What does Romney’s tough talk on Afghanistan mean?
In a recent debate in Florida, Mitt Romney was asked how he plans to end the lengthy war in Afghanistan, given that he has rejected the idea of trying to negotiate with the Taliban.
“By beating them,” he answered.
It was a strong, manly answer, short and to the point. And yes, beating them sounds like quite an appealing option.
On the other hand, we’ve been at it for more than a decade now, through a good part of three presidential terms, and have lost more than 1,800 American lives in the process. And we don’t seem to be much closer to “beating them” than we were when we began. While we’ve succeeded in weakening the movement, Taliban leadership has retreated to havens in Pakistan, where we continue to strike at them when possible via drones and missiles. Short of an invasion of Pakistan, “beating them” seems a very tall order. If Romney has specific ideas on how that might be accomplished, I have not seen them.
In fact, two of Romney’s own foreign-policy advisers, Mitchell Reiss and James Shinn, have publicly endorsed negotiations. As Shinn writes with co-author James Dobbins in “Afghan Peace Talks: A Primer”, the bottom-line goal of U.S. policy must be to prevent a return of al Qaeda to Afghanistan. He and Dobbins write:
“The United States can prevent this indefinitely as long as it is willing to commit significant military and economic resources to a counterinsurgency effort. It cannot eliminate the threat, however, as long as the Afghan insurgents enjoy sanctuary in and support from Pakistan. The United States could also achieve its objective if the Taliban could be persuaded to cut ties with al Qaeda and end its insurgency in exchange for some role in Afghan governance short of total control.
Peace negotiations would obviously be desirable if they could succeed in achieving this objective, but they are also worth pursuing even if they fail, as the risks associated with entering such a process may be greater for the insurgents than for the Afghan government and its allies.”
There’s a lot of hard truth packed in those two paragraphs. As Shinn and Dobbins write, we can keep the Taliban at bay as long as the United States “is willing to commit significant military and economic resources to a counterinsurgency effort.” But we aren’t willing to do so forever, and we know it. Public opinion in this country has turned sharply against an open-ended continuation of the war, and the Afghanis are growing tired of our presence as well.
In fact, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has from time to time denounced NATO forces as occupiers, claiming at one point that “It is just for their national interest that they put our lives under their feet and dishonor the people.”
In light of that reality, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta this week announced plans to end active U.S. involvement in combat in Afghanistan by the end of 2013. U.S. forces after that point would serve to train and assist Afghan government forces, including providing air cover, air transport and logistics support. But the brunt of the fighting would be done by the Afghans themselves.
Yesterday, Romney cast scorn on that approach, describing Panetta as “misguided and naive.”
“He announced that so the Taliban hears it, the Pakistanis hear it, the Afghan leaders hear it,” Romney said. “Why in the world do you go to the people that you’re fighting with and tell them the day you’re pulling out your troops? It makes absolutely no sense. [Obama’s] naivete is putting in jeopardy the mission of the United States of America and our commitments to freedom. He is wrong. We need new leadership in Washington.”
With those seemingly passionate comments, Romney repeats a refrain against announcing timelines that became familiar during the Iraq years. But again, it’s a curious stance. Because you see, Romney himself has publicly endorsed a deadline of 2014 for the withdrawal of almost all NATO military forces, including Americans, from Afghanistan. To borrow his language, Romney announced that support “so the Taliban hears it, the Pakistanis hear it, the Afghan leaders hear it.”
So I’m not sure exactly what his argument is, other than to make meaningless noise on the campaign trail and try to pump himself up as a strong-willed military leader.
If we are going to withdraw almost completely by 2014, leaving behind perhaps a group of advisers, trainers and intelligence specialists, it seems reasonable and rational that you would give the Afghan security forces a year to find their footing before handing them full responsibility.
But hey, if Romney has a plan for how to “beat the Taliban” and yet be out of Afghanistan by 2014, and to do so without giving Afghan security forces a transition period in which they take the lead role with strong U.S. backing, the American people would like to hear it.
Otherwise, his rhetoric comes across as macho blather, and I believe that rather recent experience has soured the American people on that for a while.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
656 comments Add your comment
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 2nd, 2012
2:53 pm
Further, you justify the ridiculous outcry from the left in that Komen really doesn’t even contribute a significant amount to PP, so they’re partnership was unkown (sic)…
Fallacious.
The Susan G. Komen organization granted money to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and affiliates. The money paid for 170,000 clinical breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals over the past five years at Planned Parenthood. Komen had said its affiliates provide funds for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities in which Planned Parenthood is the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services.
Research and facts are not your enemy.
Fred
February 2nd, 2012
2:55 pm
Brocephus@2:50: When was the last time we had a POTUS with actual military combat experience?
George HERBERT Walker Bush
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
2:55 pm
Research and facts are not your enemy.
Yes, they are the enemy of a conservative. Especially ones that pretend what math and science can show are false.
barking frog
February 2nd, 2012
2:56 pm
Brosephus, George H.W. Bush and he went into Kuwait, kicked
Sadaam out, and came home.
Quagmire
February 2nd, 2012
2:56 pm
Romney, with Donald “DA HairPiece” Trump endorsing you. Nothing stands between you and a good combover in the future. This means you have to start the birther stuff all over again. It comes with his endorsement
Jerome Horwitz
February 2nd, 2012
2:56 pm
Bro – That would be Bush Sr. Flew diver bombers off a carrier – a low percentage job. Crashed and was rescued by a sub. Didn’t much agree with his policies, but, have major respect for the man. He could’ve used his position to get a stateside job.
Although we’ll never see it again I think it’s important for the CiC to have military experience. That way they have an appreciation for their actions.
theyeshaveit
February 2nd, 2012
2:57 pm
How is it that someone who nursed on the nipple of Bain Capital have any credence on this matter? In fact, how is it that Romney has any credence on virtually anything?
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
2:58 pm
“Thing is, you’re speaking of that as though the poor people who rely on this are ALREADY covered through the health care law. We still have 2 more years before that is “mandatory,” assuming that even holds up in the SCOTUS.”
Adam and Brocephus (who basically copied what Adam said),
PP has plenty more for screenings for the poor without Komen’s assistance, since they have around $1 billion in total assets as I mentioned earlier.
My point has been and is that the left’s uproar with Komen’s decision to no longer be affiliated with PP is ridiculous for all of the reasons we have discussed.
getalife
February 2nd, 2012
3:00 pm
The fed said our recovery is “frustratingly” slow because housing needs to turn around.
The President proposes another plan but the speaker said no.
Once again, our President will act alone and the corporate media give the gop a free pass on their obstruction and do nothing ideology as usual.
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:01 pm
PP has plenty more for screenings for the poor without Komen’s assistance, since they have around $1 billion in total assets as I mentioned earlier.
And that makes it alright does it?
Look, the problem here is that an organization supposedly offering to help women prevent breast cancer while also searching for the cure have decided to put PERSONAL RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL VIEWS above all of that. THAT is why there is an uproar. Abortion has nothing to do with what Komen was funding or even supporting. And now they have tarnished their reputation with donors.
354 more days
February 2nd, 2012
3:04 pm
Doggone/GA
February 2nd, 2012
12:17 pm
Kinda like why would a political party pick an ass as a leader, or even a mascot
Zedd
February 2nd, 2012
3:05 pm
Holder’s No. 2 in 2009: Gunwalking, Fast and Furious a ‘terrific idea’
http://news.yahoo.com/holder-no-2-2009-gunwalking-fast-furious-terrific-164108934.html
Why Obama should be worried
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html
Brosephus
February 2nd, 2012
3:06 pm
Further, you justify the ridiculous outcry from the left in that Komen really doesn’t even contribute a significant amount to PP, so they’re partnership was unkown really until they decided to no longer be affiliated with PP because they are under federal investigation.
Well, if SGK is all about finding a cure for breast cancer, which use of charity funds best reach that objective, CEO pay or grants to PP?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-02/planned-parenthood-replaces-komen-grant-with-online-push.html
Planned Parenthood Federation of America may have already replaced most of the $680,000 in funding it lost from Susan G. Komen for the Cure for its breast- cancer prevention programs, the group said today.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/14/charity-10_Susan-G-Komen-for-the-Cure_CH0155.html
Top Person: Nancy G. Brinker
Top Pay:4 $531,924
I never said their amount was insignificant. I only stated they have, through donations, only replaced the amount they would have received from SGK. You should really try to read more for comprehension instead of reading to re-enforce your preconceived notions.
