• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

I'll take that as a concession from you thank you.

The right didn't have a problem with Bush doing it but they have a problem with Obama doing it.

Yeah, right. :roll: It's not a concession, because I'm under no obligation to prove anything. You, however, are, because you made an assertion.

That's simply the way it works. Not my fault if you think the assertion is unprovable . . . which, actually, sounds like a "concession" to me.
 
Your impression is politically skewed. (Big shock, that.)

The topic at hand is Cheney's complaint that the Obama administration is "dithering" in response to a requested troop increase (see thread title and OP for further information).

I have simply pointed out Cheney's hypocrisy, in that his administration "dithered" far longer and did not come close to filling multiple troop requests by commanders on the ground in Afghanistan.


Isn't Obama the one that said that Afghanistan was the real war of necessity? I think so. Bush and Co., never took this long to provide the Generals what they requested regarding Iraq. So yeah it is just a little dishonest to trumpet what Bush did at this point, Obama owns this war now, NOT BUSH.


j-mac
 
Yeah, right. :roll: It's not a concession, because I'm under no obligation to prove anything. You, however, are, because you made an assertion.

That's simply the way it works. Not my fault if you think the assertion is unprovable . . . which, actually, sounds like a "concession" to me.

Like I said, thanks for the concession. Since the majority of conservatives here didn't post any outrage from Bush delaying, there isn't any posts.

Again, sorry you can't deal with the FACTS that many on the right here are being hypocrites for it.
 
Like I said, thanks for the concession. Since the majority of conservatives here didn't post any outrage from Bush delaying, there isn't any posts.

Again, sorry you can't deal with the FACTS that many on the right here are being hypocrites for it.

You have shown no facts. Sorry. That's just the way it is.
 
Like I said, thanks for the concession. Since the majority of conservatives here didn't post any outrage from Bush delaying, there isn't any posts.

Again, sorry you can't deal with the FACTS that many on the right here are being hypocrites for it.
Funny that you state this as a fact, but cannot show that to be the case.
 
Like I said, thanks for the concession. Since the majority of conservatives here didn't post any outrage from Bush delaying, there isn't any posts.

Again, sorry you can't deal with the FACTS that many on the right here are being hypocrites for it.


So let me get your logic straight. You are not happy with Obama for taking so long to figure out what his strategy is concerning Afghanistan, but will accept no criticism about that fact pointed at Obama because you don't think that repubs complained when Bush had forsaken Afghanistan in favor of winning in Iraq. Hmmmm....Sounds pretty thin to me.


j-mac
 
So let me get your logic straight. You are not happy with Obama for taking so long to figure out what his strategy is concerning Afghanistan, but will accept no criticism about that fact pointed at Obama because you don't think that repubs complained when Bush had forsaken Afghanistan in favor of winning in Iraq. Hmmmm....Sounds pretty thin to me.
Partisanship causes people to do funny things like that.
 
So let me get your logic straight. You are not happy with Obama for taking so long to figure out what his strategy is concerning Afghanistan, but will accept no criticism about that fact pointed at Obama because you don't think that repubs complained when Bush had forsaken Afghanistan in favor of winning in Iraq. Hmmmm....Sounds pretty thin to me.


j-mac

How am I accepting no criticism of Obama. I just am pointing out that the people that are so "outraged" by this, are the same folks that didn't have a ****ing word to say about it when Bush did it.

Seems to me it is the right that won't accept criticism.
 
No, you just assume that to make you feel better.
 
Newsflash: This isn't Iraq and Bush isn't president. Is that going to constantly be PBO's excuse, "but, but, Bush did it, waaaaaaaaaaaaa"?

Irrelevant trolling from apdst. Your inability to follow a conversation/debate becomes more and more obvious with every one of your posts.
 
Last edited:
How am I accepting no criticism of Obama. I just am pointing out that the people that are so "outraged" by this, are the same folks that didn't have a ****ing word to say about it when Bush did it.

Seems to me it is the right that won't accept criticism.


Because you are using that apparent fault to discredit any criticism now, even though you, yourself are unhappy with how Obama is handling the situation. What Bush did, or didn't do should have NO bearing on today, and the here and now. In fact the only reason to bring it up is to deflect from the weakness of Obama's position now.


j-mac
 
Irrelevant - your ridiculous double standard here is obvious.
Speaking of ridiculous double standards...

What do you think of The Obama 'fiddling', like Bush did?
 
Partisanship causes people to do funny things like that.

You mean partisanship like complaing when Obama does it, but not when Bush did it. Yes, I agree that is partisanship.
 
What Bush did, or didn't do should have NO bearing on today, and the here and now.

j-mac

It has every bearing. It shows the hypocrisy of many on the right. That is the reason you hate it, because it is true.
 
You mean partisanship like complaing when Obama does it, but not when Bush did it. Yes, I agree that is partisanship.


Ok, I am a conservative, and I think Bush was wrong for ignoring Afghanistan, and always have. I know there is no way for you to verify that because I only recently started posting here, but does that make it any different? I mean aren't the troops the ones that are suffering right now?


j-mac
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
:roll:
 
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.
 
So... after all this... it was -not- OK for Bush to 'fiddle', but it -is- OK for The Obama to do so.
Gotcha. Thanks.
:roll:

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.
 
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.

:thumbs:
 
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.
 
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?

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?

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?

:roll:
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom