• 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

Here's my idea:

We have Obama find Bush's old banner & have him stan in front of it as he tells us we won in Afghanistan & he's bringing all our troops home for a big parade!
 

Attachments

  • bush-mission574x315.jpg
    bush-mission574x315.jpg
    91.8 KB · Views: 1
Ummm you do know 100,000+ Iraqis and 3,000+(then) soldiers died before they boosted troop levels in Iraq right? And this boost only came YEARS after being recommended by Gen. Shinseki?

The two events were unrelated. Shinseli recommanded 600,000 for the invasion and initial occupation. These recommendations were not followed. It turns out these extra troops were not needed. The invasion and over 3 years of occupation were handled readily by the troops in theater. It was only after a civil war had started that the idea of a change in strategy, to a counterinsurgency strategy, was contemplated. Along with that change in strategy was a change in deployment posture in theater and that change in deployment posture required a surge of troops. It was completely unrelated to Shinseki's initial troop estimate.
 
Another thing that happened was the then ex-vp held off being critical of Cheney's policies reguarding Afghanistan or Iraq until 2003. Unlike Cheney who didn't wait a day until he started flapping his lip about President Obama. A first in our history. President Obama did not create Cheney's legacy..Cheney did but in true Republican fashion Cheney will try to blame everybody else for his dismal legacy.

He refuses to have real non-softball interviews with any other News agency besides Fox News. He makes these speeches for money and insists on making these continuous lame blanket statements attacking the Commander in Chief during wartime. Based on nothing but old gezzer paranoia.

I think Cheney should at least have the guts to have a real inteview and answer some real questions.
 
I think Cheney should at least have the guts to have a real inteview and answer some real questions.

Cheney....Guts??

He's the guy that got SEVEN deferments to keep his butt out of having to fight in Vietnam, right?

He's the guy who shoots a friend in the face with a shotgun........& then goes home to sleep it off so the cops won't "Breathalyze" him.

No sir.......Guts has never been Cheney's forte. (Offshore bank deposits from Haliburton, KBR & Blackwater is his forte)
 
Last edited:
Cheney....Guts??

He's the guy that got SEVEN deferments to keep his butt out of having to fight in Vietnam, right?


have you served in any capacity? Checking, um....Nope, I don't see it....


He's the guy who shoots a friend in the face with a shotgun........& then goes home to sleep it off so the cops won't "Breathalyze" him.


do you hunt?


Would you like to?


No sir.......Guts has never been Cheney's forte. (Offshore bank deposits from Haliburton, KBR & Blackwater is his forte)


You have proof of this no doubt? And not some ranting screed from Markos Muatasis of DKOS either?


j-mac
 
It's a completely different world.

The Nazi machine would have been much more destructive and embedded in societies throughout the world if it had... you know... the internet and other ways of delivering their message quickly and to many people.
Not sure how that is relevant, or does anythng to negate what I said.
 
Obama is more interested in having a war with FOX, attending vazrious soires, and campaigning for democrats thanhe is on Afghanistan, His history of indecision is continuing its dangerous path for out troops....


2 months ago there was a reccomendation for more troops. How much more fiddling is required?
 
Obama is more interested in having a war with FOX, attending vazrious soires, and campaigning for democrats thanhe is on Afghanistan, His history of indecision is continuing its dangerous path for out troops....


2 months ago there was a reccomendation for more troops. How much more fiddling is required?

However long it takes to make the RIGHT decision. It's not like our troops can't shoot the enemy in the mean time.
 
Ah well he shouldn't have and neither should Cheney.

And Gore and Carter.

Cheney is speaking up because we have thousands of young soldiers sitting half way around the world waiting for Obama to decide which way the polls are moving. Cheney is speaking for THEM.
 
Our troops can't defend themselves while the President is deciding?..Why is that?

Holy......? LOL. Really?

We aren't there to defend ourself. We're supposed to be on the offensive.

Never mind. What's the point?
 
Holy......? LOL. Really?

We aren't there to defend ourself. We're supposed to be on the offensive.

Never mind. What's the point?

How do you be offensive fighting IED's?
 
Obama is more interested in having a war with FOX, attending vazrious soires, and campaigning for democrats thanhe is on Afghanistan, His history of indecision is continuing its dangerous path for out troops....

2 months ago there was a reccomendation for more troops. How much more fiddling is required?

When Gen. David McKiernan took command of ISAF troops in Afghanistan in June 2008, he began recommending/requesting that Bush send him additional troops. These requests continued, unanswered, for three months.

Meanwhile, Bush "fiddled," hoping that NATO countries would supply those much-needed troops. When it became clear that they would not, Bush authorized approximately 5000 troops be sent to Afghanistan in September. By this time, McKiernan's troop requests came to approximately 30,000.

Three months later (December 2008), Bush sent approximately 2000 more troops to Afghanistan. McKiernan's recommendations for a total of 30,000 troops was ultimately "answered" by the Bush administration a full eight months later, with 23,000 fewer troops than were needed.

Interestingly enough, it was President Obama who finally satisfied McKiernan's requests for sufficient troops, by sending in another 21,000 troops to Afghanistan in March 2009.

Given the above facts, I find it exceedingly odd that former VP Cheney condemns the current administration for "dithering," when his own administration was a much worse offender on this front.




From the Fact Check Desk: Did McKiernan’s Troop Requests Just Sit on Bush White House Desks?
 
Given the above facts, I find it exceedingly odd that former VP Cheney condemns the current administration for "dithering," when his own administration was a much worse offender on this front.
How does the fact that Bush did something wrong make it any less wrong for The Obama to do the same?
 
How does the fact that Bush did something wrong make it any less wrong for The Obama to do the same?

You might want to re-read my comments as they relate to the question submitted by Rev (specifically, "2 months ago there was a reccomendation [sic] for more troops. How much more fiddling is required?").

My remarks merely compare the so-called "fiddling" time element of one administration and another, in an identical situation, and highlight the hypocrisy of former VP Cheney (and those who think as he does) on this "People are dying while Obama 'fiddles!'" matter.

I made no statement regarding "right" or "wrong."
 
My remarks merely compare the so-called "fiddling" time element of one administration and another, in an identical situation, and highlight the hypocrisy of former VP Cheney (and those who think as he does) on this "People are dying while Obama 'fiddles!'" matter.
So, you agree that if it was wrong for Bush to 'fiddle', then it is just as wrong for The Obama to do the same.
 
Our troops can't defend themselves while the President is deciding?..Why is that?


I have posted this several times now, I am beginning to believe that it is just willful ignorance on the part of those that refuse to acknowledge that Obama changed the rules of engagement upon taking the CiC role.

Obama's (or should I say Rhambo's) slow walk of this decision is getting troops killed. Their blood is on Obama's hands.


j-mac
 
How does the fact that Bush did something wrong make it any less wrong for The Obama to do the same?

Obama is taking his time to make the right decision. Nothing wrong in that & our troops on the ground are totally unaffected.
btw......Ever been to any Caribbean Islands?
 
Obama is taking his time to make the right decision. Nothing wrong in that & our troops on the ground are totally unaffected.
This doesnt address my question.

btw......Ever been to any Caribbean Islands?
Yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom