Forums | MacLife

Jokotai wrote:

And which non-liars are you proposing we vote for?

Ralph Nader.

resedit wrote:

btw - "playing the game" is why Obama hasn't yet responded to the call for reinforcements.
Bloodiest month we've ever seen, but he'd rather sit on his smurfing ass and not address the request for fear of pissing off the left members of his party while the health care bill is being settled.

He needs to convince them to vote for the bill w/o public option convincing them that it will be put back in later, and he knows he can't do that if he pisses them off by increases troops in Afghanistan, so he's "playing the game" at the cost of US and Afghani lives by sitting on the request for the time being.

The time for games is over.

So you've already forgotten/didn't read

Conservative columnist George Will went after former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday, saying the Bush administration could have used some "dithering" before they invaded Iraq.

Will was responding to the VP's widely-circulated comment that President Obama was "dithering" on Afghanistan and putting troops in danger. On the contrary, Will said, it was hasty decisions that put people at risk.

"A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction," Will said on ABC's "This Week. "For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

...as well as

Also, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moves forward crafting a Senate health-care bill that contains a public option — with a state "opt out" — the survey shows support for a government-run insurance plan is at its highest level since the debate began and opposition is at its lowest level.

...both of which directly refute your opinions?

Jokotai wrote:

And which non-liars are you proposing we vote for?  No, wait, they're running for president.  They're all liars.

Mike Huckabee.

You can always write in a candidate if you do not feel either major party candidate is qualified to run the country.

So, daemon, you support a theocratic government, because you now live in the McIntyre's district?

resedit wrote:

btw - "playing the game" is why Obama hasn't yet responded to the call for reinforcements.
Bloodiest month we've ever seen, but he'd rather sit on his smurfing ass and not address the request for fear of pissing off the left members of his party while the health care bill is being settled.

He needs to convince them to vote for the bill w/o public option convincing them that it will be put back in later, and he knows he can't do that if he pisses them off by increases troops in Afghanistan, so he's "playing the game" at the cost of US and Afghani lives by sitting on the request for the time being.

The time for games is over.

What, are you trying to argue that if Obama had ordered a troop increase last week, people wouldn't have died yesterday?

resedit wrote:

Jokotai wrote:

And which non-liars are you proposing we vote for?  No, wait, they're running for president.  They're all liars.

Mike Huckabee.

You can always write in a candidate if you do not feel either major party candidate is qualified to run the country.

Depends on local election laws. In most areas (like mine) write ins are not allowed because machine read ballots cannot accommodate write ins.

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

btw - "playing the game" is why Obama hasn't yet responded to the call for reinforcements.
Bloodiest month we've ever seen, but he'd rather sit on his smurfing ass and not address the request for fear of pissing off the left members of his party while the health care bill is being settled.

He needs to convince them to vote for the bill w/o public option convincing them that it will be put back in later, and he knows he can't do that if he pisses them off by increases troops in Afghanistan, so he's "playing the game" at the cost of US and Afghani lives by sitting on the request for the time being.

The time for games is over.

What, are you trying to argue that if Obama had ordered a troop increase last week, people wouldn't have died yesterday?

Echo- things take time. Last I heard, the troop transfers from Iraq to A'stan still weren't finished, and the civilian rampup (infrastructure folks) was just beginning.

resedit wrote:

Obama has been sitting on recommendations regarding Afghanistan since he came into office.

Yes, it takes time, but the casualty toll this month demonstrates how urgent it is - and he continues to sit on it.
That's criminal in my mind.

Either commit more troops or concede Afghanistan to the Taliban.
Do something - don't just sit on it and hope the problem goes away.

And you'd've done what, long before McChrystal's assessment was even ordered?

resedit wrote:

Obama has been sitting on recommendations regarding Afghanistan since he came into office.

Yes, it takes time, but the casualty toll this month demonstrates how urgent it is - and he continues to sit on it.
That's criminal in my mind.

Either commit more troops or concede Afghanistan to the Taliban.
Do something - don't just sit on it and hope the problem goes away.

President Bush wrote:

Bring it on!

President Bush wrote:

Stay the course!

resedit wrote:

This isn't about Bush.
This is about Obama, and his lack of action when his generals request it.

Bush ignored A'Stan for years and created a truly smurfed up situation.
The time for action was after the first elections, that was the window of opportunity. But instead Bush but the whole effort on auto-pilot and let the insurgency grow and organize almost unopposed.
Bush's incompetence took a very bad situation and let it devolve into something even worse. A  country wide cluster smurf.
It's time to get things right this time and it will require something foreign to the conservative mind: Consideration and planning. That takes a little time.

resedit wrote:

I agree that Bush did not handle things as well as he could have.

Are you using Bush as an excuse for Obama or are you using Bush to distract from the truth about Obama?

No. I am pointing out that A'stan has become an extremely daunting problem and their is broad disagreement over what the best course of action might be.
Yes, everyone is anxious about A'stan. But the thing is that the next move really just absolutely has to be the right move.
So due diligence needs to be done.

The right move isn't sitting on his thumb, and I guarantee he is going to add troops.

I suspect what he is doing is preparing himself for an opportunity to satisfy his ultra left wing supporters by saying it was a hard decision, one he struggled with, blah blah blah blah blah.

But he doesn't want to even do that until he convinces congress to pass the initial Obamacare w/o public health option (as it won't pass with it), promising to get that in later.

resedit wrote:

The right move isn't sitting on his thumb, and I guarantee he is going to add troops.

I suspect what he is doing is preparing himself for an opportunity to satisfy his ultra left wing supporters by saying it was a hard decision, one he struggled with, blah blah blah blah blah.

But he doesn't want to even do that until he convinces congress to pass the initial Obamacare w/o public health option (as it won't pass with it), promising to get that in later.

I see no reason to believe that.