Obama approves deployment of more than 10,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Obama approves deployment of more than 10,000 troops to Afghanistan.
This afternoon, the White House released a statement by President Obama announcing the deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan. Noting that the “situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action,” Obama said that he “approved a request from Secretary Gates to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade later this spring and an Army Stryker Brigade and the enabling forces necessary to support them later this summer.” Various media outlets are reporting that he will be sending roughly 12,000 troops to Afghanistan. The Progress Report has more on the challenges remaining in Afghanistan.
Obama’s full statement below:
There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm’s way. I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.
To meet urgent security needs, I approved a request from Secretary Gates to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade later this spring and an Army Stryker Brigade and the enabling forces necessary to support them later this summer. This increase has been requested by General McKiernan and supported by Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of Central Command. General McKiernan’s request for these troops is months old, and the fact that we are going to responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq allows us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan.
This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan. I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need.
This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires. That is why I ordered a review of our policy upon taking office, so we have a comprehensive strategy and the necessary resources to meet clear and achievable objectives in Afghanistan and the region. This troop increase does not pre-determine the outcome of that strategic review. Instead, it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfill achievable goals in Afghanistan. As we develop our new strategic goals, we will do so in concert with our friends and allies as together we seek the resources necessary to succeed.
To remain effective in Afghanistan, we desperately need to reduce the civilian death toll. That means less airstrikes. Which probably means more boots on the ground. And hopefully more boots on the ground can also reduce civilian exposure to death-by-Taliban. That’d be how you get the job done.But success of this venture is contingent not so much on the additional troops as on the adoption of a different strategy—one more focused on population security and less reliant on air power. It would be nice to learn some more details so as to really evaluate what’s happening.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a mess Bush has handed off to Obama…
…learn from the Russians and get the F out of there.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pmIf you want to decrease deaths in Afghanistan, decrease troop presence. This automatically means less US deaths and will quite probably mean fewer deaths over all.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pmI have only one thing to say…
PEACE
February 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pmThe main concern isn’t necessarily US deaths here, its civilian deaths. A ton of those civilian deaths are caused by airstrikes. Afghan civilians are much more safe with US troops in the country than without them there.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pmContinuing one of the many failed policies of the previous administration is a sure recipe for disaster.
George Bush -and conservatives in general- have refused to learn any lessons from the American intervention in Southeast Asia, or from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I am afraid the Obama administration will repeat both mistakes.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pmHungryHungryHippo Says:
The main concern isn’t necessarily US deaths here, its civilian deaths. A ton of those civilian deaths are caused by airstrikes. Afghan civilians are much more safe with US troops in the country than without them there.
But it is our air strikes which are killing all the women and children. It seems odd to embrace the very same government which is responsible for so many avoidable casualties. We will never win their ‘hearts and minds’ while killing them with rocket attacks. That does make sense, no?
February 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pmGregor Samsa. I respect that you are consistent on this issue.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:36 pmThe Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget
More troops = more war = more death.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pmStratRat Says:
But it is our air strikes which are killing all the women and children. It seems odd to embrace the very same government which is responsible for so many avoidable casualties. We will never win their ‘hearts and minds’ while killing them with rocket attacks. That does make sense, no?
The Taliban and insurgents are the root of civilian casualties there. The fraction that are cause by US troops are by airstrikes. More troop will hopefully make it easier to crack down on the Taliban and other insurgent groups.
From NY Times Article:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:40 pmThe majority of civilian deaths were caused by the Taliban and other anti-government insurgents, the survey found. Most of those deaths were caused by suicide bombers and roadside bombs, which, the report found, were often detonated with the obvious intention of killing as many civilians as possible. The report also found that Taliban fighters often attacked American-backed forces in densely populated areas.
While Afghanistan and, to a degree, Pakistan are different than Iraq given 911, I still am concerned about the question of what our end game is. Exactly what do we want to accomplish? Without a specific and articulated purpose, we are simply going to be pushing soldiers around the chess board as targets. What constitutes “victory”? BushCo never told us. I hope the Obama administration gives us a reasonable answer.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pmwatchdog is chasing his tail again.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pmI’m hoping he slams his head into a dresser like he usually does.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:45 pmMaybe now the Taliban raids on Kabul can be kept to a minimum, while we figure out how to cut a deal with them without looking like the losing side.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:46 pmralph. watchdog has a point. Obama is continuing some of the policies that progressives have been critical of Bush for.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pmIF watchdog has a point, its a tiny, stubby one that he keeps sticking in places it doesn’t belong.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:52 pmYes, cut a deal. I’m in favor of a strategy that includes fewer airstrikes killing Afghan civilians, fewer Afghans being arrested and tortured in US prisons in Afghanistan, more Afghans being paid to cooperate with us, a more benevolent overall US policy that will then allow us to divide civilian sentiment vis-a-vis the Taliban, internationally-implemented infrastructure improvements for the Afghan people, and then we get the hell out. It’s not our country.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:53 pmralph. watchdog has a point.
No, Obama is attempting to clean up after the disaster wrought by the policies that progressives have been critical of Bush for.
Obama is attempting to govern, Bush was attempting to decide… and failing, flailing and flunking.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:54 pmThe only points watchdog has are on the spikes on his collar — a standard accessory for males who have to convince others (and themselves) how tough they are.
In fact, Obama said all during the campaign that more troops were needed in Afghanistan, more troops than Bush was willing to commit.
Afghanistan is not Iraq, although I understand that right-wingers frequently make that mistake.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pmBTW, the president is not “using the same failed Bush policies,” he is following through on a promise to increase our ground presence to reduce civilian casualties due to our dependence on airstrikes. In the meantime, he has ordered a comprehensive review of the strategic and tactical situation there and after that is complete he will implement HIS policy.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pmwatchdog et al are criticizing Obama because…they want to criticize Obama.
Progressives and liberals who criticized Bush did so on the basis of the policies and actions he put in place.
watchdog et al never criticized Bush for what he is now criticizing Obama for, and its not because they are suddenly enlightened.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:59 pmThe failed Bush policy was to ignore Afghanistan and redeploy into Iraq. Obama is doing the OPPOSITE of Bush policies.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pmWhatever happened to GW Bush’s “Marshall Plan for Afghanistan?”
February 17th, 2009 at 6:02 pmbackup Says:
ralph. watchdog has a point. Obama is continuing some of the policies that progressives have been critical of Bush for.
Will you please knock off the generalizations? “Progressives” have not been critical of inserting troops into Afghanistan. MOST progressives were critical of the diversion of troops to Iraq. SOME progressives were critical of troop presence in Afghanistan. There is no generic “progressive” opinion.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:05 pmwell, there was general progressive support for anti-war sentiment directed against Bush. I will concede that now that the President is progressive , the support of anti-war sentiment is not as prevalent and much less vocal.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:09 pmAfghanistan is where the true fight has been from the beginning. There was never any reason to send troops to Iraq. All that did was give Iran a stronger hold in the region and allow Al Qaeda to grow. This is a good step in the right direction.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pmIs that right, Captain? Funny, I’m just as anti-war as I ever was, and I’m pretty sure I’m saying so — most everyone I know is the same.
So much for your generalizations.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:13 pmSURGE!!!
February 17th, 2009 at 6:14 pmBackup,
I would say there was general progressive support for anti-Iraq-war sentiment directed against Bush. I have always supported stronger action in Afghanistan, as have most of the progressives I know.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:14 pmbackup Says:
well, there was general progressive support for anti-war sentiment directed against Bush. I will concede that now that the President is progressive , the support of anti-war sentiment is not as prevalent and much less vocal.
Why is it so difficult for you to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan?
February 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pmgummitch Says:
Why is it so difficult for you to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan?
February 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
It doesn’t suit him.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pmwell, there was general progressive support for anti-war sentiment directed against Bush
I, personally, have always been critical of Bush for turning his back on Afghanistan and focusing on Iraq… I think there were many progressives who agreed with me.
I know Obama agreed.
Bush ‘listened’ to the Generals and then ignored them and went into Iraq anyway… that’s what we were critical of, the blatant and flippant use of U.S. military power to further a personal agenda…
February 17th, 2009 at 6:18 pmYes. Conquest of Afghanistan would definitely be progress in the right direction. Then on to Pakistan!!!
SURGE!!! PROGRESS!!!
February 17th, 2009 at 6:18 pmStewarjt’s take on the announcement: Afghanistan is a quagmire deeper than Iraq. It is a mistake to think the US can “win” there, however defined. The smart move is to declare victory, withdraw US troops and commit to helping the Afghans rebuild their country.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:20 pmAlejandro,
I’m not talking about “conquest of Afghanistan.” Here, read this for a better explanation of what we need to be doing in Afghanistan. It starts with a troop increase, but ends with troop withdrawal. By the way, you might want to take just a little bit of consideration for those progressives who have been there and know what is going on.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:23 pmObama is continuing and escalating the Bush/Republican war of aggression on the Afghani people. This is just a stupid, criminal move that will help no one. The CIA under Reagan armed and trained the religious right-wing peasants in Afghanistan (forerunners to the Taliban) to harass the Soviet communist government in Afghanistan and the occupying Soviet troops. Years later, we have the Taliban trying to run the American imperialists out of their country. What a mess that we have created in the Middle East… Time to get out of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Time to stop wasting our money in endless imperial occupations.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pmControl of Afghanistan then? Or would the Pentagon spend billions of dollars and send tens of thousands of troops on the other side of the globe to help poor people?
February 17th, 2009 at 6:30 pmYes. Obama campaigned on surging in Afghanistan. And it’s not a continuation of Bush’s policy, it’s an escalation.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pmZooey and gummitch. Here’s from the thread:
It’s basically a surge. And Obama has retained Gates from the Bush administration.
Zooey. I have no doubt that you are anti-war. gummitch. I’m not sure how you feel about Afghanistan (it doesn’t matter, I would respect the position, either way).
It’s an Afghanistan surge. If you doubt that the anti-war sentiment is less vocal, just go back a year or two and review the sentiment and opposition of the threads regarding Iraqi surge.
Same strategy. Much different reaction.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pmNO IT DID NOT.
Some people IN Afghanistan did.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pmI’ve always been opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. This is a point with which I’ve disagreed with Obama. But I trust that whatever he does, he won’t be reckless and he won’t act out of an ideological motivation, a desire for revenge, or a need to appear “tough”. If he can do anything that will make life better for Afghanis, more power to him.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pmThe Taliban did not attack us.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pmB-cup, please try to pay attention. Progressives are capable of more than monosyllabic policy positions.
Progressives “in general” supported Afghanistan and opposed Iraq. They especially opposed ignoring Afghanistan in order to invade a nation that was no threat.
As gummitch noted, your sloppy use of generalizations makes you look lazy and foolish.
Because Obama is taking steps to draw down our presence in IRAQ.
As a side note, I am left wondering if my harsh treatment of b’cup as of late somehow contributed to what looks to me like a precipitous fall into trolldom for a once modestly respectable commenter.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:37 pmNO CHANGE THERE!!! Since he took office Obama has signed 3 drone attacks in pakistan that has killed civilians! the Ocupation of Afheganistan continues from Bush to Oba Oba without any significant change…
February 17th, 2009 at 6:41 pm“draw down our presence in IRAQ” is OCUPATION with another name…
February 17th, 2009 at 6:42 pmbackup Says:
Same strategy. Much different reaction.
I’m just about ready to give up.
Much different countries, much different situation — so, yes, much different reaction. From some progressives.
I repeat, why is it so frickin’ difficult for you to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan?
February 17th, 2009 at 6:47 pmgood to see Yglesias starting the hypocrisy bandwagon rolling here at TP. I guess I won’t hold my breath waiting for the screams from the anti-war left concerning this latest abuse of the US military and America’s taxpayers.
New slogan for the left blogosphere:
IOKIIO (Its OK If Its Obama).
February 17th, 2009 at 6:50 pmgummitch Says:
I repeat, why is it so frickin’ difficult for you to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan?
####
Unfortunately, there are many on both sides of the political spectrum that are having this problem. The increase of troops in Afghanistan is nothing at all like the surge in Iraq. The differences are tremendous. But that would take too long to explain and would fall on deaf ears for the most part.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:50 pmralph. I’ll be okay.
The point is this. Obama is continuing some of the heavy handed American foreign policy that progressives lamented about the Bush administration.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83595§ionid=3510302
The idea is that, the anti-war voices are ironically somewhat muted (maybe only temporarily) due to the partisan conflict between a President that shares many progressive ideals and a likely continuation of heavy handed American foreign policy.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:51 pmAnother one who fails to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:52 pmWe get your point, b’cup, and we reject it as stupidly and stubbornly relying on a simplistic view of the world utterly devoid of anything even approaching realistic nuance.
IRAQ IS NOT AFGHANISTAN.
I’ll type that again, since you seem to have a difficult time reading it.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:56 pmIRAQ IS NOT AFGHANISTAN. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, WITH DIFFERENT MILITARY SITUATIONS REQUIRING DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
backup Says:
The idea is that, the anti-war voices are ironically somewhat muted (maybe only temporarily) due to the partisan conflict between a President that shares many progressive ideals and a likely continuation of heavy handed American foreign policy.
####
Actually, the increase in troops will allow us to decrease the bombings that Karzai was speaking of. So Obama’s policies are actually less heavy handed. Also, Obama campaigned on a troop increase for Afghanistan. McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:56 pmAnother one who fails to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
February 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pmpluege Says:
good to see Yglesias starting the hypocrisy bandwagon rolling here at TP. I guess I won’t hold my breath waiting for the screams from the anti-war left concerning this latest abuse of the US military and America’s taxpayers.
#####
Have you been living under a rock for the last several years? The “left” has been calling for more troops in Afghanistan since 2002. The abuse of the military was sending us into Iraq with no military objective, and no mission – hence no exit strategy. I used to ride around in Baghdad just waiting for someone to shoot at me, because we had no clear enemy in Iraq. That is completely different from Afghanistan.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pmand is the Pakistan policy somehow less heavy handed?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012304189_pf.html
February 17th, 2009 at 7:01 pmbackup Says:
Another one who fails to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Noam_Chomsky
February 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Maybe you could pull a quote regarding his confusion from that Wiki entry?
February 17th, 2009 at 7:02 pmYour point was “there was general progressive support for anti-war sentiment directed against Bush”.
Noam Chomsky is not going to make your point.
Folks, I’m with gummitch. I don’t think b-cup is ever going to get it.
Not sure whether it’s an instance of what Upton Sinclair was talking about when he said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” or just some virulent strain of conservatism that has flared up in our friend’s brain chemistry.
But he sure seems intent on not understanding what so many of us have said over and over to him.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:04 pmbackup Says:
and is the Pakistan policy somehow less heavy handed?
####
Pakistan is a very difficult situation. They have ordered their military in the past to fire on US troops. They have provided open support for two different terrorist regimes. They have nukes, and a very advanced military force. And they have been openly aided by the Bush administration for the last eight years. It puts us in a very sticky situation.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
But he sure seems intent on not understanding what so many of us have said over and over to him.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
b-cup has been consistent in that since he started posting here. “I’m here to learn,” but but but but…..
February 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pmZooey. Here’s Chomsky.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83595§ionid=3510302
Read the interview and tell me he’s not concerned with the direction of Obama’s foreign policy.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:11 pmWell I’m sure I will get bashed but gonna say it any way, WTF is wrong with peace.? There has been no attempt’s in this past month since Obama became president to talk to all these countrie’s, has there?…Not yet….Look’s like all that is being done is moving deck chair’s on the G.D. sinking united state’s ship…Backing all these war’s and allowing Israel to dictate another in the wing’s on Iran is just plane madness..How long do’s the average person here on this thread think our sinking econemy can finance this madness…How many innocent people on earth must be killed to quench their thirst for blood…
While I am at it why haven’t we made Saudi Arabia accountable for financing their portion of 9/11 along with the gangster’s in the bush administration?….Including many dem’s..
How long are we going to allow the killing of people every where to cover up the madness of all our corrupt war monging polatician’s…..
This make’s me ill…If Israel has their way and turn’s much of the middle east into a glass parking lot, Iran retaliate’s against them and then we are nuked also the last person standing has no complaint, our bomb’s and money finance all this….Who the hell do all the poster’s think is the two worst terrorests right now in the world.?….Israel backed by us and the USA…This is just to insane we can’t feed our own so we bomb the shit out of everything else..Guess the only job’s soon will be in bomb factorie’s…..I offer no blessings for war’s..
February 17th, 2009 at 7:12 pmbackup Says:
Zooey. Here’s Chomsky.
Read the interview and tell me he’s not concerned with the direction of Obama’s foreign policy.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Concern about Obama’s foreign policy is a much different animal than being “one who fails to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.”
You’re gonna get whiplash, Captain.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:14 pmWitch1 Says:
Well I’m sure I will get bashed but gonna say it any way, WTF is wrong with peace.?
February 17th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Not one thing wrong with peace, Great Lady. I’m with you!
February 17th, 2009 at 7:16 pmNah. b-cup’s exoskeleton is built for these kinds of logical contortions.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:26 pmbackup Says:
Read the interview and tell me he’s not concerned with the direction of Obama’s foreign policy.
Jeebus. How does Chomsky somehow equal “progressives”?
I’ve read tons of Chomsky and I double guarantee you that he knows the difference between the two countries. That does not mean that he can’t take a principled stand that opposes any intervention there at all.
But you’re trying to use Chomsky to backup (eh!) your contention that “progressives” are inconsistently supporting Obama’s efforts in Afghanistan. Finding one progressive, or ten, or a hundred, who oppose the use of our troops in Afghanistan doesn’t have any relevance at all to your claim.
God, my head is sore from pounding it against this brick wall.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:27 pmZooey. Here’s the point. you tell me that you are anti-war. I post the link to wikipedia to establish Chomsky as anti-war.
If you’re anti-war you probably are in relative agreement with Chomsky. I posted the Chomsky interview in which he disagrees with Obama’s foreign policy.
My general point is that the anti-war voices have been at least temporarily muffled.
If you disagree with what I’m saying, you could link me to some of your postings that have been critical of Obama’s war policies. I would consider them.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pmralph. I have to call it when I see it. Nice.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pmUtterly hopeless.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pmRight back atchya.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pmAlso utterly hopeless, but mainly because the elevator doesn’t go to the top floor.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:32 pmThe Lyrics to the Superjail intro are:
“Well life on the outside ain’t what it use to be
you know the worlds gone crazy and it ain’t safe on the street
Ohh, It’s a drag and I know, There’s only one place to go
I’m coming home, oh yeah, I’m coming home”
Song is Comin’ Home by Cheeseburger
February 17th, 2009 at 7:36 pmCourtesy of Kemado Records
What a great show.
I understand that Afghanistan is not Iraq. I also understand that military action is not police work.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:43 pmgummitch. Chomsky doesn’t equal progressive, but I don’t think his concern about Obama’s foreign policy would be dismissed as the rantings of a troll.
If Chomsky is saying it, is it really that crazy?
February 17th, 2009 at 7:43 pmall anyone knows, dan, is that you’re a dick.
you lost. get over it.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:44 pmif VoteVets endorses it, and they do, that’s enough for me
because I actually support our troops.
you gamehen righties, on the other hand…..
February 17th, 2009 at 7:47 pmI didn’t vote for the kind of “change” that McCain represents.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:50 pmI know you’re right-wing, with the intellectual capacity of a dehydrated snail, and I also know that you either didn’t bother to read the previous comments, or you were unable to comprehend them. If it’s the latter, don’t feel too bad; b’cup couldn’t comprehend them either. And he’s a relative grownup among your kind.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:56 pmOh, was that your argument?
I thought it was “there was general progressive support for anti-war sentiment directed against Bush.”
Move goal posts much?
February 17th, 2009 at 8:10 pmbackup Says:
gummitch. Chomsky doesn’t equal progressive, but I don’t think his concern about Obama’s foreign policy would be dismissed as the rantings of a troll.
If Chomsky is saying it, is it really that crazy?
This is what happens with you, every time. You make one claim or generalization, then when you’re challenged, you shift to a different claim, and then another, none of which have much to do with where you started.
You started with some vague claim about “progressives” being inconsistent by not criticizing Obama’s approach in Afghanistan (and that it was exactly the same as Bush in Iraq) and you are still nowhere near supporting that. Instead, you’re now suggesting that because Noam Chomsky continues to disapprove of the invasion of Afghanistan (which he has since 2001) it’s “not crazy.” And you brought Chomsky into it by suggesting that he confused Iraq and Afghanistan.
Seriously, I quit.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:11 pmObama will deal with the Afghanistan situation; but will Obama help black people?
Obama is a disgrace to black people.
Is Obama going to financially reward black Katrina victims for having been racially discriminated against by Bush?
Where is the money?
I don’t think Obama would have any problem, hypothetically, with slavery happening all over again.
Maybe one remembers that Kanye West said, “Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
We have uncovered something far more horrifying.
It is practically like Obama “doesn’t care about black people.” (And Obama is black.)
There are all sorts of personalities.
There actually are screwed up black people who secretly don’t like their own kind.
There may even be black lunatics or freaks who would fancy themselves prancing around wearing a KKK outfit or uniform with the swastika on it.
Maybe Obama even fantasizes about hanging black people by nooses.
I like black people.
Black people are cool!
Black people are great.
But now, white people don’t have to worry about Obama interfering with racial discrimination inflicted by white people against racial minorities while Obama is president of the United States.
It is practically just as bad as if the white supremacist at heart, George W. Bush, is still running the country.
For example, Bush murdered a black woman—Margie Schoedinger.
“One of those very least were George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of [then] president-elect George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell (Nevada Progressive Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010). Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://leolaforussenate.blogspot.com/2008/02/leola-mcconnell-for-us-senate.html).
Obama should have the guts to assemble workers from the FBI and/or one or more state attorney general offices and say something similar to the following:
“I, Obama, am the most powerful person in America now. Bush is no longer the president and thus no longer the most powerful person in America. I, Obama, am in control now. I, Obama, demand that the ultimate law-enforcement workers in this country investigate Bush and then proceed to have him locked away for life or executed for murdering the black woman—Margie Schoedinger. I, Obama, am black, and I find Bush’s murder of Margie Schoedinger to be personally offensive. I, Obama, feel it is once again like the time of slavery when white people killed black people with no sheriff, prosecutor, or court to stop it from happening or prosecute it. I, Obama, am not going to go around in the modern-day democracy feeling like a black slave of white people—especially while I am the president of the United States. I, Obama, want Bush brought down for murdering a black woman. I, Obama, want Bush brought down for racially discriminating against black people pursuant to Hurricane Katrina. I, Obama, am going to supply financial rewards to the black people who were harmed by Bush’s racial discrimination and who are still alive. I, Obama, am taken aback by Bush having been so evil in wrongfully causing the deaths of so many black people pursuant to his racist response relative to Hurricane Katrina. I, Obama, am going to take advantage of my time as a racial-minority president and not allow “Bush’s KKK-Neo-Nazi mentality” to rule over and oppress black people in America.”
Obama is not doing anything about Bush’s murder of Margie Schoedinger.
Obama has not given a penny to any black victims of Bush’s racial discrimination.
Obama needs to say: “I can change and act like a black person instead of disgracing myself all over the place!”
Obama needs to say: “Change—Yes I can!”
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
February 17th, 2009 at 8:16 pmB.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Before you sum it up, Proud, why don’t you read the posts and see the differences in opinion.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:20 pmWang, this is a strange obsession you have.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:21 pmThis has been an another edition of “Complex Political Realities for Regressives”, brought to you by the Republican National Committee.
Don’t forget to tip your trolls.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pmIs that like tipping cows?
February 17th, 2009 at 8:25 pmTo say the U.S is supporting 2 war’s is a miss informed quote…Let me point out to many that have forgotten,,,In Iraq and Afghan much of our munition’s and pallet’s of money were lost and found in the hand’s of the so called enemy’s..So let me say instead of 2 there there was atleast 4 since we were supporting by neglect or design all side’s involved..
Next let me point out the growing problem with our dreadful step child, the government of Israel, much like our own bad parent’s in government…We funded the killing’s in Lebanon and most recently Palestine..Hundred’s of innocent men women and children have been killed…In Iraq it is said well over a million…Now then let me tally it up for you…4+3 equal’s 7 war’s. invasion’s or genocide’s….Well.?
In my entire life my government has trained us to dive under table’s while we marched all over the world killing and taking what ever it chose…I think it’s about damn time to come home, fix our own messes and beg the rest of the world to forgive us and our evil way’s….What say all of you.? No one need’s to die for me…Peace is the only answer……
February 17th, 2009 at 8:32 pmIf only, gum.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:32 pmEarlier this evening we saw Air Force One Fly over our House.
What an impressive experience.
My 16 year old son said…..
Will the upcoming draft have me fight for the Military Industrial Complexes have me fight in Iraq or Afghanistan???
My heart sunk and my tears cried.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:42 pmJK – it looks like that to you because you are blind (and dumb)
February 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm..and a cowardpussy of the highest order.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:46 pmjk and lt – how long you been on the dl together?
February 17th, 2009 at 8:48 pmPeople, Obama campaigned on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and championed the fact that he always called for more troops. This shouldn’t be a surprise.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:49 pmLife must really be difficult without the ability to process complex thought.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:09 pmOh, I see. you’re moving the goal posts, as you folks tend to do when your arguments run out of paved road.
But to answer your question, it seems to be working pretty well for him.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:11 pmI am so sorry for my mistake, I forgot about the biggest war of all, not so many bomb’s but financial ruin and removing all the freedom’s, civil right’s and allowing so many to die….The number 8 on my count has been going on for many year’s,,Many will say I am mad or just plane wrong but it is the war our government has backed and pramoted against the poor, working class, small businesses and family farm’s…Our own Gov. has helped the large corporation’s, banker’s, stock manipulators and money changer’s take us over and distroy us from with in…Now we are all the slave’s of the past or at least most of us are…Think about it…Peace…
February 17th, 2009 at 9:13 pmAgain, that problem with complex ideas. No wonder you’re bitter. You have my sympathies.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:24 pmWhen will these Conservatards catch on that their ceaseless antagonistic blather is what produced the ‘06 and ‘08 election results?
Keep it up, guys, but realize all you’re doing is putting more money into the campaigns of more Democrats.
So far, your smack talk and attitude have cost you the House, the Senate, and the White House. Whaddya wanna play for next?
Keep pissin’ me off guys – Nancy, Harry, and Barack all thank you for it.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pmLet’s hope it’s not for the next twenty years.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:27 pmthere’s my little beyotch olby. hey assclown, listen up. a transition team is just that for the transition. technically they are not part of the administration.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:28 pmis that all your fire power? pretty pathetic.
Hi Olby Sucks?
February 17th, 2009 at 9:38 pmWho were you yesterday? It is so hard to keep track. How does it work? Do you plan the weeks names in advance or just come up with them spontaneously after each time you end up being pwned each? Just wondering…
why is that “each” in there?
February 17th, 2009 at 9:38 pmFinally, one Obama proposal John McCain can get behind. He’s a sucker for anything that involves blood, bombs and POW stories.
http://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/2009/02/pot-meet-kettle.html
February 17th, 2009 at 9:41 pmLOL is a Republican tic. Ha-ha Tourette’s.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:43 pmIs that the school that Andrew Yu-Jen Wang went to? He graduated summa cum laude…
February 17th, 2009 at 9:49 pmWho blamed poor Andrew?
February 17th, 2009 at 9:54 pmIs it safe to assume that we have to make up new ones each time rather than planning ahead?
February 17th, 2009 at 10:12 pmWang Chou
February 17th, 2009 at 10:14 pmGet your own blog dude.
Olby Sucks:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:17 pmYour living proof abortions need to be mandatory.
the make believe medical student
February 17th, 2009 at 10:17 pm— Does the make believe medical student happen to have a make believe professor?
gummitch Says: I repeat, why is it so frickin’ difficult for you to see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan?
guess we don’t all have the same rose colored glasses you do.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:27 pmUnlike IRAQ – the COUNTRY OF AFGHANISTAN LAUNCHED A SET OF MILITARY ACTIONS AGAINST US.
NO IT DID NOT.
Some people IN Afghanistan did.
AND they weren’t even Afghanis – THEY WERE SAUDIS.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:29 pmIRAQ IS NOT AFGHANISTAN. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, WITH DIFFERENT MILITARY SITUATIONS REQUIRING DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
And NEITHER country attacked the US – a bunch of country-less Saudis did. But justifying blowing up shit and murdering innocent people – collateral damage – is the American way. A bunch effing barbarians.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:31 pmPresident Obama, can you say Vietnam? Does the word quagmire mean anything? How about the term money hole?
February 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pmralph. If I’m moving the goals posts, I’m only moving them closer in the attempts that you may take a shot.
It’s not just me. There is a general complaint growing here, that progressives lambasted Bush’s foreign policy. Obama gets elected. He keeps Gates. Petraeus has been promoted to US central command; and oversees Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has continued the bombing in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And now proposes an Afghanistan ’surge’ of 10,000 more troops.
The only response seems to be that Afghanistan is different than Iraq and that Obama will just be more effective than Bush. Very little comment about the broadening of the conflict into Pakistan.
You can split hairs that my question is not exactly the same each time. But, I feel confident that you get the idea.
It’s not going away. The heavy handedness that Bush was charged with and Obama continues (not according to just me, but to others, like Chomsky), does it make sense now, or are people just ignoring it for partisan reasons?
February 17th, 2009 at 10:45 pmWhere were they trained?
February 17th, 2009 at 11:00 pm—-
Wouldn’t who trained them be a better question?
Didn’t we know those folks who trained bin Laden and his buddies back in those glorious 80’s?
fell = feel
February 17th, 2009 at 11:09 pmWhere were they trained?
And you’re telling us that you don’t fell completely stupid promoting that where antagonists are trained is a legitimate basis for invading a nation? By that measure we should be invading dozens of nations around the globe, but I suppose that is what you propose.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:10 pmMost of them finished their training here.”
February 17th, 2009 at 11:18 pm===
So should we invade the US now? That is odd. Actually I am but of course there is always a continuum. Are we comparing to imaginary Latin Kings?
olby –
Every post you put up here is another $10 I contribute to the DNC, so keep’em coming. I’ll make sure Harry and Nancy send you a nice thank you note.
dolt.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:19 pmobl is in Dubbie’s basement in Crawford – banging the twins in exchange for helping Bushco loot the US treasury.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:20 pmanother winner!
remember, dummy – every post of yours is $ for the D’s.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:21 pmthere u go, special boy – get those D’s that money!!!
February 17th, 2009 at 11:23 pmcome on dummy.
i’m buyin’ nancy some new shoes tomorrow.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pmpunkass dittohead.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pmwitless, you is.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:25 pmHow’s the Kentucky skank?
February 17th, 2009 at 11:27 pmall right – looks like Manolos for the Speaker.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:28 pmOh sorry. That was Tenneessee wasn’t it?
February 17th, 2009 at 11:28 pmi got all kinds of $ and all kinds of time dummy.
and I won’t even tell your bros how much you’re helping the D’s.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:31 pmI didn’t think it possible, but… has Twajie gotten even stupider?
Twajie, when you’re working as a drug mule for your Latin Kings buddies, you’re not s’posed to use the shit.
Look what it’s doin’ to yer brain, dude.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:31 pmOlby Sucks… hmmm, that is a clever name. May we
call you Mr. Sucks? It’s a matter of respect, Mr. Sucks.
…sir.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:31 pmI just call him dummy. It’s a “term of endearment”.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:32 pmYeah, dbadass, it was on a trip to Tennessee.
A good-lookin’ couple they were.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:33 pmDummy’s helping D’s raise campaign money tonight by running his special mouth.
Whaddya say Ralph, Trajan, apluz? Every troll post earns a contribution to the DNC. I’m going in at $10per, but any amount will do.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:35 pmEvening ralph. I know not what you speak of. I am sure the woman of both Kentucky and Tennessee are all just charming…
February 17th, 2009 at 11:36 pmsure… why not. Anything to help Olby Sucks realize his potential. That, Sucks… he’s one clever fella.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:41 pmIt occurred to me today that the best troll medicine might be their coming to grips with the fact that the more they antagonize, the more motivated we all are to be rid of them and those they vote for.
Their obnoxious lunacy produced the ‘06 and ‘08 election results, and now they can help us get a head start on ‘10.
If we told them all the $ was going to be split between MoveOn and CodePink, we’d probably never see them ever again.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:42 pmlooks like he’s gone.
must be bedtime in fundy homeschool America.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:46 pmoh good there’s the special boy.
can you say “cha-ching” special boy?
February 17th, 2009 at 11:48 pm175 Good One Mr Sucks. I think I’ll give that one a recommend.Maybe it is cause they are deceased
February 17th, 2009 at 11:49 pmsure ya can.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:49 pmsay it together with me dummy,
“cha-ching”
“cha-ching”
“cha-ching”
hear the pretty music of the D’s making money?
sure ya can.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:53 pmhttp://www.tr.com.au/sounds/cashreg22.wav
February 17th, 2009 at 11:53 pmWell better the Saudis than those pussy Columbians…
February 17th, 2009 at 11:54 pmtell ya what dummy.
you rattle around here all night sharing your special thoughts
tomorrow morning i’ll run the tally and write the check
then we can start all over again
cha-ching, special buddy – cha-ching cha-ching
that’s the music dummy makes, a-workin’ for the D’s
nitey-nite special boy.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:56 pmPretend MS-13 kick Pretend Latin King ass everytime
February 18th, 2009 at 12:00 amSay, Sucks. What’s with the nipples obsession?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:02 amAre you a social conservative?
(cha-ching)
February 18th, 2009 at 12:03 amIt is only six more. Come on you aren’t going to be a failure again are you?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:08 amps – that’s some sickminded shit dummy – u need help before some innocent civilians get hurt.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:10 amY’know, I could see going to an opposition blog to post comments if you were smart, and were able to make clever arguments that smacked down the other side, or at least scored solid points.
That, I could see.
But why would you go and post stupid comments that make no sense and only make your side look like a collection of idiots?
Is Twajie THAT starved for attention?
That’s really sad. He musta been the kind of kid whose mother had to hang a pork chop around his neck just to get the dog to play with him.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:10 amdefinitely the kind of kid i keep my kids away from.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:12 amralph, never under estimate the power of attention to those starved for it.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:14 ambackup Says:
Zooey. Here’s the point. you tell me that you are anti-war. I post the link to wikipedia to establish Chomsky as anti-war.
If you’re anti-war you probably are in relative agreement with Chomsky. I posted the Chomsky interview in which he disagrees with Obama’s foreign policy.
My general point is that the anti-war voices have been at least temporarily muffled.
If you disagree with what I’m saying, you could link me to some of your postings that have been critical of Obama’s war policies. I would consider them.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Oh please…
February 18th, 2009 at 12:44 am.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVDWLUjD8I
.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:10 amOlby Sucks;
February 18th, 2009 at 1:16 amIs going to end up going the way of the dodo.
Anyone who’s surprised, wasn’t listening to Obama over the past two years. Good or bad, that’s exactly what he said he’ll do. I wish, though, that at the same time Obama will announce a deadline for withdrawing Iraq.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:45 amwelcome back to reality, kool-aid swillers.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:08 amwar is peace.
(cha-ching)
February 18th, 2009 at 11:10 amCha-Ching-a-ling-a-ling!!!
Thanks dummy, for being such a special boy.
Just got my calculator and checkbook out here, and it looks like YOU raised $270 for the Democrats last night.
Don’t you feel like a very clever, very special boy now?
February 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
February 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pmSo much for ‘CHANGE’…
Wow… such potty mouths liberals are. Now boys and girls and those of you who’s gender is in question, the problem here is that Obama MUST go hard into Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Queda are both from there, and besides he promised everyone that if he was elected, he would move the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. I sure wish some of the people on this website was in ‘Nam with me… we could of toughened you up a bit.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm