Give 'em hell, Joe. Cheney was a disaster, and it's astounding that there are still people left in this country who want to hear his advice. If Cheney says jump, duck.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2009-10-31 10:27 AM

Yeah compare their resumes and see who would come up as the one to give advice. What the fuck has Biden done other than getting caps and hair plugs? He was the Chair to a Foreign Senate Committee and what can you point to as success? Afghanistan was part of the Committees agenda, let's see if you or anyone can point to anything he did?

Biden had a long and distinguished career on the Foreign Relations Committee which you can review on Wikipedia.

So you can say he was a success as a ranking member and Chair? Wow, how does one answer that? Not saying he is responsible, but to say he was succesful knowing the shit that has happened the last 12 years is laughbale. I guess you don't remember the Taliban taking over Afganistan and the raping and pillaging of the people and artifacts, where was the Senate Foreign Relations then?

Ornery Worthless & Senile.

I took the EZ way.

#17 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-10-31 10:42 AM

Easy or not, accuracy is what counts.

I dfon't think Cheney would do well with a target that shoots back. He had his chance and took the chickenshit way out--he "had better things to do"
#30 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-31 11:07 AM | Reply

So why didn't Biden serve?

Joe Biden had 5 (five) military deferments to avoid service in Vietnam.

#35...

Perfect fit as the stooge in the Obama Amateur Hour Show...

"Joe Biden had 5 (five) military deferments to avoid service in Vietnam."

"You're gonna bring that up in defense of Cheney??"

Nah, just busting Bobs chops. But on paper Biden pales in comparison to Cheney's political career.

Why don't you ever ask questions like that of republicans you brain dead zombie?

#39 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-31 11:19 AM

Could have sworn I replied to retort #30. Why don't you ever ask questions like that of democrats you brain dead zombie???

I dfon't think Cheney would do well with a target that shoots back. He had his chance and took the chickenshit way out--he "had better things to do"
#30 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-31 11:07 AM | Reply

#42...

Glad to know your personal opinions don't skew your retorts. Seems like you should be able to refute the resume claims, with facts. What gives?

Reinforce Afghanistan? If memory serves (it does), Bush passed up the chance (and recommendation) to do so not that long ago.

So the fact Obama is taking a page out of the same playbook is smart? Obama has done nothing this year about Afghanistan. The troop levels and strategy was in place back in Dec. 2008 for 2009. What has he done as CiC that is different than proposed 10 months ago?

"In March 2009 Obama thought out the strategy and committed 21,000 troops and sent them there."

That was in place as part of the troop levels approved in Dec 2008. They planned on having 60-70 thousand troops by year end 2009. Which is about what we have now. The fact that things have changed and Obama has made no attempt to adjust the strategy is what my gripe is about. I am fearful his mindset is that of Iraq when he wrote legislation removing troops immediatly depsite the conditions on the ground.

Lillfiles would be a great addition to the DR. I can't even estimate the amount of time I have wasted reading afkababbles posts before realizing he has nothing but hatred to spread around. The same goes for many others.
#74 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-31 11:48 AM |

Unlike you Bob? lol. That post is the all time award for "people who live in glass houses."

"Whereas my gripe is about morons who think our bravest should be thrown in to shed blood without knowing if there will be a legitimate government in two weeks after the runoff election."

So the fact he made no decisions since meeting with the Joint Chiefs back in the spring gives Obama a free ride up until the elections in the fall? Meanwhile Rome is still burning.

"Meanwhile Rome is still burning."

So you want to send in our bravest before we know who or what we're fighting for?!?

Yet you endorse the decision to do nothing? Funny how you interpret my wanting him to do anything like make a decision as an endorsement to send more troops. I have pretty much endorsed listening to those on the ground, who have experience this CiC obviously lacks. Now if they have called for more troops, are you saying they are taking a page out of the movie Bananas as well? Or are they like the ones you call morons because they also want Obama to make some decision?

#95 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-31 12:23 PM

Sorry you foolishly pointed out Cheney's opt out of Vietnam and was ignorant to Bidens. My bad.

"Until we know which government we're fighting for? Absolutely. You, on the other hand, just want to throw more of our bravest in front of bullets."

Why can't you acknowledge that was just a few weeks ago and continue to ignore Obamas own words back in the spring? You remember his own words right? Never was there any mention of waiting until the fall before making decisions? Yet somehow he gets a pass because there was some dispute? God only knows what excuse there is going to be after this has been resolved. I on the other hand listen to those on the ground which I mentioned earlier. But of course you would rather call the generals and those that know what they want "morons" and whine about throwing our bravest into the fire. Who do you trust more to make the best decision for our soldiers? The generals with experience, or the Pres and Vice Pres without?

Context of 'March 27, 2009: President Obama Unveils War Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan'

NATO Ministers Endorse McChrystal Approach in Afghanistan
By Al Pessin
Bratislava, Slovakia
23 October 2009

NATO defense ministers Friday endorsed the kind of broad counterinsurgency approach for Afghanistan that is the basis for the pending troop request by the NATO and the U.S. commander there, General Stanley McChrystal. The ministers, including U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, are meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says the defense ministers have a "general shared view" that the alliance must make Afghanistan strong enough to defend itself against militant forces. And he said the ministers also agree on the approach for accomplishing that.

"There is the support of this counterinsurgency strategy, which means that ministers agree that it does not solve the problems in Afghanistan just to hunt down and kill individual terrorists," Rasmussein said. "What we need is a much broader strategy which stabilizes the whole Afghan society."

That has been the core of the debate in Washington, with President Barack Obama reviewing the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan he announced in March. The review was prompted, in part, by a grim assessment from General McChrystal, who is here at the NATO meeting to provide a direct readout to the defense ministers. The general's secret assessment, leaked to the Washington Post (newspaper) several weeks ago, follows the president's basic approach, but says it could fail unless he gets more troops.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Instead of debating whether to give McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, more troops, the discussion in the White House is now focused on whether, after eight years of war, the United States should vastly expand counterinsurgency efforts along the lines he has proposed -- which involve an intensive program to improve security and governance in key population centers -- or whether it should begin shifting its approach away from such initiatives and simply target leaders of terrorist groups who try to return to Afghanistan.

McChrystal's assessment, in the view of two senior administration officials, is just "one input" in the White House's decision-making process. The president, another senior administration official said, "has embarked on a very, very serious review of all options." The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

Obama, appearing on several Sunday-morning television news shows, left little doubt that key assumptions in the earlier White House strategy are now on the table. "The first question is: Are we doing the right thing?" the president said on CNN. "Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

"Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there -- beyond what we already have," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press." If an expanded counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan contributes to the goal of defeating al-Qaeda, "then we'll move forward," he said. "But, if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or . . . sending a message that America is here for the duration."

Obama's Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, March 2009
Published March 27, 2009

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.

To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan which is why I've appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General David Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.

Yeah what do the subordinates know accroding to experts like danforth...

Top US commander publicly criticizes Obama Iraq policy
By Patrick Martin
22 July 2008

In the course of an interview with Fox host Chris Wallace, Mullen was asked about Obama's plan and Maliki's statement. He responded at first with a carefully phrased statement acknowledging, for the record at least, that the military executes the mission set by the civilian president.

He declared: "Well, my current mission under the current commander-in-chief is to give him advice and recommendations based on our progress there, and that's exclusively based on conditions on the ground, and that's the mission that I've got. Should that mission change, and we get a new president, and should those conditions be conditions that get generated or required in order to advise a future president, I would do so accordingly."

Wallace pressed him on the issue, saying, "But I'm asking you in the absenceforget about Obama. Forget about the politics. If I were to say to you, Let's set a time line of getting all of our combat troops out within two years,' what do you think would be the consequences of setting that kind of a time line?"

Mullen replied, "I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I'm convinced at this point in time that comingmaking reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important."

He continued, referring to General David Petraeus and General Raymond Odierno, as well as lower-ranking officers: "When I have discussions with commanders on the ground, basicallyand I did a couple weeks agothey are very, very adamant about continuing progress, about making decisions based on what's actually happening in the battle space, and I just think that's prudent."

When Wallace asked him to elaborate on what the "downside" of a troop withdrawal timeline would be, Mullen explained, "I'd worry about any kind of rapid movement out and creating instability where we have stability."

The following day, Mullen's interview was featured as the lead item on the Pentagon's official web site. While the report carefully omitted any mention of Obama's name, it zeroed in on precisely the words that Mullen used to reject Obama's 16-month withdrawal proposal.

Not so long ago, such comments by the top uniformed officer in the US armed services on an issue that is the focus of a presidential election campaign would have been regarded as an illegitimate intervention by the military in politics. Mullen could easily have avoided injecting himself into the campaign, either by not appearing on the program at all, or by deflecting the question by suggesting that it was inappropriate for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to comment.

It seems Mr. Pee has forgotten exactly where the buck stops. I guess 8 years of Dubya will do that to some.

#130 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-31 04:23 PM |

So you defend Obamas lack of experience with Bushs'? That's why they call you the expert. Of course ignoring those who know (subordinates) would call you a fucking fool, but hey at least you and Obama are on the same blank page.

Hey no problem. I've decided to add a signature file of my own.

--Politics City Sucks Dot Com--

#131 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-31 04:23 PM

Why not nullisucks.com?

according to experts like Larry and danforth, Obama is waiting for the election in the fall."

"Good God, you're dumb. They've HAD the election. A million votes were thrown out. In about 10 days, there's going to be a runoff election. Keeping up so far? After that (and the inevitable unrest from the losing side), we'll know, ideally, if there will be a legitimate government."

Are you really that obtuse that you can't figure out the comment was based on a article written in March? Well before the election? Funny you didn't paste the my commnet about the fact Obama never mentioned anything about waiting for the election when he unveiled his strategy in MARCH. Can't dumb it down any more for you danforth, I guess as Joe would say, more willful ignorance.

"Throwing in more of our bravest just to offer the opposition more targets during the unrest sure to follow is stupid."

Once again the expert danforth calls the likes of McChrystal stupid and defends Obama who doesn't have a clue.

2. Anyone playing the NYY.

#135 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-10-31 04:30 PM

Yankees to the overs. Yankees on the run line. Wouldn't bet Philly even if Obama were pitching.

paste the my commnet...
"Paste my comment"

"danforth calls the likes of McChrystal stupid "

Fuck you, you liar.

"The fact you have to put lies in my mouth makes you a cheap douchebag. You've obviously had your ass handed to you yet again to have to resort to such despicable tactics."

Fuck you liar. You called anyone who called for more troops a moron ealier right asshole? Then you did it again. This was you right? You fucking pussy. Own up to your own skewed words, McChrystal called for more troops right dickhead?

"Throwing in more of our bravest just to offer the opposition more targets during the unrest sure to follow is stupid."

according to experts like Larry and danforth, Obama is waiting for the election in the fall."

"Good God, you're dumb. They've HAD the election. A million votes were thrown out. In about 10 days, there's going to be a runoff election. Keeping up so far? After that (and the inevitable unrest from the losing side), we'll know, ideally, if there will be a legitimate government."
#134 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-31 04:29 PM

Only a desperate little whining bitch would willfully ignore the post was a retort to an article in March and post something that happened 5 months later. Knowing it had nothing to do with the post you responded to. Right asshole?

"You called anyone who called for more troops a moron ealier right asshole?" "Throwing in more of our bravest just to offer the opposition more targets during the unrest sure to follow is stupid."

"Prove McChrystal wants them in there before the runoff election, you sniveling coward."

He said that in September you fucking tool. He knows the election was just another excuse dating back to March 2009. That is using his experience and based this on the situation on the ground. Which has been my argument and has been ignored by you and your buddy Larry. Obama had almost six months until the election and didn't do shit. Why do you think McChrystal went public?

"Hey Crispee, babe, what's the deal here? You seem awfully upset, girl."

Hey I don't have a signature nullisucks.com....

General McChrystal Asks Obama for More Troops - NYTimes.com
Sep 21, 2009 ... Stanley A. McChrystal warned in a confidential assessment that he needed ... General Calls for More U.S. Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure

Aug 20, 2009 ... Millions of Afghans are voting in presidential and provincial elections today amid tight security and threats of violence from the Taliban.

Admiral Mike Mullen told Congress on 15 September 2009 that more troops . .... The latest results from Afghanistan's presidential election are showing that ...

Sep 14, 2009 ... Afghanistan's Election Complaints Commission is now investigating ... results of the tainted Afghan election could take several months because the ... September 15, 2009 18:56. It doesn't matter if its Karzai or Abdullah ...

But, but Obama wants to wait for the election. Fucking moron danforth, look at the fucking dates.

"His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30"

The election was held August 20th. Are you really this stupid?

Also from the article you linked, look at what Obama said and tell me if your excuse of waiting until the elections holds water? Seems to me Obama is waiting for clarity about what the strategy is going to be. Well before any runoff was set. Pretty much ignores Obamas pledge back in March, right dumb fuck? Ohh but, but he said he wants to wait for the election.

McChrystal's assessment is one of several options the White House is considering. His plan could intensify a national debate in which leading Democratic lawmakers have expressed reluctance about committing more troops to an increasingly unpopular war. "Obama said last week that he will not decide whether to send more troops until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."

"Fucking moron danforth, look at the fucking dates."

Yup. Look at the dates. And then define "within the next year".

"But, but Obama wants to wait for the election."

Exactly. I know you're used to The Cheney Doctrine, but this President actually has some brains.
#157 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-31 05:23 PM

Keep back pedaling, I expect nothing less from a little bitch like you. Once again you ignore Obama had more than five months before the election, before McChrystals request. Right dumb fuck? Look at another line from the article you linked. Which by the way says NOTHING about the election in any of the three page spread... But, but Obama wants to wait for the election....

Again and again, McChrystal makes the case that his command must be bolstered if failure is to be averted. "ISAF requires more forces," he states, citing "previously validated, yet un-sourced, requirements" -- an apparent reference to a request for 10,000 more troops originally made by McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David D. McKiernan.

And the runoff to that election is in about a week. Are you really this stupid?!?

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-31 05:28 PM

This coming from the clown who thinks Obama is Miss Cleo and waited to make any decision because he knew the election would be skewed and have a run off? That's why he has been silent these last six months? BWHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... What a fucking idiot.....

"Obama said last week that he will not decide whether to send more troops until he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."

But you just said he was waiting for the election. That article was Sept 21, 2009. Three weeks after the election? Odd it wasn't anywhere in the artiule you linked and I pasted from.... Hmmm, maybe you have trouble with dates, which is why you pasted that line as though last week was October 24. A month later? BWHHHAAAAAAA. you fucking tool danforth, go away. This is as easy as your link to a double end bag as though it were a speed bag.

"Why did you link to the McChrystal comment while leaving off the salient part that disproved your point?"

The salient point of waiting until the elections which never appeared in the article? The same foolish point you have made? That salient point? Laughbale...

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that he had requested the resignation of the top American general in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, making a rare decision to remove a wartime commander at a time when the Obama administration has voiced increasing alarm about the country's downward spiral.

In a statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that Obama agreed with the need for new leadership but that he was "impressed" by McKiernan's calls for more troops for Afghanistan. McKiernan had successfully pressed the administration to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, forces that have only now begun to arrive in the country.

Gates did not criticize McKiernan directly and instead praised his decades of "distinguished service." But senior officials said McKiernan's leadership was not bold or nimble enough to reenergize a campaign in which U.S. and other NATO troops had reached a stalemate against Taliban insurgents in some parts of Afghanistan.

One senior government official involved in Afghanistan policy said McKiernan was overly cautious in creating U.S.-backed local militias, a tactic that Petraeus had employed when he was the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

"It's way too modest," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "We don't have 2009 to experiment in Wardak province," where one such militia has been set up. "I think we've got about two years in this mission. The trend lines better start swinging in our direction or we're going to lose the international community and we're going to lose Washington."

Other U.S. military and Afghan officials disagreed with the criticism, however, saying McKiernan's approach was prudent.

"No, dipshit, the salient point that he requested the troops within the next year. You've yet to prove McChrystal wanted them in as further fodder following the (now doubtful) runoff."

"I think you're just pissed because Obama did something after 8 months Bush couldn't do after 8 years: make an intelligent military decision."

Funny, I thought the article you linked claimed McChrystals predecessor requested 10,000 more back in May before he was relieved of duty. I actually posted the article, guess you missed that. Oh maybe because it doesn't help your theory Obama is Miss Cleo????

This request was back in May months before the election:

Again and again, McChrystal makes the case that his command must be bolstered if failure is to be averted. "ISAF requires more forces," he states, citing "previously validated, yet un-sourced, requirements" -- an apparent reference to a request for 10,000 more troops originally made by McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David D. McKiernan.

"That article was Sept 21, 2009. Three weeks after the election?"

Yes, you dumbass. That was when the election results were being questioned. You do realize, don't you, that a million votes were thrown out? That John Kerry went there to convince Karzai to agree to a runoff election?

#170 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-31 06:15 PM

Obama endorsed his strategy back in March of 2009. The election was held in August 2009. Here we are coming up on November 2009 and you claim the gap from March was all due to the election??? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! What a fucking idiot...

"I think you're just pissed because Obama did something after 8 months Bush couldn't do after 8 years: make an intelligent military decision."

What decision is that? Not to decide? To run from his strategy he endorsed in March? To ignore his generals and have them removed? Those brilliant military decisions? You have got to be delusional danforth.

You're just pissed because Obama and his team were right.

#175 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-31 06:33 PM | Rep

Right about what? They haven't done a fucking thing since March 2009. What the fuck are you talking about being right? Waiting for the election or runoff eight months later? Are you fucking serious? You have the nerve to rip on me about Bush while your nose is stuck up Obama's ass?

McKiernan took command of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan in June and was scheduled to serve in the post for two years, a U.S. military official said. Like other top U.S. commanders before him, McKiernan pressed the Pentagon firmly and publicly to provide additional forces to combat rising violence and an escalating Taliban insurgency.

#179...

Which has what to do with Obama? Or does that not matter to you because Bush did this or Bush did that? But hey so far Obama appears to be playing the exact same card and that seems to be his out for not having to follow his own strategy.

Don't be so hard on Crispee.

He's extra cranky this afternoon 'cause the loser Angels aren't playing game three tonight.

#181 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2009-10-31 06:44 PM

Now had you said Dodgers, it would be more accurate, but I got over that loss a week ago.

More willful ignorance danforth? When was that ordered? Uhhhhh March 2009???

"Imagine if Bush had followed through in Afghanistan..."

Imagine Bush is not the President and has ZERO to do with Obamas own strategy he endorsed back in March 2009. That Bush syndrome makes you a bit psychotic...

Before I go and take the dog for her walk I will leave with this note....

Obama is proving he has no idea and his lack of any experience will be the downfall of Afghanistan and God only knows what else. Glad you all endorsed this Jr. Senator who had no business getting the nomination. Congrats...

It looks like Obama and his defenders here are back on the spot again, as the opponent just dropped out of the race in Afghanistan. Just curious what the new excuse will be, now that the latest one has expired. My guess is both Obama and the libs here will go back to the fail safe of invoking Bush and running with that ploy to mask his obvious lack of experience and indecision.

They were wrong about everything for the past eight years and now all they can do is post insults to the President who is carefully trying to construct a real plan for Afghanistan.
#194 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-01 08:48 AM

Look at that, only 26 minutes for danni to prove my post. Too bad there isn't a betting line, I would have given 10-1. We know the Bush reference is the first validation and the second excuse being Obama is carefully trying to construct a real plan completes the exacta. Too fucking easy.

#196...

Pretty desperate pasting retorts from 20 hours ago Woke. Kind of like playing ding dong ditch on an empty house. Or dine and dashing after a free meal....