So I got this email from Joe Biden...
  • redboneredbone December 2009
    And it says this:

    "Last night, President Obama laid out his plan to defend our national interest by refocusing our efforts on three clear goals: defeating al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, and breaking the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan.

    To achieve these goals, the President has authorized the rapid deployment of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, with a firm commitment to begin bringing our troops home in 2011.

    It's a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed.
    "



    I fail to understand how putting troops into the middle east is any different that what Bush did, but sure, go ahead and tell us that you're going to take them out right around the time when you need to get elected again.
  • mungomungo December 2009
    Can you post the entire email please?
  • GovernorGovernor December 2009
    It is probably a bit disingenuous to say that it is a complete break from Bush policies, but focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iraq is a pretty big difference in the entire Middle East strategy.

    Also, I would like to point out that Obama did not say he was going to simply remove troops from Afghanistan. Obama ran on a platform of escalating the conflict in Afghanistan while scaling down our involvement in Iraq. He didn't necessarily say he was going to send 30,000 more troops, but he also didn't say he was going to start bringing our troops home. Obama was not an anti-war candidate, so it is a bit irresponsible for people to say this is out of line with what he campaigned on.

    Now, that's not to say you can't be frustrated with the policy (I am), but that's a bit different than acting like Obama is going back on his word.
  • redboneredbone December 2009
    James --

    Last night, President Obama laid out his plan to defend our national interest by refocusing our efforts on three clear goals: defeating al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, and breaking the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan.

    To achieve these goals, the President has authorized the rapid deployment of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, with a firm commitment to begin bringing our troops home in 2011.

    It's a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed.

    Please take a moment to watch the President's address to the nation and read more about his plan.

    Watch the address

    Our new strategy ends the era of blank checks for Afghanistan's leaders, facilitates a responsible transition to Afghan security forces, and begins bringing our troops home in 2011.

    Please take a moment to listen to President Obama outline his plan -- and pass this along to anyone you know who wants to learn more:

    http://my.barackobama.com/AfghanistanAddress

    Thank you,

    Vice President Joe Biden


  • NunesNunes December 2009
    QUOTE (redbone @ Dec 3 2009, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    And it says this:

    "Last night, President Obama laid out his plan to defend our national interest by refocusing our efforts on three clear goals: defeating al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, and breaking the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan.

    To achieve these goals, the President has authorized the rapid deployment of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, with a firm commitment to begin bringing our troops home in 2011.

    It's a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed."


    I fail to understand how putting troops into the middle east is any different that what Bush did, but sure, go ahead and tell us that you're going to take them out right around the time when you need to get elected again.


    Meh. I'm not a fan. I knew it would play out this way. But I'm not a fan.

    I'd say that putting that deadline out there right before re-election is not a campaign stunt, as it would backfire tremendously if he failed. And if would have just enough time to turn sour if he pulled out and it wasn't a good time.

    So basically, feel free to criticize this policy. I likely will as I see it unfold.

    But don't do it by claiming the entire middle east is one big playground and just because a guy brought a shovel to the sand pit he intends to knock over sand castles and dump sand down the girls' shorts. I don't really feel like addressing how much different this approach is from Bush but I assure you, if you were paying attention to the way W.'s administration handled foreign affairs, and if you're paying attention now, and you see "same thing!", then I can't help you anyway.
  • redboneredbone December 2009
    I don't need to "pay attention" to much to discover that I'm not comfortable with 30,000 more of our troops are leaving the country to go inhabit another one.
  • NunesNunes December 2009
    QUOTE (redbone @ Dec 4 2009, 01:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I don't need to "pay attention" to much to discover that I'm not comfortable with 30,000 more of our troops are leaving the country to go inhabit another one.


    Oh. Was that your complaint? Pretty easy to levy that one. No rebuttal from me.

    But this:
    "I fail to understand how putting troops into the middle east is any different that what Bush did, but sure, go ahead and tell us that you're going to take them out right around the time when you need to get elected again."

    Is pretty much what pundits have been saying now that he finally made the decision that they claimed they wanted so much as to refer to his deliberation as "dithering" for the last 3 months.

    First of all, "Afghanistan" is not "The Middle East". It is also not "Iraq". Obama has shifted focus from Iraq (where AQ appeared after we attacked them) to Afghanistan (where the bad guys were... maybe are. Probably not.) Bush shifted focus from Afghanistan, whence we were attacked, to Iraq, which was more secular in 2001 than it is today due to the wonderful recruiting platform an invasion gave to AQ. And setting the deadline he did is not in any way politically expedient. It's very dangerous in terms of his re-election. Much like actually putting the war expenditures on the yearly budget.

    If interventionalism is what you're opposed to then I can totally understand not liking this. He campaigned on it, so it's no surprise, but that's irrelevant to your opinion.

    However, finishing off a complaint with this "Obama = Bush" narrative is almost always going to elicit some consternation from me.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership