Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance on escalating the war in Afghanistan by Jeff Cohen

[Better Believe It]

Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance
by Jeff Cohen
November 25, 2009

Jeff Cohen is an associate professor of journalism and the director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) and former board member of Progressive Democrats of America.

---------------------------------------

With Obama pushing a huge troop escalation in Afghanistan, history may well repeat itself with a vengeance. And it's not just the apt comparison to LBJ, who destroyed his presidency on the battlefields of Vietnam with an escalation that delivered power to Nixon and the GOP.

There's another frightening parallel: Obama seems to be following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who accomplished perhaps his single biggest legislative "triumph" - NAFTA - thanks to an alliance with Republicans that overcame strong Democratic and grassroots opposition.

To get a majority today in Congress on Afghanistan, the Obama White House is apparently bent on a strategy replicating the tragic farce that Clinton pulled off: Ignore the informed doubts of your own party while making common cause with extremist Republicans who never accepted your presidency in the first place.

Today, it's crucial to ask where Obama is heading. From the stimulus to healthcare, he's shown a Clinton-like willingness to roll over progressives in Congress on his way to corrupt legislation and frantic efforts to compromise for the votes of corporate Democrats or "moderate" Republicans. Meanwhile, the incredible shrinking "public option" has become a sick joke.

As he glides from retreats on civil liberties to health reform that appeases corporate interests to his Bush-like pledge this week to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, an Obama reliance on Congressional Republicans to fund his troop escalation could be the final straw in disorienting and demobilizing the progressive activists who elected him a year ago.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/25-0

Now I won't be surprised if a few whiners denounce the writer as some sort of right-wing Republican party mouthpiece. Of course, they will not present any critique of the article and will restrict themselves to personal attacks on the author.

[peacebird]

1. Depressing article, but I think it is accurate.

Prepare to be flamed - apparently questioning the supremacy of Obama is now considered treason by some at DU...

:eyes:

[ChiciB1]

3. Then Hang Me For Treason... I'm Super Depressed too!!! n/t

[Better Believe It]

4. They "flame" in order to get posts locked that they disagree with.

That appears to be have become a standard operating procedure used against anyone to the left of Rahm Emanuel and Senator Reid.

[QC]

6. That is true. It's been a common practice here for years but during the primaries

it became as meticulously orchestrated as a precision drill team competition.

You could set your watch by them: someone posts something even mildly critical of a certain candidate and then within five minutes the usual three or four people were spitting personal attacks in every direction, at which point the thread would descend into chaos and then be closed.

Interestingly, nothing ever happened to those usual three or four people who went around doing nothing day in and day out besides turning threads into flamepits.

[Dinger]

41. It's An Old Trick

Sadly, it works.

[ShortnFiery]

37. You got that right! eom

[ChiciB1]

2. No Denouncement From Me... Nail Hits Head & I Wanted Obama To Really

shine like a NEW DIME! Even IF he wasn't my "fav" during the primaries! But now, it seems he IS actually sticking it to HIS BASE... or what I thought was HIS base! Maybe we NEVER were! I really don't KNOW ANYMORE!

Not liking what I'm hearing, not liking what I'm seeing and I'm SICK of "wondering" what the hell is REALLY going on!

Guess it's still ALL ABOUT MONEY and NOTHING else! Every day it seems it's just one more thing that I never thought was going to happen, and I must say it does sadden me a great deal. I'm trying to be as nice as I can be about this, but I'm on the verge of some VERY SERIOUS name calling!

THIS IS NOT WHAT I WORKED SO HARD FOR, THIS IS NOT THE MAN I THOUGHT I VOTED FOR... AND THIS IS NOT WHAT I THINK THIS COUNTRY NEEDS!! I'm just so, oh there are too many words to explain what I'm just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! Fed up is just the beginning!

[Better Believe It]

5. I supported Obama in the primaries so I understand your emotions.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

39. I supported him too

and I am completely disappointed in him, but that being said this is what he campaigned on with regards to Afghanistan. He never hid his intentions to "finish the job" there. He was completely hawkish on Afghanistan, he even talked about going into Pakistan which is happening now as well. So I am not surprised and neither should any of you.

[Vincardog]

7. Face it Candidate Obama LIED to us. He is what we get when we allow the Corporate Owned Media to

select our candidates

[ChiciB1]

8. Burned, Spurned Again!! How I Wish It Wasn't So! If I Wasn't Seeing It & Hearing

it all the time I would give him some slack or MORE TIME! I'm just not seeing THAT CHANGE, and HOPE is REALLY a JOKE!

HOPE FOR WHAT?? I think I missed quite a few lessons on my way to VOTE FOR OBAMA!

[Baltoman991]

19. More bullshit

from the clueless crowd.

Obama lied about nothing. This is exactly what he said he'd do. But I guess it's easier for you to spout off "he lied" then it is to actually check facts for yourself.

[Vincardog]

20. He never said he would get us put of NAFTA? He never said he would close Gitmo? He never said we had

to got out of Afghanistan? He never said he would end DADT? He never gave us reason to suspect that he would investigate indict and imprison those responsible for lying us into illegal wars of aggression?


Oh I remember we elected a Constitutional Law School Professor so he could ignore the Law and our treaty obligations.

PLEASE

[Baltoman991]

22. Did I say he'd never say those

things?

No, this thread is about Afghanistan and he NEVER said that he'd end whats going on there any time soon.

Do try and keep up. The other things you listed are works in progress with the exception of maybe NAFTA.

[Vincardog]

25. So the fact that he is doing one thing he made a bad campaign promise to do excuses him violating

our trust on every other issue? Single track much?

[davidpdx]

38. They won't bother and even if it was put in front of their face

they'd lie about the facts. In fact he did say he would focus more on Afghanistan and get us out of Iraq. Exactly what he is doing. This "new Obama's right wing alliance" is just the Obama=Bush with a new twist.

[stevietheman]

28. Obama did not lie in the campaign about Afghanistan

He made it perfectly clear he intended on escalating it to go after al Qaeda.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Al Qaeda is in several countries, very few in Afghanistan

bin Laden is in Pakistan's tribal areas. Only a fool would stay the course even after circumstances have changed!

[jenmito]

10. Were you ASLEEP during the election? He ran on the war in Afghanistan being the "good war"

and promising to focus on it. If you worked hard to get him elected, not knowing his position on the subject, that's nobody's fault but your own.

[Vincardog]

21. Were you asleep when they had a sham election? Are you aware that we are supporting another brutal

military regime; inflaming the population and destroying our international reputation and standing. I voted for Obama because he was the least worse choice. If you are happy with the Milquetoast corporatist maladministration keep you r blinders on and keep singing the company song; that's nobody's fault but your own.

[jenmito]

23. No. Neither was Obama which is why he's trying to come up with a strategy which takes

that into consideration. And he is planning on having an exit strategy, unlike Bush.

[Vincardog]

24. And teaming up with the GOP to escalate an unpopular illegal occupation helps us get out how?

[jenmito]

26. He's not "teaming up with the GOP..." He's making an informed decision and many Dems. will

support that decision. Afghanistan is not an illegal occupation. :eyes:

[Vincardog]

48. Please tell me when the US declared war on Afghanistan?

[jenmito]

49. Bin Laden declared war on US.

[Garam_Masala]

67. Exit strategy with a declared date is not a viable strategy

Al Qaeda & taliban will simply wait for the date for the troops
to leave.

[NYC Liberal]

29. Hi ChiciB1!

GENERIC DU POSTING REPLY FORM

Dear       ChiciB1     ,

Your recent posting in       General Discussion:Presidency       on the subject of
      Barack Obama       was offensive for the following reasons:
(check all that apply)

___ You started a long, stupid thread.
___ You obviously don't know anything about the topic at hand.
 x  It contained no information useful to anybody.
___ It was a bazillion lines long.
___ It contained more quoted text than new text.
___ It was flamebait.
___ It was posted to the wrong forum.
___ It contained a blatant lie.
___ It consisted of a "+1" subject line with no text.
___ It contained racial slurs, ad hominem attacks, or other unjustifiable garbage.
___ It contained right-wing memes or slurs.
___ It contained numerous spelling errors.
___ It contained multiple grammatical errors.
 x  It was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON.
___ You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others
___ You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others
___ You posted a one-line reply with PAGES of irrelevant quoted text.
___ You were blatantly trolling.
___ You were blatantly following up to an obvious troll.
___ What you posted has been done before.
    ___ Not only that, it was also done better the last time.

It is recommended that you:

___ Never post again.
 x  Actually post something relevant.
___ Read the rules.
___ Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you're doing.

In closing, I would like to say:

___ You need to seek psychiatric help.
 x  Take your gibberish somewhere else.
___ *plonk*
 x  Learn how to post.
___ Most of the above.
___ All of the above.
 x  Some of the above, not including All of the above.

Thank you.

[ChiciB1]

42. Hi There! I Won't Bother With "Rules" Here At DU, I Won't Put You On

my ignore list, not will I EVER attack you personally!

Not my style, but I will continue with my "gibberish" because I think I'm still allowed to do so.

I suppose I could complain that you called me out "personally," but I'm not going to waste any more of my time with your really cute "call out!"

Enjoyed it, a lot... love getting all that attention!

[NYC Liberal]

47. LOL! No "call out" - I was directly replying to your post.

You're allowed to do a lot of things, that doesn't mean you're not going to turn people off to what you're arguing for

So keep screaming and yelling all you want but I guarantee even the people who agree with you will be put off by it. Not all attention is good attention.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

68. I am still perplexed by your screenname n/t

[NYC Liberal]

69. Could say the same about yours. n/t

[Dr Robert]

9. Get ready for Better Believe It + GOP alliance to constantly attack Obama

Oh, wait
that's already been going on for a year

[spoony]

17. A year? Now how would you know that?

*cough*sockpuppet*cough*

[dionysus]

31. perhaps he lurked? jesus christ, everything is a fucking conspiracy around here.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. FYI, It is against DU rules to call out brazen and disruptive sock puppets

Though Dr Robert is a newbie he has the same rights as any other poster to rehash fights he didn't have back when he wasn't here.

[jenmito]

11. Obama campaigned on concentrating on Afghanistan, which he called "the good war" and a

"war of necessity." He also turned down every plan first given to him re: Afghanistan since none had an exit strategy. I am sure the GOP will NOT be pleased when he even MENTIONS an exit strategy. But I will be pleased, as will everyone ELSE who supported him on this issue during the campaign.

[avaistheone1]

13. Most of us supported Obama because we thought he would get us out Iraq.

Obama never would have won the electon had he run as his primary issue escalating the war in Afghanistan.

The country was divided on that issue at the time of the election and even more so at this time.

[jenmito]

15. He IS getting us out of Iraq. He didn't run on escalating in Iraq.

He ran on focusing on Afghanistan which he thought was "necessary" and the "good war." Where were YOU?

[avaistheone1]

16. Right here. I was involved in polling for a national organization

on behalf of democrats. The results were consistent. The primary reasons voters chose Obama was to get us out of Iraq, and secondarily to have a change in Washington in terms of a Democrat to run the country. Afghanistan was not on the Democratic voters radar screen. It may have been on Obama's screen, but not on voters.

The divisiveness on this board prior to the presidential election about the Afghanistan is a good example of Democratic voter opinion on the escalation issue. Even here we have not ever been united on this issue at all.


