Reporter: "Can the war be won?".....Obama: Silence.

[Bluebear]

As President Obama concluded his Rose Garden statement revealing that he had replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top American commander in Afghanistan, a reporter shouted an impromptu question. "Can the war be won?" he yelled. The president didn't answer — perhaps because he doesn't know.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2805

[Oregone]

1. Well, at least he didn't lie

[exboyfil]

3. The fact that he can't answer the question supports

the contention that we need to get out ASAP. The question was not will we win but can we win. If you don't say yes, then you have to get out.

[Oregone]

26. Unless you believe there are different degrees of losing

And different political consequences.

But without a crystal ball, Id assert that cutting one's losses the quickest creates the least opportunity for more fuckups

[John Q. Citizen]

35. There ain't no sucess like failure, and failure is no sucess at all. n/t

[lfairban]

110. Is winning an applicable concept?

At Colossal Cave, a tourist once ask a guide, "How much does the cave weigh?"

http://www.colossalcave.com/faq.html#19.

A very interesting question, but absurd by its very nature. Much like winning in Vietnam.

[bigwillq]

2. No (nt)

[Dinger]

4. Oh Well (nt)

[Diane R]

5. It's a hell of a mess GWB and Cheney got us into. Don't blame Obama.

[AndyA]

7. The longer we're there, the more it becomes Obama's war.

Both of them. At some point, he becomes a war monger as well if he doesn't end them.

[treestar]

69. Not so. chimpy got us into it.

It will never be 44's fault - he just has to deal with it.

[AndyA]

81. Chimpy's gone. Obama has been in office for over a year.

Do you know how much those wars have cost the U.S. taxpayers during that year?

Do you know how many troops have died during that year plus?

It's Obama's war now. Both of them. Chimpy has nothing to do with it now. Obama could stop them if he wanted to.

[truedelphi]

85. Apparently it is more about who is saying what about his Administration

Than it is about winning.

Same as it ever was. Since Vietnam, our wars have been strictly about profits for the DOD contractors, and to hell with any real reason for being there, or any attainable goal.

[treestar]

99. Chimpy started that unnecessary war

And had the people behind him for both of them, too.

No way do we get to dodge responsibility for that. Very Republican of you.

[newtothegame]

107. Obama CHOSE to run for President. I get sick of people making excuses for inaction/misaction. nt

[Obamanaut]

89. Agreed. People used to call the Viet Nam conflict "Johnson's war", even

though the first advisors were sent during the Truman administration, and there were more presidents between Truman and Johnson who kept troops there, and even sent more.

[tekisui]

14. Obama doubbled-down. It is Obama's War.

[lib2DaBone]

18. No One is Blaming Obama. He needs to stop the War NOW..

.. and bring the troops home.

[jonnyblitz]

31. I blame him for escalating the war. nt

[bigwillq]

34. Obama deserves blame

for continuing this war from the first day he took office. Obama does deserve some of the blame.

[emilyg]

40. Like it or not - it;'s Obama's war.

[tabasco]

64. LOL.

You're funny.

[paulk]

79. it's true, though

despite your meaningless post.

[Bluebear]

41. Asking if we can win = "blaming Obama"? Is that all that matters anymore, if Obama is blamed?

[krabigirl]

49. Well, Obama promised to ramp it up, and he is fulfilling that promise.

[Lorien]

87. It's all about Obama, huh? WHAT ABOUT THOSE KILLING AND BEING KILLED???

End the war. NOW.

[unhappycamper]

6. No.

[Octafish]

11. Almost 9 years, now.

Whatever happened to that bin Laden fellow?

I understand that his family no longer is in business with the Bushes through the Carlyle Group.

[earth mom]

20. His new name is Osama bin Forgotten. nt

[devilgrrl]

84. Emanuel Bin Goldstein

eom

[bluestateguy]

8. Supid, pissant, mousey little showboating reporter

nt

[tekisui]

15. Really?

For asking a direct question that should get a definite response?

[bluestateguy]

19. Yes. Really.

Having a White House press pass is a privilege, not a right.

[Catherina]

29. "it's patriotic to stand with the president in a time of war (do I really need a sarcasm icon?"

That's some sigline.

[alarimer]

56. What use is the Press Corps unless they ask the tough questions?

Otherwise they are mere stenographers or cheerleaders.

