Harrelson is an anti-American propagandist. http://www.copycatwatch.org No surprise Chris Matthews agrees with him.

___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chucks-pix/

Woody Harrelson is such a foreign policy genius!  Obama should get down on his knees and thank the man for such brilliant insights.

Come one people.....Woody can play dumb and pour beer!!!  He's eminently qualified to be dispensing strategic and tactical military advice. 

Thank you Chris Matthews, for  such a startling original and high minded analysis of Afghanistan.  What a journalist!!!  What great bookers on your show!!!

OK, sarc off.  I can't keep it up any longer, as much as I try.

I hope he fails, too.

These were questions Matthews asked him, and he answered them through his own prism of understanding.

But he followed with "But then again I’m just an actor. " 

It's not as though Matthews asked him how he felt about his dad, Charles Harrelson, killing a Federal Judge.  Of that, I'd be interested in an opinion.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart

All I can say is, "Woody Harrelson is a DUNCE!" But then again, so is Sissy Chrissy.

OH, HE ISN"T!! 

Woody Harrelson is so dumb that on the TV series 'Cheers'  his name had to be 'Woody', because otherwise he would forget what it was and miss his lines. From this man we should take advice on the war in Afghanistan?

matthews respects harrelsons opinon because they have similar credentials and occupations. Harrelson pretends to be other people for a living and matthews pretends to be a journalist.

Holeinthehull

Woody Harrelson is an idiot without even trying and probably carries a card in his pocket that says so.  The guy is a certified burned out "head." For Chris Matthews to say the POTUS should follow Woodhead's advice is laughable unless Woodhead's advice is "roll me another one  Pres."  Another day and another time the Pres. might have accomodated Woodhead

holeinthehull.com

You know, I remember this from the 90s, the way woody and chrissy seem to talk with each other, they remind me of the furbies, how they react to certain stimuli, and if you get two of those things together, it's almost like they are trying to talk to each other and make absolutely NO sense!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furby

Anyone remember those goofy toys?  My nephew had one and it drove my family NUTS!(he was also into Pokemon for a while too and the Power Rangers, OY!)

That's what these two jokers remind me of.

-Jon

Memories of Vietnam Haunt War, but Scarcely Apply
By GERALD F. SEIB

The comparisons roll off tongues easily in Washington these days: Vietnam and Afghanistan, both home to far-away, maddeningly intractable struggles. The former became a quagmire that devoured a presidency; might the latter as well?

Every significant foreign conflict since the mid-1970s has, almost inevitably, been compared to Vietnam. In Ronald Reagan's first term, for example, Washington buzzed with speculation that El Salvador might turn out to be "his Vietnam."

Despite some obvious parallels, the U.S. war in Afghanistan is nothing like the failed effort in Vietnam some three decades ago, WSJ's Gerald Seib explains.
There are some surface similarities between the Vietnam War and the conflict in Afghanistan. But the list of differences is far longer, and more profound. Those differences suggest that while it is certainly possible that Afghanistan could consume the Obama presidency as Vietnam did Lyndon Johnson's, that outcome is likely only if there is some massive expansion of the Afghan problem in coming years, and a massive mishandling of it by the Obama administration.

In each place, the U.S. has had the misfortune to pick -- or, more correctly, to have history pick for it -- a confrontation in a land with a long history of beating back foreign forces.

In both Vietnam and Afghanistan, the U.S. has been trying to help allied governments widely seen as weak and corrupt. In both countries, the insurgents the U.S. is trying to quell often have proved adept at both fighting and governing at the grassroots level.

But then the comparison breaks down. The differences start with the rationale for fighting in the first place. There was never an attack on the continental U.S. launched from Vietnam, or by people trying to take over the Vietnamese government. The "domino theory" that Communists would slowly spread influence if Vietnam fell was an abstraction to many Americans.

"In the case of Afghanistan, the memory of 9/11 remains a powerful rationale for most Americans to support the war," says Mark Moyar, a historian at the U.S. Marine Corps University who has written books on both Vietnam and counterinsurgency operations.

The level of American commitment in Vietnam was simply an order of magnitude greater than any commitment either made or contemplated in Afghanistan. At the end of 1968, the height of the American military commitment in Vietnam, the U.S. had about 540,000 troops in the country. Even now, after eight years in Afghanistan, the number of troops there or headed there is about 68,000. Even if President Barack Obama grants the full wish of the American Afghan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for more troops, the American contingent in Afghanistan won't reach even a quarter of the level in Vietnam.

Staffing that war required a military draft, which leads to a related and important difference: Today there is no military draft, which did as much as anything to drive up domestic resistance to the struggle in Vietnam.

Nor is the violence American forces face comparable. A total of 866 American troops have died in Afghanistan in the eight years of American action there, according to the Brookings Institution's Afghanistan Index. By contrast, there were 58,193 American deaths in the long Vietnam conflict, over almost two decades of American involvement, according to the National Archives database.

"The enemy armed forces are not nearly as powerful," says Mr. Moyar. "By the biggest estimate, the Afghan insurgents have something like 25,000 people, and they are operating in small packets here and there. It's a big deal if they can get 100 people together at a time."

The U.S. and its South Vietnamese allies were fighting not just the Viet Cong insurgency -- the force often compared to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan -- but also a large and well-equipped regular army from North Vietnam.

"From a military perspective and a counterinsurgency perspective, the most important difference is that there is no North Vietnam in this equation," says Fred Kagan, an Afghanistan analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "Yes, it's true that Pakistan provides some sanctuary and support. But the thing that brought down South Vietnam in the end was the North Vietnamese army."

All of that, in turn, leads to perhaps the most significant difference: Vietnam was a proxy fight in a superpower struggle, with both the Soviet Union and China giving massive aid to America's foes. Neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda in Afghanistan has that advantage.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
 

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

"Woody Harrelson "attended Hanover College in Indiana, majoring in theater arts and English. He never graduated but was later given honorary degrees."

Oh, yeah.  Let's consult some college dropout, whose majors were theater arts and English, about military strategy.  You know with his coursework he would just have to be an expert in just about everything, especially geopolitics and military strategy.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

 I was startin' ta like ya again after Zombieland but you had to open your mouth and start talking from your insulated ivory tower Hollywood herd mentality.

 White Men Can't Jump, and Hollywood Needs To Shut Up About Policy.

WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)