The deceptive July 2011 Afghan withdrawl date "designed to placate a skeptical public and liberals"

[Better Believe It]

US Liberals Express Anger over Obama's Decision to Raise Troop Levels
Deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan causes most ardent supporters to become disillusioned
by Ewen MacAskill in Washington
December 2, 2009

The White House is extremely conscious that part of the base that helped get Obama elected last year is in danger of being eroded. The decision to put in a date for the beginning of withdrawal of US troops was primarily a political one, designed to try to placate not only a US public sceptical about the war but the liberal, anti-war wing of the coalition that Obama built. It did not appear to have worked, with some liberal commentators noting that it was only the start of the process and large numbers of US troops come remain in Afghanistan for years to come.

Public opinion polls show that support for the war has gradually waned since the start of the year, with hostility higher among Democratic supporters than Republicans.

The anti-war protests that were a feature of the Bush presidency have been in little evidence this year but that could change. A new coalition has been formed in response to Obama's decision, the Emergency Anti-Escalation Rally, and announced today it is to protest in front of the White House on 12 December.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/02-15

[Frances]

1. I am willing to give Obama's plan a chance to work

We are withdrawing from Iraq after the surge there. Why shouldn't we withdraw from Afghanistan after a surge?

[MNDemNY]

2. Yes, using your own mind, and "hints" from history would be too difficult.

Just go with whatever he says, 'cause at least he's not Bush, Right?x(

[tridim]

6. He's the opposite of Bush.

And he wants to end Bush's bullshit wars.

You are free to ignore this reality if you want.

[jgraz]

10. What does that even mean? The "opposite of Bush"

If you mean that whatever Bush would do, Obama will do the opposite, then you're pretty far off the mark.

[tridim]

12. Obama is not a Neocon.

He doesn't start wars for no reason, he ends them.

[jgraz]

15. Name one war Obama's ended

When he was in the Senate, he supported Bush's "bullshit wars" at every opportunity. Dude can't even close the torture chambers at Gitmo.

[tridim]

17. Iraq is in draw down mode as we type.

That bullshit war has been ended responsibly.

[jgraz]

18. How many Americans are still in Iraq?

Contractors and military? Do you know?

If it's more than a few hundred, I don't count that war as "ended" by any means.

[tridim]

21. Doesn't change the fact that we are drawing down and exiting responsibly.

[jgraz]

23. Assuming we actually ARE drawing down

What's Obama doing about Iraq contractors? Do you know?

[MNDemNY]

59. Bush did that.

We are"withdrawing" using a 'plan" largely instituted under the shrub.

[tridim]

73. Bush withdrew from Iraq?

Are you insane?

[MNDemNY]

76. The "draw down" no in the works was largely institute before he left office.

[Algorem]

82. he's nixon,except less liberal

[zipplewrath]

5. For how long?

What level of troop reductions in 2011 will be too small for you? How long are you willing to let innocents die before you decide maybe this wasn't such a good idea?

[Frances]

9. Personally, I would have just declared victory and left.

But I think Obama is a chess player and is making a decision that he believes will be best for the U.S. in the long run.

I don't think Obama made this decision lightly. And I think he knew that it was a very unpopular decision with his party. He also knew that the Republicans would not vote for him if Jesus Christ came to Earth and endorsed him.

My heart goes out to all the men and women who will go to Afghanistan. They will make sacrifices that will impact them and their families for the rest of their lives. The children of World War II, Korean, and Vietnam combat vets can attest to this.

[jgraz]

11. Oh sweet christ. Again with the chess playing

You know what works better than chess playing? Open and honest leadership. Make the right decision, follow through and tell the people what you're doing and why.

I'm so sick of this myth that Obama is some sort of ninja voodoo chessmaster. To me, that's a synonym for "too weak to lead".

[MNDemNY]

60. Any one who uses that fucking "chess" shit ought go to bed with no supper!

sheeesh.

[tridim]

72. Then you don't understand what political chess is.

I defined it below if you care.

[MNDemNY]

77. your "definitions "are useless.

[tridim]

79. My definition is the actual definition of the phrase "political chess"

Have you ever played chess against a skilled opponent? If you haven't I can understand why you don't understand the strategy of thinking several moves ahead.

Checkers is probably your game, it requires far less thought.

[jgraz]

81. Remind me again why this is better than open, strong leadership

:shrug:

[tridim]

83. It's not "better", it's just one facet of strong, adult leadership..

that we've been lacking for decades.

[jgraz]

84. Being deceptive and "playing chess" behind the scenes is neither "strong" nor "adult"

[bvar22]

16. Chess player?

Isn't Chess a game where The Pawns are sacrificed to protect The Royalty?

By God, Obama IS playing chess.

[jgraz]

19. I was wondering when someone else would see that symbolism

The pawns never see the chessboard until it's too late.

[tridim]

20. Yes, that describes the GAME of chess..

However, POLITICAL chess is about thinking several moves ahead (one aspect of the game of chess). It has nothing to do with pawns, rooks and kings.

Obama has demonstrated that he plays political chess since day one. It's undeniable, and it's a good quality.

The Neocons only played war, for money. They never thought about the future.

[jgraz]

22. So.. he's so smart no one can ever understand what he's doing

Yet we need to trust him implicitly.

That's quite the fantasy you've built there.

[tridim]

27. Lots of people understand what he's doing..

Why can't you? He told us what he's doing on Tuesday.

It sounds like you simply don't trust the President. That's fine, but what has he done that makes you not trust him on something as serious as ending Bush's wars?

[jgraz]

33. A lot of people do understand it. You just don't like what they understand

Like the fact that this is a political ploy, not a serious military decision.

[tridim]

36. Expecting a worst case scenerio for everything is not understanding.

It's Chicken Little syndrome.

[jgraz]

38. Neither is knee-jerk apologetics

How, exactly, do you think Obama will achieve his counter-insurgency goals with only another 30,000 troops? When every military expert knows that it will take at least 600,000 troops to do what Obama wants?

Is he that much smarter than his military advisors (and every military expert who has come before them)?

[tridim]

43. These questions are why the President stressed the July 2011 deadline

If it doesn't work, we're out of there.

Nobody knows if Obama is smarter than person x, including you. Why would you ask a question that has no objective answer?

[jgraz]

44. It actually *does* have an objective answer

Obama, objectively, does not have more counter-insurgency experience than those advising him. Yet he's doing something that most military experts agree makes no sense.

Why is he doing that? What does he expect to achieve? You don't think Obama's just gambling on a longshot with the troops' lives, do you?

[tridim]

46. No, I think he's trying to get us out responsibly.

Something "military experts" and the military industrial complex they serve don't agree with.

[jgraz]

49. So, he DOES know more than counter-insurgency experts?

If he's trying to get us out responsibly, then he really must believe that 30,000 troops are sufficient to quell the Afghan insurgency. That's counter to every military expert I've ever heard. No one thinks you can beat an insurgency with that few troops.

Yet, that's what Obama said those troops are going to be used for. Is he lying? Is he just making a huge, costly mistake? Or is there some other option that I'm not considering here?

[bvar22]

31. Amazing....simply amazing.

I played 3-Card Monty in an alley off Times Square......ONCE.
But I observed some people going back and losing time after time.

And just look at all the people who throw their money away in Casinos where everything is rigged so The House always WINS, but the faithful keep on coming.


You CAN fool some of the people ALL the time.

There are times when I envy their Blind Faith....
..to follow without question or doubt seems so easy and peaceful.
Just take the Blue Pill and stop asking questions.

[jefferson_dem]

53. Many liberals don't adjust well to *change*.

They are forever stuck in the "fuck the man / i'm a victim" mindset, simply transferring their anxieties to the most visible target.

[jgraz]

66. Especially fake change

While, apparently, many so-called Democrats are just fine with it.

[jefferson_dem]

69. Fake change =

No ponies.

:(

[jgraz]

71. Can we send you back to Talking Points Camp?

Really, aren't you just a little embarrassed to still be using the "ponies" line? Just a little?

[jefferson_dem]

74. Actually, I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.

The "pony" metaphor fits. I'm sorry it offends you.

Most of the criticisms of President Obama parroted here have no more basis in reality than if the posters would actually step up and demand the overnight pony delivery they think the president promised them.

That's ok. Reading delusional, self-centered rantings of serial complainers can be rather entertaining in small doses.

So. Carry on...

[jgraz]

75. It doesn't offend me. I'm just amazed that you use your time here to post such tired crap.

But seriously, this is a thread on our President sending another 30,000 human beings into a war zone. Can't you show the least bit of respect and post something marginally intelligent?

[jefferson_dem]

78. Don't you see?

This thread is chuck full of "tired crap".

With all due respect, you replied to my initial post with the stale "fake change" taunt.

[jgraz]

80. Oh come on. Let's get straight who's taunting whom

When you use the words "change" to describe more of the same old war -- especially when you combine it with snide jabs at the progressives who helped elect Obama -- you should expect a few "taunts" to come your way.

[paparush]

62. DING DING DING!

Economic pawns.
Cannon fodder pawns.
Health insurance pawns.

[zipplewrath]

29. For how long?

I'll ask again.

And while you're sending out your heart, you might also want to include all the innocent afghans that don't have any choice in this at all, including the some 60% that didn't vote for Karzi at all.

[dgibby]

32. I'd hate like hell to be a pawn on the board. n/t

[jgraz]

45. Um... you are.

We all are.

[dgibby]

47. I agree, but I was specifically referring to the troops. n/t

[jgraz]

51. I get it. But it's a big fucking chessboard

Being 64-dimensional and all...

[Better Believe It]

13. The Iraq escalation (surge) took place in 2007 and we still have 115,00 GI's in Iraq plus....

over 100,000 military contractors!

That's as many GI's that were in Iraq in February 2004, almost six years ago!

At the current rate of "withdrawl" from Iraq all U.S. forces might be withdrawn sometime in this century .... or maybe not!

Now that's what I call withdrawl .... withdrawl bull shit that is.

Now stop screwing Iraq and now Afghanistan and just pull out!

[Oregone]

3. No shit

[jefferson_dem]

50. Yes shit.

As in the "bull" variety.

[freddie mertz]

4. I kinda got that from the speech.

It's boilerplate at best.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. First thing I thought of was --

like we are "leaving" Iraq? Thousands of US soldiers wil be left there indefinitely. I am suspecting the same thing will happen in Afghanistan.

[grasswire]

8. how stupid do they think we are...

....not to see through this? Here's a message for Rahm: The constituency Obama needs to support him is not as naive as you apparently believe. Most have been around the block a few times with lying politicians.

[jefferson_dem]

52. Not sure who "we" is but "teh stoopid" has been deep here these past few days...

I would advise him to not UNDERESTIMATE the level of stupidity in certain political corners.

[Dr Robert]

14. I guess you would rather have no timeline at all?

[Frances]

24. Back when so many DUers were critcizing Bill Clinton

I knew the day would come when they would turn against Obama

Being President isn't easy. There are hard decisions to make.

I get disappointed that the Presidents who truly put the good of the country (as they see it) ahead of their own political interests are the ones who don't get re-elected.

For example, Jimmy Carter was the least political of all our Presidents. He was right about energy; he was right about Middle East peace; he was right about Civil Rights. And yet he was unpopular, while Reagan who did whatever GE wanted and who hurt the Middle Class was popular with--the Middle Class!

It's interesting to me that the people who refused to vote for Pat Brown when Reagan ran against him for Governor of California and the people who refused to vote for Humphrey when he ran against Nixon and the people who refused to vote for Carter when he ran against Reagan as well as the people who refused to vote for Gore when he ran against Bush all refuse to take responsibility for their votes.

[jgraz]

25. Yeah... remember all the criticism on DU during the Clinton presidency?

IIRC, DUers were also pretty hard on Woodrow Wilson. :rofl:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

34. Oh, you mean like when people pointed out how his policies cause the economic collapse?

That WAS rude of them, wasn't it?

[Frances]

40. I don't agree that Clinton's policies caused the economic

collapse

I think Clinton put his finger in the dyke and postponed the collapse that started with Reagan's policies. Reagan was successful in reversing many of the protections FDR gave the Middle Class.

Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt both believed that government could do good things for the poor and the middle classes. FDR was reviled by the rich who regarded him as a traitor to his class. FDR said he'd saved business and capitalism and he didn't understand why the rich were so ungrateful. He also said that he welcomed their attacks on him because he was strong enough to withstand them.

Reagan said that the government was the PROBLEM, not the solution. Reagan convinced the working and middle class that deregulation would be good for them. Reagan convinced the middle class that their tax money was enabling welfare queens to drive Cadillacs. He focused their hatred on the poor and convinced them that the corporations were on their side.

I remember pointing out to people that the welfare queens were getting pennies compared to the corporations who were getting billions but no one wanted to listen to me!

[jgraz]

41. Have you *heard* of Glass-Steagall? And its repeal?

How bout The Commodity Futures Modernization Act?

Can you tell me who signed those into law?

[Frances]

37. Thanks Dr. Robert

I did mean during the 2008 primaries

[grasswire]

55. name calling doesn't do anything for your cause here

chill

[Dr Robert]

58. yet calling Obama a Corporate monster somehow achieves your goals?

[jgraz]

67. Now, Doc. What did we tell you about writing yourself prescriptions?

In what post did someone use the phrase "corporate monster" to describe Obama?

[PVnRT]

42. ...and that sellout fucker Cleveland!

[MNDemNY]

61. I was constantly posting anti-Truman threads.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

35. And, really, as long as you win the election, nothing else really matters.

Who cares about dead troops? We're gonna win! We're gonna win!!

:puke:

[Dr Robert]

56. Obama cares about fallen soldiers. And you know this!

[jgraz]

63. I was talking about you, not Obama.

[dgibby]

39. I don't know how to break it to you, doc,

but the fact that some of us are in disagreement with Obama doesn't mean we hate him.

You sound just like Dubya: "You're either for us or against us", complete with name calling and denigration of people with whom you disagree. Classy act you've got going there.

I have very valid reasons for not supporting this escalation, but it doesn't mean I hate the President.

[grasswire]

54. it's a page from Karl Rove

Those who opposed Bush policies were just haters.

It's a cheap ploy.

[Dr Robert]

57. I'm talking to those calling for One Term

[jgraz]

64. No one is "calling for" one term

Many people are warning about one term.

[ClarkUSA]

30. So a British reporter knows more than Obama, who says "there's no flexibility" re: 2011 exit date?

White House: July 2011 Is Locked In for Afghanistan Withdrawal:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=34070&mesg_id=34070

I think not. :eyes:

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. Strange how it coincides with the time the 2012 campaign will be ramping up... n/t

[jgraz]

65. That is strange, isn't it?

[Fire1]

85. Not strange. Just smart. n/t

[Thrill]

68. Not sure if this is true. CNN is one showing McCrystal talking to the troops

about the new strategy. And he kept telling them. 16 months. So I have to think its the order

[Bullet1987]

70. I don't buy the 2011 date either

It's all decided on whether or not everything is going as planned.

[treestar]

86. Wishful thinking

No basis given for conclusion. Fail.

[Fire1]

87. See post #48. Only basis necessary. n/t