Barack Obama might be taking some flak for his accusations against US troops in Afghanistan. But not to worry: the MSM has got his back. At a recent campaign event, Obama stated:
We've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.
The Associated Press was quick in coming to Obama's aid, putting forth a putative news article suggesting that Obama was right. Wrote the AP:
A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians.
But as Jim Geraghty has pointed out at the National Review Online:
Yeah, that's great. Too bad that's not what Obama said. What he said was, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."If Obama had said something about which side has inflicted more civilian casualties, the AP's "fact check" would be relevant. But his statement was about putting more ground troops into Afghanistan so that U.S. policy will be more than "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." We've established that statement is horsepuckey. You would figure all the pictures of ground troops, paratroopers, and artillery would be a sign that we're not just using air power.
Hot Air [a Michelle Malkin blog] says, "That’s not an article, it’s a campaign press release."
Now NBC has chimed in, also riding to Obama's defense. At "First Read," the NBC political blog, Deputy Political Director Mark Murray [pictured here], first recites the RNC's response to Obama's comments:
It is hard to imagine that anyone who aspires to be commander-in-chief would say such a thing about our brave men and women in uniform. Obama owes our armed forces an apology -- today.
But then writes Murray : "Yet the AP has this fact-check" [emphasis added]. Murray proceeds to recite the AP "fact check" set forth above. Translation: Murray of NBC sides with AP's Obama defense, not the RNC criticism.
Barack Obama, proud graduate of the John Kerry Winter Solider School of Defaming the U.S. Military. And in a time of war, count on the MSM to align itself with our military's critics.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Obama
August 14, 2007 - 21:48 ET by allanfWith friends like Obama who needs enemies. The military's toughest opponent may be the appeasers in the Democrat party.
Obama is receiving some spectacular covering fire from the main stream media. There is little he can say for which he will be held accountable.
Obama
August 14, 2007 - 22:04 ET by botgnow if Rudy had said that preventing genocide was not a good reason to intervene he would be on the front page depicted as a heartless neo-con AND if he then covered his tracks by saying we must invade an ally (Pakistan) he'd be on the front pages with a dunce cap. But Obama can do both and get a report and quick burial of the story.
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
-
August 14, 2007 - 22:14 ET by dahliatraversThis guy is embarassingly ill-informed (though presumably not ill-educated).
Remember, people, the Vice-Presidency is neither a consolation nor a guilt-assuaging prize. Anyone lacking the knowledge, skills and temperment to be president should not be first in line as replacement.
He also wants to invade our
August 14, 2007 - 21:56 ET by BlazerHe also wants to invade our shaky ally, nuclear armed Pakistan, put more troops in Afghanistan, all the while knowing damn well they wont' be able to just arbitrarily start pulling troops from Iraq.
Sounds like Obama want's to expand war not end it, but I guess it's allright when it's their war, and not Bush's. But let us all not forget, only Republicans can be chickenhawks.
Oh the irony, and the hypocrisy.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Blazer, Barry, you know,
August 14, 2007 - 22:07 ET by BlondeBlazer,
Barry, you know, the really "clean" lib....wants to make sure we do things properly in Iraq. ....you know, like this.... his ultimate foreign policy statement (????)
Answering a question on how he would refocus U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism, he said, "We've to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
What, I'm a tad confused about his statement, though, obviously, WTF is the "air-raiding" thing? What's up with that?
Spare me from junior senators, please!!!!
You mean freshman senator,
August 14, 2007 - 22:10 ET by third eyeYou mean freshman senator, Blonde
Riiiigggghhht... I meant
August 14, 2007 - 22:38 ET by BlondeRiiiigggghhht...
I meant the new meat senator. The one with no opinions....except for stupid ones. Obamination is too good of a word for this freak!
