s just a passing fancy. A little fart raising yet another stink.

Paul

September 29th, 2009
10:14 am

Bruce

[[the idea that we are going to try and liberate the afghan people from the taliban is praiseworthy.]]

I believe we took down the Taliban government of Afghanistan because they were providing sanctuary to OBL and AQ and would not turn them over to us. Before their alignment with AQ we didn’t really care what they did within their own borders.

Normal

I saw a preview for the new series. 21st century computer generated effects for space ships are great.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
10:15 am

Agnes

if we’re talking about ALL people, then I don’t think either side had 100% perfect attendance on supporting the war in Afghanistan. At its height, there was only 87% approval for the war in afghanistan (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,179449,00.html).

all I would like to see is something that supports your contention that ALL of the left supported it while the right was a mixed bag …

booger

September 29th, 2009
10:17 am

I think most conservatives think the Generals know better than anyone else how many resources are needed, and within reason they should be given broad leeway in these decisions. This is especially true now that we have learned that Obama, the commander and chief, has only spoken to his General once since his appointment, and this by phone.

Public Option's Doing Swell

September 29th, 2009
10:18 am

Escalating in Afghganistan will be Deathscalating in Afghanistan. The US has a long history of stupidity and repeating Stupidity. Here We Go Iraq 2.0 and Vietnam 2.0 Boot her up while the American public collectively yawns and rushes around to find the best selection of Manolo Blahniks while ignoring the broken families, over 60,000 paralyzed or crippled from Iraq, and the 5000 deaths there.

The IED makers rub their hands in glee as they prepare to scatter American bodies all over the mountainous terrain.

News Flash–

As the Repubozo hookers are strapped into their chairs at Gitmo II, Hooker Grasley makes a move to stall the proceedings invoking the Safety of Rural America and the necessity of allowing their Insurance Johns to continue raping and bankrupting his citizens, 77% of whom have said they want a public option.

Schunmer looks over at Grandma Grassley who represents less than .05% of the population and smirks as he hoists the NG tube and inserts into Grandma Grassley’s throat and delivers the public option deep into the cardiac area of Grassley’s stomach. Hooker’s Olympia Snowe and Jon Kyle simultaneously bawl as their insurance johns look on in horror.

Public Option's Doing Swell

September 29th, 2009
10:21 am

The American Association of Board Certified Hookers has rallied to teabag outside of Senate Finance and cheer the Repubozo Hookers on. The only argument the hookers have and this will be hilarious so adjust your TIVOs and DVRs is that “We’re hookers and we make millions from our johns. Hooking is a well established legal business in the US Senate. Leave us alone and quit interfering with our whore business. We’re Republican whores for insurance companies and we’re proud. Screw American health and screw that our bill would bankrupt middle America. Give us your forced 20% of income now or we will have the IRS arrest you. This is the default Blue Dog Repubozo bill.

Nice going Repubozos.

Matilda

September 29th, 2009
10:22 am

Paul, yes, the Bush administration was good to the people of Africa re: AIDS and malaria. Healing the sick is congruent with the Christian faith, and props should be given for those life-saving efforts. Former Presidents Clinton and Bush the First have also made use of their time and influence in this regard.

That the rightie-fundies felt betrayed by the Bush admin is, IMO, their own fault for insisting that their religious beliefs trump the rights and freedoms of other Americans to live as they choose under the Constitution. Citing a moral imperative to ensure that people don’t suffer and die of curable illness in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, IMO, does not cross the line of decency, nor does it force citizens to favor one religion over another. It’s simply in the best interest of ALL our citizens if people aren’t walking around (serving food, repairing homes, etc.) with Tuberculosis, or losing everything they ever worked for because someone in the family got cancer.

Paul

September 29th, 2009
10:24 am

Bosch

It’s the number of the audience who watch a show. If there are 100 households watching tv at 8 and 40 of those households watch V, then the audience share is 40.

(Normal, too) of course, the other great V of filmdom was the Melanie Griffith wholesome hooker character in Milk Money.

Bosch

Maybe ABC’s having their own surge. Catch ‘Modern Family’? Ed Bundy married to Sofia Vergara? With a married gay son who’s just adopted a child? And a daughter (Julie Bowen) with a modernly normal disfunctional family? Or Flash Forward? There is hope…

DoggoneGA

Yeah, that gets back to what I wrote earlier. The Taliban of today may not be the Taliban of 8 years ago. But what to do about it, that’s the conundrum.

USinUK

September 29th, 2009
10:25 am

Doggone –

“I think at this point they are more afraid of the Taliban coming back in power than they are angry at being “invaded.” Even in the most conservative parts of the country. ”

they don’t trust the US, though, or in any government they think has been set up as a US puppet, either (like Karzai).