17,000 More Troops Afghanistan

Hadn't he been saying for months that we needed to redirect troops to Afghanistan to fight the insurgents and find Bin Laden?

PFFT...That was the first things that Obamma took care of. Don't you remember this?

Trend News : Angry civilians protest civilian deaths in Afghanistan (http://news-en.trend.az/politics/foreign/1407615.html)

Why else would we target civilians.

Of course I am not serious.

More

US general visits Afghan bomb site for death claim | CITIZEN-TIMES.com | Asheville Citizen-Times (http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990218004)

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?

Seriously? The bullshit way in which Bush and his administration were treated just gets thrown out now? What a bunch of hypocrites the lefties are. Democrats spent years harping on everything and making political battles through disinformation and down right lying on many occasions (not to forget they were right on a lot of things too.) Now when righties start pointing stuff out it is "childish and unproductive" What a joke. I understand the tit for tat being seen negatively viewed but that doesn't mean the last administration, or the one before it was treated fairly. It is one of the biggest problems with Washington and Obama was sent to "change" it. Good luck Barack. That is if you actually have the stones to try and "change" it. Nothing so far indicates that you do.

Nobody demanded time lines until Iraq was dragging out and we appeared to be spinning our wheels. If the same thing ends up happening in Afghanistan we can be pretty sure people will want the same kind of answers.

No no no. Once Iraq turned around after we refocused our previously misguided efforts the rhetoric from the Obama campaign never changed. He never once said the surge worked and he simply played politics with it. Isn't that true?

I am simply trying to dispell this crazy notion that Obama is any different than any other politician and this idea of "change", a real tangible different way of our country being governed" is ever coming under him. He ahs already showsn signs of busniess as usual.

Back to the topic...

Obama is supposed to reveal details about their strategy after a 60 day review

Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-17-afghanistan-forces_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip)

Seriously? The bullshit way in which Bush and his administration were treated just gets thrown out now? What a bunch of hypocrites the lefties are. Democrats spent years harping on everything and making political battles through disinformation and down right lying on many occasions (not to forget they were right on a lot of things too.) Now when righties start pointing stuff out it is "childish and unproductive" What a joke. I understand the tit for tat being seen negatively viewed but that doesn't mean the last administration, or the one before it was treated fairly. It is one of the biggest problems with Washington and Obama was sent to "change" it. Good luck Barack. That is if you actually have the stones to try and "change" it. Nothing so far indicates that you do.

I'm talking more of what goes on here.

I'm talking more of what goes on here.

I do tend to agree there has been too much of the snarkyness in that regard.

There seems to be this stupid game going on right now of comparing everything back to Bush and it just seems so childish and unproductive to me. It's almost like a 5 year old whining to his Mom that Billy got away with something so why can't he. Is it possible to just talk about the issues at hand instead of getting into this ridiculous game of finger pointing?I think you have to admit, objectively, that the media response to a given incident today compared to an identical event from, say, 2 years ago is downright hilarious.

Obama deserves every chance to try to correct our foreign affairs, but let's not act like he's going to get half the resistance that Bush would have on this move.

Back to the topic...

Obama is supposed to reveal details about their strategy after a 60 day review

Obama's war: Deploying 17,000 raises stakes in Afghanistan - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-17-afghanistan-forces_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip)
Well the General asked for the men so he did what was right and gave the orders. I just hope that after 60 days he gives us the information that we need and no more. As Americans we need to be informed but not if it causes any information to go out that could help the bad guys in any way. That was my biggest problem with all the people demanding that Bush tell us everything and the information that was leaked to the public. If there needs to be debate about whats going on do it behind closed doors with a group from both parties and clasify the information as such making any leaks of info a war crime. We are at war and need to remember that not all information should be released.

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."

The fact that this was announced in a simple press release, rather than a speech tells me that The White House is not sold on the strategy and doesn't reallly want to own it. Their problem is that in the campaign they didn't want to be seen as anti-war in the code-pink/Jane Fonda sense of the term so they cast Afghanistan as the "good war" to contrast it with the "unnecessary, bad war" in Iraq and now they're somewhat boxed in.

Problem is, Afghanistan was actually the "bad war" all along from a military standpoint. The solution in Iraq seems comically simple by comparison. Petraeus convinced the Sunnis that if the violence continued, the Americans would leave and they would all be slaughtered by the Shiites and then to be sure, he bought them off. The classic stick and carrot. The Jihadis that are vexing us in the border regions obviously have no interest in making deals. And they know that Obama would not pay much of a political price at this point if he threw in the towel. It seems we've seen this film before. No not Red Dawn, although that works too. No, not Easter Parade. Oh yeah, Vietnam.

At some point I suspect Obama will find some face saving way of basically withdrawing. As the saying goes, "Declare victory and depart the field."
I'll agree with your first part if he does press release when he has had his 60 days to determine what actions he want to take. He really has not had alot of time to look over the entire thing in Afghanistan but after 60 days from then on is his.