What a freaking fool (spare me, but me fingers kept trying to spell a nasty word...LOL)
Well Blonde I am
August 14, 2007 - 22:36 ET by BlazerWell Blonde I am confused too, I posted the same quote here yesterday, and saw it as attributed to him on Iraq. Now for some reason I see it being attributed to him today on Afghanistan.
If attributed to Iraq, I took him as meaning we still dont' have enough troops on the ground there now, even after the surge, if our guys are supposedly "air raiding villages, and killing civillians".
Also he has made the statements about more troops in Afghanistan, and invading Pakistan. Sounds like an expansion of the theatre, not a reduction in force, and if one would do all of this no doubt it would soon kick off a conflageration with Iran.
This coming from a guy who likes to proudly exclaim every chance he gets, he didn't vote to go to war.
Now I dont' want to go too far out on a limb, or put the tin-foil hat on, but I wonder if this tough talk is a stupid ploy designed to draw in conservative voters, to try, and market himself as a better alternative to Clinton, being we conservatives should all know by know from their buds in the MSM our guys have no hope in getting elected. Vote for Socialism, or Socialism lite.
Sound like a warhawk, and then after the election do the ol' gotcha, the bait, and switch.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
-
August 14, 2007 - 22:44 ET by dahliatraversexclaim every chance he gets, he didn't vote to go to war
Seriously, how does he reconcile all of this for the [Democrat] primary voters he is supposed to be wooing right now?
I dont' know dahlia,
August 14, 2007 - 22:56 ET by BlazerI dont' know dahlia, but I didn't see too much outcry from the Democrats, on the liberal blogs, or from the MSM for his statements.
Kind of threw all that out there as a question.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Blazer, I saw the Barry
August 14, 2007 - 22:47 ET by BlondeBlazer,
I saw the Barry (it's easy to refer to him this way, yes?) quote today.
And if one takes it in it's context...it really doesn't matter what the hell he's talking about. It makes him sound like the total idiot and foriegn policy moron he is....
He complains about the U.S. "air-raiding"?
Hillary tries to come across as a "hawk"....but even she's not so stupid as to say idiot stuff. (Oh, how I wish). I'm just waiting on her to pop off stupidly on this subect, though.
But Barry (Madrasa) blew it....big time!
Well then I guess he will
August 14, 2007 - 23:00 ET by BlazerWell then I guess he will just continue to spout off until he becomes her VP candidate, which we all know is going to happen anyway.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Obama definately said Afghanistan
August 15, 2007 - 06:02 ET by SouthJersey1953Sean Hannity played the audio clip on his radio program yesterday. Obama definately said Afghanistan.
He is a complete idiot.
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
new Dem non-strategy
August 14, 2007 - 21:56 ET by third eyeObama's gameplan is this..say the exact opposite of whatever the "Republican Establishment" would say and hope for the best. It doesn't matter what you say, because in the beauty contest that is Dem politics, he is doing OK.
Well the MSM is going to
August 14, 2007 - 22:02 ET by mlongWell the MSM is going to protect their chosen running mate for Hillary no matter what....and thats what it's all about the MSM wants a Hill/Obama ticket in the worst way...it's a liberal 's ultimate fantasy come to life.
********** John Edwards '08 ***********
"More woman than Hillary,more black than Obama!"
He's probably practicing.
August 14, 2007 - 23:33 ET by Chris NormanHe's probably practicing. As Hillary's presumptive running mate, he'll be the one to make the outrageous charges and serve up the red tofu "meat" to the liberals, allowing the queen bee to "take the high road"...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Cue Mighty Mouse theme music.....
August 14, 2007 - 22:03 ET by motherbelt"Here we come to save the daaaaaay....the mainstream media is on the waaaaaaaay...
-
August 14, 2007 - 22:05 ET by dahliatraverslol
Who else would come to the
August 14, 2007 - 22:04 ET by Senior ChiefWho else would come to the rescue of a leftoid, but fellow...leftoid.
A question
August 14, 2007 - 22:06 ET by third eyeIf a democrat makes a gaffee in the middle of the MSM forest, does it make a sound?
