Obama and Afghanistan

[nots]

So it begins...

Great--we'll soon be down to the number of troops we had in Afghanistan as the day he took office.
Kool Aid, anyone?

[Frank]

It is perfect drone terrain

+1
!!!!!!!!!

[Judge Jude]

not sure if this is the right spot, or what to make of it - or who will like or dislike.

ex-Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying they had to disavow existence of drone program upon taking office:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fmr-press-secretary-gibbs-admits-he-was-told-%E2%80%98not-to-acknowledge%E2%80%99-that-drone-warfare-%E2%80%98exists%E2%80%99/

especially interested in Bob K's response. safe to say that 'this is life in the big city, fellas?'
if so, any issue with it being brought up even these many years later - is that kosher?
I have no idea....

[The Feral Slasher]

I believe it came from borrowing, since the debt has been growing throughout the period of these wars at a faster rate than the cost of the wars. Now that's not free money, but I think you of all people would acknowledge that it doesn't appear to have caused painful budget cuts anywhere, no?

Might not be that far away. So do all the Democrats on the board believe we should be cutting cutting Social Security benefits so we can spend more on the military ?

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/02/26/obamas-sequester-replacement-plan-would-be-deeply-unpopular/

Polls show cutting Social Security benefits and raising taxes on the middle class are individually unpopular proposals, but they are likely to be made even more unpopular by what they would be used to pay for. Obama’s plan would also eliminate the vast majority of the sequester cuts to the military.

In effect, Obama is proposing cutting your Social Security benefits and raising your taxes so most of that money can be given to the Pentagon instead. This is the exact opposite of what the electorate would prefer

[Hornsby]

Might not be that far away. So do all the Democrats on the board believe we should be cutting cutting Social Security benefits so we can spend more on the military ?

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/02/26/obamas-sequester-replacement-plan-would-be-deeply-unpopular/

Polls show cutting Social Security benefits and raising taxes on the middle class are individually unpopular proposals, but they are likely to be made even more unpopular by what they would be used to pay for. Obama’s plan would also eliminate the vast majority of the sequester cuts to the military.

In effect, Obama is proposing cutting your Social Security benefits and raising your taxes so most of that money can be given to the Pentagon instead. This is the exact opposite of what the electorate would prefer

Admittedly, I'm not an expert in reading government documents, but I read the brief article that you linked, went to the docs that were linked in there, and frankly, I simply don't see what he claims. Do you have anything other than this short blog post? I'd be interested in seeing what he sees...

[The Feral Slasher]

Admittedly, I'm not an expert in reading government documents, but I read the brief article that you linked, went to the docs that were linked in there, and frankly, I simply don't see what he claims. Do you have anything other than this short blog post? I'd be interested in seeing what he sees...

Here's another link from the same source, that provides a little more info, I can probably dig up some more stuff. Part of the Grand Bargain is entitlement reform (reduction in benefits), which traditionally has been opposed by Democrats and Liberals. I've read many, many articles indicating that Obama is all for cutting entitlements, but at the same time he wants to make it look like he has no choice, that it is part of compromising. Anyway, I was curious if any of the liberals/Democrats disagree with entitlement reform.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/02/28/sperling-obama-wanted-sequester-to-force-democrats-to-accept-entitlement-cuts/

The way Obama has handled basically every manufactured crisis from the debt ceiling, to the Bush tax cuts expiration, to the sequester has been about trying to force both Democrats and Republicans to embrace his version of a “grand bargain.” While it is clear this has been the driving force behind Obama’s decisions, if you pay close attention to his actions is is rare than an administration official will directly admit this. This is actually what I think it most interesting about the recently leaked email exchange between Bob Woodward and Gene Sperling up on Politico. Sperling wrote:

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start.

And here's a link discussing some of the potential social security modifications:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/nancy-pelosi-social-security_n_2333285.html

[Hornsby]

Here's another link from the same source, that provides a little more info, I can probably dig up some more stuff. Part of the Grand Bargain is entitlement reform (reduction in benefits), which traditionally has been opposed by Democrats and Liberals. I've read many, many articles indicating that Obama is all for cutting entitlements, but at the same time he wants to make it look like he has no choice, that it is part of compromising. Anyway, I was curious if any of the liberals/Democrats disagree with entitlement reform.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/02/28/sperling-obama-wanted-sequester-to-force-democrats-to-accept-entitlement-cuts/

The way Obama has handled basically every manufactured crisis from the debt ceiling, to the Bush tax cuts expiration, to the sequester has been about trying to force both Democrats and Republicans to embrace his version of a “grand bargain.” While it is clear this has been the driving force behind Obama’s decisions, if you pay close attention to his actions is is rare than an administration official will directly admit this. This is actually what I think it most interesting about the recently leaked email exchange between Bob Woodward and Gene Sperling up on Politico. Sperling wrote:

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start.

And here's a link discussing some of the potential social security modifications:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2333285.html

Thanks, I'll take a good look at it later...off to work now. BTW, not really a Democrat although I seem to play one here on more than an occasional basis.

[The Feral Slasher]

Thanks, I'll take a good look at it later...off to work now. BTW, not really a Democrat although I seem to play one here on more than an occasional basis.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan

Here's a link to the proposal on the Whitehouse site. I can't understand much of it either, although the "spending savings from superlative CPI" is one of the items discussed in my earlier links I believe. Hard to belive that they can't find more than $100 Billion in Defense cuts. (other than War savings)

[Hornsby]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/seq...residents-plan

Here's a link to the proposal on the Whitehouse site. I can't understand much of it either, although the "spending savings from superlative CPI" is one of the items discussed in my earlier links I believe. Hard to belive that they can't find more than $100 Billion in Defense cuts. (other than War savings)

I don't have a problem with cutting any program, including Social Security, provided that it's done thoughtfully. Look at all potential sources of waste and fraud, and you'll end up saving a ton of money. But it's important that you don't overlook anything...I agree with you that there has to be a LOT more than 100 billion that could be cut from the defense budget, without harming the military in the least.

[The Feral Slasher]

I would not class Afghanistan with other wars were American lives have indeed been spent needlessly (Vietnam, Iraq II). The 9/11 attack was one in a sequence. It certainly wasn't a one-off. America had to respond to that. I don't believe they had any real choice. It would be preferable to get the troops out of course, but the risks of letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda re-organize (with a newly empowered and rearmed Pakistan backing them) is far too great a risk IMO. Also if they leave, they will find it very difficult to get back in again should things escalate. Pakistan was the main supply route into Afghanistan. After Abbatobad, that route has been completely closed off. The cost of leaving could be too high if there is a chance the puppet regime in Kabul is overthrown.

Pakistan betrayed the American's and supported and backed the Taliban and Al Qaeda before during and after 9/11. This has only become concrete since mid-2011. I don't think the American's are going anywhere any time soon.

The War of Terror is a load of crap of course. It was a soundbite to paralyze the population, and make them compliant to the Bush administrations illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq and the bullshit Orwellian legislation like the Homeland Security Act.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/04/what_went_wrong?page=0,0

I found this article interesting. Each page is written by a different person with ties to Afghanistan. I found myself agreeing with just about everything on page 2, other pages are informative as well. I read stuff like this and wonder what we really think we are going to accomplish. What does victory look like ?

[The Feral Slasher]

Well the war is over, sort of. Interesting that Obama made the point of thanking intelligence personnel.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...ushpmg00000013

Today's ceremony in Kabul marks a milestone for our country. For more than 13 years, ever since nearly 3,000 innocent lives were taken from us on 9/11, our nation has been at war in Afghanistan. Now, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.

On this day we give thanks to our troops and intelligence personnel who have been relentless against the terrorists responsible for 9/11--devastating the core al Qaeda leadership, delivering justice to Osama bin Laden, disrupting terrorist plots and saving countless American lives. We are safer, and our nation is more secure, because of their service. At the same time, our courageous military and diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan--along with our NATO allies and coalition partners--have helped the Afghan people reclaim their communities, take the lead for their own security, hold historic elections and complete the first democratic transfer of power in their country's history.

[The Feral Slasher]

Despite earlier claims, apparently the war in Afghanistan isn't over. It seems like we will be fighting there forever.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/asia/afghanistan-doctors-without-borders-hospital/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/at-least-16-killed-at-afghan-hospital-after-us-airstrike_560fed96e4b0dd85030c43ea

[DMT]

Despite earlier claims, apparently the war in Afghanistan isn't over. It seems like we will be fighting there forever.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/asia/afghanistan-doctors-without-borders-hospital/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0dd85030c43ea

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[nots]

I' stunned there isn't more commentary about the bombing of a hospital. I guess folks feel its the cost of doing business.
Sad really.

[johnnya24]

I' stunned there isn't more commentary about the bombing of a hospital. I guess folks feel its the cost of doing business.
Sad really.

The press are busy reporting on Putin's bombing of Syria.

Multitasking is hard.

More evidence that the press are a huge part of the problem.