Obama makes unannounced trip to Afghanistan

WI Crippler said:

I'd be more upset if a CinC was to have our troops wage war and not take the time and risk to go over there, even if for a little bit and under heavy security. It's symbolic that he believes enough in the effort to go over there himself. It does mean something, its not just an empty gesture. I give Obama a thumbs up for this move.

Click to expand...

I am a liberal, a lifelong democrat. Yet, one of the highlights of my time in the Arabian(Persian) gulf was when Dan Quayle came out to visit us on the boat. It does not matter who it is, it makes you feel good to be visited by your leaders.

danarhea said:

As commander in chief, it's his call to go, but it should never be for political purposes. This was for political purposes, as he had no reason to be there right now.

Click to expand...

It could be, though I suspect it's more likely that this is the time he can go. His schedule is kinda busy.

Chappy said:

I wonder if President Obama is preparing the ground for the next major push, the battle of Kandahar.

Click to expand...

I gave my reason why I think President Obama is visiting Afghanistan. It wasn't political, at least in the sense of domestic politics. Nor was the OP intended to present anything but accepted facts: Obama didn't start these wars, but he's waging them, each in his own way.

American forces never lost a battle in Vietnam; I am sure American forces don't intend to lose the battle of Kandahar; but, in a very real sense, neither can they win it.

President Obama is traveling to Afghanistan to assure that the Afghani government is properly committed to winning the battle of Kandahar. We want them to own that victory because it'll mean our work there is nearly done.

Mellie said:

He doesn't have to fight the wars. Just bring all the troops home right now like the libs wanted during Bush's admin. Interesting how they don't want that anymore...

Click to expand...

You don't know us very well....do you?

All of this is political window dressing Obama is not even conducting this so-called war. Karsai is being allowed to dictate rules of engagement that are holding progress and costing American lives.

Obama will do only what he has to in and effort to keep up the phony front until he has his way and the Constitution is trashed and he can declare his Socialist/Marxist victory with him as the Dictator in Chief.

Obama gives lip service to defeating the Taliban, and I don't trust him at all. He has been shown to lie too much.

I think Obama has shown considerable fidelity to the Constitution and his duty as President. His trip to Afghanistan at a time when he must have been exhausted after the health care reform debate, demonstrates his determination to fulfill all the duties of his office.

a-jad made some pointed - and valid - observations about Obama's trip to the middle east:

... Ahmadinejad said the U.S. has failed to isolate Iran. He said the fact that Obama's recent visit to Afghanistan was not announced beforehand for security reasons was evidence of America's own isolation.

"First, let's see who is isolated. We think those who can't show up publicly among the people and directly address them are isolated, those who fear nations. Gentlemen go to a country where they have 60,000 troops without any prior announcement. Who is isolated?" Ahmadinejad said.

The Iranian president noted that his own trip to Afghanistan was announced in advance and said he was warmly received.

"You are isolated yourself, but you are hotheaded and don't understand it," Ahmadinejad said.

Click to expand...

interesting article is in full here
The Associated Press: Ahmadinejad: Sanctions aid, rather than hurt, Iran

Chappy said:

I think Obama has shown considerable fidelity to the Constitution and his duty as President. His trip to Afghanistan at a time when he must have been exhausted after the health care reform debate, demonstrates his determination to fulfill all the duties of his office.

Click to expand...

So...Obama campaigns on the unconstitutionality of Gitmo, renditions, wiretapping, etc., yet, as POTUS not only maintains those Bush policies but actually enhances the drone killings...and you'll be arguing he has remained faithful to the Constitution. Man that is sick cynicism.

As well, if you're going to argue this about Obama how do you explain the clear unconstitutionality of issuing an EO intended to enact legislation, i.e., the Stupak EO?

I don't recall President Obama running on the unconstitutionality of Gitmo or renditions or even wiretapping. I do recall his statement that if the Pakistanis won't or can't attack terrorists on their territory, then as President, he would.

As a former teacher of Constitutional Law, my sense is that President Obama is far more sensitive to constitutional issues surrounding these topics and more. My “cynicism detector” isn't going off at all.

With regard to the recent executive order, Obama recorded a presidential commitment in that form that the Hyde Amendment would be fully enforced. That's completely constitutional.

Really, all these complaints seem like partisan quibbling more than any serious constitutional challenge to the President's actions. And, certainly, President Obama's trip to Afghanistan reminded us that, just as his predecessor, ours is a war leader. Visiting with the troops and consulting with allied national leadership, are essential responsibilities of that role.

Chappy said:

I don't recall President Obama running on the unconstitutionality of Gitmo or renditions or even wiretapping. I do recall his statement that if the Pakistanis won't or can't attack terrorists on their territory, then as President, he would.

Click to expand...

Your recollection is inaccurate. For example, re: eavesdropping...
Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

Rendition: He also will eliminate the practice of extraordinary rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries.

As a former teacher of Constitutional Law, my sense is that President Obama is far more sensitive to constitutional issues surrounding these topics and more. My “cynicism detector” isn't going off at all.

Click to expand...

Despite his strident campaigning in opposition to Bush's policies in these areas, Obama has adopted them all. And is the most obvious way...expanded Bush's drone attacks despite Obama prattling on and on about the importance of due process.

With regard to the recent executive order, Obama recorded a presidential commitment in that form that the Hyde Amendment would be fully enforced. That's completely constitutional.

Click to expand...

The Hyde Amendment applies only to HHS appropriations. The EO cannot change that and, so, it does not change that.

Really, all these complaints seem like partisan quibbling more than any serious constitutional challenge to the President's actions. And, certainly, President Obama's trip to Afghanistan reminded us that, just as his predecessor, ours is a war leader. Visiting with the troops and consulting with allied national leadership, are essential responsibilities of that role.

Click to expand...

I am not mounting, here at least, a constitutional challenge to Obama's actions. I was merely addressing another poster's obscene comment about Obama's fidelity to the Constitution, which appears, uh, strained, when considering Obama's campaign condemnations of Bush policies as unconstitutional and then adopting everyone of them upon taking office.

Maybe you would care to address that point that I made.