Afghan exit vote?

[Westside Steve]

So though it didn't make too much headline fun it seems there's been a vote to get the f*ck out of Afghanistan by years end.

It got some traction but not much. 60 or 70 odd votes.

 

Lot's of lapsed doves out there eh?

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

the 356-65 vote highlighted the willingness of liberal Democrats to abandon the president on a major issue

 

vote

 

And what are we doing over there?

 

Are we after the Taliban or are we protecting the drug trade?

 

drug

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'd say that's about the number of "doves" in the House right there - 60.

 

Obama campaigned on focusing on Afghanistan, mind you. It's not like it's a surprise to anyone who paid attention.

[Westside Steve]

I'd say that's about the number of "doves" in the House right there - 60.

 

Obama campaigned on focusing on Afghanistan, mind you. It's not like it's a surprise to anyone who paid attention.

 

 

First, Heck, nobody really pays any attention.

And those pledges rarely live past election day.

And second not too many who were sick of war really believed he was going to escalate in a place where there doesn't seem to be a reward.

Not even "to steal their oil."

And lets face it a lot of the campaign centered on wasting money in war.

 

I'm not particularly anti war but I guess whatever criticism of the last 8 years still holds true.

 

You think we're on the way to wiping out Al Queda?

You think that Gitmo is a terrorist recruiting tool?

How about drones killing civilians?

That might piss somebody off.

But a western democracy in Afghanistan? Fine with me.....

But.....

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to your post, but I don't really agree with any of it. First of all, people do pay attention to what candidates run on. And whereas you imagine that everything short of implementing every single one of your campaign promises means they're meaningless, I think it's just more of your usual huffing. Some candidates do very well trying to follow up on their campaign pledges. Some don't. It's fair to judge them on how well they've lived up to what they said they were going to do, or at least try to do, and I think, for a politician, Obama's been remarkably consistent in what he ran on and what he's tried to do.

 

He said he'd start bringing the troops home from Iraq, and 100,000 of them are about to start coming home in the next few months. He said he'd refocus on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and he's clearly done that. He said he'd push for health care reform, and clearly he's tried to do that. Said he'd close Gitmo. He's tried to do that. Said he'd outlaw torture, and he's done that. Said he'd push for climate legislation. He's done that. Said he's cut middle class taxes. Done that.

 

If your complaint is that not all the things he campaigned on have come to pass, well, what do you want me to tell you? He's a president, not a king.

 

So since one of your big concerns/gripes is that politicians will say anything and that it's all meaningless, I'd say you should at least give him credit for trying to follow through on his campaign pledges. I think it's clear he scores well on this front. His record of getting them enacted, however, is obviously mixed.

 

As for these:

 

You think we're on the way to wiping out Al Queda?

No. I don't imagine he thinks that either.

 

You think that Gitmo is a terrorist recruiting tool?

 

It certainly was/is. But don't take my word for it. Ask General Petraeus, who also thinks we should close Gitmo. You know who else thought that? George Bush.

 

How about drones killing civilians?

 

A serious issue. Drones have been very effective at taking out terrorist targets in regions where we either can't go, or won't go. But every time you kill civilians doing it - recent estimate put it at 1 out of every 3 people killed in a drone strike is an innocent civilian - you're not only killing innocent people, but you're setting back the overall effort to win over the populace. Same goes for regular air strikes. This is why the military changed the policy. It's a tough balance to strike.

 

But a western democracy in Afghanistan? Fine with me.....

 

Nobody imagines that we're about to have a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan. It's one of the most backward places on earth. It's incapable of Western-style democracy.

[Mr. T]

politicians will say anything to get elected, take for instance the troop withdrawal from Iraq. That was already set in motion under "W". we have a contract with the government of Iraq and part of that contract was to reduce our the amount of troops we have over there. But if you notice we are still operating security in Iraq and we have a very large military base that will be there for a long time.

 

Its in the contract.

 

So this was an easy statement for Obama to make and lay claim to as if he had done something that was alreay in progress. Im glad you believe him, atleast somebody believes the Liar.