(I stand corrected. I meant to type Afghanistan in terms of the escalation in my post# 13, and typed Iraq by mistake. I went back and corrected that mistake.)

[jenmito]

18. And he IS getting us out of Iraq like he campaigned on. He never campaigned on

getting us out of AFGHANISTAN. I don't understand why people are shocked that he's concentrating on "the good war" in Afghanistan as he called it. He is not Kucinich and didn't run on the same platform as Kucinich.

[Better Believe It]

30. Out of Iraq (sorta, but not entirely) and into Afghanistan! Yippeee!

[jenmito]

46. I guess you weren't following his campaign. Oh well.

[freddie mertz]

50. Do we have to agree with him on everything on the basis of his "campaign"?

I voted for him because he was better than the alternative.

Doesn't mean I have to support every decision he makes now, or every thing he said in the campaign THEN?

I did NOT agree with his statements on gay marriage, for example, and still do not.

And just because he is president, that is no reason to stop speaking out on that issue.

If you think your leaders are in error, then it is your duty as a citizen to tell them so.

Is that not correct?

We are not supposed to be living in a dictatorship (yet), at least. I didn't hear THAT from the "campaign."

[jenmito]

51. No. I'm saying you shouldn't be surprised. People are acting as if he was "anti-war." That's

false.

[freddie mertz]

54. Sure, many of us knew that. No reason for us not to oppose escalation though, is it?

ARGUE ON THE MERITS, maybe?

[jenmito]

56. And many of you are acting like he BETRAYED you on the subject. He didn't.

If you were against his position on the Afghanistan war from the beginning, then you voted for him knowing that. I don't see how him doing what he said he would do-concentrating on Afghanistan, which he considered a war of necessity, should be held against him and portrayed as some "Obama-GOP alliance."

[freddie mertz]

60. You are struggling desperately to find a formula to disqualify the very NOTION

Of democratic government.

We elect REPRESENTATIVE government.

We get TWO REAL CHOICES for president.

You vote for the better of the two, are glad if it works out, then go on to continue to behave like an informed and responsible citizen.

LOTS of OTHER elected DEMOCRATS in the House and Senate are probably going to disagree with the president on an escalation such as we currently expect.

I will be supporting their efforts to constrain or redirect that policy.

This is not a crime, nor is it any way contrary to way citizens should be expected to behave.

[jenmito]

61. You are struggling desperately to find something to argue about. If you knew he was for

the Afghan war and therefore NOT surprised that he's following through with what he campaigned on, I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to those who are shocked and alarmed that he's not the "anti-war" president he "campaigned" on being. SOME people are acting as if this is a shocker.

[freddie mertz]

64. Sorry. But too often the "he campaigned for/did not campaign for" argument

Is in fact used as a mans to try and squelch dissent, by transferring the responsibility for policy from the ones in power (Obama, congress) to the voter/poster.

We are NOT, as a group or as individuals, the ones responsible for this escalation policy.

That would be the president.

When he takes this step, he takes possession of the policy, and it becomes HIS responsibility.

Your responsibility as a citizen is to speak out and try to act if you oppose this policy.

My sense is that you support it, and mainly do so because of the man pursuing it.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[jenmito]

65. You're wrong. I supported the war in Afghanistan since right after 9/11.

Obama wasn't president yet. This is NOT about Obama or my "blind worship" or whatever. It's about my support of the war in Afghanistan. I would like it to end, but I am not going to hold it against Obama for not being able to end it right now. If he tells us that he has a plan to get our troops out, I will support him.

[Better Believe It]

62. So when did candidate Obama promise to escalate the war?

By more than doubling U.S. troops in Afghanistan while keeping tens of thousands of combat troops in Iraq?

[jenmito]

63. Here's one example:

From July 21, 2008: "I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq," he said.

Obama said troop levels must increase in Afghanistan.

"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three," he told CBS. "I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities. But military alone is not going to be enough."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/20/obama.afghanistan/

[stevietheman]

27. Same here; I support the President and I'm confident his strategy will be...

well thought out.

[mcablue]

40. I don't think Obama specifically promised to send additional troops

Correct me if I'm wrong. We know he called this the "good war." But that's separate from the surge issue.

[jenmito]

45. He promised to focus on this war, saying we needed to get our troops out of Iraq

and "concentrate" on Afghanistan-the war that was "just."

[Better Believe It]

52. Did candidate Obama promise to more than double our troops in Afghanistan?

Or say that he would pull some troops out of Iraq and send them over to Afghanistan?

[polichick]

12. Sad, but true - what a waste of a golden opportunity for Dems! nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. That will leave a mark and will be a true

bipartisan effort and the left deserve it for the way they have acted. It will be very entertaining to watch.

[27inCali]

33. the writers tone undermines his credibility

too many verbal flourishes in attacking Obama, sounds like he is relishing it, makes me feel like for the sake of attacking Obama he would make intellectually dishonest statements or inferrences.

there is no right answer on Afghanistan, it's all shit, that's Bush's fault, that's our fault, not Obama's.

so now he has to eat shit and give us the shitty message we don't want to hear: that we can't just walk away without massive negative consequences for us and the afghans. Why are we shooting the messangers instead of looking at ourselves and saying, a lot of this we have brought on ourselves?

[Better Believe It]

43. I'm not responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So speak for yourself.

"a lot of this we have brought on ourselves"

Since you support the war escalation, will you also consider yourself at least partially responsible for the escalation of deaths and injuries of GI's in Afghanistan?

[27inCali]

53. I mean the country as a whole

at the start of the war a pretty clear majority of Americans were on board. I wasn't. I thought it was stupid, but as a people and nation, we bare responsibility. We don't get to just slouch that off and ignore it because it's inconvenient to your argument.

and yes I would take responsibility. Hell, I have friends who are enlisted and will probably go there, I don't want to send them off to die for nothing. And I think by asking that question you are attempting to impune my character, which weakens your argument further.

I don't think anyone is nuts for disagreeing with me on these points because we wont know until we try and I'm pretty sure that in the end, we all want whatever will save the most lives. None of us knows for sure what that path is and the reality is that it is so bad that at this point we are pretty damned if we do, damned if we don't. I don't see how crucifying Obama for trying to stabilize the country before we leave does much good.

[burning rain]

34. Wonder if we'll hear people arguing both that...

congressional Democrats who don't support escalation are right-wing sell-outs, and that Republicans who do, are more progressive than them? That would suprise me slightly.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Maybe he can set a new trend and dare to switch parties before 2012. That's the only

way he'll ever get republicans to vote for him in 2012? By then he will have fully alienated even the most loyal LIBERAL democrats so he best shine with the LIBERAL republicans if such beasts do exist. :shrug:

[Firstzar]

44. I should think the GOP will criticize him.....

...for not giving McChrystal everything he wants!

[johnaries]

55. The GOP will not support Obama on ANY issue.

That should be obvious. I don't know how they are going to spin it, but no matter what Obama says or does they will criticize it. If you dobt it, remember that they are now "defending" Medicare.

[Better Believe It]

58. Of course there are never enough troops for some Republicans, however

it looks like he will more than double the number of U.S. troops with this latest war escalation.

[Life Long Dem]

57. "escalating" this word seems so old.

President Obama is escalating stability in Afghanistan by escalating the troop count! Doesn't fit too well anymore as well. :shrug:

[Better Believe It]

59. A "stable" Afghanistan? Now that word fits even less well when applied to Afghanistan!

:)

[Life Long Dem]

70. Yeah, you have me on that one.

I think the President has his eye on another record to break for the history books with Afghanistan. He's broken enough records already hasn't he? :patriot:

[tekisui]

66. Isn't doubling the force and changing strategy essentially

starting another war? Or at least starting it over?