President Obama's Weekly Address - January 12, 2013

Ending the War in Afghanistan and Rebuilding America

President Obama's Weekly Address - September 1, 2012

Honoring Our Nation’s Service Members and Military Families

President Obama's Weekly Address - May 5, 2012

A New Chapter in Afghanistan

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 12, 2011

Honoring Our Veterans for Their Service and Sacrifice

President Obama's Weekly Address - October 22, 2011

Bringing Home Our Troops

This is Awful

Washington Post: Kabul, AFGHANISTAN - A NATO helicopter was shot down during an overnight operation against the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan, killing 30 U.S. service members, including about 20 SEALs from the elite SEAL Team 6 counterrorism unit that carried out the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, the coalition said.

...A U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter said the aircraft was most likely brought down by a rocket-propelled grenade.

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 25, 2011

Strengthening America by Investing at Home

Quote of the Day

"When it comes to the market economy, I am a realist. I understand that, compared to a nation of farmers and artisans, a market economy--especially under free trade, jobs offshoring globalism--subjects people to massive economic insecurity and requires a strong social safety net. The idea that Republicans are espousing that the social safety net can be sacrificed in the name of deficit reduction in order to pay for wars of hegemony is insane, inhumane, and evil.

Such Republicans have nothing in common with President Reagan."

~ Paul Craig Roberts, American economist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

Wow. When the founder of Reaganomics is not on your side, it's not a good day for the GOP.

But Roberts doesn't stop there. He also criticizes the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and our collective hypocrisy in Libya.

"Here we are, we're all concerned about humanitarian concerns in Libya, after we've wrecked two countries ourselves?... In Iraq, there were huge numbers of people dead and dispossessed, with no place to go. But none of that bothered us. When we're doing it, it's quite all right."

...And Roberts can't forget how the George W. Bush administration used deception to take the country into those wars in the first place -- in Afghanistan, even though the Taliban had not attacked the United States, and then in Iraq, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"Lies," said Roberts, "and the bastards knew it."

This Is Horrifying

Washington Post: Members of U.S. platoon in Afghanistan accused of killing civilians for sport

...According to charging documents, the unprovoked, fatal attack on Jan. 15 was the start of a months-long shooting spree against Afghan civilians that resulted in some of the grisliest allegations against American soldiers since the U.S. invasion in 2001. Members of the platoon have been charged with dismembering and photographing corpses, as well as hoarding a skull and other human bones.

The subsequent investigation has raised accusations about whether the military ignored warnings that the out-of-control soldiers were committing atrocities. The father of one soldier said he repeatedly tried to alert the Army after his son told him about the first killing, only to be rebuffed.

Winning hearts and minds.

Stories like this show how a few bad apples can make the entire military look bad, endanger fellow soldiers and jeopardize missions years in the making.

Quote of the Week

So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus’s last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?

~ Frank Rich

The Michael Steele Quandry

The latest foot in mouth moment for Michael Steele is developing into a very interesting situation. While on the one hand, he once again went against the grain of the entire party he is the supposed chairman, on the other hand, he actually spoke some truth.

To reiterate, Steele said the conflict in Afghanistan “was a war of Obama’s choosing” and “is not something that the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.” Wrong on both counts.

Just to clarify, I didn't necessarily disagree with Steele's notion that history has shown the lack of success in previous Afghanistan occupations, but the thought that Steele would try to lay this solely at President Obama's feet, as if the previous six years before Obama took office never occurred, is absolutely ludicrous.

Now there are calls for his ouster.

"Frankly, I find Steele's remarks totally unacceptable," said [Rep. Tom] Cole (R-Okla.) in a statement Saturday. "He should apologize and resign. He undercut American forces fighting in the field, politicized further a war that two presidents of different parties have deemed in the national interest and embarrassed the party he purports to lead. It is time for him to go -- quickly."

There were criticisms by the usual suspects, Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol included.  So how wrong was Steele if the likes of those two disagreed with him?

Whether he undercut American forces is not ascertainable, but he did undercut his party. While trying to score cheap political points against the President, he managed to turn the GOP rhetoric on its ear, although there are a select few that agree with the RNC chairman.

“Michael Steele should not resign,” [Ron] Paul, a Texas Republican and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, said today in a statement. “Michael Steele has it right and Republicans should stick by him.”

I don't know if Steele has walked back his comments before or after Paul's support, but walk it back he did, and judging by the reaction Steele has had to previous criticisms, you can tell even he thinks this time he's gone one step too far.

Michael Steele is An Idiot - Afghanistan Edition

It's time for the weekly Insert Foot in Mouth moment for Michael Steele. This time, Steele tries to blame Afghanistan on Obama as "a war of his choosing" failing to realize that not only was this yet another fixer upper of the previous administration's debacle, but also that the RNC Chairman is in direct opposition of most likely EVERY Republican member of Congress.

"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Michael Steele said at the event. "This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

..."Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan, alright, because everyone who's tried over a thousand years of history has failed," Steele continued.

Where was Steele and his criticism about history in 2003?   Oh, right.  There was a Republican in the White House.  It goes to show how much the RNC is in disarray when this guy hasn't been fired for his foot in mouth disease. And they say Joe Biden is bad!

President Obama - Today Show Interview

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Oh, The Humanity!

From the "Too Crazy To Be True" archives, a Tennessee Mayor named Russell Wiseman was outraged at the pre-emption of A Charlie Brown Christmas on Monday night due to President Obama's West Point speech on Afghanistan. Not only was he upset at the programming bump but felt that our "muslim president" did it on purpose because he hates Jeebus, ranted about it on Facebook and then continued his outrage when it was made public.

"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."

...In Wiseman's extensive thread that attacked the president, his supporters and Muslims, he stated "...you obama people need to move to a muslim country...oh wait, that's America....pitiful."

At another point he said, "you know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different........"

Yep, an elected official in this country is more interested in a 44 year old cartoon Christmas special that he could've bought on DVD than in one of the most important decisions the nation's president happens to be making on the same night. He thinks President Obama looked through the programming schedules of every local outlet in the United States and picked a night where he could deny Charles M. Schulz the opportunity to spread the Gospel through a two-dimensional drawing of a six-year old, blanky toter named Linus. And most of all, Obama did it to fuck up his family's night in front of the television.

These are the people we choose to represent us. Oh, the humanity!

(H/T Linkins, HuffPo)

No Nuance

I've been doing a little more reading than writing on the blogs today, when my internet and cable wasn't out (DAMN YOU, TIME WARNER!!!) and it's pretty interesting, the blackness and whiteness of it all. No, I'm not comparing President Obama to the Senate. I'm reading the left ripping their hair out over the fact that they were duped by Mr. Hope and Change and this Afghanistan decision proves it. I'm reading the right throwing their feces at the arrogance of the Manchurian Candidate's timeline that includes a withdrawal date, because the enemy will just wait us out, even though since they live there, there can always wait us out.

Nuance has never been a forte of the far left or right. I had a conversation with someone regarding the President's speech and ultimate decision after almost three months of planning and thought. I expressed how I didn't like the idea, hated that we'd have to stay, how we've done nothing substantial there for eight years but that leaving now would be like the early 80s all over again, when we funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviets and then cut and ran when we needed to help them rebuild. I thought that a timetable for withdrawal was a good thing, making sure Pakistan's nukes didn't fall into Taliban hands was a good thing, how it's really no surprise as Obama has characterized Afghanistan as "the good war" as opposed to Iraq and how he voiced his opinion while still Senator to expand there.

And the response I got?: "So you're for the expansion of the war then?"

Fuck! No, I'm not for war expansion, who is? But what other choice does President Obama have? Are others privy to information behind closed doors at the White House that I am not, and can make a better decision than the President? I wasn't happy about President Bush's escalation when he decided to surge troops into Iraq either, but it seems to have worked out there and I was wrong. Obviously they know more than we do. And yet I see the left calling Obama a sellout and caving to the Pentagon. The same Obama that rejected every initial plan from the Joint Chiefs and told them to come back when they included an exit strategy.

Were they not paying attention when the President, then Senator, said he would escalate in Afghanistan during his campaign run? Or were they "duped" then too? And anyone supporting the President on this most difficult of decisions is now an Obama apologist, or has drank the Obama Kool-Aid. That seems to me to be the old Bush, "you're either with us or against us" black and white ideology. Has anyone been happy with the policies of a politician they voted for 100% of the time? Can't it be possible to still support a president for the things he's doing right and take a "wait and see" attitude with things on which you disagree?

I read things like, "This is not what I voted for" or "He's supposed to please his base." Well he's not supposed to please anyone, he's supposed to do what he thinks is right and what's best for the nation. It wasn't his base that won him the nomination, it was the independents. His base, who is now calling him worse than Bush and a sellout, were whining back them about how he was blowing the campaign by not addressing Rev. Wright immediately or letting the "pallin' around with terrorists" fester. And he kept showing us that he was smarter than any of us.

The title of David Sirota's column today made me wince. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a president's political image?" Pretty clever, rephrasing John Kerry's question in front of a Congressional hearing during Vietnam, and in my opinion, pretty shallow to suggest that this decision was made based on Obama's image. But I would submit to Mr. Sirota that the same question could be asked had the President ordered an immediate withdrawal.

