Ron, great post as always.

We are in Afghanistan to try to keep the Taliban from taking over nuclear Pakistan.

You are right Nash: I just don't like being there.

I am wondering if the real problem lies in the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Can we be sure that Pakistan's nukes are controlled? This, I think, is the bigger issue, for me. What happens when we leave Afghanistan? Can we trust the Pakistanis enough to keep the nukes from getting into the wrong hands?

We are definitely in a bad spot Ron, and clearly we can't just keep soldiers there forever. I think an underreported aspect of the story is the strides the Pakistani government has made against extremist elements in their country, and their tacit approval of the drone strikes along their border.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J2CS20100520

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124112090423574171.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124112090423574171.html

Article about Pakistani complicity with drone attacks

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/19/official-confirms-using-pakistan-base-launch-attacks/

"He knowingly mocked and insulted his CIC..." Please provide the quote from the article where the general "mocks" the president.

I agree that we want to keep the Taliban from taking over Pakistan, but I am unclear as to how being in Afghanistan and, ostensibly, not allowed to enter Pakistan, allows us to do that.

Minerals, Ron. A trillion dollars worth of minerals. If the policy doesn't seem coherent before you say that word, it certainly does afterwards.

Ron:

If Obama does not pull out of Afghanistan it will be his waterloo. It will be his VN waterloo. I know. Been there done that. When your military has no clear instruction as to who the enemy is, what objective it is trying to be achieve and when it will be achieved, and when you are fighting insurgensts who are in fact part of the population of the country you have invaded, you are, to put it bluntly, s@#t out of luck. No one has more confidence in the strength and verocity of our military. Give them a war to fight and they will win it for you. But this action in Afghanistan is not a war. It is a policing action with attempts to nation build. In the end the Taliban will take control and/or they will be integrated into the governing body of Afghanistan. Obama knows this, Karzi knows this, the Taliban know this. It is not required that we police Afghanistan against an insurgency made up of its own people in order to keep an eye on, and to take action if necessary, in the event Pakastani security and the security of their nuclear arsenal are s threatened.

Ron-a bit of history might help you to understand why we are 'nation building'.

It is what we did NOT do after World War I-and leaving countries destroyed, and enacting treaties that had the effect of further destroying their economies, had predictable results.

It is what we DID after World War II-and there were plenty who had the same questions you have about that exercise. Go to the archives of the New York Times and read the editorials about Germany and the Germans-how they did not want us there; that our troops were under attack; that we had no business nationbuilding; and, my personal favorite-that democracy could not be forced on people.

Today, I believe that the peoples of Japan and Germany would beg to differ.

I have no expertise in war strategy-I leave that to the experts; however, one does not need to be a West Point graduate to see when a strategy is NOT working, as this one is not. That does not mean that we should pull up stakes; it means we need a new strategy.

And a new general to implement it.

Anna Molly: There you go being practical. An there I go being idealistic. It will be about minerals.

CA: You are one person on this site who really knows what he is talking about when it comes to war. I carefully read your comments.

no joe:

One does not need to be a west point graduate to see that conflicts (wars) are not fought like they were years ago, i.e. Japan and Germany. The current terrorists activities around the world are not a problem to be handled by the military. This is a international law enforcement problem that needs to be handled with the cooperation of other law enforcement organizations. around the world. They can rely on technical advnaces made by the military, some of its weaponry, small highly trained stealth military units for in and out strikes when necesary, but only law enforcment, infiltration of the terrorists groups, paid informants, shared information between law enforcement agencies and small highly trained groops of assassins will eliminate terrorists and their leaders across the globe. The invasion of other countries by ground forces swells the ranks of terrorists and insurgents, it does not decrease or eliminate the same.

Always a thoughtful post. Those midwest minds, I have the same questions about Afghanistan.

I have mixed feelings about it. I agree that the big mistake is what Obama articulated during the campaign. Bush took his eye off our mission to start a second war without understanding anything about the middle east culture, least of all Afghanistan's history. We should have gone in and gotten back out militarily and instead used other means for rebuilding. Had we done some nation building in the early months after defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, today's mess would likely be less messy. I give Pres Obama credit for wanting to give it one last big push to finish Bush's job before we leave.

I imagine you've already read these but maybe not. I found "Ghost Wars" by Steven Coll helpful in understanding the country, the region, the wars, its people, our history there. I will say that it was not an easy read because it is so full of details, characters, etc that I could only absorb a dozen or so pages at a time. I'm re-reading it off and on for that reason. Although about Pakistan and one man's mission to build schools there, "Three Cups of Tea" gave me a better understanding of the tribal nature, the religious aspects and the independent spirit of the people in the region enlightening.

Protecting Pakistan nukes should be done from within Pakistan. The rest of the world wants those nukes protected too but they don't want to face the wrath from a host of sources to include their own people. Nor do they want to pay to have their military there.

So, the world wants the US to do it. Then while we pay the bills with cash and lives and piss off the natives, the rest of the free world can throw stones at us. Nice...

Oh yea...No matter what happens China is going to get those minerals just like they did in Iraq.

Ron:

My comments and opinions do not come from evaluating what is being said or reported by the Whitehouse, the Generals, etc. My opinion comes from knowing what the avergae grunt on the ground will tell you. And what I am hearing from these people are the same comments, frustrations, lack of confidence in the leadership, anger at being handcuffed and frustration of not knowing who, when and where to fight half the time, anger at length of duty and number of tours of duty, lack of confidence in the citizens being trained to provide secuirty for their own, and an increase in cases of emotional trauma for lack of knowing excactly who will shoot at you next, as I heard coming from the grunts in VN.

I have tried and tried not to compare the two. But the conditions "on the ground" are nearly identical.

Good Morning Jody: I haven't read the good books on Afghanistan. I'm sure you know more than I about the issues and struggles in that country. You are right about midwest minds being similar. Oftentimes I read your comments and think to myself. Damn, that is just what I was thinking.

Have a good day.

