Senator Obama on Afghanistan: "Situation is precarious and urgent"
By SilentPatriot Sunday Jul 20, 2008 2:00pm
Barack Obama sat down with CBS' Lara Logan Sunday morning for a long interview about his meeting with President Karzai and his vision for American foreign policy. Calling the security situation in Afghanistan "precarious and urgent," the presumptive Democratic nominee stressed that that country is the real "central front in the war on terror," and it's about time we started treating it as such.
Download | play 
Download | play
"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism."
Full transcript below the fold:
Logan: "Why does it have to be the central focus? What is so critical to U.S. interests here?"
Obama: "This is where they can plan attacks. They have sanctuary here. They are gathering huge amounts of money as a consequence of the drug trade in the region. And so that global network is centered in this area. And I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.
"And despite what the Bush Administration has argued, I don't think there's any doubt that we were distracted from our efforts not only to hunt down al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but also to rebuild this country so that people have confidence that we were to here to stay over the long haul, that we were going to rebuild roads, provide electricity, improve the quality of life for people. And now we have a chance, I think, to correct some of those areas.
"There's starting to be a broad consensus that it's time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan. And I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now's the time for us to do it.
"I think what's important for us to do is to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan. And I think that would be a mistake. I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we've got to start doing something now.
"The United States has to take a regional approach to the problem. Just as we can't be myopic and focus only on Iraq, we also can't think that we can solve the security problems here in Afghanistan without engaging the Pakistan government."
Logan: "And how do you compel Pakistan to act?"
Obama: "Well, you know, I think that the U.S. government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan, provides a lot of military support to Pakistan. And to send a clear message to Pakistan that this is important, to them as well as to us, I think that message has not been sent."
Logan: "Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside tribal areas?"
Obama: "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn't come to that - that in fact, the Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should capture him."
Logan: "Isn't that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said 'No,' that they wouldn't fire or wouldn't go after him?"
Obama: "I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, 'Well, you know, you shouldn't go around saying that.' But I don't think there's any doubt that that should be our policy."
Logan: "But [not going after him] is the current policy."
Obama: "I believe it is the current policy."
Logan: "So there's no change, then?"
Obama: "I don't think there's going to be a change there. I think that in order for us to be successful, it's not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We've got training camps that are growing and multiplying."
Logan: "Would you take out all those training camps?"
Obama: "Well, I think that what we would like to see the Pakistani government take out those training camps."
Logan: "And if they won't?"
Obama: "Well, I think that we've got to work with them so they will."
Logan: "Would you consider unilateral U.S. action?"
Obama: "I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it's absolutely vital to the security interests for both the United States and Pakistan."
Logan: "You do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they're still there. They're inside Pakistan."
Obama: "It's a huge problem. First of all, if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, we might've caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves. So we made a strategic error. And it's one that we're going to pay for, and unfortunately the people in Afghanistan have paid for it as well.
"But we now have an opportunity to correct that problem. One of the, if you look at what's happening right now in Iraq, Prime Minister al-Maliki has indicated he wants a timetable full withdraw. That is the view of the vast majority of Iraqis as well. We've seen a quelling of the violence. We haven't seen as much political progress as needs to be made. But we're starting to see some efforts on the part of the various factions to deal with some of the issues that are out there.
Logan: "Token efforts at best."
Obama: "They are token efforts at best. But if we have a timetable and they suddenly see an urgency behind the fact that the American troops are going to be leaving and that they need to get their act together, then this is the perfect moment for us to say, 'We are going to shift our resources. We're going to get a couple of more brigades here into Afghanistan. We're going to be willing to increase our foreign aid to Pakistan.' In exchange, we're going to expect that Pakistan takes much more seriously going after al-Qaeda and Taliban base camps on their side of the borders."
Logan: "What would be a 'mission accomplished' for you in Afghanistan?
Obama: "Well, a 'mission accomplished' would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda and the Taliban so that they can longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, and they can't target the United States or its allies."
Logan "Losing is not an option?"
Obama: "Losing is not an option when it comes to al-Qaeda. And it never has been. And that's why the fact that we engaged in a war of choice when were not yet finished with that task was such a mistake."
Logan: "Do you believe the war on terror can't be won if Osama bin Laden is still alive and if he's still out there?"
Obama: "I think there would be enormous symbolic value in us capturing or killing bin Laden, because I think he's still a rallying point for Islamic extremists. But I don't think that by itself is sufficient. I think that we are going to have to be vigilante in dismantling these terrorist networks."
Logan: "Okay, last question: There is a perception that you lack experience in world affairs."
Obama: "Right."
Logan: "Is this trip partly aimed at overcoming that concern, that, you know, there are doubts among some Americans that you could lead the country at war as commander in chief from day one?"
Obama: "You know, the interesting thing is that the people who are very experienced in foreign affairs, I don't think have those thoughts. The troops that I've been meeting with over the last several days, they don't seem to have those doubts. The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to ten years.
"It's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are, because one of the shifts in foreign policy that I want to execute as president is giving the world a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership, but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral, that we're going to see our role as building partnerships around the world that are of mutual interest to the parties involved. And I think this gives me a head start in that process."
Logan: "Do you have any doubts?"
Obama: "Never."
Login or Register to post comments.
Change indeed......
I saw this interview. He did well.
battle against terrorism = lame = bush rhetoric.
think we could win a battle against love too?
mcINSANE is junk, obama is the lesser of evil (not by much though)
looks like i'm staying home this election cycle.
"But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism."
Damn skippy!
Yes, why don't we leave Afghanistan? We were supposed to find Osama . . . . that should be the priority. What a wuss (another Bush, I'm afraid).
Liberal AND Proud @ 2:
He did well how?
Liberal and Proud:
Are you a war-monger like obama and bush?
Logan: “What would be a ‘mission accomplished’ for you in Afghanistan?
Obama: “Well, a ‘mission accomplished’ would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda and the Taliban so that they can longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, and they can’t target the United States or its allies.”
THANK YOU for not saying 'democracy' or 'freedom'.
Why exactly must we fix Afghanistan again? It was the Saudi's that attacked us. Is there a pipeline resurrection deal that the oil companies want to push through?
There is little reason to believe that people on the ground in Afghanistan can get to the US to attack us. If our defense command won't share information that is gathered by the CIA and distinctly not shared with the FBI about the Saudi's that were here to do 9/11, then what are we supposed to be getting excited about? What does it have to do with the attack by Saudi's in this country legally? If it looks like a duck, and it quacks. Is there some further requirement you need to prove it is a duck, or begin assuming, even for the sake of argument, that it is a duck?
obama is a fool
WakeUpAmerica! @ 10:
And Hillary and her vote for the war in the first damn place is a genius, right?
Yes, I'm with those who are more than dubious about the proposition that the U.S. has to militarily occupy countries until they become politically stable and have rising standards of living. That would require us to undertake more than 100 invasions during Obama's first term.
I wish the Afghan people well but their standard of living is not the responsibility of the 82d Airborne.
mcGaffe's response to obama's......precarious and urgent
comment....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/mccain-owns-first-foreign_n_114...
Is anyone getting tired of war-mongering, yet? OK, now Afghanistan is in serious trouble. Let's withdrawal our troops from Iraq, then put them in Afghanistan. What has America achieved besides spreading nation-building into another country. Oh Yea, there's still Iran and Pakistan. If I knew all of this craziness would go on under a peace-keepnig liberal, I would have voted for Ron Paul, who by the way has the best foreign policy around. Let the regions handle "their" own problems while we use that money to rebuild our "own" economy and take care of our "own" people. Going after a ghost in a cave is not my idea of a sensible foreign policy. The American Mounties ride again to save global countries in distress (who happen to have oil) OBL was right. America's economy will implode the same way the twin towers went down. I would say "God help us all," but I'm agnostic. Humanity has to do this alone as they always have in the past.
its_me_ya_krazy @ 3:
You can't be bothered to vote against a man whose name you stuff the word "insane" into? I hope a lot of people don't adopt this viewpoint.
Obama is not a liberal in my book, but at least he's better than McNuts.
Saving the world from itself is a fool's errand. We are not knights in shining armor or Samurai or Dog Soldiers. We can't save the feudal lords of the world or the daimyo or the tribal leaders. Attempting to do this will break us, and it will break us quick. And then the US will be remembered as a Roman Empire-type state 2,000 years from now that brought a newfound unity to North America under one rule.
What a great play Barack! ... make it look like you are more anxious than McCain to fuck with the rest of the world.
A dash of rovian brilliance.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 10:
And McGeezer is the Joker. Just ask Alex Witt at MSNBC.
Obama isn't a warmonger, you idiots. He might not sound like Kucinich, who wants to dismantle the Defense Dept, but Obama has an interest in protecting this country from the REAL threats that are out there, and to do it in a way that shows we're not a country full of sadists and bullies. So you want a candidate who says he/she will never ever engage in any military conflict? The American people don't want a pacifist for president. They want someone who shows leadership and, like Obama, the ability to listen and be pragmatic. And they want someone who makes them feel safe. Right now we don't feel safe, we are not safe, and we need someone to reassure us that he is looking out for our interests here at home and all over the world.
its_me_ya_krazy @ 3:
Are you going to hold your breath too? How will your not voting help our country?
Why oh why must the Democrats use Republican rhetoric? Central front in the War on Terror? That is focus group tested, over-used, meaningless drivel. Hope? Change? Where?
Anyone that voted for the wars is a shit-head. Anyone that believes we should continue to spend 160+ billion a year fighting the wars is a shit-head. Bush, Clinton and Obama are all shit-heads. Tell me what the hell we are fighting for over there? Oil? Give me an electric car and build some nuclear power plants. I would rather worry about the waste from them than send more young men off to die in either of those hell holes in the middle east....
cervantes @ 12:
When the elite told the people of France to eat cake because they have no bread, and they rise up against the elite class for it, they to exclaim that feeding the poor was not their job.
Poverty, disease, and war are breeding ground for violence and chaos, and it is never self contain.
Is the C&L site on the tour map for the troll bus today?
well according to these nice folks here obummers better then no warmonger at all! praise de lard!
I think the major difference between the 2 party is the way they go about rebuilding a country. After WWII it was the democratic marshall plan that went into effect where we hire the local to rebuild their own country, which is by far better then bringing in KBR and a private mercenary to shoot up anyone who come close to them while rebuilding crap under par building codes.