Now, if the President backs off on the withdrawal date, whether the situation on the ground dictates it or not, then I believe he may be in trouble. We might then see a one term President and I'm sure that Obama knows this. The real thorn in Obama's side isn't Afghanistan, but slow job recovery and the economic downturn. If those factors don't turn around by mid to late 2011, it might be one and done.

But there is one thing I can believe: this decision from this President was not made lightly. And I believe he made it because he thinks it's the best decision for the country.

President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Here's the video of last night's speech, in case you missed it (like I did).

The Problem With Afghanistan

I haven't blogged about this subject because there's really not much to say about it. I can't imagine that anyone is happy that the United States is committing another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Anyone sane, that is. I'm not speaking about chickenhawks like Dick Cheney or war profiteers like Halliburton. And it's easy to say "withdraw" when you're not the President of the United States. I personally would like to see a withdrawal from Afghanistan as soon as possible but we know that that isn't going to happen.

And think about the situation the Obama administration finds itself in. Put yourself in the President's place and really think about not just the ideological stance but the political ramifications of this decision. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Either A) Commit more troops and anger the liberal Democrats, although this shouldn't come as a surprise since President Obama did say during his campaign that we took our eye off Afghanistan and that he would finish the job.

B) Decide to withdraw and you're labeled as soft on national security. That combined with the terrorist trials being held in New York City and the "Obama love terrorists" meme continues.

C) Commit less troops than the request of the generals and be ridiculed for not listening to the commanders on the ground; not that former President Bush listened to his commanders when they asked for more troops in Afghanistan as he was playing Stratego™ in Iraq and Osama bin Laden was reenacting The Great Escape in Tora Bora.

But whether we stay in Afghanistan, escalate or withdraw, the real problem is that it only legitimizes Hamid Karzai's tainted election, and a corrupt, drug profiteering government. So no matter what the President announces tonight, and from all indications it looks like an escalation of 30-35,000 troops, there is no upside except for the possibility of outlining a definite exit strategy with a specific timetable. Of course, there will be talk of benchmarks, but with the new administration, I'm expecting said benchmarks to be specific and attainable, as opposed to nebulous and fishy. You can move the goal posts only so many times.

At this point, there really is nothing to do except to hope that the new strategy works, and give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and the time to make it work. Otherwise, we should take to the streets in protest with the same vigor as the wingnut teabag contingent, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

We'll find out tonight.

Haven't We Heard This Excuse Before?

AP: Afghan officials hope President Barack Obama's address on Afghanistan won't be weighted too heavily on an exit strategy – even though that's the message many Americans and Democrats in Congress want to hear.

If he talks extensively in his speech Tuesday night about winding down the war, Afghans fear the Taliban will simply bide their time until the Americans abandon the country...

1 - The whole point of an exit "strategy" is to leave the country in a favorable position for them to defend themselves. It's the complete opposite of abandonment.

2 - Do they think we live in a fish bowl and have no short term memory? This is the same fucking excuse we heard from the chickenhawks about leaving Iraq before we won something or other. Al-Qaeda would just wait it out.

3 - Afghan "officials" (yeah, I'm talking to you, Hamid Karzai) might want to worry a little more about their country not supplying the world with 95% of its heroin and a little less about our exit strategy and what President Obama might say in his address tomorrow.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of everyone looking for the United States to be the policeman of the world, especially when  don't see anyone too eager to dig into their pockets and pony up the dough to do it. I think those guys in the light blue helmets should step in and make with the peacekeeping while we should step out and get our shit together.

Dithering? McChrystal Doesn't Think So

In what I would categorize as an ultimate 'fuck you' to Dick "Five Deferments" Cheney and the bang up job the Bush administration did in Afghanistan while playing that new board game Build A Democacy™ in Iraq, McChrystal had a different take on the time President Obama is taking to make his decision.

Via GottaLaff:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal told lawmakers that President Obama had engaged in a "thoughtful process" on Afghanistan and refused to criticize the president for delaying his decision to send more troops.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.):

Some of the lawmakers pressed McChrystal on Obama's lengthy decision-making, but the general described it as a "thoughtful process and wouldn't go any further," Price said. "I was a little surprised he didn't voice frustration with the delay."

More like disappointed, right Tom?

Obama Rejects Afghanistan Plans

Breaking news on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow show via the AP that President Obama has rejected all the plans recommended to him for our next step in Afghanistan and sent his national security staff back to the drawing board with the intention of forming a plan that transfers security to the Afghan military.

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That push follows strong reservations about a possible troop buildup expressed by the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official. In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Adding... This is huge considering the sketchy at best and fraudulent at worst election process that Karzai "won." In public, of course the White House has to say that Karzai was legitimately re-elected, but behind the scenes I'm sure it's a completely different story regarding the clusterfuck the whole situation has become.