Obama's speech was the same tired spew we got from Bush. Gotta stick it out, stand tough, fight terrorism, it's up to the Afghan people.

The criticism isn't anything new, either. Can't have timelines or accountability, or the bad guys will just wait us out.

Bush's FUCKUP, but now it's Obama's War.

Nixon didn't start the war in Vietnam, he inherited it, and despite escalation with the bombings in Cambodia, essentially was the one who lost it.

If Obama ended Afghanistan now, or lowered commitments it would be seen by future historians indubitably, as his not agreeing with the war and budgeting priorities, but after last night if we leave without a clear win, it'll mean the same historians will say he "lost" he war.

And the odds are at best all we can achieve is a political stalemate, with neither a clear-cut win or loss, and that will be at the cost of how many dollars and how many lives?

Glenn Greenwald 12/02/09 The commendably missing element from Obama's speech here

I've written many times before why, on security grounds alone, I oppose escalation and even ongoing occupation. The greatest cause of Terrorism is our endless wars, invasions, bombings, occupations and other means of interfering in the Muslim world, and our escalation will only fuel the anti-American hatred and resentment that -- as even our own Government has recognized -- is the primary fuel of the threat we're supposedly trying to arrest. For that reason, Obama's escalation is, in my view, more likely to subvert rather than promote the security goals he cites to justify it.

John Pilger, 7/04/09, Obama and Empire here

I paraphrase:

The United States is the greatest sponsor of state terrorism since WWII. It has overthrown 50 democratically elected governments and suppressed 30 liberation movements.

There is no limit to Cheney's lies and eviiiiiil.