CA -

Thanks for putting into words what I've long felt myself, but not being an expert in either history or wars, was hesitant to speak up about, namely the similarities between the war in Afghanistan (and I assume in Iraq) and Vietnam. To my admittedly uneducated mind, perhaps the biggest problem I had with Vietnam (well, except for the whole concept of the draft) was that we never seemed to be “in it to win it”. I'm not talking about the troops on the ground, who went (and today continue to go) above and beyond the call of duty. I just feel like there's no way you can hope to win - or even effectively wage - a war unless you can control the way it's being fought, and the way I see it, we're still playing by the rules set up and dictated by the Taliban/insurgents/terrorists/whoever it is we're actually fighting. Just like the Vietcong.

I guess the elephant in the room here is what both you and No Joe were talking about, which is that wars today are different from fighting Japan or Germany, and a major difference I see - that seems to have started in Vietnam - is our reluctance to involve civilian casualties or collateral damage. And please, I'm not for a minute advocating that we should, though I know there are many who would argue that nuking the enemy off the face of the earth is the only real solution. But does the other side care who or what gets destroyed in the process as long as they win? Does the end justify the means? Aren't historians still debating Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is the real reason we got involved in "nation building" after WWII was because the existing nations had been pretty much destroyed? Didn't we have to rebuild our own nation after the Civil War? And can you really rebuild a nation while you're still in the process of tearing it down?

I don't know the answers to any of these, or I wouldn't be asking. But I'd be interested in hearing everyone else's input. I'm not the sharpest knife in this drawer, but I do like to learn.

Joanne in PA; I think you are a pretty sharp knife. You once said you had an Indiana connection.

I guess I have a PA connection: My great grandfather and his two brothers lived in Pennsylvania Dutch country. One brother moved to Ohio, my greatgrandfather moved to Indiana, and the third brother moved to Illinois.

Keep posting: I read what you have to say.

Thanks, Ron. I'm really not all that smart; a friend who's always encouraging me to write more says I write from my heart, not my head - maybe unlike some posters on here, I'm just more willing to admit that's the case.

My great-grandparents on Mom's side settled in Kokomo after coming here from Norway and Denmark. My grandfather and great-uncles were all born there. Haven't been there myself since I was 6 years old, but I have fond memories.

Good morning Feisty:

I like what you posted. Doing research, having opinions, making predictions are spot on. What drives me a bit crazy is when pundits tell the President what to do. Pundits don't have to live with their recommendations.

To me the issue has to do with civilian control over the military. The framers of the Constitution were wise in preventing military take-overs, by putting the President in charge. I suspect President Obama will listen to what McChrystal has to say and accept his resignation. There have been too many incidents when this general has been out of line.

Part of a bigger picture, since election day, is, I think, an effort by the opposition to, in every way possible, delegitamize this president. There is a news network dedicated to doing it. There are those who continually question his citizenship. There are those who just cannot deal with a person of color sitting in the White House. There are those that are threatened by his intelligence. There are those who are theatened and won't admit that the world is changing, therefore our country must change. And of course there are those who just want to stay in power, control the money and the masses.

People in this country better begin some critical thinking and analytical thinking before they vote. We are too close to becoming totally irrelevant to the industrialized world. China is already three years ahead of us in green technology. India is not far behind. And people in this country are still stuck on stupid by gushing over the status quo. Everyone wants green energy, but no one is willing to sacrifice for it. We all want everything - but no one wants to pay for it. We have a president who sees the bigger picture, who has a long term plan for this country, but we are either too stupid or too blind to see what is necessary and to accept what we must.

When the party of no resumes power and grinds us to elimination, what will we do then?

Amen Chandler.

Amen.

P.S. Feisty, I totally agree that this whole thing was deliberate. If it wasn't then that is almost scarier. To think we have someone without basic common sense running the entire war in Afghanistan.

In my mind the President has to fire McChrystal---this is his third strike & he has to go. And if he is the only person in the entire military who can lead this mission, we are worse off than I thought.

I have been pondering the military for some time following the DADT repeal, which they will drag their feet on & try to delay/prevent. I think they bide their time during Democratic presidencies & wait til the Republicans get back in so they can do what they really want to do.

Chandler,

You are right on point. The right is going to do everything they can to stop anything our President tries to accompolish. They will then claim that he has done nothing. The DEMS need to expose these guys every day and inform the American Voting Public just how many times these guys have blocked programs and who they are. Let the people know that the finance reform you said you wanted here is why you did not get it. And point out by name who the culprits are. The nlet the people make their choice. Anybody notice how quite the right has been of late??

When you have the tea party, lawmakers, and pundits questioning and bashing the President at every opportunity, then this type of behavior is expected.

As for the General and his staff, lack of diversity and too much familarity will breed contempt.

I don't have any doubt that this was deliberate. It's every bit as deliberate as his "inadvertant" comments to the press that got him this opportunity in the first place. The chattering class was all behind him then and whining about whether Obama was "tough enough to be a war president." People like John McCain were demanding that McChrystal have a chance to show what he can do there. Now we know.

I have been reading a lot about Gen. McChrystal, and I submit that this whole situation is deliberate. Now, my speculation is this - things are not going very well in Afghanistan right now, and see this as a means for an EXIT for the General. You cannot tell me that a General doesn't know the UCMJ backwards and forwards. This is a man that is USED to plotting strategies, using moves and counter-moves to eventually win wars.

The question is this - why pick a fight with this CIC NOW? We can speculate that Gen. McChrystal has an ulterior motive, but what purpose - or outcome - would he expect picking a fight that he will most certainly lose? Is the General 'falling on the sword' for king and country? Is there a more nefarious purpose for this type of action?

If we can answer these questions, then we can understand why Gen. McChrystal has taken this course. If there are any in/who were in the military that can offer some insight, I think all of us would appreciate it.

Nashville_fan
P.S. Feisty, I totally agree that this whole thing was deliberate. If it wasn't then that is almost scarier.

NF, of course it's anybody's guess but, I'm of the mind that it wasn't deliberate. I've known a general or two in my day and they have the biggest egos you'd ever want to meet. Lot's of bravado and they are never wrong.

I never got the impression that the ones I met were by any means reckless, however, and that is how I view McChrystal. The man is a reckless, ego maniac who got a little too comfortable with the press. And, yes, it's scary.

I think he should be fired.

I would say keep him for the sake of the war plans but the war plans are not working and so that shoots in the butt the only reason to retain him. We aren't going to win this in a year, imo, so put somebody else in there and let them do their best until pull out. Obama needs to come across as tough on this kind of thing.

I think we can all agree that this general has single handedly screwed the Obama administration and all of the troops under his charge. It's dispicable and he should be punished.

Great post, Chandler.

I've been so frustrated with the media in overdrive on trivia. No one can convince me that the reason Obama's poll numbers show negative response is primarily because the media feeds them nothing but negative comments, negative opinions which is why I was so annoyed at the post-oval office speech analysis from people who normally are much more fair minded--why hasn't he been to LA (when he had), why didn't he speak out early (which he did), why isn't he angry, the government is too slow (when the govt's response was within hours) and so on. The media failed EARLY to discuss the magnitude and the impossible nature of "fixing it" quickly.

Constructive criticism of policy, war, health care are fair but turning the conversation into whether Pres Obama is angry enough is not constructive or even remotely relevant.

Penny, good point. Bad behavior and disrespect has become acceptable.

FEISTY:

The bigger question is ...why hasn't the media asked "where is Bush / Cheney?" In fact the scroll on the bottom of the screen on MSNBC should read "DAY 65: Where is Dick Cheney?" Instead of "DAY 65: Oil Disaster / Gulf Crisis."

Excellent idea Sheila! Think it will fly with our moderators? lol

Not So Fast ... I seem to remember during the Bush years when ANY HIGH ranking officer wood speak out or call out a Bush decision he was hailed as the next coming of JC . WoW how things have changed on the LEFT leaning news outlets..

The Left is getting weaker by the day the base is eroding daily and they have not a clue what to do about it

Not So Fast ... I seem to remember during the Bush years when ANY HIGH ranking officer wood speak out or call out a Bush decision he was hailed as the next coming of JC . WoW how things have changed on the LEFT leaning news outlets..

The Left is getting weaker by the day the base is eroding daily and they have not a clue what to do about it

Agreed IR - Jindal suing the Fed's says on thing and one thing only... BIG OIL is MORE important & powerful than any of the 'small' people who rely on the Gulf to support themselves & their families!

Sad... but TRUE!

You are totally correct IR, however, it is equally clear that the residents of the Gulf (or at least their elected officials) care not one iota for the people that are most affected by the slimy goo gushing from a mile below the surface. They are too focused on their short term interests and the 250,000 oil jobs that are allegedly at stake. They cannot seem to comprehend that, once the gushing flow finishes the job of killing what is left of the Gulf coast, there will not be ANY jobs in the region. Not fishing, not tourism, not restaurants, not hotels, not grocery stores, NOTHING will be left!

Who wants to live/work in a place that is fouled by oil and reeks like a refinery 24/7? No, the residents fought like hell to be allowed to continue their game of ecological/economical Russian roulette. So be it. They have placed their blind faith in BP and the other multi-national corporations to bail them out in times of trouble. I hope they sleep well knowing that the people they have literally placed their future in the hands of STILL have NO clue of how to stop the gushing flow OR how to clean up the residue of their colossal failure.

I wash my hands of the whole thing and will simply now mark time until the next "100% impossible occurrence" takes place to their shocked disbelief. Keep thinking that the oil companies can drill safely and have the technology ALREADY IN PLACE to handle ANY catastrophe. Morons.

IR,

Your post is right on the money.

If we have learned nothing else, we are all viewed as "collateral damage" by the newly minted "corporate people".

What really saddens me is that the corporations have so programmed folks by controlling the media, that folks would rather believe that President Obama delilberately blew up the oil well than believe that BP cut corners to make an extra buck.

We are pretty close to the story told in the movie The Matrix - people reduced to being battery power for machines . . . a pretty good analogy for American society today.

IR, Feisty and Disgusted,

Good points all. This is really becoming more crazy every minute. With what we are seeing now why don't we just give them what they want. They want smaller government, ok, we now no longer have resources to help clean up the mess. You want to continue to drill with those 30+ wells knowing that they are not safe. Ok, but don't call us when they leak and/or blow up. Let your elected officials use their big mouths to lap up the oil, they should be able to clean the Gulf in short fashion. I still feel sorry for the people who will be hurt by the misguided, corrupt people who created this mess.

You know that addage, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; but teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime?"

Those were LAST year's values. Now we have Congressmen standing on the floor of MY house preaching to us that the way we are treating the foreign company that has sullied our country is UNAMERICAN? WTF?

We are truly living in 'interesting' times and I don't see the upside to this rhetoric any time soon.

Clara KCMO,

I hear you. Our country is like a car driving down the interstate at 70 mph, the temperature gauge is in the red, the oil light has just come on (pardon the pun) and the nearest servcie station is miles and miles away.

I fear that things are going to get worst before they get better. We are seeing evidence of this every day. Pundits are telling us what we should think. I just want the facts without the misleading spin and rhetoric. I can make up my own mind but that requires facts not talking points and lies.

My goodness, how these posts just drip with cynicism. BP might go bankrupt after this episode, so does that count as collateral damage? Killing the whole Gulf coast so it reeks of oil 24/7, gee do we really know that yet or are we jumping to the most convenient conclusion that supports our narrative? We actually know that drilling in the 33 other deep water wells is unsafe? Exactly how do we know that for sure or is that another convenient conclusion to jump to; particularly since that proposition was not proven in court. And as for being programmed by corporate people, Apple (to take just one evil corporation) must have quite a stable of nefarious people programmers. After all, that's the only way countless millions could be induced to buy all those iPods, iPhones, etc. Couldn't possibly be because they're cool products that lots of folks want.

BTW Nash, you mentioned The Matrix. Years ago when that movie first came out I ordered it through my cable company. I was watching and with about a half hour left there was some technical glitch and the cable switched to another movie. This was pay-per view so I considered calling the cable company to get my money back since I couldn't see the end of the movie. But I was having such a hard time figuring out what the heck was going on in that movie that I decided I really didn't care how it ended. No doubt, that explains why I take issue with many of these posts. You know that adage, "If you can't figure out The Matrix, then how could you possibly understand today's reality." I dunno just gimme some fish, maybe that'll help geting through these interesting times.

As always my thanks to all for wading thru my southernisms.I just want to leave one parting thought with this post for your consideration. Why don’t we consider the Millions that are out of jobs for the foreseeable future because a certain segment of the Financial folks decided that it would be okay to treat the economy as collateral damage and therefore impose a moratorium on the very system that we depend on to keep body and soul together? Which court can We the People take that one to get justice?

People in the Gulf are destroying themselves and their environment for a few dollars and they will defend it to their detriment.

Personally, I think the rest of the country should draw a line in the sand in regards to providing additional resources to the area in the event of another spill.

Morning Bill.

If what happened with the Deep Water Horizon is not enough "evidence" to err on the side of caution with the only Gulf of Mexico on the planet, well I suppose there really is nothing to discuss.

P.S. You really should rent the Matrix - the first movie was life changing . . . the other two . . . meh.

Hey, Navy -

You must be from around here to mention I-70! I've enjoyed reading your posts! Thanks for the comment.

Bill, Fairfax -

Is that an olive branch I see? or just a dagger in disguise? Thanks, I guess.

Actually, the John Carpenter movie "THEY LIVE" is more appropriate to what we are seeing right now in our society. Its an older movie, and Amazon.com has the DVD for $6.99. The story in the movie eerily parallels what we are seeing today, especially in the Gulf.

More wisdom. I had not thought of it as acceptable collateral damage--great comparison.

Clara dearest, my heart is all aflutter. A dagger? Hardly, should I choose to skewer you there would be no doubt. But I haven't chosen that path lately, Pietro has been such a calming influence on me. Of course, not having idiots drop by to call me unmentionable names kind of helps too.

A peace offering? Wellll, I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. Wouldn't be consistent with my image as a neanderthal right wingnut. But as one of my favorite movie characters would say 'tomorrow is another day.' So who knows what the future holds..

Nash -- oh there you go again (rather Reaganesque, eh?). I had nothing to say about the issue of erring on the side of caution. My post addressed the unsupported assertion that we know the other 33 sites are unsafe. When we don't know that.

In fact, I have some sympathy with the notion of erring on the side of caution. So, when the government announces a moratorium, that's fine. When some companies sue, that's fine too. And when the judge rules against the government, that's fine three. My takeaway from that is the government failed to make its case. So it seems to me the anger of folks on your side should be directed towards the ineptitude of government lawyers. Particulaly when the left seems to think this case was such a slam dunk for moratorium advocates.

Bill You made it three days in a row and I sure do like it. Don't agree with but I still like it. Now don't swing the pendulum to far on me and go getting all warm and fuzzy. Looks like to me you've got it right about where you need it.Thanks for the reasonsable thoughts.

Bill,

though I disagere with your politics; I have to admit, I like your style!

My issue with your comment regarding a perceived "rush to judgement" pertaining to the other operating wells is that the other operators have very similar response plans (as far as my limited understanding) to the BP well currently spewing oil.

Until a plan, a real useable plan, is formulated agreed upon, and mandated, I beleive the risk outweighs the payoff.

I mean, sheesh, this one well caused a terrible disaster. I'm not saying that the other wells are unsafe; I don't know that they are either.

Until we know we can do thsi safely we should take a pause, figure it out, and then proceed. Another disaster like this.......I hate to even think about it.

Bill,

For me this is not about politics. Its about oil spilling into the Gulf that we can't stop and all the other companies attempting to drill similar wells have not demonstrated any ability to stop it either.

Now, I can't imagine what more needs to be said . . . but I'm no expert. If we need to "prove" that another well is going to blow in court, fine with me. I mean, my job isn't being wiped out by the oil.

So let the oil addicts drill themselves to what ever end awaits.

Some folks have to learn the hard way I suppose.

Wrong again, Chuckles.

While we on the left would have appreciated the message (just as you, on a certain level, appreciate the message from McChrystal), the method of delivery is unacceptable regardless of which side of the political aisle is sitting in The White House.

CU,

The criticism is not the issue. The forum of the criticism is the issue. But you know that, you just needed an excuse to type "lefties".

lol

Wrong. You all are still cheering the crazed Iraqi that threw his shoes at Bush and Chavez' ridicule of Bush in this very country. Just admit it; McC's real crime was dissing Obama.

McChrystal crossed the line. Has nothing to do with politics. He has by his actions reduced his effectiveness for command and should be releived PERIOD. Lives are at stake here and make no doubt about it.

Many would say that the 9/11 attack was a direct result of Mr. Bush and companies neo-con agenda to force Democracy on the entire World, why should Bush/Chenny decide what other sovereign nations use as their government? Why do you and your Republican buddies think the U.S. should dictate what the rest of the World does, that's stupid.

Actually CU - when the shoe thrower incident happened, I was teaching my Constitution class and discussed with the students that no one disrespects the President of the United States - no matter what political party.

The shoe thrower, I explained, not only disrespected the specific President, but the office itself, which, in turn, disrespects the United States.

And I was NEVER a Bush supporter. I didn't vote for his daddy either. But as one who understands our government and protocol, I found the incident horrible.

You know, Chuck, it IS possible to contain all of your dripping contempt for your fellow posters in the forum to a single post in any given thread. I know that such disparate thoughts as 'you lefties' and 'groupies' and 'islamofascists' somehow cry out for many different venues to express them, but you could probably condense your thoughts to a single post every morning that goes something like this:

"YOU'RE ALL SCUM!!! I HATE YOU ALL! DIE! DIE! DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

And you would probably get about the same point across.

Just food for thought.

I'm going to sound like a broken record but...

Wrong AGAIN, Chuckles!

Dude, did you just elevate a citizen of Iraq and the wacky dictator of Venezuela to the same level as a General in the United States Army? Really?

Did I cheer the Iraqi who threw his shoe at President Bush? No...but I laughed because that was funny. Oh, and the thrower? Well, he committed a crime, was arrested and served time in prison.

And, let's face it, you're delusional if you think anyone on this blog thinks our President should be more like Hugo Chavez.

(You might be delusional anyway.)

"YOU'RE ALL SCUM!!! I HATE YOU ALL! DIE! DIE! DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

And you would probably get about the same point across.

___________________

You earned my vote for the most accurate post so far today!

Just heard that McChrystal has LEFT the WH... stay tuned...

Mine too Michael, very well said.

W Bush,

Come on, 9/11 happend slightly less than 8 months after Bush took office, how can that be a "direct result of Mr. Bush and companies neo-con agenda to force Democracy on the entire World"? You might want to re-think your timeline, 8 months probably wasn't enough time to establish his agenda, much less have that significant of an impact on the world.

Michael -- you get my vote, too.

To everyone else's thoughts, I'll just add "See You" Farley when you say something that shows thought whether I agree or not.

Michael -

I think even grouchy ole CU had to laugh at that one. I know I did. Thanks for brightening the day.

Darn it CU!. There you go making them look in the mirror again. Looks like you struck a cord with the truth. They would have been absolutely giddy and cheering if it were Bush. Of course spewing on the military makes them all pretty happy too.

Good post Mixed Bag. I have not said that often but I think I should give credit where its do.

I agree. You are not wrong this time, Mixed Bag.

You'll probably be wrong next time.

I'm getting choked-up, guys...

Thanks, Pietro...I think.

Actually the Democrats controlled the Senate for 4 of GWB's years.

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

If it's in wiki it MUST be true.

Alan,

I'll have to double check that . . . although as you said . . . if wikipedia sez it, that is pretty much a lock! lol

Of course, 4 years is still more than 17 months . . . so I think my basic premise still stands either way . . . why didn't the folks who know it all NOW implement all their genius plans when they were in power THEN?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

This is one where I really do not have an opinion. There are no good solutions.

Having said that I do not agree with the current policy. I am more in the camp with Joe Biden and George Will because Afghanistan really is not winnable - no idea what winning would be under any scenarios. The idea that this current policy aids Pakistan is a mystery to me. The president has made it clear that we will have some sort of pull-out in 2011. After that what? All I see is years of low-level attrition. Very depressing.

Nash: why didn't the folks who know it all NOW implement all their genius plans when they were in power THEN?.

I have often wondered about that myself. Everyday you hear all of these geniuses say what the President should or shouldn't do and how they would do it, especially from the Republicans.

I say they have no idea about what to do and never have. It is just a way to try and make the President look like them which could not happen in a lifetime, he is much more in tune with reality.

Very depressing indeed Alan . . . but I would encourage you to read international news on the war in Afghanistan . . . they cover things that don't quite make the news here and present a somewhat clearer picture . . . not a picture of certain victory . . . but a more balanced picture for sure. I posted some links below Ron's comment above (the first comment) that will give you an idea what I mean.

I went to wikipedia and found this chart about Congressional control:

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

It shows President Bush had a friendly Congress from 2001 to 2007, with these caveats:

So as usual, I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle!

Even stranger is that C-Span poll rated GWB 38th worst president....he didn't come last

Chuck You Farley,

I think you may be projecting what you WANT to read onto what we are actually TYPING. Nobody is saying that we were not justified to go after those responsible for 9/11 and they happened to be in Afghanistan (at least for a while). Where you apparently become illiterate is when we specify that it was not GOING to Afghanistan that we question or criticize. It was Dubya's decision to pull OUT of Afghanistan in favor of his folly in Iraq that we have issues with.

If people like you cannot even accurately specify the egregious positions you attribute to us, how the heck can ANYONE take ANYTHING you say seriously? Now, if you want to address the decision to re-direct and re-allocate the majority of our resources that were sent to Afghanistan to do a Job Bush chose not to complete, I would love to hear your theories, FACTS, and justifications.

Actually, CU-

President Obama has been pretty consistent in his assertion that Afghanistan is a fight that must be won.

We'll see if he is able to see this through...but his position has been clear.

that is the problem with you FU Charley. your whole statement shows that you have little understanding of the large picture of this. you basically are compensating for your own shortcomings (if you get my drift) by saying you want to go in and kick butt. you are on here alot, seems like you have a bunch of free time. go ahead and join in the fight. no one is stopping you from joining the army. bush went into afghanistan with almost no plan and very little troop support. his focus was on iraq. period. mcchrystal has more troops and is executing his strategy. typical wittle republican. whine and cry.

I notice people on this board saying that often: that Afghanistan is a war Bush started

Of course, you know very well that it's not merely a war Bush started; it is a war Bush bungled so badly it's probably unwinnable. I heard a woman with the US diplomatic mission to Afghanistan in 2002 this morning say that she was optimistic at the time because there was a "window of opportunity" after the initial US invasion to improve the lives of the Afghani people. She said that window was closed when Bush decided to invade Iraq. Bush slammed the window shut, and there's little Obama can do to reverse the damage Bush's incompetent leadership caused.

First off CU Afghanistan as Iraq are not wars. They are policing actions. Wars consist of two opposing forces facing off to see who can kill more of the other resulting in the eventual surrender by one of the opponents.

Policing actions are when ground troops are sent into another country to provide security for the population against some of their own population. This allows the opponents to fight within, and to blend in, with the general population ,and to attack or to retreat at will back into the population. The opponent can pick and chose when to fight or whether to fight at all. They can chose to be in-active for a time and to rely on suicide bombings or other terroristic activities to disrupt the security of the population as well as to frustrate those who invade their country with the intent of fighting the same to some end. Policing actions also place the invading forces in a difficult suitiation because often they do not know who their enemy is. This results in unwanted collateral damage where innocent citizens can be fmistaken for the enemy and the enemy mistaken for innocent citizens. A person may be a peaceful citizen but his brother who lives two houses down might be a member of the insurgency. This is not the conditions of a war, and such conditions do not bode well for the invading army to win any type of lasting victory.

The invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with the loss of American lives on 911. None of the perpetrators of that terroristic act were Afghans. None were Iraqi. Bin Laden is neither Afghan or Iraqi and hides out in Pakistan. So tell us again why we invaded Afghanistan where the fight was taken to the Taliban who are the religious fanatical arm of the Afghan people? And be reminded for every terrorists training camp you destroy or disrupt in Iraq or Afghnistan two or three pop up in Pakistan, Seria, Somali, Iran, and several other countries around the world. What are you going to do CU.? Invade with ground troops every single country on this planet that may hide or house terrorists?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

OK, Bush did start the war in Afghanistan not by choice, but by choice left it unfinished! He started his little war in Iraq and left Afghanistan. I was behind the man 110% going into Afghanistan but 110% blame him for the unfiniished business that he left for anyone and I do mean anyone (clear)who would have taken office, not just President Obama.

CU Farley,

You continue to misrepresent what people say on this board to make it fit the talking points of the day. You claim people are typing something that if you read their statement they did not say or worse you just twist it to fit your twisted logic, assuming you have any logicat all. Try just sticking to the facts and the topics.

I AM glad to see that Obama has carried on many of Bush's anti-terrorist policies. Including the Patriot Act, keeping Gitmo open etc...But believe me, at some point on this very board and page, at least a couple today will refer to Afghanistan as a war that "Bush started".

And I wasn't aware that Bush had pulled us out of Afghanistan, leading to Obama's heroic mopping up attempt. I was pretty sure that our guys have been there since Oct, 2001. But then again, I don't watch any Michael Moore films so what do I know?

Actually there Chuckles you are partially right. President Bush choose this course of action in response to an act of terrorism. That action was and would still be supported by the majority of our citizens of both sides. If that administration had of stuck with their original mandate which was to go into Afghanistan and engage whoever was resposible for this act as expeditiously as possible and then move on we wouldn’t have a problem. The fact remains that President Bush and his minions decided to take their eye off the mission that was mandated and go nation building in both Iraq and Afghanistan which resulted in the mess that we now find ourselves in. So on that bases We the people of the United States find ourselves having to waste young people. The Obama administration unfortunately finds itself in the rather tragic position of having to somehow try to find a way to extricate us from a mess of the failed policy and actions of the previous Administration.

CU, Two things:

President Bush declared war on terrorism not Afghanistan. And yes, it is, as President Obama called it “a just war”. And yes the terrorists started it and they just happened to centralized in Afghanistan at the time.

President Bush took his attention off the war on terrorism in Afghanistan to finish his daddy’s fight against Iraq. The world may be better off for it but Iraq was not a “just war”. Now President Obama is playing catch-up (not clean up) because President Bust allowed the Afghanistan initiative to just “run in place” for 5 years. Lots of dollars spent with no movement or successes.

Cu says: “so what do I know?” – Clearly, very little !!

Whoa, Dennis!

You can't refer to the Iraq War by saying the "world may be better off for it..."

Not at First Read.

I can't fault the accuracy of your remark, but...take it from one who knows:

Be aware of your surroundings.

True that... I'm listening to MSNBC and they're sound a bunch of gossip girls...

Now they're reading 'tea leaves'! lol

Why can't I just get some straight talk and facts? Is that TOO much to ask?

Settle down, Feisty-

McChrystal's fate is not an issue that's going to linger. One way or the other, this will be over soon.

Feisty, Reading tea leaves is all most of the pundits do. There are few true journalists left in the world. I find some of you guys on this site (Left and Right) have more factual data and justified comments than many of the talking heads.

LOL Dennis... I just had to giggle that they actually had the b@lls to say it out loud! And spot on about the information that's posted here!

Yes, the chatters are chatting or rather obsessing. I just caught Nora O'Donnell promoting Nicky Haley's primary win to STAR status and 2012 potential because blah blah, she overcame rumors. Give me strength, everything is 2012 potential. The woman won the primary, she hasn't won the governorship just yet. The only reason I have the TV on right now, waiting to hear about Obama's meeting with McChrystal.

Absolutely correct Houston! Do you remember Gen Shinseki being torn apart by his summation that we would need several thousand troops in Iraq and he was told you are flat wrong. I guess in the end he was right we did need several thousand troops there. The egg was on the Bush administration's face over this.

No worries Houston. Most of us on this side of the aisle were able to make that leap of faith. The echo chamber addicts are still waiting to be fed their responses this morning...

I just went back to read the "Bud Light Lime" excerpt which I had missed. I agree. It's hilarious. lol

I LOVED the movie 'Almost Famous', nice weave into current events, FR writers!

The only thing missing from the story is a Penny Lane sex angle.

______________________________________________________

Should we be at all surprised that the dynamic duo of Rove and Gillepsie raised a paltry $200 last month? Isn't that really just g-string change for them?

______________________________________________________

And I guess we are no longer using the 'dropping like flies' reference when incumbents lose their battles? Or perhaps that is reserved for Dems only? At any rate, put another lame duck on the fire and cook up some orange sauce!

Good Morning Frank, welcome back, we missed your reasonable postings. How was the vacation?

regarding the moratorium, the judge has a conflict of interest, he owns considerable stock in Transocean. He is in N.O. and has been a judge since appointed by Reagan. He has to live there, and could be possibly influenced by his associations in that city and state.

Gingerbread mama-believe what you will, but judges issue rulings on the appertaining law.

Yesterday, the administration announced that it would appeal the ruling to the fifth circuit-today, they are issuing a new moratorium. That change in stance leads to the inevitable conclusion that the administration knows that the fifth circuit would uphold the lower court.

If Salazar does issue a new moratorium, he'd better make sure that it is justified in fact, not in conjecture, or it will be overturned by yet another court.

If Salazar does issue a new moratorium, he'd better make sure that it is justified in fact, not in conjecture, or it will be overturned by yet another court.

FACT - Deepwater Horizon is spewing thousands of barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico and the companies responsible for it haven't a clue how to stop the oil spill.

Until they figure out how to stop it...NO NEW DRILLING!!!

NoJO, especially as the 5th Court of Appeals based in NO has jurisdiction in all the Gulf states. So it is entirely possible they may uphold it, which would then make me question their decision.

If you could cast aside your blind dislike of our President, it might allow you to think more clearly.

Frank, from what I understand the judge felt it didn't contain adequate justification and Salazar is adding more specific details about why.

The troubling thing about the decision is that Judge Feldman holds a huge oil and energy porfolio with stock in Halliburton, TransOcean, BP and others. I'm not saying that influenced him but maybe he should have recused himself.

If you need me, I'll be resting after watching that amazing US victory in the World Cup! I've completely lost my voice! USA USA USA!!!!

I don't see how anyone who has admitted to compromising the mission can make any argument to keep his job---his job was to advance the mission and he has failed at it.

I agree but he should be given the opportunity to explain himself directly to Pres Obama.

I agree, however if we are not in the business of "nation creation" and tend to spread ourselves around the world in 3rd world countries, then what are we in the business of? Nation invasion?

There is no doubt something in that country that we are desperately seeking. It may well be the vast amount of minerals that they found. Focus always tends to shift when things have a promising future. We only see minute amounts of data.

But ultimately we are there because of 911 and yet what have we accomplished other than running around like chickens with our heads cut off... a general's gaffe, a question of authority and a bunch of crazy Republithugs thinking they will win 100 seats in November.

I agree. I think this issue is taylor made for Obama's strengths. He's very good at hiring/firing personel, good at the big picture stuff. I think Gates is a big help here.

Good point about the Constitution.

Oh they're still here Pat - suprised you haven't figured out who's who... Guess they weren't 'proud 'enough of their work to use their previous monikers in the new format! lol And that goes for selfigh redhead as well!

Read the Immigration related topics - there are plenty of unusual folks contributing to those.

And, Ron-

Plenty of First Read regulars that didn't bother to show up.

Mixed Bag: Why do you assume that they didn't show up? Could it be that they have a life divorced from First Read? Normally, I am out on my horse in the evening, but weather prevented that. I showed up, and I am not afraid to challenge you.

Still, newday...

When the post about the Mexican government joining Holder's lawsuit against the state of Arizona went up...most of the First Read regulars went down.

Anna Molly, Michael Thompson, and CA stood their ground.

I'm sure it was just a coincidence...but I've seen it happen before.

And...I could care less whether you fear me or not.

I don't see why anyone should fear dissent...do you?

What you are trying to suggest is that the Regulars had some fear of both the topic and you. I am suggesting to you that you are relatively unimportant in the general scheme of things, and they may have been doing more interesting things. One more thing: it is not Holder's lawsuit that the Mexican govt is filing a brief on. If you had read the story, it is the lawsuits being filed by civil rights organizations. Justice has not filed as of yet, but as I explained to you yesterday, and you still don't seem to get, they have an obligation to protect the Federal issue.

Sorry if I struck a nerve, newday, and you're certainly welcome to put any spin you like on what happened.

The point I would make is that the Mexican government and the Obama Justice Department will both be participants in legal actions against the state of Arizona over its new illegal immigration law. That makes them partners against the state of Arizona in my view. Feel free to disagree if you wish.

And, I'm well aware of my relative importance here and elsewhere.

Are you similarly aware of yours?

If you understand that this has nothing to do with Justice, then why do you continue to conflate the issue? I think it is because you are unable to understand it. As to "striking a nerve" no. I will from time to time try and find out if someone like you is capable of insight. You simply are not that relevant.

Good grief, Mixed Bag--not all the regulars comment on every thread. I didn't see the post until late last night when I shut down the computer; and when I read the silly snark that had been posted--it wasn't worth the effort.

I tell you that Justice and the Mexican government will both be participating in lawsuits challenging the new Arizona immigration statute...and that I believe that makes Justice and the Mexican government partners against the state of Arizona.

You say "this has nothing to do with Justice". Fine. That's the way you see it. Just as you feel that I'M the one with comprehension issues. Fine again.

But, speaking of the "Federal obligation"...what about the Federal obligation to defend U.S. sovereignty along its southern border?

The Justice Department's suit will likely end up before the Supreme Court where the constitutionality of the Arizona law will be decided.

I suppose you already know what that decision will be, newday.

I don't know why they would even bother to deliberate and issue a ruling.

Well, like I said yesterday, I don't address immigration very often because I honestly believe the issue is probably blown a little out of proportion and consider it to be something of a 'bright and shiny' used to distract us from things that are really important.

However, there are a couple of things:

1.) Like I mentioned yesterday, no matter which party or which political ideology was in power in Washington, the federal government is almost required to file their suit, not because they are inherently against Arizonans, but because this is a jurisdictional dispute that has to be resolved on constitutional grounds. Whichever way it is decided, I don't have much of a dog in the fight.

However, also as I said yesterday, I don't think the outcome is quite as cut and dried as you because they won't be arguing the constitutionality of the law from a standpoint of whether the constitutional allows it. They will be arguing that Arizona never had the power to write the law in the first place because the law enforcement of the issue is outside the state's jurisdiction. On that level, I think the Federal Government would probably win... with a few caveats.

Like I said yesterday, I think that Arizona has the right to pass whatever law it wants to pass as long as that law ends up passing constitutional muster. They even have the right to pass laws that will cause a bunch of damage to the state economy and to alienate a portion of its own citizenry, which is generally what I believe the practical outcome of this law will be.

2.) Most everything else we talked about yesterday. I think that border security is necessary and if border security is the only way that we'll be able to get the right wing to the table to discuss the more important part of this topic: ie, how do we practically and pragmatically deal with the 16 million already here, then we might as well address that part of it first.

3.) The thread ended up after the reasonable people left with a bunch of pointless Mexico bashing and rehashing of the notion that the nation of Mexico had somehow joined Holder's lawsuit, which Jill rightly pointed out hasn't even been filed yet. Since you really can't change peoples' minds if they view Mexico as a third world country and seem to intensely dislike our neighbors to the south, I didn't see much sense in hanging around.

That would have been sort of like arguing about whether someone has the right opinion if they like chocolate or dislike chocolate. No point to it because someone's opinion isn't necessarily something that can be proven or disproven. You can think the opinion is repugnant, but you really can't argue it on an empirical level.

I agree with you, Michael, I don't think that this issue is a slam dunk for either side. I believe that the Fed has the stronger argument with about their Constitutionally delegated authority, but at some point, there is going to have to be a discussion on where we go from here. Do we round up people and send them home? If we do, how do we do that? Will citizens of this country be willing to bear the costs, because the lawsuits will fly if that happens. The citizens of Arizona may not yet be aware of what the costs will be to them to defend this suit should the Fed file one. It will be pricey. Do they want to pay that? I have already canceled a trip to Arizona this fall, and I bet I am not the only one. There is not a one of us, no matter how liberal we are that will claim that there is no duty to protect the border. But, the devil is often in the details, and I am interested to see how the details spin themselves out. As to what that discussion became last night...it was shameful. I hope I can tack up and ride my horse tonight and not be tempted to engage with the loons.

First Read is a website for political debate. While some of the people commenting here feel that they actually are constitutional law scholars, regrettably, most of us are not.

However, as a purely political matter, the government of Mexico is involved in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law, and the Obama Justice Department soon will be.

Politically, the Justice Department and the government of Mexico will be viewed (and should be viewed) as allies in challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law, and will be united in the effort to overturn Arizona's statue.

So basically you are saying that it is somehow our responsibility as posters to ignore all the pertinent facts and base our predictions of the outcome solely on the basis of our political leanings?

The application of what knowledge you possess is never a bad thing. Whether you know enough to qualify as a 'scholar' is beside the point. Anyone can educate themselves enough to build an objective opinion about a particular case.

The outcome of a case has nothing to do with the popularity of one side of an issue over the other. Mexico and the Justice Department may be both challenging the law based on completely different sets of facts, but the fact that they are both challenging the law does not somehow make them 'allies.'

That is tantamount to saying that if a company was simultaneously being sued for copyright infringement of one of their products and by a private litigant for wrongful death because that product might have been instrumental in someone's death that the other company and the private litigant are somehow 'allies.' They are not. They merely both found issues to dispute at the same time.

The Justice Department will challenge the law on jurisdictional grounds. The civil liberties groups are challenging the law on a variety of discriminatory grounds. All of these things are separate issues that require resolution as separate facts. Mexico has written an Amicus Brief supporting the civil liberties case. Whatever they say in that brief will be irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue.

If I were to make predictions, I would say that the civil liberties case will fail and that the Justice department case will likely succeed, depending on the advocacy of the attorneys in both cases. The facts of the matter support Justice a lot more than they support the assertion of the civil liberties organizations.

However, saying that you believe that either case will fail simply because you support the underlying issue of controlling illegal immigration indicates that you aren't willing to put a lot of thought into the matter or much effort into educating yourself about what the laws regarding it truly are.

Michael-

But, I'm NOT saying that I believe either case will fail...in fact just the opposite, to the limited extent that I've discussed that aspect. While I certainly would like to see both cases fail, truth is, I have no idea whether either case will succeed or fail.

I'm discussing this as a political issue, and pointing out that politically, Eric Holder's Justice Department and the Mexican government are united in their determination to see Arizona's immigration law overturned. Both will soon be involved in lawsuits against the state of Arizona, when Holder gets around to joining the fray...and we've known for a some time that he's going to, haven't we?

And politically, shoes are still dropping on this issue.

Arizona House Democrats Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, and Anne Kirkpatrick, have sent a "sharply worded letter to President Obama urging him not to sue." (The Hill, 06/23/10)

This is not just a legal story...it's a huge political story.

My feeling is this - if the AZ legislature is SO SURE they have a good case, why send a 'sharply worded' letter? Why not DARE the DOJ to go ahead and sue? What are these legislators afraid of?

I don't know about you, but if I was about to go into a fight that I was SURE I was going to win, I would say nothing and go for the jugular. Could it be that MAYBE the DOJ has some legal precedence that will cause the whole applecart to be tipped?

Mixed Bag is right - this is a politically issue that will be touted at 'David v. Goliath', no matter if David is out-manned, out-gunned and out-financed, and those that HATE this President will use this as a rallying cray that the 'Government is taking over'.

Pietro-

The people I mentioned are U.S. House members...not members of the Arizona state legislature. And, there are only five Democratic Arizona U.S. House members.

Three of them signed the letter to President Obama.

oops.. that's what I get for quickly reading and not comprehending.

However, my argument still stands. Those House members that signed that letter are probably getting pressure from their 'constituents' to do so. So, the question is - why 'blink' when you don't have to?

I haven't seen much to think that Haley is a nutcase. She's pretty far right and I doubt I'd vote for her, but she's not in 'flouride in the drinking water is a plot to subvert the United States into surrendering itself to the secret world government' land. Or the 'we all need to arm ourselves with howitzers and machine guns because the libs are coming next week to force us to pay our taxes' territory.

One more good thought that had not entered my mind.

I haven't, but even Joe Scarborough apparently 'polled' his alliances and they were all in agreement and deeply troubled by the behavior,...not that I believe much from Scarborough; but it wouldn't surprise me.

I have also thought along the lines of it being treasonous. If these remarks were made 150 years ago, there would have been some serious repercussions. But since it is a new era and new conflicts, it would not be wise to practice such condemnation.

Appreciate that you shared your son's military perspective. Being a civilian, reading your comment and that of the veterans who post here has been helpful to me in understanding beyond my own disgust of McChrystal and aides.

Nice to see you decided to stick around :0)