"Actionable intelligence"
More Bushit rhetoric.
Obama continues to speak truth and make sense at every turn. Regardless of how the current administration has bungled the effort, indeed pursuing a WOT is an appropriate response and thankfully Obama is acknowledging that. Granted, many of the "peace worshipers" in our country are well-intentioned, however it is an unfortunate reality in the world in which we live that pacifism is not always the right answer in the short term.
cervantes @ 12:
Exactly . So Mr. Karzai had better do something, and stop saying that the US and NATO should increase military and financial aid.
Liz @ 20:
Safety is an illusion. I want someone who will do the right thing. Period. Despite this, I am going to vote for Obama anyway.
its_me_ya_krazy @ 3:
Haven't you figured out yet that when you have a chance to pick the lesser of two evils, that's IT'S REALLY REALLY important that you PICK the lesser of two evils? I feel like I'm talking to an 8 yr old trying to explain something really simple, like if you don't practise democracy and use it, it'll die. Get out and vote.
Obama = hope, mccain = despair for so many.
Gawd I'm in love with Lara, could we please have her interview mccain, please!
Someone should play this for the fucking warmonger candidates and media
they might get a handle on all of that "VICTORY BULLSHIT"
St. Paul Scout @ 23:
I don't think you paid attention in geography class. Iraq is a Middle Eastern, Arabic and Kurdish speaking nation, Afghanistan's a Central Asian nation speaking various Indo-European tongues. Central Asia =/= to the Middle East, and Afghan Islam differs from Iraqi Islam in a lot of ways as well.
peaceful easy feeling @ 29:
sense?
see item 33
i´m sure obama´s warmonger backers love this talk, but afganistan will be another vietnam... obama is a chickinwhore, willing to sacrifice the lives of others for corporate approval... obama is the cosmetic change that the democratic war party needs to continue their oligarchy... there is nothing anti-war, or anti-corprotocracy about him... such a sad state of affairs...
Afghanistan is "lost" as much as Iraq has been for years, but our warmongering elite refuse to see it. After all, it's they who profit and the families of the "little people" who pay in blood for the Empire.
I'm glad Obama was against the Iraq Crusade and hope he keeps his promise to end it w/in 16 months (but the rest of the Village, incl. "liberal" Demo's, will likely resist that). Sad that we're going to stay in Afghanistan. Oh well, it was the graveyard of the Soviet Empire, and it may bleed our Empire dry as well.
MarktheSpark @ 37:
Afghans have never lost a war. They're in too vital a strategic position in Eurasia to be ignored, and also too vital of one to lose a war in.
both wars are based on lies.
tell me again why we should stay there.
peaceful easy feeling @ 29:
It's clear that you have the common sense and the basic reasoning skills, but you lack the factual knowledge about what's really going on in the Middle East and Afghanistan. By the way, War on Terror is a meaningless term and there's "terrorism" in Colombia; why isn't the U.S. fighting there?
If you really want to fight terrorists look in America. None of what has happened would have been possible with out 9/11 and this to has been buried and lied about since it happened.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 10:
I would say more of a tool, more fake smiles, shiny suits and BS ...... it's an american in a suit abroad ........
Crunch @ 40:
Because Bush's Administration only wars against terror when it's brown-skinned Muslims doing it, not drug cartels and Communists.
Davis, Tim @ 41:
No, we'd have the Red Chinese as the Big Bad instead.
General_Rennenkampf @ 38:
afghanistan was strategic to bring oil to a coast for Russia and Iran. that's all.
it was an oil monopoly war planned by cheney and the 'dead' enron asshole.
the 'war on terror' is a hoax.
obummer is going to leave100,000 troops in iraq , any who are pulled out will be sent to afganistan, obummer voted for the patriot act , he voted for fisa he voted for more money to keep the war going in afganistan and iraq , what do you call a person that does thatWARMONGER!
Note to the Democratic party organizers: Last time I checked there were at least 16 generals (McCaffrey, Clark, Kennedy, Taguba, Watkins, Ballard, Eaton, Foote, Buskirk, Dunn, Shelton, Wilson, Kerrick, Gard, Correa, and Blunt) and five admirals (Owens, Platt, Mariano, Stone and Sestak) who were backing the Democrats. How hard would it have been to round up a gang of generals and admirals to send to Afghanistan WITH Obama, so that he could be seen with them in a war zone to boost his national defense credibility? Just showing him eating canteen food out of a tin tray, or sinking baskets with enlisted men isn’t going to cut it as a foreign policy photo-op.
SCHRODINGER'S CAT @ 30:
karzai is just asking for the u.s. to stand behind the deal they made with afghanistan in 2005...permanent bases.....several possible reasons..part of the"encircling china"strategy, energy pipeline,stabilize
economy/government and try to beat down the taliban.
to me it seems like more"free market" globaleconomics
the merchants of financial paper want to put 7-11's on every corner...there is a potentially large slurpee market their.
General_Rennenkampf @ 44:
not really!
they'd still enjoy 'most favored nation' status because corporations benefit from it.
we had a chance after Tienemin(sic) Square.
corporate profits have and will trump human rights and any sense of morality.
@40 - Crunch:
well-said re: "War on Terror is a meaningless term and there’s “terrorism” in Colombia; why isn’t the U.S. fighting there?" And what of Darfur ? Zimbabwe ? I agree with you. This whole Iraq & Afghanistan debacle just highlights what this "war on terrorism" is really about.
Fighting the Afghans bankrupted the U.S.S.R. What makes us think we can succeed over there ?
Still, I find Obama to be intelligent and thoughtful and open to negotiation. He inspires me. Sure, he's not perfect, but he's our best hope for a change in U.S. foreign policy.
I think you should show this video of the Daily Show
It seems to me that there are many who would like to believe that engaging any country militarily is a bad idea. I disagree. I think that Obama's approach, that being to diplomatically engage the countries that seem to be harboring enemies, and getting THEM to police their own countries in the effort to dismantle training camps, and then providing military aid IF NECESSARY is the best way to go. This is quite the opposite of the bush idea of sending in 150,000 American troops into Iraq and dismantling that country's own military. Even if oil were the ultimate goal in either or both cases, Obama's strategy would be more sound.
As things stand, oil is not the primary goal of engaging Afghanistan and Pakistan either diplomatically OR militarily. The point there is to remove America's actual enemies. And as Obama said, the exchange there is that monetary aid and humanitarian aid will flow into those countries for the betterment of their own people's lives. The military aid is only if these countries lack the ability to deal with the task of taking out the Taliban/Al Qaeda training camps on their own. This aid would be MUCH less extensive (and less expensive) than the deployment in Iraq, because it does not require occupying entire countries; it only requires focusing on much smaller, more concentrated areas.
Get it straight, y'all. Obama's no warmonger. He's no pacifist, but he's not calling for any invasions.
SCHRODINGER'S CAT @ 30:
When the U.S. installs a puppet leader in power, that leader is going to need all the help he can get because he doesn't have the support of a leader chosen by the people for the people.
As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. can cut off aid to Karzai first thing in the morning. That way his government will fall and he'll be replaced by someone who the Afghanis want. But, I doubt the U.S. government would let that happen. God forbid democracy was allowed to flourish in the Middle East. That won't be good for U.S. interests.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 45:
Afghanistan is strategic in Eurasia because it's right smack in the middle of it. If this were still Medieval times and some Afghan had wanted to be Ghenghis Khan instead of Ghenghis Khan, he could well have conquered huge regions of the Eurasian continent. Whoever controls Afghanistan (hopefully it's the Afghans, not the Taliban or us or the Russian Federation or Pakistan), can constrict trade through large parts of Eurasia. There's no oil in Afghanistan, it's mountain country and full of tribal peoples. That last part of my sentence applies to a good deal of Asia, including Southwest Asia, but that's irrelevant. the invasion of Iraq was the real puzzle, it has relatively little value to offer any would-be conquerors, especially after Saddam al-Majid wasted all its resources in an eight-year war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Barack Obama, brought to you by . . . take a wild guess . . .
http://tinyurl.com/56gvuz
Pericles @ 47:
one problem is that there will never be any media coverage to refute the 'inexperienced' meme that the media propagates. However the first political mistake in the Obama trip belongs to McGaffer
Anytime Obama says something sensible, complete with forethought and premeditation(unlike Presidunce Bush), the trolls rush to this site to meritlessly criticize him no matter what he says. This is no accident....it's an orchestrated effort to drag Obama down to Mcdumb's cesspool level...it's all they got.
OH JEEZ. The more Obama tours through these nations, the more his opponents will make it seem like he's visiting terrorist training camps and conferring with his soldiers on how to destroy America. (Since his name is Osama, er, I mean Obama.)
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 49:
No, you don't remember the 1990s real well, it seems, or the period before 9/11. It seemed to me as a kid at the time that all the shows had Chinese as villains, they were painted as thugs and were the Other we were preparing to face. Schoolteachers constantly speculated on war with China, and adults would always be scared of the Chinese for some reason I never understood. Then, out of the blue came 9/11 and it changed, the China-hate became Muslim hate, and Arab Muslim at that. No 9/11 replaces the Islamic threat with the Chinese threat. Remember that scandal at Los Alamos? I would have expected those to increase, and other anti-East Asian bigotry to rise.
paranoia @ 24:
If that's the case, then why aren't we in Africa?
Oh, that's right. They don't have much oil, do they?
These wars are about oil, and nothing but the oil. It's a push to raise gas prices. Nothing more.
That's the plan.
We're not gonna end the war.
Take too long, be too sloppy.
Cost too many jobs.
So, we're just gonna MOVE it.
Somewhere it might work better.
Anyway, it'll be further away.
I like it...
Tony @ 15:
I agree. Usually when I see far left rhetoric that is THAT loonie, I assume it's a Republican mole trying to either get people on this site to spew anti-American venom that Bill O'Reilly can quote, or convince gullible leftists to stay home on election day, giving more elections to Republicans by default.
Yes, voting Democrat is definitely voting for the lesser of two evils, but politics is the art of the possible. If everybody was in the habit of choosing the lesser of two evils every time they had a choice to make, rather than just throwing up their hands and saying "I'm too good for ANY of this," and then heading back to the couch, the world would be a much better place. Our ancestors understood that the fight to build a better world was both a practical and a LONG process. Their only mistake was that they didn't succeed in teaching that principle to us.
Pericles @ 62:
Who is the US to decide what a better world is, and having decided it, to build it? We are not a nation of superheroes, particularly when you consider how we came to have 50 states (I'll give you a hint: the huge continental US region wasn't given out of free will and Hawaii would rather have not joined the US the way it did).
WOW! I'm reading some of these comments and just waiting to see a bone fly through the air.
Liz @ 20:
Couldn't have said it better myself.
BUSH AND MCCAIN ARE SIMPLY LYING AGAIN!
The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki"s comments by The Times: "Obama"s remarks that " if he takes office " in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."
He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."
Maliki was obviously referring to Obama's timeframe because he actually mentioning that it was "16 months". He even goes further by stating that the "better assessment of the situation in Iraq" is the one "who wants to exit in a quicker way". Obama is the one who "wants to exit in a quicker way". Exiting in a "quicker way" has never been something that John McCain or George W. Bush has advocated. Only Barrack Obama has advocated that! Clearly, Maliki agrees with Barack Obama in that he prefers that American forces leave Iraq "quicker" than McCain and Bush claims he does.
Pericles @ 62:
Actually, they used to teach children how to play their part in the political process in civics classes. However, those classes, along with the sciences, and the arts, are under attack by the GOP.
The last thing the NeoCons want people to do is learn.
Crunch @ 40:
Re Colombia, because the US and UK are funding/training the "terrarists" there.
General_Rennenkampf @ 44:
Remember the spy plane incident in the first few months of shrubbies appointed term? Makes you wonder what could have been.
wasaperson @ 64:
These trolls just hate when the guy makes sense. They feed off of bullshit scandals...Obama's starving them right now. LOL.
all hail the hypno toad @ 69:
It's fairly obvious: replace "Islamofascism" and "terrorism" with words that have "Chinese" in them, and you get OTL, only with China instead of UBL.
So the Americans are the good guys, the middle easterners are the bad guys??
Never mind that the American military are the invaders, the American military is torturing civilains, and are killing women and children.....
Who are the real terrorists here?
So what happens when the situation becomes carious?
wasaperson @ 64:
What kind of bone?
ysbaddaden @ 73:
It will no longer be precarious.
Left&Left @ 57:
I'm not a McSame supporter or a troll from the far-right blogosphere. I'm a supporter of this country taking care of their own, first. Secure the borders, keep our wealth inside our own country, let the regions' buffers work out their own problems while we work on our own front yard (then start on our backyard). The War on terror is a fricken mythological hoax that can never be won or contained by applying the same type of violence. The "surge" didn't work. It merely moved the extremists into other countries. Have you ever tried to eliminate a bowl of jello with your fist? I'll vote for Obama only because there are no other so-called anti-war candidates left and 3rd party at this point is laughable. China sits back and waits for America to self-destruct financially and from there, there is nothing left.
General_Rennenkampf @ 54:
Take a look at the three 'critical to the war on terrraahhh' countries: Afghanistan, Iraq and the as-yet-uninvaded Pakistan. What country is in the middle of this.
Other than withdrawing OBL if he's there I don't see the point of reinvading Afghanistan.
We can't keep trying to install democracy at gun point
The idea is an oxymoron.
And if we're afraid of Al Qaeda still or the Taliban, I think the poppy warlords will take care of that.
General_Rennenkampf @ 54:
The U.S. backed Saddam back in the 80s and pushed him to war with Iran, because the U.S. has long viewed Iran and more particularly the spread of the Shia influence in the Middle East as a threat. Remember, divide and concur?
Then, in the 90s the U.S. gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq in August of 1990 knew that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait and gave him the nod.
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait paved the way for the U.S. to start it's containment plan for Iraq. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the excuse the U.S. needed to gain the support of the internatioal community.
After Clinton's sanctions in the 90s, Bush decided to go ahead and invade in 2003. It was a twofer. The U.S. would establish permanent bases in Iraq while cutting off Iran (Shia) from the Sunnis in the east (Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia).
Now, this is where the marriage of convenience comes in; Saudi Arabia has long recognized the geopolitical and economic threat Iran poses to its regional influence and has been helping the U.S. ever since. The U.S. considers Saudi Arabia to be a useful tool and a loyal ally. And so it goes that Iraq happens to be smack in the Middle of the Muslim world. Divide and Concur.
General_Rennenkampf @ 63:
Uh...actually, there are 51 states, General. But I guess this is proof that the 'No Child Left Behind' policy excludes teaching and testing Civics classes for a reason.
Left&Left @ 70:
Yeah, the guy strings together a few complete sentences and our eyes are supposed to glaze over and we're supposed to forget what this fucker did to the Fourth Amendment two weeks ago. Right.
http://tinyurl.com/56gvuz
And I still say if we get a lead on OBL (and he's not already dead) in either Pakistan or Afghanistan, we send in Special Forces undercover, and send a bunch of kids from Gooberville Texas.
pissed off patricia @ 21:
Maybe a temper tantrum is in order.
Oopsie
And NOT send a bunch of kids from Gooberville Texas.
liberalNmoderation @ 83:
From who, mcgramps?
General_Rennenkampf @ 59:
you'll
no military solution to guerilla warfare...negotiations
and diplomacy..good video opinion about canada/u.s.
in afghanistan
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It...
Pericles @ 80:
51? It's been awhile since I took US History, but I consider myself pretty well informed.
When did we acquire a 51st state? Seriously! I'm not being sarcastic here...for once...did Puerto Rico become a state?
ysbaddaden @ 85:
Naw! McGramps need a nap...and a breath mint.
A sentence at a time:
cg @ 65:
"Obama isn't a warmonger, you idiots. --okay, he's a war-enabler. Close enough, i my book.
"He might not sound like Kucinich, who wants to dismantle the Defense Dept, but Obama has an interest in protecting this country from the REAL threats that are out there, and to do it in a way that shows we're not a country full of sadists and bullies." --Kucenich doesn't want to dismantle the Defense Department, he wants to dismantle the WAR Department, and start a Peace Department. Obama's already said he wants to (a grotesque metaphor, given the context) "grow" the Army and the Marines. Those are the ground-taking and ground-holding arms of the military. That means "growing" a "defense" budget that already exceeds the total military expenditures by every other nation on the globe by nearly exponential factors.
"So you want a candidate who says he/she will never ever engage in any military conflict?" --No, I want a candidate who says discussions of what is on or off the table should awati getting to the table.
"The American people don't want a pacifist for president." -- How's that going, these days? That Eye-Rack thing? That killing for peace thing? That's cooking, right. Goin' well? Right?
"They want someone who shows leadership and, like Obama, the ability to listen and be pragmatic. And they want someone who makes them feel safe. "--They want "24" on the big-screen, a 30-pak of Lite in the fridge and the pizza boy at the door...a full tank of gas, too, i guess...
"Right now we don't feel safe, we are not safe, and we need someone to reassure us that he is looking out for our interests here at home and all over the world." --That's what Bush spent the last 8 years saying he was doing iirc... and nothing I've heard Obama say is gonna make us any safer, or any freer. He'll never abandon the regime of supervision and surveillance that is already making us 'safer.' He'll never fully relinquish the powers the busheviks have arrogated to the Office. He'll say a lot about it, but it ain'ta gonna happa.
I dunno how it's come to this, but when your "savior" is a milquetoast centrist, i'm redy to give the pfuque up on the 'pendulum.'
Crunch @ 79:
You missed the part where the oil in Iraq was once handled by corporations. Saddam Hussein nationalized it. So, we get the 'war on terraahhh!!!' and we invade Iraq and suddenly oil contracts appear mysteriously for 35 companies for the oil that was once nationalized. The holdouts were the big5 amero-british oil giants who wanted to own the oil fields.
net result: no longer nationalized oil.
Pericles @ 80:
Please name the fifty first state.
barkin @ 36:
Very well said. Obama's bellicose rhetoric is reminiscent of what was said during the Vietnam War by LBJ, McNamara, Walt Rostow, McGeorge Bundy, et al. This past weekend, Obama declared that the U.S. must stay in Afghanistan until "the job is done" which is almost verbatim what our leaders said about Vietnam. This is the person whom so many people have been fooled into believing is a "peace candidate." Wanting to shift U.S. forces from Iraq to Afghanistan does not make one a peace candidate. Agent of hope and change? Far from it.
liberalNmoderation @ 88:
puerto rico, israel and washington, dc...that makes 50, right?
The "War On Terror" is our red herring, our "Red Menace". Afghanistan is still just another illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that did not threaten us. We killed thousands of civilians. If Obama is willing to gloss over that and use Bushspeak, instead of vowing to pull out now, he will continue with our usual military agressions. BTW, this opinion does not make me a de facto McCain supporter.
General_Rennenkampf @ 59: [retrying...]
The los alamos scandal was reversed on evidence, just as it had been fabricated. the stoled hard-drive re-appeared on premises. they still ended up mildly mistreating the victim(alleged spy?), but at least he did not get the free plane trip to Tangiers. I wouldn't be suprised if the chinese used the head of walmart as an intermediary
barkin @ 36:
Pres. Caligula & co. created this perfect shit storm and yet you blame Obama before he takes office? Projecting a little?
pissed off patricia @ 92:
CONFUSION?
pissed off patricia @ 92:
The State of Insanity, one of which we all reside in.
For anyone wondering.
50 states and 1 district*; Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 98:
LOL
why do we have to send more troops to Afghanistan? Why? Why don't we get out? Someone.please.explain. that.to.me. For that reason, Obama is no better than McCain. Nader is the last hope (real hope, that is ).
WakeUpAmerica! @ 102:
"Obama is no better than McCain" Do you get out much, read the news, pay attention to the reality of the world?
I was down in the thinking room, excreting my thoughts, and it occurred to me, isn't Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan from PNAC? Sort of like the Afghani version of Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress?
Do we want a Democratic administration buttressing up another failed plan of PNAC at the cost of more American lives?
Mayhaps we're still in Iraq, not just for the embassy we're building through slave labor, but we still plan on installing Chalabi, and that may be why Nouri Al Maliki wants us the hell out.
kali yuga @ 81:
Sure shit for brains, Obama single handedly destroyed the Fourth Amendment and is the ONLY person who voted for FISA, so it's all his fault. And of course we all should now vote for the alternative...McVomit....who also supported the bill but didn't even bother to vote. You people are shitty at trolling.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 91:
Thank you. Good point.
pissed off patricia @ 103:
Why is Obama pro=war?
If hawaii can be a state, puerto rico could (if it desires, should) be one, too. Hawai'i's further away, if anything; Puerto Rico's only about 1000 miles from Miami, but Honololu's about 2500 miles from LA.
Left&Left @ 105:
Obama voted FOR FISA . . . you can't dress it up or change it! He's a phony and a traitor. Why can't his supporters face the reality of this?
WakeUpAmerica! @ 102:
"Obama is no better than Mcain" and Ralph "the living dead" Nader is our last hope? LOL. Now I want you to write "Supreme Court" one thousand times!
WakeUpAmerica! @ 109:
Because you can't face reality.
Left&Left @ 110:
Is obama progressive enough for you or are you just 'giving up and giving in' because you have 'no where else to go'? which is it? You certainly don't sound like someone who is willing to sacrifice much to change this country. If you vote for McCain OR Obama you vote for the status quo . . .if you believe otherwise then you are truly naive.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 102:
Jersey Jay @ 95:
Intelligently and articulately stated. For the United States to invade Aghanistan even though it never threatened anyone in this country was clearly an illegal act. For Obama to claim that he is against more violence in Iraq while sending more troops into Afghanistan is hypocrisy of the highest rank. Obama should be forced to explain why it's more acceptable to kill a man who is fighting for his country in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq. Yet the media refuses to hold his feet to the fire on this issue and all the while innocent Afghanis are getting blown up and maimed and crippled by American bombs. As Kucinich has correctly pointed out in the past, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil.
Crunch @ 79:
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 77:
@ Bascombe and Crunch:
So? Invading Iraq was catastrophically stupid. Invading Iran is suicidal. Why do you think it's always "bomb" Iran, not "invade" Iran? Iraq was a Soviet ally, and it only became a US one when both the USSR and the US financed Saddam against Iran. The Soviets because they had no desire for an Islamic revival among their oppressed Muslim peoples, the US because it smarted from Iran manhandling the Army. This conspiracy theory fails for another reason: Saudi Arabia had as much to fear from the fall of Saddam as it does from Iran. Iraqs are standard fare in Africa, but since no nation in the Middle East wanted that level of danger, why ally with an invasion that was only going to produce something like this, which most Middle Eastern nations knew it would? Furthermore, Iraq was hideously vulnerable in 1990 from spending like Bush did, with no means to make it up, and so it looked to tiny Kuwait as a get-rich-free card. The US was looking for somebody to fight while the USSR was in disentegration. Saddam makes a clumsy move not typical of his leadership, and Voila! The Second Gulf War. This third one, though, has no justification whatsoever. Iraq's fatally weakened after the Gulf War, led by a secular despot, perfectly positioned to keep Israel and Iran from doing what they're doing now...
This invasion is a war crime all on its own, no need for a conspiracy theory involving the GOP.
Ron @ 111:
Are you in denial? You are willing to give up to the corporate interests (McCain or Obama, or Bush are all the same) . What do you get by voting for Obama? What will he give you? Nothing. Third party is the only way to send this country and the corporate interests a real message. If you vote for either mainstream candidate you vote for "NO CHANGE". I dare you to refute that.
Pericles @ 80:
Somebody fell asleep on the day they learned US states in geography, there's only 50 states, 1 district, several insular areas, and one quasicolony that we forgot to give up after the Spanish-American war.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 96:
Considering how close together the spy plane incident, Los Alamos, and a few other incidents were, it was fairly obvious who the Big Bad would have been with no 9/11. Communism! Red Hordes! Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
pissed off patricia @ 103:
Why is Obama PRO-WAR? I am still waiting for your answer.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 112:
No difference between the two? So McDumb and Obama would appoint the same type of Supreme Court Justices? You have a good day.
Left&Left @ 105:
The Obamabot mind recognizes only two kinds of people. There are those who drop eagerly to their knees at the mere thought of Barack Obama. All others are trolls.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 115:
3rd party vote will only help the repugnants.
Left&Left @ 119:
How the heck do you know who Obama would appoint? Do you trust him to appoint people that would really change anything? I certainly don't after his performance over the last few weeks. What a disaster. America needs REAL CHANGE and neither Obama nor McCain are prepared to provide it. That's the reality.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 6:
He was cogent, informed, eloquent and no, it was not a complete rehash of the Bush doctrine, it was a clear understanding of where we are now, how we got here, and what we have to do.
No matter you're viewpoint on 9/11...conspiracy theory or not...unless you can PROVE it...it's a theory. I deal in facts. The facts...the Taliban harbored Al Quada and whether Al Quada acted alone or with US assistance, bottom line...they were the enemy and Afghanistan was the battlefield. We've blown it to this point, and anyone with a clear understanding of history knows that if you fail in Afghanistan, it has repercussions for you as a nation.
Unfortunately, the bottom line is...the fighting men and women aren't coming home right away. THey are going from one theatre to another. Do I like it? NO. Because the Afghan war might have been over by now if Bush hadn't blundered into Iraq. But he did, nothing we can do about it now...except cut our losses and move to where the fight really should have been.
Bush has destablized the entire region now, we can't walk away. Not now. That's a fact of life...for humanitarian reasons, global economic reasons and geopolitical reasons.
Don't blame Barack for that. He didn't create this mess.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 91:
Hm, so the US invaded Iraq over oil nationalization? What, did subtlety disappear in politics somehow? Why wouldn't the US have pulled another Ajax instead of an invasion? Much smoother, and less likely to attract media attention. After all, Mossadeqh's fate showed the US could arrange more subtle things than this....
Liberal AND Proud @ 123:
There's no "if you fail" the failing already happened in 1979, we're just sticking our dicks in the meat grinder.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 122:
Reality is we know what kind of SCOTUS McCain will appoint.
Ron @ 121:
The reason that nothing change is because people keep believing that to be true (it isn't true). If people would get behind a candidate who sincerely wants to change things then there would be a change; obama and bush and mccain are ultimately cut from the same corporate cloth. tell me why that isn't true. you know that that is the truth. if you have principles you would turn your back on obama and he would HAVE TO RESPOND. He is ignoring the progressives and calling them (implicitly) suckers for believing in his primary 'trash-talk'. He didn't have to support FISA (it gained him nothing and lost him a ton of credibility). Please explain why anyone who loves America would support a man like that.
Left&Left @ 97:
yes... i am projecting a little... maybe, just maybe, he is saying what he needs to say to get into office, then turn around and pledge half of the pentagon budget to help end world hunger, thus decreasing world hatred of the u.s, and making the world a more peaceful place... but he seems to eccept the war on (of)terra meme, and is backing the mayor of kabul, karzai... karzai is an ex-vp of alcoa, and was installed by bushco... either he is playing dumb, or is, as i said, the cosmetic change needed to continue the war party... GO NADER...
Ron @ 126:
For McPapen to appoint a SCOTUS, Roberts would have to die in the next 8 years. The Supremes are for life, remember, and even if he were forced to retire, a young, ambitious man retiring for another appointment will raise all sorts of eyebrows even among non-conspiracy theorists.
Ron @ 126:
Then don't vote for McCan .. . .but how can you support someone like Obama is pro-war, too!
barkin @ 128:
Nader? Hahahahahahha, vote Socialist if you want a real Leftist in office. Yes, Virginia, there's an American Socialist Party and it already has a nominee.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 127:
Instead of trying to control your argument, answer me this. Which 3rd party candidate would you vote for? There are several.
kali yuga @ 120:
Make that three, assclown. The third is the I'm right and you're an idiot if you don't follow my verbiage verbatim. Your bullshit is de ja vu from the Hillary disciples.
barkin @ 128:
I agree . . .I refuse to capitulate like Obama did and continues to do. He's nothing but a typical politician (I never supported or trusted him from the beginning). Anyone who is truly anti-war, pro-constitution, and pro-America should not be voting for McCain OR Obama.
General_Rennenkampf @ 131:
Are you pro-war?
WakeUpAmerica! @ 134:
As I said, vote Socialist Party, they could use the boost.
kali yuga @ 81:
kali yuga, That's a valid point (and thank you for the irony-image-catalogue link). I'm
very concerned about the 4th and all the rest. I do not think a lesser 'evil' exists either. Politicians have the right hand stretched out in greeting and left in their pocket. This politician has a left pocket full of fives, tens and twenties and hundreds....it is the people's pocket- not the lobbyist's. There is always a time and place. We get ahead of ourselves. It is what we do. Anyone who thinks that a president alone can change a country whole has never worked under someone else.
I don't think that "this f___er" did this single handed and I doubt that the left pockets of those others itch the way his will. Oh I almost forgot: Afghanistan?
WakeUpAmerica! @ 135:
No, pro-panhumanism.
Ron @ 132:
Any third party candidate who is for ending the 'wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan will get my vote in November.
General_Rennenkampf @ 129:
You have 2 SCOTUS who will be retiring or dying in the near future. It wouldn't have to be Roberts. I thought you were smarter than that.
General_Rennenkampf @ 136:
Are you pro-war?
138 General_Rennenkampf
No, pro-panhumanism.
__________________________________________________
You want us to dance around in cloven hooves playing pipes with the accompaniment of drunken semi-nude nereids?
Where do I sign up?
Ron @ 140:
Oh, I misread. I thought you were talking about the Chief Justiceship for a moment. Yes, Ginsburg and...Souter, I think are retiring in the next term. God help us if McPapen wins, or should I make that a prayer to the old gods and say: Tyr and Odin, somebody please give a little smackdown to the Repubs here, pretty please?
ysbaddaden @ 142:
me too!
I thought pro-panhumanism was Hank Hill's life's work.
ysbaddaden @ 142:
Hah, I wish it were panhumanism and that my ancestors had been Hellenes. Unfortunately I'm Rugian and Mumha and another Celtic tribe in Mercia I can't remember.
General_Rennenkampf @ 143:
The Supreme Court issue is a dead issue because the states each have control of their own destiny (e.g., gay marriage issue). Women are no longer frightened about losing their right to an abortion because it will never happen.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 139:
How would you know? You claim that all politicians are liars. How can you know that a 3rd party candidate will not continue or lead us into war? You can't.
WakeUpAmerica! @ 147:
My God, you are sooo uninformed.
kali yuga @ 120:
actually thier are three kinds of obama supporters the third one is they are more then willing to drop thier drawers and bend over forwards for him!
Login or Register to post comments.