Page 35 of 38 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 376

Thread: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

  1. #341
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    You mean partisanship like complaing when Obama does it, but not when Bush did it. Yes, I agree that is partisanship.
    Can you specifically illustrate any instances of this?
    If not, then what relevance does your statement have?

  2. #342
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    It has every bearing. It shows the hypocrisy of many on the right. That is the reason you hate it, because it is true.

    Hypocrisy? You really want to travel down that road? Politics in itself brings a certain amount of that. It is the nature of politics.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #343
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Do you or do you not agree that if it was wrong for Bush to 'fiddle', then it is just as wrong for The Obama to do the same?
    Friend, "fiddle" is the conservative assessment/definition of Obama's current deliberations over matters in Afghanistan. I've not used that term myself, except in quotes, indicating that that is not a term I would personally use; rather that it is a term that others have used to describe Obama's timeline on answering a request for more troops (while carefully ignoring the fact that the Bush administration "fiddled" even longer).

    Others would characterize Obama's deliberations as thoughtful and considered, particularly in light of the fact that the Afghan government is essentially non-existent at the moment (not something Bush had to consider, yet he still delayed sending more troops), AND that Obama has yet to hear Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' assessment of the situation. (Reportedly, this will happen some time today.)

    Me, personally? Given that conservatives are complaining that Obama is taking too long on this decision (i.e. "fiddling") I think Bush's sitting on his hands for three months hoping someone else would respond to his own generals' call for troops should also be characterized as "fiddling."

    But again, this isn't a term I've used; I'm merely using the right's own words to highlight the similar type of "fiddling" by the Bush administration.

    Beyond this, I believe Bush's obvious reluctance to fill troop requests in Afghanistan at a time when they could have made ALL the difference, had everything to do with his focus on fighting his unnecessary and foolish war in Iraq. In light of Bush's failure to respond properly in Afghanistan (resulting in a worsening situation in that country), it was up to the Obama administration to fill McKiernan's requests.

    And the Obama administration did just that.

    Now, with a fraudulent election in Afghanistan and essentially ineffective Afghan government, we are faced with a dramatic situational change which directly affects our ability to accomplish anything on the ground. We cannot count on the Afghan government/military to effectively assist us, the way Bush could. Because of this, strategies far more complex than throwing more troops at the problem must be considered and refined. Obama will receive Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendation concerning additional troops in Afghanistan today. I'm more than willing to give him a few weeks to consider Secretary Gates' input.

    Interestingly enough, Bush didn't make a move in Afghanistan or Iraq without the input of his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (this could be expanded; Bush repeatedly followed Rumsfeld's awful recommendations with apparently little consideration), and evidently, most of those on the right felt this was appropriate, as I do not recall their pointing fingers at the Bush administration for its long delay in answering troop requests.

    For those same people to insist today that Obama make an important decision in Afghanistan without the input of his Secretary of Defense also seems hypocritical.

  4. #344
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Friend, "fiddle" is the conservative assessment/definition of Obama's current deliberations over matters in Afghanistan. I've not used that term myself, except in quotes, indicating that that is not a term I would personally use; rather that it is a term that others have used to describe Obama's timeline on answering a request for more troops (while carefully ignoring the fact that the Bush administration "fiddled" even longer).

    Others would characterize Obama's deliberations as thoughtful and considered, particularly in light of the fact that the Afghan government is essentially non-existent at the moment (not something Bush had to consider, yet he still delayed sending more troops), AND that Obama has yet to hear Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' assessment of the situation. (Reportedly, this will happen some time today.)

    Me, personally? Given that conservatives are complaining that Obama is taking too long on this decision (i.e. "fiddling") I think Bush's sitting on his hands for three months hoping someone else would respond to his own generals' call for troops should also be characterized as "fiddling."

    But again, this isn't a term I've used; I'm merely using the right's own words to highlight the similar type of "fiddling" by the Bush administration.

    Beyond this, I believe Bush's obvious reluctance to fill troop requests in Afghanistan at a time when they could have made ALL the difference, had everything to do with his focus on fighting his unnecessary and foolish war in Iraq. In light of Bush's failure to respond properly in Afghanistan (resulting in a worsening situation in that country), it was up to the Obama administration to fill McKiernan's requests.

    And the Obama administration did just that.

    Now, with a fraudulent election in Afghanistan and essentially ineffective Afghan government, we are faced with a dramatic situational change which directly affects our ability to accomplish anything on the ground. We cannot count on the Afghan government/military to effectively assist us, the way Bush could. Because of this, strategies far more complex than throwing more troops at the problem must be considered and refined. Obama will receive Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendation concerning additional troops in Afghanistan today. I'm more than willing to give him a few weeks to consider Secretary Gates' input.

    Interestingly enough, Bush didn't make a move in Afghanistan or Iraq without the input of his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (this could be expanded; Bush repeatedly followed Rumsfeld's awful recommendations with apparently little consideration), and evidently, most of those on the right felt this was appropriate, as I do not recall their pointing fingers at the Bush administration for its long delay in answering troop requests.

    For those same people to insist today that Obama make an important decision in Afghanistan without the input of his Secretary of Defense also seems hypocritical.
    So... after all this... it was -not- OK for Bush to 'fiddle', but it -is- OK for The Obama to do so.
    Gotcha. Thanks.

  5. #345
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Me, personally? Given that conservatives are complaining that Obama is taking too long on this decision (i.e. "fiddling") I think Bush's sitting on his hands for three months hoping someone else would respond to his own generals' call for troops should also be characterized as "fiddling."
    I'm curious... who could possibly respond other than Bush and why would you think that Bush was waiting on someone else to respond? Respond to what and how????

    Beyond this, I believe Bush's obvious reluctance to fill troop requests in Afghanistan at a time when they could have made ALL the difference, had everything to do with his focus on fighting his unnecessary and foolish war in Iraq. In light of Bush's failure to respond properly in Afghanistan (resulting in a worsening situation in that country), it was up to the Obama administration to fill McKiernan's requests.
    You do know that casualties are twice as high now as they were last summer don't you??

    And the Obama administration did just that.
    You do know that Bush sent troops to Afghanistan in August 2008 at McKiernan's request don't you. And 42,000 troops were approved for deployment in May 2008 and arrived there last fall. Sounds to me like there was a steady stream of troop deployments last year.

    I don't believe Obama was in office then.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  6. #346
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So... after all this... it was -not- OK for Bush to 'fiddle', but it -is- OK for The Obama to do so.
    Gotcha. Thanks.
    No, you've missed the point entirely (and I'm shocked... SHOCKED).

    "Fiddling" is how conservatives define Obama's delay in sending more troops to Afghanistan.

    Using the conservative definition, therefore, Bush must also have been "fiddling" while he waited (even longer) for someone else to send more troops to Afghanistan. "Fiddling" is not a term I've chosen; I'm merely using it against Bush the same way conservatives use it against Obama.

    However, I don't consider Obama's delay "fiddling," in that he no longer has the luxury of depending on the Afghan government/military to help out as Bush did, AND that he has yet to receive Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendations.

    "Fiddling" is your strawman. Own it.

  7. #347
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,368

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Friend, "fiddle" is the conservative assessment/definition of Obama's current deliberations over matters in Afghanistan. I've not used that term myself, except in quotes, indicating that that is not a term I would personally use; rather that it is a term that others have used to describe Obama's timeline on answering a request for more troops (while carefully ignoring the fact that the Bush administration "fiddled" even longer).

    Others would characterize Obama's deliberations as thoughtful and considered, particularly in light of the fact that the Afghan government is essentially non-existent at the moment (not something Bush had to consider, yet he still delayed sending more troops), AND that Obama has yet to hear Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' assessment of the situation. (Reportedly, this will happen some time today.)

    Me, personally? Given that conservatives are complaining that Obama is taking too long on this decision (i.e. "fiddling") I think Bush's sitting on his hands for three months hoping someone else would respond to his own generals' call for troops should also be characterized as "fiddling."

    But again, this isn't a term I've used; I'm merely using the right's own words to highlight the similar type of "fiddling" by the Bush administration.

    Beyond this, I believe Bush's obvious reluctance to fill troop requests in Afghanistan at a time when they could have made ALL the difference, had everything to do with his focus on fighting his unnecessary and foolish war in Iraq. In light of Bush's failure to respond properly in Afghanistan (resulting in a worsening situation in that country), it was up to the Obama administration to fill McKiernan's requests.

    And the Obama administration did just that.

    Now, with a fraudulent election in Afghanistan and essentially ineffective Afghan government, we are faced with a dramatic situational change which directly affects our ability to accomplish anything on the ground. We cannot count on the Afghan government/military to effectively assist us, the way Bush could. Because of this, strategies far more complex than throwing more troops at the problem must be considered and refined. Obama will receive Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendation concerning additional troops in Afghanistan today. I'm more than willing to give him a few weeks to consider Secretary Gates' input.

    Interestingly enough, Bush didn't make a move in Afghanistan or Iraq without the input of his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (this could be expanded; Bush repeatedly followed Rumsfeld's awful recommendations with apparently little consideration), and evidently, most of those on the right felt this was appropriate, as I do not recall their pointing fingers at the Bush administration for its long delay in answering troop requests.

    For those same people to insist today that Obama make an important decision in Afghanistan without the input of his Secretary of Defense also seems hypocritical.



    Actually the Greatness that is the Good Reverend came up with that. It was an intellectual description based on the "nero fiddling while rome burns" analogy.


    Obama is indeed fiddling while afghanistan burns.


    Thank me very much.

    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #348
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    No, you've missed the point entirely (and I'm shocked... SHOCKED).

    "Fiddling" is how conservatives define Obama's delay in sending more troops to Afghanistan.

    Using the conservative definition, therefore, Bush must also have been "fiddling" while he waited (even longer) for someone else to send more troops to Afghanistan. "Fiddling" is not a term I've chosen; I'm merely using it against Bush the same way conservatives use it against Obama.

    However, I don't consider Obama's delay "fiddling," in that he no longer has the luxury of depending on the Afghan government/military to help out as Bush did, AND that he has yet to receive Secretary of Defense Gates' recommendations.

    "Fiddling" is your strawman. Own it.
    No, I got it the first time.
    Bush and The Obama are both 'fiddling'; in your book it wasn't OK when Bush did it, but it is OK that The Obama does it -- because, well, its different when He does it.

  9. #349
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    I'm curious... who could possibly respond other than Bush and why would you think that Bush was waiting on someone else to respond? Respond to what and how????
    The "someone else" was NATO. This has already been explained here. Follow the link for more info.

    You do know that casualties are twice as high now as they were last summer don't you??
    You do know that the reason the war in Afghanistan went bad is because Bush diverted much-needed top CIA specialists, elite Special Forces units, regular troops, equipment, and money from Afghanistan to the unnecessary and ill-conceived war in Iraq, don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    You do know that Bush sent troops to Afghanistan in August 2008 at McKiernan's request don't you.
    The documentation I previously linked to indicates that Bush sent approximately 5000 troops to Afghanistan in September 2008, and approximately 2000 more troops in December 2008. Can you provide evidence that he also sent troops in August 2008 and that the total number of troops Bush sent comes anywhere close to the 30,000 requested?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    And 42,000 troops were approved for deployment in May 2008 and arrived there last fall. Sounds to me like there was a steady stream of troop deployments last year.
    If this is true, and having these additional 42,000 boots on the ground in Afghanistan has been so very successful, why does McChrystal need more troops? Could it be that more troops is not the solution?


  10. #350
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

    Glinda,

    I for the life of me can not understand what it is that makes liberals just have to continually lean on that 'Bush did it too' crutch. Look, Obama said that the War in Afghanistan was the real front line in the war on terror, and that he was going to pursue it that way. He even made a giant show of appointing his own General that took him months to pick, and assured that with his new strategy in place, and his shinny new General, that we were about to make short order of this ordeal. Now come to find out, he doesn't talk to the General, Afghan's are losing confidence, and in the face of a tough, but honest assessment that they need 40K more troops, or they face failure, Obama sits like a deer in the headlights, and his minions make excuses, pulling out once again the tired, 'Well, Bush.......(insert diversion here).


    If I could say one thing to Mr. Obama, it would be "Look Pal, you are the man now, not Bush. **** or get off the pot!"


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 35 of 38 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •