• 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!

President Obama Takes a Break at Camp David

So are we winning in Afghanistan? You want badly to believe what Obama tells you and the question is why? Ever hear the statement "trust but verify?" Have you ever verified the accuracy of what Obama has told you?

I don't think there is any clear way to "win" in Afghanistan. There will be no mission accomplished banner, sorry. There is and has never been any way to know what will happen once we leave there, so the best we can do is to make sure we have done the best we can to cripple the Taliban and diminish the power of al Qaeda. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that things got better since Obama got into office.

"High-ranking officials told The New York Times that 20 out of 30 prominent Al-Qaeda members targeted by intelligence agencies have been killed in the last 18 months."

That includes...you know...Osama bin Laden.

There really is no question that conditions have improved here. Few people are even debating that. I've heard many top Republicans admit the same. I'm shocked (I shouldn't be, but I am) that you would try to suggest that things haven't improved there. John McCain says they have. General Petraeus says they have. What evidence would it take for you to swallow your pride and admit it?
 
I don't think there is any clear way to "win" in Afghanistan. There will be no mission accomplished banner, sorry. There is and has never been any way to know what will happen once we leave there, so the best we can do is to make sure we have done the best we can to cripple the Taliban and diminish the power of al Qaeda. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that things got better since Obama got into office.

"High-ranking officials told The New York Times that 20 out of 30 prominent Al-Qaeda members targeted by intelligence agencies have been killed in the last 18 months."

That includes...you know...Osama bin Laden.

There really is no question that conditions have improved here. Few people are even debating that. I've heard many top Republicans admit the same. I'm shocked (I shouldn't be, but I am) that you would try to suggest that things haven't improved there. John McCain says they have. General Petraeus says they have. What evidence would it take for you to swallow your pride and admit it?

Let's see if I have this right, Obama keeps the Bush Sec of Defense, fires his own General in Afghanistan to be replaced by Bush's General that won Iraq and you give Obama credit for success in Afghanistan but cannot define victory? Obama rejected Petraeus' recommendation for Afghanistan but that is ok with you?

Interesting how you bought the media portrayal of "Mission Accomplished" as if it meant we won in Iraq. Just goes to show the power of the Press in making you believe what they wanted you to believe. Mission Accomplished signaled the success of the mssion by the Fleet returning from Iraq but then again I never would expect you to change your opinion or refute the media reports with actual facts.

Still waiting for what Obama has done that is truly successful at home that has made things better than when Bush was in office?
 
Last edited:
By several posters on several occassions.

Sorry, the facts from BLS just prove you and whoever you think posted that information wrong. No President since BLS data has been calculated has ever had more people unemployed than Obama and no President in modern history has ever had those numbers 2 years after the end of a recession. Amazing how you really aren't so independent.
 
Sorry, the facts from BLS just prove you and whoever you think posted that information wrong. No President since BLS data has been calculated has ever had more people unemployed than Obama and no President in modern history has ever had those numbers 2 years after the end of a recession. Amazing how you really aren't so independent.

The answer has been posted several times by several posters.
 
The answer has been posted several times by several posters.

Then you and those mysterious posters need to call the Bureau of Labor Statistics and tell them that their data is wrong. It is amazing how little you know about the Obama record and actually how little you care. You at least ought to change your political leanings to liberal because that is what you are. Independent people do research and verify what they are told. Seems you hold Obama to a much lower standard than anyone else.
 
Let's see if I have this right, Obama keeps the Bush Sec of Defense, fires his own General in Afghanistan to be replaced by Bush's General that won Iraq and you give Obama credit for success in Afghanistan but cannot define victory? Obama rejected Petraeus' recommendation for Afghanistan but that is ok with you?

Interesting how you bought the media portrayal of "Mission Accomplished" as if it meant we won in Iraq. Just goes to show the power of the Press in making you believe what they wanted you to believe. Mission Accomplished signaled the success of the mssion by the Fleet returning from Iraq but then again I never would expect you to change your opinion or refute the media reports with actual facts.

Still waiting for what Obama has done that is truly successful at home that has made things better than when Bush was in office?

Let's turn this around for a minute. You continuously ask questions of other people (often the same questions, over and over again, even when you've gotten them answered). How about we ask YOU the questions this time. How has Obama failed in Afghanistan? How are we worse off there than we were when Bush left office? What are the concrete changes that you can point to that prove Obama made the wrong choices and his strategy is failing?
 
Let's turn this around for a minute. You continuously ask questions of other people (often the same questions, over and over again, even when you've gotten them answered). How about we ask YOU the questions this time. How has Obama failed in Afghanistan? How are we worse off there than we were when Bush left office? What are the concrete changes that you can point to that prove Obama made the wrong choices and his strategy is failing?

He failed first by not giving his own handpicked general the amount of troops he asked for. He then failed by giving the enemy a withdrawal date. He then failed again by ignoring the commanders on the ground and their recommendations for the drawdown numbers. Those are failures and anyone who supports the military would understand that.
 
Then you and those mysterious posters need to call the Bureau of Labor Statistics and tell them that their data is wrong. It is amazing how little you know about the Obama record and actually how little you care. You at least ought to change your political leanings to liberal because that is what you are. Independent people do research and verify what they are told. Seems you hold Obama to a much lower standard than anyone else.