[Kalun D]

90. They Got Rid Of Helen Thomas

they don't want anyone asking real questions, it's too embarrassing cuz they can't answer

[grantcart]

80. It was made clear that the President would read a statement and answer no questions

Pure amateur hour by the reporter.

[tekisui]

96. That may be so, but I don't think that makes her a:

'Supid, pissant, mousey little showboating reporter'

[Forkboy]

21. oy vey.

[Ignis]

25. But a reporter asking that question of Shrub would be...?

[G_j]

32. a dedicated, courageous reporter, I suppose. nt

[YOY]

101. A monument to democracy!

n/t

[Bluebear]

42. Yes, it's the reporter who is to blame!!!1 Not the question!!!!!!!1

[jgraz]

68. Reporters hate our FREEDUMB!!!

Want sum wood?

[kenny blankenship]

88. Either he answers questions or ends up dodging shoes

This is EXACTLY the kind of question that should be yelled at our War Preznits.

[spoony]

91. Lol

Damn reporters, asking questions. He should be put up against a wall and shot for that!

[blogslut]

9. He didn't answer any press questions

But I guess that doesn't make for a compelling lede.

[Bluerthanblue]

38. +1

:hi:

[countingbluecars]

10. That's not exactly a fair article.

The president was finished his statement and was walking away from the podium. He didn't take questions.

[HughMoran]

16. Being 'fair' is irrelevant

...when you're looking to take a cheap shot at Obama.

[demmiblue]

33. Who is taking a cheap shot?

It is what it is.

:shrug:

[dflprincess]

75. Neither would Reagan in circumstances like that

he used to pretend he couldn't hear them.

[MadHound]

77. True, but the fact of the matter is that the question the reporter asked

Goes to the heart of the matter, it is a very basic, very necessary question that needs to be answered and not to be dodged due to "protocol" or "propriety." We are all involved and effected by this war, and it is obligatory that the man we put in office answers these questions. Accountability from the public and for his actions in our name is at the heart of our system of government.

[high density]

12. What did the reporter expect as a response?

Obama just said in his comment he expects to succeed in the mission. Given that, I assume POTUS means "yes" as an answer to this question.

[HughMoran]

24. Obama was in full stride away from the podium when the uninteligible question was 'yelled'

This is a bullshit piece.

[amborin]

13. good Alternet article discussing most crucial points in Rol Stone article, namely the Afghan disaste

and how the entire situation is a fiasco, with no clear cut goals, no definition of victory, etc....

[Nikki Stone1]

17. Sounds like Vietnam

...

[amborin]

27. sure does! just ghastly, and our casualties are rising, just a disaster

[Nikki Stone1]

67. If I didn't know how much TPTB wanted control of Central Asia, I would say that

this war was all about destroying the United States as an economic power. TPTB moved their money to Asia in the late 90s, after they crashed the Thai market and all took down all the Asian tigers with it. Unmitigated greed.

[lib2DaBone]

22. And no one see the Irony.. that we get our news and war coverage...

...from Rolling Stone and The Daily Show?

Does this escape NBC, CBS and the others? Does the American Public even care?

[HughMoran]

23. Watch the video. It's unclear Obama could hear it. back was turned. Fox News clip comes on

immediately after - appropriately IMO.

[NYC Liberal]

28. Really? Come on. He wasn't standing at the podium

with a deer in the headlights look trying to come up with an answer as YOUR title suggests. He gave a statement and was walking from the podium when someone shouted out.

[Bluebear]

43. YOUR title!!! YOUR title!! What's next, I wrote the article?

:rofl:

[countingbluecars]

46. Maybe you didn't write it,

but you fell for it.

[Bluebear]

51. OK, that's because I am a gullible haturrr idiot.

Did you even read the article? Uhhhh no.

[countingbluecars]

53. I did read the one paragraph article,

and I watched the video. Did you? It is dishonest. The president had his back turned and was walking away from the podium. He was not taking questions. I have no problem debating the war, but this was a dishonest representation of the moment.

[Bluebear]

54. I can't watch streaming video at work.... and it's 10 paragraphs

you're interested in if he answered a question. The article talks about the chance of winning the "war".

[HughMoran]

55. So the subject line has no bearing on this misleading piece?

:eyes:

[NYC Liberal]

59. The title of the article is "Cutting to heart of Obama's dilemma: 'Can the war be won?'"

YOUR TITLE is: Reporter: "Can the war be won?".....Obama: Silence.

Are you that dense?

[Bluebear]

60. Yes I am dense, extremely stupid.

The lead of the homepage of yahoo was "Obama is silent to reporter's question." You click the link and there is the article. But you couldn't care less about that, so nice knowing ya! Put my dense ass on ignore and I will do the same to you!

[HughMoran]

62. Lovely

[spoony]

93. Hey Hugh, why aren't you counting NYC's attacks on DUers?

Did you lose your abacus, or just your interest in the rules?

[Bluebear]

113. Oh that's who ignored is?

LOL

[NYC Liberal]

70. Good riddance. I clicked the link and read the entire article.

And not putting you on ignore either.

[kirby]

30. Misleading...He didn't take questions...

It is like saying a reporter yelled 'Were you born in Kenya' and Obamas response was silence.

[Bluebear]

44. Well, do write Holly Bailey immediately and tell her she misled us!

:)

[HughMoran]

57. YOU posted the most deceptive part without comment

So, there's that...

[spoony]

92. Yes, asking about a neverending war is just the same thing

as being a birther. All of those haters, all the same right?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

36. But he didn't take any questions, not just that one.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. there are no 'winners' in war.

"In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers"
Neville Chamberlain

[TexasObserver]

39. The only winning is leaving.

[eridani]

45. Wrong question

The right question is "Is this a "war" in the first place." The answer is no. It is an imperial occupation.

[krabigirl]

47. ..... Of course it can't.

[Grinchie]

48. He should have asked the Reporter "Which One?"

Honestly, which war was the reporter asking about?

[hayu_lol]

52. Neither theater of operations is a war...

we are using up our military by having them act as policemen.

No one, including the US, is ever going to subjugate Afghans or Iraqis. Lost cause to even try. Stricter Rules Of Engagement only destroy our own people on the ground.

[tranche]

50. That's probably a good thing and may show you two are in agreement.

There is no answer to if it can be won.

[Jacobin]

58. Politically, he has to be "tough" on the war as a democrat

Realistically, Afghanistan has successfully repelled invaders for over 3,000 years.

It won't be won.

It'll have to be ended by some republican who can leave and blame a prior administration.

Lots and blood and money yet to be wasted

[Bluebear]

61. Thank you. The article is discussing the winnablility of the war, not what reporter "got him".

[HughMoran]

63. So that's why you posted ONLY the deceptive sentence

You're allowed to post up to 4 paragraphs - why did you choose to post the inflammatory part that was most deceptive?

I personally don't think you had much interest in the article when you posted this.

[KonaKane]

65. This is good news for him, and for us of the anti-war.

It means that, with one silent gesture:

He has signaled to antiwar Americans that there is an end coming. Soon.

He has signaled to those in DC whose help and support he still needs, that he has not "gone soft on defense".


Also, as someone else noted in another thread, he has defined goals in Afghanistan that are so narrow and less aggressive, that they could be considered achieved at any time sooner rather than later, and we can get the hell out of there.

Politically, it was a master stroke.

[scheming daemons]

66. "Can you ever post an OP without a disingenuous title?" .... BlueBear: Silence.

[spoony]

94. Not a fan of the new civility rules? nt

[Bragi]

71. This is an opportunity to reassess policy

I hope Obama uses this opportunity to truly take steps to bring this military operation to an end. The military surge and new counterinsurgency strategy is clearly failing, in fact the whole summer offensive was in disarray, and wasn't going to happen. Time to leave.

[Yeahyeah]

72. he was thinking,"shit,what's this,the new Helen Thomas?"

[Skip Intro]

73. Question shouted as he was headed away, he didn't turn to answer.

Not exactly the same thing as someone asking him point blank a question and he just refused to answer.

This is a situation where there is no "there" there.

[Bluebear]

83. Frankly I think it was poor reporting.

The issues she brgins up as to if Obama himself thinks he can win the war are valid. But I totally agree with you, the framing of the story did not reflect what happened. However as you can see on this thread, I was deliberately trying to be deceptive and a kaka poopoo head ;) So whatever.

[William Z. Foster]

74. OK

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the posters on this thread strongly objecting to the OP are right.

So what? Serious question. What is the harm?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hansel]

112. The harm is that the article was BS and borders on propaganda

We can have the same discussion using an objective truthful piece and that does not misrepresent Obama as some insipid putz who refuses to answer a question because he doesn't know.

Obama didn't answer the question because he wasn't taking questions and the author of the story knows that. I personally am sick of the slew of dishonest articles that pass for reporting these days and nearly all are intended to paint Obama and all Democratic and/or Progressive politicians in the most negative light possible by one group for the purpose corporate interests and greed, and any Democrat who doesn't cater to every left wing interest on the other side as corporatist. The result is people believe it and we end up with "leaders" like Palin and Paul and Rubio and Angle, and that idiot who apologized to BP. And we end up with endless wars and right wing corporate policies and our economy in the tank.

IMO, this there is no greater sin than dishonest reporting because the cumulative effect is the destruction of the country. It's propaganda--and I don't give a sh*t which side it comes from--that has allowed the take over of our politicians and democracy by the wealthy and corporate interests. It was this kind of piss poor reporting that rah rah'd us into these wars in the first place. It told us outsourcing would create more jobs in the US. It tells us the rich paying no taxes creates jobs. And it lies about our leaders in both directions.

This discussion has turned from a discussion on the war to a discussion about the legitimacy of the article and rightly so. If we want progressive policies in place we need to fix the media. We need to demand honesty and truthful reporting from them. Just because this time the BS suits your agenda doesn't mean it isn't just as destructive.

The reporter is dishonest and the article is BS and, yes, it is harmful.

[LoZoccolo]

78. I just shouted you an impromptu question.

Why didn't you answer it?

[Bluebear]

82. Because I try not to listen to you? :)

[phleshdef]

86. Wow that kind of thing only happens at the end of almost every non-question press conference.

[tammywammy]

97. +1 n/t

[tammywammy]

98. .

[JTFrog]

95. Fail.

Being told ahead of time that the President would answer no questions, and then claiming he refused to answer a specific question is just flat out dishonest.

Yet there goes the hook, line and sinker...

:shrug:

[n2doc]

100. Because the real point of the "war" isn't winning

It is the 700 billion spent on the war machine each year, year in and year out. Without debate, unlike unemployment benefits or stimulus dollars.

[YOY]

102. Damn skippy n2doc. Fuck idealism, pragmaticism, or any other ism...

It's all about the fucking cash. What do you expect when you have a society that promotes wealth above all else.

[n2doc]

103. Well, what else is there?

The people in Afghanistan aren't a threat to us. If we were worried about terrorism , in a serious manner, we could spend 1/10 of what we presently spend and prevent anything but the luckiest wannabes from doing anything. Less chance than getting struck by lightning.

Anyone who knows history of the region and the present situation knows we aren't going to set up a functioning democracy there. Hell even mustache Tom Friedman admits that now.

The longer we stay, the more likely Pakistan falls apart, and then it is a total cluster-F**k in the region.

Obama is not stupid. He knows all this. And yet he goes along.

[YOY]

104. You and I aren't just that adept at "3-D Transdimensional Cosmo Chess"

So we could never fathom the true outcome.

[paulk]

114. +1

[otohara]

105. Perhaps Because He Didn't Take ANY Questions

from ANYBODY.

[watercolors]

106. A really dumb debate, it was not a press conference!

Posting of this was senseless!

[w8liftinglady]

108. are we actually "At War"?(stupid question-humor me)

Has war been declared against Iraq and afghanistan?Or has my son done 4 trips for some vague reason...just curious.

[KonaKane]

111. Technically, no.

No congressional declaration of war occured for either Afghanistan or Iraq. Then again, there hasn't been an actual US declaration of war since the end of WWII. These two military actions were just more happy horseshit made possible by the disastrous 1973 War Powers Act, which basically gave the president alone the power to start a war and wage it for 60 days pending Congressional approval after that.

Nice trick, since its almost impossible to stop a war once its started. We need to rescind that ridiculous piece of legislation and go back what the constitution said: it requires a majority of CONGRESS to approve a state of war for the US.

[glinda]

109. Maybe because he knows ethically that this was a "loss" at the start.

[snooper2]

115. that's fucking stupid....he was there just to make a statement

not answer questions ..

All the "reporters" throw out questions when these events happen and they don't get answered...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. It has been won. But, not by us.