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:08 pm
“Look, the problem here is that an organization supposedly offering to help women prevent breast cancer while also searching for the cure have decided to put PERSONAL RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL VIEWS above all of that. THAT is why there is an uproar. Abortion has nothing to do with what Komen was funding or even supporting. And now they have tarnished their reputation with donors.”
Adam,
Komen has seperated themselves because PP is under federal investigation, as I mentioned earlier. They were already losing support in the form of donations because of their affiliation to the nation’s largest abortion provider. Unlike PP (which receives an estimated $500 million from the government yearly) Komen’s only source of viability comes from donations. You have trouble staying on point.
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:09 pm
Zedd: Those articles are what is meant to tide you over and make you feel better until your Reagan doll arrives in early November.
Brosephus
February 2nd, 2012
3:09 pm
And since GHWB, has there been much sanity on display in our political system when it comes to the military decisions coming from the executive dept? There’s been a few spot decisions that panned out, but overall, there has not been much consideration on how the decisions affect the troops in my opinion. There also appears to be no plan to deal with possible outcomes of deploying our military. GHWB went in, kicked ass, and got out. We have not seen the same since then from anyone.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:12 pm
T. Head — “Again, the uproar from the left is ridiculous. Obamacare already provides mammograms at no cost (as well as other screenings)”
As we have to keep reminding you, most of the provisions of the ACA don’t even begin kicking in for another year or two.
I suspect that cancer won’t just wait around, and will instead forge ahead with its work.
Brosephus
February 2nd, 2012
3:14 pm
Talking Head
How is my statement and Adams the same? Adam’s talking about the coverage not kicking in for 2 more years. My point is that PP provided service for people who don’t have insurance at all. There’s a big difference between getting coverage for something in 2 years versus not having coverage at all now, or in 2 years time. Geez….
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:14 pm
Talking Head: You have trouble staying on point.
No, you do. They created the rule SPECIFICALLY to take advantage of the fact PP was under investigation so they could stop funding them. Read up on it. This was political. The rule is just a way they are trying to have plausible deniability.
Zedd
February 2nd, 2012
3:14 pm
So says the self appointed blog God who thinks it’s necessary to comment on every post and pass judgment on all! If it doesn’t concern you Adam, then you’re just towing the line and following blind ideology. Free your mind, don’t tow the line!
theyeshaveit
February 2nd, 2012
3:14 pm
Speaking of experience…
The GOP in general, and Mitt Romney in particular, would have us believe that just because of their “business experience” or because they spent a couple years as an “executive” (e.g., Sarah Palin’s stint as governor of Alaska) means a whole heck of a lot when you are sitting in the Oval Office. It doesn’t, as Meg Whitman, the erstwhile eBay CEO and candidate for governor of California found out – running a business and running a government (or even running for office) are different animals. And now, we seem to be pondering “military experience” and the benefits thereof in the Oval Office. Hmmm. Let me see. Were not Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghadafi, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco fond of the military uniform?
But my favorite quote on experience is from tennis champion, Jimmy Connors. Said Jimmy one day when asked how his experience was helping his game, “The funny thing about experience is that by the time you have it, you are too old to use it.”
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:15 pm
Brosephus — “Damn near all politicians do the same thing. When was the last time we had a POTUS with actual military combat experience?”
I’m not aware of Nixon or Carter ever being in combat (both were Navy men), so I’m going to have to go with Kennedy.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:16 pm
Fred — “George HERBERT Walker Bush”
I stand corrected.
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 2nd, 2012
3:16 pm
So Scumdog Billionaire is endorsing Willard.
What demographic will he add to Mitt’s ledger?
The tawdry, womanizing TV clown wannabes?
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:17 pm
The biggest problem is Senator Harry Reid. The Senate ran by corrupt democrats are the ones keeping anything from being done to help our Nation. The Senate lead by Harry Reid NV(D)and his democrat partners-in crime are the real Party of NO. They are also hurting President Obama. Why don’t any of your Pro Obama followers speak out about Harry Reid and the Senate of NO?
redneckbluedog
February 2nd, 2012
3:18 pm
I heard Romney can see Nova Scotia from his Bain Capital high-rise….
Brosephus
February 2nd, 2012
3:18 pm
eyes
The only people with the necessary experience to be president are the one’s who have completed a term as president. Otherwise, experience doesn’t mean diddly squat.
*The opinion expressed belongs to Brosephus and does not reflect the views of Jay Bookman, The AJC, or Cox Enterprises.
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:19 pm
AmVet, No differentance than the Communist Billionarie Scumbag George Soros for your boy Obama.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:20 pm
KHSN — “Why don’t any of your Pro Obama followers speak out about Harry Reid and the Senate of NO?”
Because we’re busy beating up on the guys on your team?
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:20 pm
Zedd: If it doesn’t concern you Adam, then you’re just towing the line and following blind ideology.
So I should just ignore what you say. Ok, challenge accepted. Thanks for playing.
redneckbluedog
February 2nd, 2012
3:21 pm
I may or may not support Barack Obama, but for the sake of America’s soul, I will do EVERYTHING I CAN to undermine Mitt “The Heretic” Romney’s chances…..
If our “so called” religious leaders like Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson aren’t going to step up and condemn this polytheistic faith, I WILL..!!!!!
What’s sad is: If Mitt Romney were a Democrat….HELL ITSELF WOULD BE CAST UPON THE EARTH…!!!!!!
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 2nd, 2012
3:21 pm
…Newt’s campaign advisers had erroneously informed various media outlets that business mogul and reality television star Donald Trump was set to endorse Gingrich.
And Newt Agnew’s campaign manger is going………………….Newt.
“I am already tired of you (reporters),” he said, brushing them off. “I need to take a nap.”
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:21 pm
Why don’t any of your Pro Obama followers speak out about Harry Reid and the Senate of NO?
Because none of what you said is true.
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:22 pm
“As we have to keep reminding you, most of the provisions of the ACA don’t even begin kicking in for another year or two.
I suspect that cancer won’t just wait around, and will instead forge ahead with its work.”
As I have to keep REMINDING you libs about the very bill you support in it’s entirety….if you have enrolled in job-related health plans or individual health insurance policies created after March 23, 2010 this provision will affect you as soon as your plan begins its first new “plan year” or “policy year” on or after September 23, 2010.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/rights/preventive-care/index.html
Also, Under the Affordable Care Act, women’s preventive health care services – such as mammograms, screenings for cervical cancer, and other services – are covered with no cost sharing for new health plans. However, the law recognizes and HHS understands the need to take into account the unique health needs of women throughout their lifespan. These guidelines are effective August 1, 2011. Accordingly, non-grandfathered plans and issuers are required to provide coverage without cost sharing consistent with these guidelines in the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after August 1, 2012.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/regulations/womensprevention.html
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:22 pm
The ajc and Jay arn’t interested in the truth just here to help Obama get re-elected. In other words just big mouth pieces for the corruption of the far left perverted radicals like Obama and company.
theyeshaveit
February 2nd, 2012
3:22 pm
Brosephus,
Love your disclaimer.
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:23 pm
aren’t going to step up and condemn this polytheistic faith
ummmmm polytheistic?
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:24 pm
Talking Head: .if you have enrolled in job-related health plans
There’s that word IF again, screwing up your point….
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 2nd, 2012
3:24 pm
The biggest problem is Senator Harry Reid. The Senate ran by corrupt democrats are the ones keeping anything from being done to help our Nation.
Meat, I concur.
I said back in 2006 that he, Pelosi, Ms. Clinton, Obama et al were shamelessly derelict in their sworn duties as members of congress to we the people.
Perhaps you remember the scenario?
When they “took impeachment off of the table”?
Gutless Democrats protecting cowardly and deadly Republicans.
Great…
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:25 pm
The ajc and Jay arn’t interested in the truth just here to help Obama get re-elected. In other words just big mouth pieces for the corruption of the far left perverted radicals like Obama and company.
Not Intended to Be a Factual Statement
Mittens Rmoney
February 2nd, 2012
3:25 pm
pahhdon me, do you have any grey poupon?
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:26 pm
Adam, You are just a lost cause and need to be thrown away with all the other trash.
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 2nd, 2012
3:27 pm
Steve – USA (I support “None Of The Above”)@9:39 “I guess Trump is going to endorse Newt, maybe that means Romney isn’t so bad after all.”
Correction:
I guess Trump is going to endorse Mitt, maybe that means Gingrich isn’t so bad after all.
Disclaimer: The above is in no way my endorsement of any candidate. Just my personal opinion that Trump is a blowhard.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:27 pm
T. Head — “As I have to keep REMINDING you libs about the very bill . . . (SNIP). . . Accordingly, non-grandfathered plans and issuers are required to provide coverage without cost sharing consistent with these guidelines in the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after August 1, 2012.”
Try reading the things you post BEFORE you post them. Then you won’t wind up looking like a complete tool.
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:28 pm
I am so SO hurt
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 2nd, 2012
3:28 pm
Looks like meat has come back in yet a new guise.
Same garbage repackaged for staleness!
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 2nd, 2012
3:29 pm
BTW – Which one you stole Winter? It is beautiful outside.
theyeshaveit
February 2nd, 2012
3:29 pm
Adam,
Maybe bluedog meant Almighty God AND the Almighty Dollar.
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:30 pm
Adam,
Everyone woman in this country with any form of health insurance will be provided mammograms at no additional cost starting August 1 of this year.
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 2nd, 2012
3:30 pm
looks like I forgot the “of”
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:31 pm
Talking Head: Ok but the point is those who are NOT covered still have no recourse for two years, except Planned Parenthood, when it comes to breast screenings.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:32 pm
T. Head — “Everyone woman in this country with any form of health insurance will be provided mammograms at no additional cost starting August 1 of this year.”
Too late, you already contradicted yourself:
“. . .in the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after August 1, 2012.”
You really didn’t read any of that before you posted it, did you? And you STILL haven’t completely read it.
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:32 pm
AmVet, True, but also true what King Harry is doing now in the Senate with his democrat corrupt partners-in crime. The nCongress has passed many bills but King Harry won’t let them be voted on the Senate floor simply because Reid doesn’t like the bill. Reid isn’t their for his own personal kindom but to do the people’s business. And even today he is shamelessly derelict of his duties.
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:32 pm
theyeshaveit: Good one!
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:32 pm
“T. Head — “As I have to keep REMINDING you libs about the very bill . . . (SNIP). . . Accordingly, non-grandfathered plans and issuers are required to provide coverage without cost sharing consistent with these guidelines in the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after August 1, 2012.”
Joe @ 3:12 “As we have to keep reminding you, most of the provisions of the ACA don’t even begin kicking in for another year or two.”
Joe you just fell into a trap making you look stupid. August 1 is less than 6 months away which is clearly not “another year or two.”
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 2nd, 2012
3:33 pm
Steve, I think it’s time for Jay to come up with a new Global Cooling thread!
All the Rick Perry fans would be delighted…
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:36 pm
AmVet, Yeah and Obama woukd invest taxpayers money in it.
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:36 pm
“Talking Head: Ok but the point is those who are NOT covered still have no recourse for two years, except Planned Parenthood, when it comes to breast screenings.”
The same PP that has $1 billion in assets to provide screenings to the very poor. Let’s not forget that PP isn’t the only organization in America to provide mammograms either.
redneckbluedog
February 2nd, 2012
3:37 pm
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:23 pm
ummmmm polytheistic?
—————————————
Yes….I hope you will learn and spread the word….For your sake, for my sake, for the sake of America..!!!!!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:37 pm
T. Head — “Joe you just fell into a trap making you look stupid. August 1 is less than 6 months away which is clearly not “another year or two.”
Wrong. You still haven’t READ your own material.
August 1 is not a drop dead date. It’s the START date. Reread.
“non-grandfathered plans and issuers are required to provide coverage without cost sharing consistent with these guidelines in the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after August 1, 2012.”
Plan years could start in November 2012. They could start in January 2013. They could start as late as freakin JULY of 2013 and still be compliant. That’s a year and a half from now, Cowboy.
The only one looking stupid here is you, because you don’t even read your own links, and because you don’t even reread the stuff you post when it’s pointed out to you that it contradicts what you’re saying.
theyeshaveit
February 2nd, 2012
3:40 pm
AmVet, Yeah and Obama woukd invest taxpayers money in it.
REAL taxpayers don’t get that 15% rate that Mitt gets.
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
3:40 pm
Talking Head: The same PP that has $1 billion in assets to provide screenings to the very poor. Let’s not forget that PP isn’t the only organization in America to provide mammograms either.
Both irrelevant to the topic of Komen decided to defund them for political reasons. PP lost money on this, and only the public opinion backlash has gotten them to recover from it. To say “Oh well, they have SOME money left” is an intellectually dishonest diversion from the point. It does not matter that they can fund SOME screenings, what matters is that an organization that was helping them fund MORE pulled their funding for political reasons. Looking at the end result and going “Oh well they did just fine anyway” is beside any legitimate point being made here.
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 2nd, 2012
3:42 pm
Meat, I know from watching you in action heretofore, that after repeated embarrassments, you sometimes are inclined to tone down the juvenile rhetoric
To wit, your childish and unfounded accusation about Obama being “my boy”.
I voted against him in 2008, will not vote for him in November and have denounced many of his policies – including Obamacare, his reticence in seeking justice against the wall Street criminals and banksters and his Afghan ’surge” among others.
But you?
You’d rather go to Islamic hell (Do Muslims go to hell? LOL!) before you acknowledge what a POS you voted for in 2000 and 2004.
And enjoy your blogging day with your new name. Perhaps somebody else will engage you further…
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:43 pm
Obama is the most corrupt President in modern American History. Obama is worst than Nixon. And most of you left-wing bloggers couldn’t care less because the only think that matters to you is that Obama’s Black and a Socialist liberal democrat.
Brosephus
February 2nd, 2012
3:43 pm
Everyone woman in this country with any form of health insurance will be provided mammograms at no additional cost starting August 1 of this year.
And where do those women without any coverage go for mammograms? Planned Parenthood and other providers for those without insurance. I, personally, don’t know of any Susan G. Komen clinics in existence at this point in time. They only provide funding to clinics for mammograms and like services.
eyes
I don’t wanna get Jay or anybody else in trouble for the things I believe. I’d hate for an entire group of people to be labeled just because of my opinion, not that anybody would do such a thing. //sarc//
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:44 pm
Joe,
Obviously you don’t read as I said, “T. Head — “Everyone woman in this country with any form of health insurance will be provided mammograms at no additional cost starting August 1 of this year.””
Clearly I said that any woman with any form of health insurance…implying that they already have insurance, not those who don’t have insurance. It’s all there black and white.
md
February 2nd, 2012
3:45 pm
“GHWB went in, kicked ass, and got out.”
Yes he did, but what would have happened had the UN mandate not specified that?
We will never know…….
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:45 pm
“And where do those women without any coverage go for mammograms? Planned Parenthood and other providers for those without insurance. I, personally, don’t know of any Susan G. Komen clinics in existence at this point in time. They only provide funding to clinics for mammograms and like services.”
I don’t know, but here is a link that will tell you some info on free or low cost screenings.
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dcpc_Programs/default.aspx?NPID=1
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 2nd, 2012
3:46 pm
You’d rather go to Islamic hell (Do Muslims go to hell?
Well, the ones that’s been bad and don’t get the 78 virgins get Granny and Sister Dusty and people like that, so I guess you could call that hell.
Happy to help out, AmVet.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:47 pm
T. Head — “Joe, Obviously you don’t read”
Obviously, YOU are the one not reading, because you’re replying to Brosephus’ post at 3:43.
Erwin's cat
February 2nd, 2012
3:47 pm
lots of opinions being presented as facts today….at least in my opinion
As far a Komen, it’s their money and can distribute it as they feel fit, if you don’t like it then don’t contribute to Komen…what’s the problem?
The outrage over how someone else in the private sector decides to spend their own money is ridiculous
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:47 pm
How much money has Obama spend.? And how much debt has Obama racked up since he’s been President? How many jobs have been lost under Obama’s administration? LIke Clinton said “It’s the economy stupid”.
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:48 pm
“Both irrelevant to the topic of Komen decided to defund them for political reasons. PP lost money on this, and only the public opinion backlash has gotten them to recover from it. To say “Oh well, they have SOME money left” is an intellectually dishonest diversion from the point. It does not matter that they can fund SOME screenings, what matters is that an organization that was helping them fund MORE pulled their funding for political reasons. Looking at the end result and going “Oh well they did just fine anyway” is beside any legitimate point being made here.”
Well according to someone else here on this blog they didn’t lose any money, and have made what little they were getting from Komen back.
Again, Adam. PP has $1 billion in total assets, and Komen was granting them (as someone else said earlier) roughtly $600k. So “To say “Oh well, they have SOME money left” …no they have $999,400,000 left
stands for decibels
February 2nd, 2012
3:49 pm
PP lost money on this, and only the public opinion backlash has gotten them to recover from it.
While I’d already contributed to PP late last year, I’m planning to kick a few more bucks their way in the form of an honorary gift. (You can too.)
be sure to specify that PP’s “Thank you!” card goes to:
Karen Handel
Senior VP of Fail
c/o Susan G. Komen Foundation
P.O. Box 650309
Dallas, TX 75265-0309
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:50 pm
SfD — “Karen Handel
Senior VP of Fail”
I want to know how you get a gig as a Senior VP without a college degree.
Soothsayer
February 2nd, 2012
3:50 pm
We are running $1,000,000,000,000.00+ deficits each year. We print $3,700,000,000.00 of them little green thingies that we carry around in our pockets each day.
We need to be spending money on Eye-Rack and Afghanistan like a hole in the head. We need to be spending $0.43 of every dollar spent Worldwide on our military like a hole in the head. We need to be spending $1,500,000,000,000.00 on our military like a hole in the head.
We need Mitt Romney like a hole in the head.
stands for decibels
February 2nd, 2012
3:51 pm
The outrage over how someone else in the private sector decides to spend their own money is ridiculous
Erwin, perhaps if you’d participated in one or more of their fundraising events yourself–i.e., if you’d had a dog in this fight–you’d feel differently.
(I have. I can only say this much–I ain’t planning to wear that race T-shirt again.)
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:51 pm
Joe,
Look at your post at 3:32 and my post at 3:44
Libs are getting clowned here today lol!
md
February 2nd, 2012
3:52 pm
“The outrage over how someone else in the private sector decides to spend their own money is ridiculous”
Must remember that there are some here that look at others’ money as always being shareable…….probably the same ones that call for tax increases on anyone but themselves….
Thomas
February 2nd, 2012
3:52 pm
I think we all should consider paying down the national debt as it helps everyone especially the unemployed:
Be sure to write a Thank You note to President Obama
•You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it’s a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
King Harry said NO
February 2nd, 2012
3:53 pm
The CBO said that the national debt has grown much under the Obama Presidency. And that obamacare will cost us many billions more than they throught.
stands for decibels
February 2nd, 2012
3:54 pm
JHM (and others), I really should credit TBogg for that contact/title/address info @ 3.49, so here ’tis:
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/01/31/the-pink-badge-of-cowardice/
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:54 pm
T. Head — “Look at your post at 3:32 and my post at 3:44 ”
I did. There’s no connection.
“Libs are getting clowned here today lol!”
You still don’t get it. You cite 1 AUG 2012 as if *everyone with insurance* will have covered mammograms *on that date.* They won’t. Even further, the material YOU quoted even makes that clear.
The fact that you can’t see this even when I repeatedly point it out to you is hilarious.
AmVet - Just say no to the War Pigs.
February 2nd, 2012
3:55 pm
RC, LOL.
One of the craziest things I’ve ever witnessed here is after a certain obsessed female finally got canned, Dusty and a forested-type went the self-banning route. Apparently in some demented display of honor amongst trolls.
Hallelujah and pass the collection plate…
JOE Cool (I'm Voting 2x or 3x For MESSIAH OBAMA)
February 2nd, 2012
3:56 pm
“couldn’t care less because the only think that matters to you is that Obama’s Black and a Socialist liberal democrat.”
Ahhhhhhh yes, I love the “because he’s black” card. I really dont understand what that REALLY means.
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:57 pm
Joe,
I’m glad you support Obama, it reinforces my suspicions of the types of people who are so easily manipulated
Erwin's cat
February 2nd, 2012
3:58 pm
stands – Komen is a shell of what it once was mission-wise anyway and much less credible then it used to be…your protest (stop supporting them) is the appropriate measure.
There are plenty of other avenues to donate for a cure
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 2nd, 2012
4:01 pm
Funny how some seem to think that a nonprofit 501(c) organization that receives contributions that are tax deductible to the donors somehow is just “private enterprise” and can do what they want ignoring all rules or that their donors cannot be upset with how their donations are channelled.
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
4:01 pm
md: “The outrage over how someone else in the private sector decides to spend their own money is ridiculous”
Must remember that there are some here that look at others’ money as always being shareable…….probably the same ones that call for tax increases on anyone but themselves….
You know, go ahead and spend the money as you wish. That does not mean I can’t legitimately call out Komen for doing it for POLITICAL and RELIGIOUS reasons. I happen to think that for an organization that has a stated goal of helping ALL women avoid breast cancer, and looking for the cure, that it was wrong for them to pull this for that reason. And as I also said, there is EVIDENCE that they did so for political purposes, and that their “plausible deniability” bylaw was created specifically to target PP.
THAT is what I find abhorrent. Not this generic “well it’s their money let them spend it how they like” BS.
md
February 2nd, 2012
4:02 pm
What’s the big bruhaha about Komen? Don’t like it, don’t contribute…….pretty simple concept.
Too bad so many don’t get upset about the 50 billion we lose every month in a trade imbalance, but I’m guessing it’s due to not having a clue as to what effect that has on their everyday life….tick, tick, tick.
JOE Cool (I'm Voting 2x or 3x For MESSIAH OBAMA)
February 2nd, 2012
4:02 pm
Talking Head
February 2nd, 2012
3:57 pm
You’re welcome. You mean like these ppl >
Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html?ref=mostpopular
Brosephus
February 2nd, 2012
4:03 pm
EC
I’ve already stated as much. My opinion is that money talks, bullsh*t walks. I’ve donated to SGK in the past as well as other charities. When those charities co-mingle politics with their activities, I put my money towards charities that transcend politics and act with humanity first instead.
I don’t know, but here is a link that will tell you some info on free or low cost screenings.
From your posted link:
In 2000, Congress passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act, which gives states the option to offer women in the NBCCEDP access to treatment through Medicaid. To date, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have approved this Medicaid option. [...]
An estimated 8%–11% of U.S. women of screening age are eligible to receive NBCCEDP services.
Seems like your suggestion helps some, but it does not plug the hole completely. That’s where other clinics, PP included, help fill that gap in coverage. Thanks for making my point better than I did in the first place.
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 2nd, 2012
4:03 pm
This is a question so put your guns and knives away.
Isn’t Komen part of the distribution network of the United Way? Many employer’s have voluntary payroll deductions. Where my wife works anyone who kicks in $2 a week toward the United Way gets to wear jeans on Friday.
md
February 2nd, 2012
4:04 pm
“And as I also said, there is EVIDENCE that they did so for political purposes, and that their “plausible deniability” bylaw was created specifically to target PP.”
Good for you Adam…….counselor, judge and jury……….the reality is, you have no clue why they did it unless you were in the inner circle…….were you?
barking frog
February 2nd, 2012
4:05 pm
theeyeshaveit, missed you man, way to jump in…
Paul
February 2nd, 2012
4:05 pm
So, a simple yes or no:
Has anyone made a case for staying in Afg in a combat role past 2013 or 2014?
And, has anyone produced a Rosetta Stone to translate Mitt’s words regarding Afg?
(I’m guessing both questions have the same answer)
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
4:06 pm
Talking Head: no they have $999,400,000 left
No they don’t. $1 billion in total assets does not equal $1 billion in cash on hand. Also that is a rabbit hole argument and you’re still missing the point. If you want to know what the point is, reread and respond appropriately. Otherwise, I am done trying to get you to get it.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
4:06 pm
T. Head — “I’m glad you support Obama, it reinforces my suspicions of the types of people who are so easily manipulated.”
Having voted for Reagan twice and Bush the Elder twice, I could hardly *help* but be easily manipulated, don’t you think?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
4:07 pm
Steve — “Where my wife works anyone who kicks in $2 a week toward the United Way gets to wear jeans on Friday.”
I applaud your wife’s employer for making her wear pants at least once a week.
Brosephus
February 2nd, 2012
4:08 pm
Has anyone made a case for staying in Afg in a combat role past 2013 or 2014?
And, has anyone produced a Rosetta Stone to translate Mitt’s words regarding Afg?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGkmiaL4-xs