Obama's Wars

[Loss Leader]

Could you point out the lie specifically?

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

I take it you have no evidence of administration officials lying to Congress in any hearings? Correct?

You are incorrect. However, the discussion is off topic and I will not respond further.

 

[Augustine]

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

That quote is from the 2003 SOTU. Congress passed Public Law 107-243 in October of 2002. Could you explain how Congress traveled forward in time in order to be lied to, then traveled backward in time to authorize military force based on lies they would be told in the future?

You are incorrect. However, the discussion is off topic and I will not respond further.

Says the person who introduced the off-topic discussion in the first place. Well, slink off, and let's get back to the topic: President Obama's mishandling of Afghanistan.

 

[joobz]

NONSENSE.

I disagree. I'll show why.

How could an invasion of Iraq, which didn't occur until 2 years our invasion of Afghanistan have distracted us?

We have not finished in Afghanistan. And yes, Iraq did remove military focus.

Bin Laden himself stated that Iraq was the "central front" in his fight against the US.

This is a fine example of Post Hoc rationalization.
Of course. That was AFTER we entered Iraq. He was using the Iraq war as an example of "Western attacks against Islam".

al-Qaeda committed thousands and thousands of jihadists (yes, a term that Obama banned) to Iraq where they were put through a meat grinder and soundly defeated.

Post Hoc rationalization, again.

 

[BeAChooser]

We have not finished in Afghanistan.

Partly because Obama lost the gains we'd made up till 2008 (see the articles I cited and I could cite more). He was obviously (according to Woodward) reluctant to surge in Afghanistan like the military wanted ... just as he was in Iraq, even after he'd admitted that surging is what turned the tide in Iraq. I say Stuck on Stupid.

And yes, Iraq did remove military focus.

No, it did not.

 

[joobz]

Partly because Obama...

bush did not make it a priority and instead went after Iraq for WMDs, which did not exist.

Your biggest problem here is I have facts on my side, and you have speculation.

 

[BeAChooser]

bush did not make it a priority

NONSENSE. Bush invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11, to topple the Taliban, destroy al-Qaeda terror training camps, and disrupt al-Qaeda's network. It was most definitely a priority. And that effort was mostly successful.

Now Obama and other anti-war liberals have claimed that the Iraq war distracted the US from capturing bin Laden (never mind the issue of what actual impact on the WOT doing that would have had). When asked about the presence of al-Qaeda's leaders in Pakistan, Obama answered "Right. It’s a huge problem. And first of all, if we hadn’t taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves." You agree with that, right joobz? Of course Obama was Stuck On Stupid, since there isn't any way the hunt for bin Laden was affected by the Iraq invasion … because the Iraq invasion was still years away at the time. The US hadn't even started preparing for the invasion of Iraq.

Never the less, go ahead and tell us, joobz, how would you have handled Tora Bora where Osama was supposedly last seen back in 2001? How would throwing (pick a number) more troops into Afghanistan at that time or after that have helped locate bin Laden or win the war? Because we don't even know if he remained in Afghanistan after that (they think he went to Pakistan) and one of the things that helped bin Laden escape (assuming he actually did and that's not proven) is that we alienated the local tribemen. How would throwing more arrogant American soldiers into the mix at that time have improved matters with those tribesmen? And joobz, are you aware that military officials have publically stated that one of our mistakes in the hunt for bin Laden was an OVER reliance on military force. So tell us again, how Iraq was a distraction.

No, I'm afraid the real distraction in Afghanistan has been Obama.

Here's an overall look at what's happened to coalition fatalities in Afghanistan since 2001:

http://edgeofthewest.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/monthfatalitiessince2001.png

Notice that peak summer casualties in 2005, 2006 and 2007 remained about the same? And as I've already shown using several sources, in 2008 prior to Obama taking office, the war in Afghanistan appears to have been going rather well. Military commanders at the time indicated that the Taliban were "losing momentum" and "on the brink of defeat" … that we'd "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war to the "tipping point" with the Taliban's losing of an estimated 7000 insurgents. Given those sorts of reports, it seems reasonable that Bush didn't think it pressing to upscale the effort further.

But then as the 2008 election approached, we saw a slight uptick in casualities. It's been suggested that was the Taliban/al-Qaeda trying to influence the American election. Listening to Obama's rhetoric and reacting. But the election is over now. So what's the excuse for the dramatic uptick since Obama took office? Can't be the war in Iraq since that's been won. Even Obama agrees. I assert that is Obama distracting our commanders, as Woodward suggests. I assert that is the effect of Obama meddling in the way the war was being waged. Meddling in the way we were gathering and using intel. And now the word from the commanders in the field is that we may be losing the war as well. What happened … other than Obama?

Your biggest problem here is I have facts on my side, and you have speculation.

LOL! I'm the only one posting sources, joobz.

 

[joobz]

NONSENSE. Bush invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11, to topple the Taliban, destroy al-Qaeda terror training camps, and disrupt al-Qaeda's network. It was most definitely a priority. And that effort was mostly successful.

And yet he was still there when Obama entered. strange definition of success you have.

And what ever happened to those WMD?
Did they go into fairyland?

LOL! I'm the only one posting sources, joobz.

Sources of speculation, yes.
Facts, no.

 

[BeAChooser]

And what ever happened to those WMD?

We might know, if you could actually answer those 6 questions I asked in that other thread, joobz.

 

[joobz]

We might know, if you could actually answer those 6 questions I asked in that other thread, joobz.

So you are merely speculating their whereabouts.
there are people who also speculate on the where abouts of Bigfoot, Atlantis, and the Loch Ness monster. Perhaps you should present your arguments to them.

 

[BeAChooser]

Now keep in mind folks. The following is from the Washington POST.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../09/23/AR2010092304743.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The reluctant commander in chief

What is most disturbing about the coverage of Bob Woodward's "Obama's Wars" is not the juicy bits of conflict and infighting; it is the fact that the White House seems pleased with the image of President Obama that emerges.

… snip …

What comes across is a president deeply skeptical about the Afghan war, suspicious of the advice of military leaders and obsessed with finding exits and setting withdrawal deadlines.

… snip …

a president has a number of audiences, including American troops, the allies who fight at our side and enemies who constantly take the measure of our resolve. None of those groups is likely to be impressed by America's reluctant warrior.

… snip …

Historians will study the Afghan policy review as a warning, not as a model. Obama's ambivalence has created a national security team in which arguments fester instead of ripen.

… snip …

Obama eventually imposed the broad outlines of an outcome. But the assent he demanded did not create agreement or consensus. There is no evidence that past arguments -- particularly concerning the hardness of the July 2011 withdrawal deadline -- have ended.

The process was not only chaotic but highly politicized, with national security adviser James Jones criticizing the role of the "campaign set," which he also dubbed the "Politburo" and the "mafia." Obama himself tied the outcome of the policy review to political considerations. "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party," he reportedly told Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Cynics may regard this as typical. Actually, it is remarkable. It is the most basic duty of a commander in chief to pursue the national interest above any other interest. The introduction of partisan considerations into strategic decisions merits a special contempt.

… snip …

Yes, President Obama has sent more skilled, well-led troops to Afghanistan. But he has also created a strategic challenge for America. Our enemy is patient and determined. Our president, by his own account, is neither.

 

[A'isha]

Now keep in mind folks. The following is from the Washington POST.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../09/23/AR2010092304743.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Care to explain to us why an op-ed piece attacking Obama, written by George W. Bush's chief speechwriter for five years, represents some sort of earthshattering revelatory evidence that we're all apparently supposed to gape in stunned shock at?

 

[BeAChooser]

Care to explain to us why an op-ed piece attacking Obama, written by George W. Bush's chief speechwriter for five years, represents some sort of earthshattering revelatory evidence that we're all apparently supposed to gape in stunned shock at?

Carried in the Washington Post? You're kidding, right?

 

[A'isha]

Carried in the Washington Post? You're kidding, right?

Yes, BAC, the Washington Post ran an op-ed column written by one of their regular op-ed columnists, just as they've done twice a week, every week since the middle of 2007.

That makes me even more mystified as to why you think this particular piece is so shocking and dramatic.

 

[joobz]

Yes, BAC, the Washington Post ran an op-ed column written by one of their regular op-ed columnists, just as they've done twice a week, every week since the middle of 2007.

That makes me even more mystified as to why you think this particular piece is so shocking and dramatic.

It's not.

 

[BeAChooser]

LOL! Just keep your head in the ground past November. But sooner or later you'll have to come out and see the stark reality, as opposed to your denial.

 

[joobz]

LOL! Just keep your head in the ground past November. But sooner or later you'll have to come out and see the stark reality, as opposed to your denial.

are you implying that voter response in November will determine the veracity of your OP in this thread?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Yes, the one that Congressional Democrats supported ... after they were lied to. The Bush Administration gave them inaccurate information, much of which they knew or should have known was false at the time. And Democrats in Congress made the grave mistake of actually taking the Executive branch at its word.

Had the information given to Congress been at all accurate, they might not have been quite so suportive.

But my real message is that blaming Obama for Afghanistan is kind of like blaming the newly redesigned Ford Fiesta for antisemitism.

That's one way of looking at it, though I'm sure they were privy to the same information the president was OR maybe they were just trying to curry favor with the American people by making statements such as this:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Also the first quotes in my original post were taken years after the war began, care to explain?

 

[egslim]

Consider the perspective of the time. After the WTC-attacks people wanted to see blood.

All it took for the public to support a military action was for Bush to insinuate some accusations in a semi-credible direction, since political opposition was effectively silenced - much like the Isolationists after Pearl Harbor.

 

[theprestige]

Not likely. Assassination is rarely a viable strategy. It tends to recruit from those who admired the the one killed and create sympathy for their cause. You can't really scare people who aren't afraid of dying.

Assassination... is usually stupid for the reasons you assert.

And yet, removing trained, experienced, highly-skilled professionals from any field is widely recognized as a certain method of crippling that field.

Remove all the doctors from a hospital, and the internists will certainly step in to fill the void. But the hospital won't run nearly as well. The internists won't do as good a job. Less people will be treated. More people will die.

Remove all the Detectives from a Police Department, and have Beat Cops take their place. The Department's criminal investigations will suffer as a result, plus you'll have less cops on the beat. Maybe neighborhood vigilante groups will move in to fill the Beat Cop Gap, with predictably inferior results.

Remove all the professional soldiers from an all-volunteer army, and fill the ranks instead with green conscripts. The quality of your fighting force, and its chances of success on the battlefield will plummet, with disastrous and bloody consequences.

Fire all the executives in a company, and promote the receptionists and shipping/receiving staff to the corner offices and penthouse suites. See how long the company remains viable.

Kill a talented, experienced, well-connected insurgent leader, and his replacement may be equally as fanatical, but he will probably not be equally skilled in leading an insurgency. Instead of having the benefit of however many more months or years of mentoring from those more skilled than himself, he'll be forced to accept on-the-job training, in a job where not already being an expert is often a ticket to sudden death for you and the insurgents you're trying to lead.

How deep is the is the Taliban's leadership roster, anyway? How many expert insurgent commanders do they have sitting on the bench, like so many second- and third-string quarterbacks, just waiting for the starter to blow out a knee so they can get out on the field and show just how good they are? And how many of them, for all their eagerness, for all their game, are just not that good?

I'm not saying targeted assassination always works. I just don't see how "there's always gonna be a willing replacement" is a valid argument against targeted assassination. Unless every Talibani in the tri-state area is equally well-qualified to command the respect and obedience of his peers, and equally skilled in the arts of managing an insurgency against a superior foe, it seems to me that forcing constant leadership replacements is bound to weaken the Taliban and make it easier to defeat.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/76030

Deadliest September Yet for U.S. Troops in Afghanistan; More Than One U.S. Soldier Dying Per Day on Obama’s Watch

I wonder what it's like to be a soldier in Afghanistan fighting for a President who they now know has spent the last two years looking for an exit strategy so he wouldn't "lose the whole Democratic Party"? I just hope those soldiers know the majority of Americans fully support the mission they set out to fulfill, and are concerned about this becoming another Vietnam instead, due to Obama.