Show me the proof that I need to call the BLS.
 
Last edited:
Republicans are doing nothing except trying to destroy the economy so Cantor can make money short-selling govt bonds.

WoW!!! Republicans trying to destroy the economy??? Obama has already destroyed it!!
 
First you have to prove to me that I need to go to the BLS website

Would be happy to do that but in order to do it, you have to give me the name of the Republican President who had higher unemployment numbers according to BLS
 
He failed first by not giving his own handpicked general the amount of troops he asked for. He then failed by giving the enemy a withdrawal date. He then failed again by ignoring the commanders on the ground and their recommendations for the drawdown numbers. Those are failures and anyone who supports the military would understand that.

Those are not failures, those are specific actions you disagree with. I am asking to see the consequences of those supposed "failures" - you can't just call them a failure and make it so, I want actual proof that they led to failure.
 
That's already been posted.

Nope, it hasn't been posted but thanks for playing. BLS has no Republican Presidents ever having 14.7 million unemployed Americans and never in modern history has any President had that poor of employment numbers two years after the end of a recession. You do recognize that the recession Obama inherited ended in June 2009. Here are the dates of the other recessions

Last Four Recessions and their Durations
12/07 - 6/09 18 months
3/01 - 11/01 8 months
7/90 - 3/91 8 months
7/81 - 11/82 16 months

Suggest you check the unemployment numbers in May 2011, November 2003, March 1993, and November 1984. Those are all two years after the end of the recessions. That gives you some idea how bad Obama's record really is.
 
Those are not failures, those are specific actions you disagree with. I am asking to see the consequences of those supposed "failures" - you can't just call them a failure and make it so, I want actual proof that they led to failure.

Didn't make them up at all, reported even by the liberal media. How are those successes?
 
How about the failure being military deaths going UP, while there are plans to pull troops OUT, leaving the ones still there in grave danger. He did all this on his own, without his General's approval. I read a lot of news, and the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasing in the last weeks. Obama does things with no thought of consequences, surrounds himself with fools, and when he DOES have someone tell him things he does not like, he disregards them.
 
Didn't make them up at all, reported even by the liberal media. How are those successes?

You're missing the point entirely. I did not simply say "Obama's strategy worked", I said "Obama's strategy worked, and I can prove it because x, y, z" (mentioning the killing of Osama bin Laden and 20 out of 30 other top al Qaeda operatives; diminished presence of Taliban comparatively to 2008; diminished power and influence of al Qaeda overall). You are saying "x, y, z" is a failure, but failing to explain to me HOW it was a failure, or prove any evidence that it was. You claim that Obama giving less troops than were requested is a failure. So my question is.......how? Things are better in Afghanistan right now. Who is to say that those extra troops would've helped much? Who is to say they wouldn't have been a waste of money and resources? Who is to say that Petraeus didn't misjudge, and Obama did? There is no proof that you are correct, you are simply saying it. Your arguments are painfully one-dimensional and cannot be taken seriously until you back them up with evidence.

How about the failure being military deaths going UP, while there are plans to pull troops OUT, leaving the ones still there in grave danger. He did all this on his own, without his General's approval. I read a lot of news, and the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasing in the last weeks. Obama does things with no thought of consequences, surrounds himself with fools, and when he DOES have someone tell him things he does not like, he disregards them.

Umm, of course deaths went up, there were more people there to die. Was the Iraq surge a failure because there were more deaths because of it? And to the bolded: perhaps you do not have a grasp on the chain of command. The Commander In Chief does not need the approval of a general.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point entirely. I did not simply say "Obama's strategy worked", I said "Obama's strategy worked, and I can prove it because x, y, z" (mentioning the killing of Osama bin Laden and 20 out of 30 other top al Qaeda operatives; diminished presence of Taliban comparatively to 2008; diminished power and influence of al Qaeda overall). You are saying "x, y, z" is a failure, but failing to explain to me HOW it was a failure, or prove any evidence that it was. You claim that Obama giving less troops than were requested is a failure. So my question is.......how? Things are better in Afghanistan right now. Who is to say that those extra troops would've helped much? Who is to say they wouldn't have been a waste of money and resources? Who is to say that Petraeus didn't misjudge, and Obama did? There is no proof that you are correct, you are simply saying it. Your arguments are painfully one-dimensional and cannot be taken seriously until you back them up with evidence.

Look, run on that record and see how it works out for you because he cannot run on his promises and predictions regarding the economy. Not sure why you continue to support this empty suit but it is obvious that you hold him to a much lower standard than you ever would have held Bush. In war time you never tell the enemy when you are leaving so why is that a successful strategy here?
 
Swizz-- why do you think things are better in Afghanistan? They are not. And Iraq is going down, too. Also wondering if you condone the new war in Libya, the secret wars in Yemen and Somalia... where do you get your news?
 
Obama can't win on the economy, or foreign policy, or national security (think the border with Mexico), or any of the MANY promises he made to special interest groups that have not happened. HOW can he win?
 
Back
Top Bottom