Obama would have been
August 14, 2007 - 22:05 ET by Gat New YorkObama would have been better served if he spent some time in the Senate and found out how grown ups do things regarding foreign policy.
GROWN-UPs in Senate?
August 15, 2007 - 07:49 ET by PawpawNWhich country's Senate are we talking about? Surely not ours, with all the CHILDISH things they do and say!
They like him
August 14, 2007 - 22:29 ET by Reality CheckThey like him... they really, really like him.
Reality Check
We've got to get the job
August 14, 2007 - 22:37 ET by MidAmericaObama: We've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.
He didn't get this information from our military so evidentely Obama get's his information from the Taliban.
Actually been to Afganistan
August 15, 2007 - 01:23 ET by SlicksterI failed to ever see any indiscrimate killing of civilians, Obama is a buffoon. I'm trying to figure out how he is going to invade Pakistan without killing anyone.
Tsk!Tsk!
August 15, 2007 - 02:42 ET by Army BratMaybe his parents can control this unruly child. Happy Trails...
}}---> Obama's Pedigree
August 15, 2007 - 02:48 ET by Cool ArrowHis mom a Bleedin heart Liberal and Dad a "we don't talk about him" Muslim.
Perfect upbringing for the leader of the free world.
Maybe that's the reason why
August 15, 2007 - 05:43 ET by rob6677Maybe that's the reason why he can't get a cab.
no need rob
August 15, 2007 - 05:56 ET by Cool ArrowAnn Coulter is #1 on my list of must reads. In a battle of wits, her opponents are unarmed.
Due out today, isn't she?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Yes she is, I am thankful I
August 15, 2007 - 06:04 ET by rob6677Yes she is, I am thankful I found NB to fill the void while waiting for her column.
cool -- I fear Obama is
August 16, 2007 - 05:29 ET by Jack Bauercool -- I fear Obama is only qualified to be leader of the Twee World.
Twee world
August 16, 2007 - 05:43 ET by Cool ArrowHow absolutely fabulous that would be.
Keep on rockin in the twee world.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Rockin' in the twee
August 16, 2007 - 05:49 ET by Jack BauerRockin' in the twee world..
With rock candy mountains, soda streams, chocolate trees, puppy dogs and kittens gambol free, everyone skips and jumps in perfect harmony.
And Martha Stewart is Queen., and Prince Obama rules with a velvet gloved fist.
slickster -- maybe Obama is
August 16, 2007 - 05:26 ET by Jack Bauerslickster -- maybe Obama is going to invade with our words, then love bomb the enemy from the airways.
we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians
August 15, 2007 - 07:12 ET by PShannon"... we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians ..."
Yo, Obama, the Taliban and al-Qaeda ARE CIVILIANS!
Are you suggesting we don't kill them?
we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians
August 16, 2007 - 05:09 ET by chuckoI'm not an Obama supporter (though would label myself a dem-leaning independent), but a little common sense and context is due here. What on Earth do you think Obama is talking about when he says "We've got to get the job done over there"? Sounds Bush-like doesn't it? So you should obviously conclude that he's saying we've got to terminate al Qaeda/Taliban, but we have to do so better and more effectively than Western allies have been doing lately:
"As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths during a meeting last week with President Bush."
Yes, Obama could have said it more eloquently like the AP but it doesn't change that it's happening of late, and it is not un-American or "against our troops" to point out these kinds of facts.
And we're gonna have to defeat these bastards on the ground, with good intel from the locals we can trust.
Finally, whether it's the National Review or a NB author, you know that every Congressman, Republican/Democrat knows we have GROUND troops in Afghanistan. Don't construe his AIR-RAIDING statement to mean that he's unaware of what military units we have over there. Give me a break! He was making the point that airraids into villages where suspected insurgents are have done more harm (in civilian casualties) than good, NOT that this is ALL that our troops are doing in the nearly 6 years they've been hunting the terrorists down there.
Oh yeah, and comparing his statement to John Kerry is a low blow - what Obama is saying can and as I stated above, can be backed up with actual facts.
Kerry, not so much.
And you believe the AP.
August 16, 2007 - 05:19 ET by Jack BauerAnd you believe the AP. Wow. Talk about naive.
Please let me know where the DisAssociated Press gets its so-called figures from?
I believe Adolph Hitler used to express his concern to FDR about the German civilian deaths in WW2, too.
you get what you asked for
August 16, 2007 - 22:07 ET by chuckoFrom the August 14 AP article:
"The U.S. and NATO say they don't have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials."
}}---> Following your logic, chucko
August 16, 2007 - 05:21 ET by Cool ArrowAccording to you logic we must cease the use of airstrikes for fear civilians are present.
Maybe we could giftwrap our soldiers for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We kicked holy crap out of some brightly colored British troops who followed your ingenious military strategy.
Give Obama a break? Why, because of his panderlerious support for the enemy?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
where is YOUR logic
August 16, 2007 - 22:43 ET by chuckoWhere on Earth did you get the notion that I was or am against using airstrikes to kill terrorists? All I said is that our military tactics in Afghanistan have to be more effective if we're going to win this fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Besides, I support the use of Patriot and other missiles to defeat our enemies - my dad designed some of the early and later Patriot missiles and others.
And by the way, if you really think it's antiAmerican for anyone (nevermind Obama) to point out that we or our NATO allies have been killing civilians in Afghanistan and need to stop or lessen those deaths, you need to politically just GROW UP.
No information No respect No Common sense
August 15, 2007 - 07:30 ET by Six String SpiffWell, Barack must have opened his mouth again, because the MSM is in 'translation' mode for this idiot. Every time this man opens his mouth, the inanity of his 'statements' increases exponentially. Keep talking Barack. Remeind every informed citizen why they shouldn't vote for a freshman Senator.
The American Revolution Continued
}}---> The village dunce
August 15, 2007 - 07:45 ET by Cool ArrowOsama, Obama, and Chelsea Clinton's Momma agree with Clayton Williams.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
*
August 15, 2007 - 07:52 ET by rob6677Great link, another moment in time for all dems to remember.
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
}}---> Sad, rob
August 15, 2007 - 07:59 ET by Cool ArrowClayton Williams was a Republican who wizzed away a sure seat in the Governor's Mansion with that remark. But we have those three Democrats, Osama bin Ladin, B. Hussein Obama, and Hillary Rodram Clinton making the same mistake.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Did Obama mention Genghis
August 15, 2007 - 08:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberDid Obama mention Genghis Khan at all?
}}---> You mean Jenjiss
August 15, 2007 - 08:33 ET by Cool ArrowSurely you mean Jenjiss Con.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
How petit-bourgeois of
August 15, 2007 - 19:27 ET by Roger the ShrubberHow petit-bourgeois of me.
I hate to go against the
August 15, 2007 - 10:06 ET by BruzillaI hate to go against the conventional wisdom, but Obama's statement is correct. Since the Vietnam War, worried politicians have been pushing tepid military leaders to try to find ways to engage in low-risk warfare, which usually translates into "avoid casualties at all costs." This led to a tremendous expansion in the development of aerial assets as it's much cheaper, quicker, and lower risk to fly a lethal element against an enemy on foreign soil than it is to put troops on the ground. So we moved away from developing ground forces and sunk billions into designing advanced ground attack aircraft like the F-111, A-10, F-15E, etc. We even tried to turn the S-3B subhunter into a precision bomber! And even now, the push is to reduce the risk to pilots by developing unmanned aerial attack vehicles.
The problem with all of this is that no matter how precise the targeting of an aerial bomb or guided missile is, it's still going to kill everyone in the target area whether they are a terrorist visiting a local tribal chieftain, or a family of farmers who are next in line in the tent to meet with the chief. This collateral damage is not intentional, but the problem with relying on airpower to launch snap attacks is that you have to have a known position for the target while also having a mission-capable air asset in place to make the attack. This requires split-second timing, and a weapon that's going to provide an adequate kill zone for an often indefinite position. There's just no slack for taking into account who's wondering about inside the zone at the moment of attack. Hence we kill the bad guys, but we also wipe out the goatherders too, which isn't a good way to get the locals on our side.
What we need are more ground troops, along the lines of the old "Phoenix" guys we would drop miles behind enemy lines and who would make their way out of indian country while killing any NVA officer they encountered along the way. This was an extremely high-risk job, but it helped cripple the enemy's leadership while not impacting the civilians (unless you ask John Kerry who still swears all those NVA officers were helpless farmers). In the end, warfare and low-risk were just never meant for one another, and we need to decide if we want to fight the war or eliminate risk.
What we need are more
August 15, 2007 - 10:22 ET by MidAmericaWhat we need are more ground troops, along the lines of the old "Phoenix" guys we would drop miles behind enemy lines and who would make their way out of Indian country while killing any NVA officer they encountered along the way.
We are not fighting an army. There are no identifiable officers to kill. We are fighting civilians with weapons. Your method would only get US soldiers killed. We are not fighting in the jungles of Viet Nam where you could hide just a few feet from your enemy. Our troops are in the open desert confronting hostile opponents who have cell phones.
I beg to differ. If we
August 15, 2007 - 11:01 ET by BruzillaI beg to differ. If we are getting enough actionable intelligence information to launch airstrikes, than it's pretty obvious that we are readilly able to identify the bad guys from the good guys. In Vietnam the good guys were the peasants who spent 12-hours a day stooped over in the rice paddies. The bad guys were the guys who dressed like the peasants and looked like them, but spent their days carrying AK-47s and moving about the jungle in groups. Mountain herders move with sheep, not with armed entourages. They show up with the herd, not behind an armed advance party scouting for trouble.
You are right in saying my method would get soldiers killed. That's a downside of war that some people just can't adjust to. There's just no way to fight a war effectively without getting your troops killed. If you want to attack a group of terrorists with aerial weapons, you're probably going to kill the bad guys and any non-combatants in the area. I say probably because people move between the time the attack coordinates are given to the pilot and the time the weapon hits, even with realtime assets. A ground force can move with the target, reacquire, and engage much better than even the best fighter/bomber in the inventory. So the risk goes up, but so does the chances of success, which brings us back to the core discussion: do we want to win the war or not risk the troops?
If you want to attack a
August 15, 2007 - 11:27 ET by MidAmericaIf you want to attack a group of terrorists with aerial weapons, you're probably going to kill the bad guys and any non-combatants in the area.
Your assuming the non-combatants in the area are innocents. These are many time the support group for the fighter. And yes, that includes his family.
You are right in saying my method would get soldiers killed. That's a downside of war that some people just can't adjust to.
I won't have my troops killed to save the enemy's human shields.
}}---> Attacking Terrorists
August 15, 2007 - 11:32 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe we're doing it all wrong.
Can't we just spread the word around.
"Anyone interested in becoming a martyr for allah, there's a meeting tonight at Abdul's Used Camel Lot. Pass it on.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
How quaint CA, it is hump
August 15, 2007 - 11:44 ET by rob6677How quaint CA, it is hump day afterall!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
}}---> Back to Cows, rob
August 15, 2007 - 11:47 ET by Cool ArrowIs a dromedary an acting school for cows?
Got a million of 'em
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
We need sounds on here, so
August 15, 2007 - 12:23 ET by rob6677We need sounds on here, so we can have the drum roll after all the punchlines.
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
In combat you can't assume
August 15, 2007 - 12:08 ET by BruzillaIn combat you can't assume anything. The problem is that most of the time, the guys we need to kill aren't out in the open. They've gotten very good at holing up and making themselves invisible to most sources of electronic intelligence gathering. Most actionable intel comes from receiving word from human sources that they are moving from somewhere to somewhere. This is the one upside to them knowing we can track their electronic communications: you can't plot and plan if you can't communicate, and if you can't communicate electronically you have to do it face-to-face or with trackable human resources. The downside is that the bad guys aren't dumb, so they're going to meet in a public place with lots of non-combatants to deter an attack.
If you have swarms of troops on the ground, these aren't serious problems. The troops can sweep across the real estate and ferret out the bad guys or flush them out into the open where they can be shot at. An airplane or missile can't do that. There's no safer place for the bad guys to meet than inside a schoolhouse full of kids and they know that, and with an airstrike the only way we can target them is when they're in the open at a meeting/known location... so we end up blowing up a lot of non-combatants, which is directly to Obama's point. We can write these people off, but they are our main source of intelligence at the moment, and most people won't be eager to provide you with info after you shredded their niece. So it's not just a matter of balancing the lives of troops against those of human shields, it's also a matter of keeping the ill will of the locals against the bad guys and not against us and keeping the intel coming in.
What you speak of is
August 15, 2007 - 10:31 ET by rob6677What you speak of is exactly why 9/11 happened, Clinton reduced CIA numbers and they were forced to rely on high altitude intelligence that could not render the sort of preventive actions necessary to avoid the whole "war on terror".
The signs were there, but not enough foreign agents and/or arabic speaking agents were employed to listen. Sadam was allowed to carryon business as usual after DesertStorm because of these same inadequacies. Most of this stems from Carter's dealings(failings) with Iran as they are no doubt resposible for backing up these terrorists.
I am probably stating the obvious to most who read here, but I have to try and sound intelligent once in a while!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
I tend to blame 9/11 on
August 15, 2007 - 11:14 ET by BruzillaI tend to blame 9/11 on Ronald Reagan and CNN. At the start of his presidency, Reagan knew how to respond to terrorists: make their actions so costly that no one supports them and the leaders become afraid for their lives. His approach was validated by his dealings with Libya. Libyans blow up a disco, we blow up a city. It doesn't take much of this disproportinate responding to send a message to even the boldest thug that attacking US interests isn't a good idea.
Then along comes CNN, and everytime Reagan flexes his muscles, there's Christiane Amanpour playing Johnny On The Spot with a video camera, reporting on all the poor kids we killed by accident. As a result the US adopts a strategy of proportinate response... you blow up our building, we blow up your building... that flows through the Bush I administration and on through Clinton. We no longer look like overbearing bad guys to the "enlightened" crowds, but to the ignorant masses in the Third World it looks like we're afraid to attack terrorists.
So Al Queera runs about the Middle East saying "look... we attacked the US and what did they do? They leveled half of Tripoli when Libya challenged them, but what did they do to us? They blew up an empty building. Why? Because they fear what we'll do to them. So give us more money and we'll really show them what we can do!" So the cash flows in, and the terrorists have to keep escalating their actions to keep justifying the cash flow. Had our policy of disproportinate response been maintained, starting with the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, Al Queera would have never survived for long.
I would say the only way you
August 15, 2007 - 11:51 ET by rob6677I would say the only way you could arguably insert Reagan into that equation is only because he brought down the big red menace, in doing so these other nations (terrorists) no longer had a large organized force to keep them in check.
Other than that I'm sticking to my first story, which is a dem failure!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
Sorry, but it was Reagan who
August 15, 2007 - 12:10 ET by BruzillaSorry, but it was Reagan who started the proportinate response policy, not the Dems... unless you want to veiw "Dems" as CNN.
And can you school me as to
August 15, 2007 - 12:22 ET by rob6677And can you school me as to who got rid of political assasination?
Not that I'm a supporter, but it sure works well when you nip problems in the bud!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
Some people think Jimmy Carter launched the terrorists rise
August 15, 2007 - 23:35 ET by SportPoliticsUmm.... my guess is the DEMOCRAT Church commission, and Frank Church and his wacked out lib tree hugging freak party friends.
_________________________________
Some people think Jimmy Carter launched the terrorists rise:
http://ibdeditorials.com/Special3.aspx
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264813385781653
"Carter had already announced to Russia and the world in his June 1977 Notre Dame speech that "we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear."
• The New York Times admiringly noted that "the Carter Administration has remained completely calm regarding the coup in Afghanistan, where the leaders of a small, communist party took power in Kabul," adding that, "Ten years ago, every communist victory was considered a clear defeat for the United States. Today, the majority of Americans believe the world is more complex."
Impotence, in fact, was a badge of honor in the Carter administration. According to British historian Paul Johnson, "The only point on which Carter's men agreed was on America's declining ability to control events." To whit:
• Cyrus Vance, Carter's first secretary of state and one of the architects of Vietnam policy in the Johnson administration, believed "we can no more stop change than Canute could still the waters."
• Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski believed "the world is changing under the influence of forces no government can control."
• Carter himself, speaking to reporters in January 1979 about the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, a little less than a year before the Soviet invasion, assured the world, "Certainly we have no desire or ability to intrude massive forces into Iran or any other country . . ."
Carter promised: "This is something that we have no intention of ever doing in another country. We've tried this once in Vietnam. It didn't work, as you well know."
____________________________________
I don't think I'll be picking Reagan as the weak one capitulating to terror attacks over the beruit barracks incident.
Carter fried the whole nations economy, too, REPEATEDLY.
"
'Malaise' Maestro"
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264727202278115
jimmy carter SUCKED as a President, and now he's a verified TRAITOR.
ps to you know who you are: It seems to me that President George Bush kinda ditched that "proportionate response" policy you whined about, no ?
Thanks for the space rob.
Spot on Sport! "I'm
August 16, 2007 - 05:56 ET by rob6677Spot on Sport!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
Yeah those Vietnam grounds troops
August 15, 2007 - 23:22 ET by SportPoliticsYeah those Vietnam grounds troops won the war for us. That's what we need more of, Obama is right...
We'll win it with ground troops like we won it in Vietnam.
Yerah, time to do it Vietnam style. The greatest war ever fought, all that intelligence gleaned while the enemy mixed with the locals.
Wow. Just wow.
I read the article and the TOTAL death count for civilians for the last year in that 25 million persons nation called Afghanistan is over 500 and under 600. I hate to break it to " causing tremendous problems over there" Obama... BUT ... his hometown city of Chicago had how many murders the same year ?
Well in 2002 Chicago had 645.
I think Obama needs to get back to Chicago and deal with the " cause of the terrible problems created". Yes, there's far LESS people in Chicago and it's suburbs than are in Afghanistan, so EVEN THE RATIO OF murder death kills per person....
Yeah, wow, what a horrible problem... fewer civlian deaths from the aq enemy AND the Coalition Forces than have occurred in bluelips own home city in the USA.
Can you say exasperated overblown hyperbolic yakking rhetoric kookball ?
Gawd I wish the crybabies would get stuffed so far up they expire, just so I NEVER have to hear them whine again. Thier yakking yapp is so far beyond INSANE it cannot even be comprehended.
So What!
August 15, 2007 - 12:00 ET by mytwocentsThis guy is really showing his prowess as a deep thinker and future nation leader. NOT. Sadly, millions of people will still dangle the chad for this moron. He needs to go huntin' with Dick Cheney.
"He needs to go
August 15, 2007 - 17:23 ET by Night Watchman"He needs to go huntin'..."
Not at all cool.
I am SHOCKED AND AWED by
August 15, 2007 - 15:58 ET by Night WatchmanI am SHOCKED AND AWED by Obama's comments