First liberals had thrills up their legs at Barack Obama’s sheer awesomeness and now they want to spank Obama for sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. It’s getting really sick out there in Obamaland! You can read more below, see photos and watch a video.
On Tuesday evening, with perfect stagecraft er, the backdrop of the the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Barack Obama is expected to finally, after countless dithering and hand wringing, announce that he’ll send up to 35,000 more troops to Afghanistan beginning next year. Unfortunately, this decision doesn’t make many people happy. On the right, it seems woefully small. On the left? Well, they say they want to spank Obama.
Three months ago, General Stanley McChrystal gave Obama three options on winning in Afghanistan: a low-risk plan requiring 80,000 more troops, a medium-risk plan requiring 40,000 more troops, and a high-risk plan requiring 20,000 more troops. Apparently, Obama has finally decided to go between the high-risk and medium-risk plans by sending approximately 35,000 more troops.
To many on the anti-war left, including congressional Democrats, any kind of troop surge is wrong. They argue that the mission in Afghanistan is too expensive and lacks a clear objective.
“I think there will be some disillusionment within his base,” said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president’s announcement.
“We’re going to spank him for sending more troops,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that they may also “thank him” if he announces a quick exit strategy.
But even if the anti-war completely rejects Obama’s surge plan, it will surely be nothing like President Bush endured for 8 years. Interestingly, Obama will find himself relying on support of congressional Republicans who utterly reject his domestic agenda (and most of his foreign one as well).
Personally, I have always supported the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be a huge mistake to withdraw in my opinion. But with this latest information on the number of troops to be provided, I would almost rather us pull out and end the war then to go forward like this.
Our military fight (and die) to win. Is this decision by Obama one to win? I think not. General McChrystal, our Commander in Afghanistan, offered Obama a low-risk plan (which meant many more troops) to win the war. Yet, Obama chose to dilute that plan, for the sake of balancing political expediency and the appearance of standing by campaign promises.
Obama promised to resource Afghanistan adequately yet he’s done little to change the basic realities on the ground there. It’s a president’s job to know the cost of war; the troop needs, the local assets, to make decisions and have a plan to go forward, to win.
But Obama didn’t do his job on Afghanistan. We’ve seen the things that have consumed him the last year and they haven’t been our war there – they’ve been appeasement, apologies, and golf. Let’s see, in Tuesday night’s speech, if he decides to lead to victory in Afghanistan, or whether liberals should spank Obama for sending (an inadequate number) of troops to Afghanistan.
You can see photos of Barack Obama below and watch a fun video below from Rush Limbaugh on liberal advisors spanking Obama.
Photos: www.wenn.com; Carrie Devorah
November 27th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Well I don’t support Iraq, but I do support Afghanistan. Now his plan is way off, because we should just bomb the living hell out of them. No nation building no attacking leaders. Just bomb the hell out of them so no one will ever do that again.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
It has been amateur hour since obama has taken office. He hasn’t accomplished one positive thing since he’s taken office and has let existing situations deteriorate further into decline. The one thing he is trying to get done(healthcare) the American people do not want, and it is not the first thing Americans are concerned about(the economy). This war is another example of how obama is allowing an existing situation deteriorate further into decline. Give them overwhelming power to kick ass or get’em the hell out of there!
If he doesn’t reinforce our troops sufficiently we will have more losses because there will still be deficiencies. If that’s the case he should take all our men and women out of harm’s way.
President Bush kept us safe in the years after 9/11, gave our troops all the tools they needed to fight and win, and this kept them alive.
What are obama’s objective(s) in fighting this war? Will he name them? If he does, are they right for the security of our troops and country? God bless our troops and the United States of America…
November 27th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
go big or go home.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:15 am
I wasn’t a huge fan of Bush, but I always say he kept of safe.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:46 am
“On the left? Well, they say they want to spank Obama.”
Those people on the left always want to spank somebody. That’s why they’re so desperate to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
I vote we let Adam Lambert spank him on the next awards show. He could bend over, his backside to the camera exposing the real “O” we’re getting. Not the utopian “O” that’s on all of his campaign literature. Then Adam can administer the spanking.
Afterwards they can give him another award for something he didn’t do.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
RE: “President Bush kept us safe in the years after 9/11, gave our troops all the tools they needed to fight and win, and this kept them alive.”
Ron, what planet do you live on? Who did Bush keep safe? People on American soil? ANY president would have increased domestic security after 9/11. Did he keep us safe by going in to Iraq? NO, that did NOT have that effect. Did Bush really give the troops all the equipment they needed? Do you not recall the stories of the families of soldiers chipping in to buy equipment? Do you not recall the soldiers finding material to armor their vehicles by themselves, because they weren’t properly equipped from the factory? And lastly, Bush kept the troops alive? No he didn’t. He provoked the enemy (“bring’em on”), and many, many more troops have been killed in both wars than he (or rather, of course, the people who really ran the show) anticipated.
You really don’t get to rewrite history of the last eight years so egregiously.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Well first off Bush kept us a lot safer than Clinton. Also 4,000 troops died in Iraq. Compared to 47,000 in Veitnam. Thank you JFK for that one. Also the media completely overrated families chipping in to buy equipment. If you look back into your history books it shows that families chip in to buy better quality items. They gave them boots they weren’t very comfortable so families had to pay a little more. They gave them food, but there families would send them there favorites. Also I want to mention obama’s bill to help veterans. Well I support that, but we don’t have the money and that’s why Bush couldn’t get better supplies. Now you going to go on about the Bush tax cuts and how if we didn’t have those we could of afforded better supplies. Now those tax cuts got us out of the 9/11 recession. Also if you look at the records our troops currently serving in Iraq under my man who’s name I can’t spell General Patreaus. There the best trained and best treated soldiers in our history. Also if Bush was so bad to the troops why did most troops vote Mccain. Now I agree with you on Iraq, but the rest is false.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Bush probably also kept us a lot safer than George Washington.
Charles, come on. Let’s be serious. Do you remember Rumsfeld? “You go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” What was he referring to? (http://crooksandliars.com/2006/12/15/remebering-rumsfeld-you-go-to-war-with-the-army-you-have-not-the-army-you-might-want-or-wish-to-have-at-a-later-time)
Equipment: start with protective anti-ballistic eyewear (http://www.armor4troops.org/)
4,000 troops died in Iraq for NOTHING! 4,000 troops so far, and 20 times as many civilians, have died in an illegal war that were supposed to take month, not years, remember? (And, please!, don’t give me Vietnam – do you think I would have supported that in any way or form just because of JFK? Well, no, I would not.)
And now that you mention that Bush didn’t have enough money. Whose fault is that but his? It is also Bush’s (again, really Cheney’s) fault that there isn’t money to send 80k troops to Afghanistan? Perhaps that would have been possible if we hadn’t committed them in Iraq. Or if we weren’t just coming out of a recession that hit toward the end of Bush’s presidency.
And it is duly noted that there are still people around who believe the tax cuts enacted by Bush did something good for the nation’s economy. *facepalm*
Why did most of the troops vote for McCain? Good question. Really. I don’t know. You, on the other hand is suggesting that the reasons is that the troops are happy about being in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? That they understand what the missions are, and they agree that their work there is important. That those WMDs are still there, somewhere. That the elevated suicide rates are, what, some liberal conspiracy? Or could it be that soldiers are mostly conservatives/republicans, and they vote that way because a majority of them have some aversion against girly liberals?
November 29th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Charles, I just realized that you posted this:
“Well I don’t support Iraq, but I do support Afghanistan. Now his plan is way off, because we should just bomb the living hell out of them. No nation building no attacking leaders. Just bomb the hell out of them so no one will ever do that again.”
So you propose to kill 28 million people (with WMDs?), including children, so that a terrorist organization whose members came mostly from Saudi Arabia, and who now hides in Pakistan, cannot attack America again? Or are you merely proposing to bomb a country living in the stone-age back to the stone-age?
I’m sure that’s going to win the hearts and minds of the whole region in one fell swoop.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:53 am
“Why did most of the troops vote for McCain? Good question. Really. I don’t know. ”
well, then you are not that bright.
however, i bet you do actually know, but do not want to say.
the elevated suicide rates, low morale and lack of a sense of purpose are fairly new.
November 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am
lisab, maybe I am not that bright. I made a guess, namely that they vote that way because they are conservatives, mostly. Bu tI do not *know*.
By fairly new you mean since Obama took office? No. Lack of purpose and elevated suicide rates happened during Bush.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Bjorn,
I never mentioned Iraq, I am referring to the war that this nincompoop cannot make a decision on, and that is Afghanistan, but if you want to bring Iraq into this fine.
What planet are you from? Do you believe gasing people including women and children is ok? Perhaps smashing an infant’s head into a wall infront of it’s parents by swinging it by the legs is ok to get them to admit to something they never did? Or how about when his sons would rape women and then they would disappear afterwards? Not good enough for ya? How about executing people who speak out against the government by firing squad or removing people’s limbs? Not to mention the 86 U.N. Resolutions saddam hussein was in violation of. I guess you think that was a good thing, or you just didn’t get the whole story. President Bush did the right thing by liberating those poor people. If you think what saddam hussein did is good apply for citizenship in North Korea.
Our troops are the best in the world, they did a great job, and they helped millions of unfortunate people to the best of their abilities. They are all heros but are so modest they refuse to accept the title, God bless them!
Any president would have increased domestic security after 9/11? Clinton did squat after the ‘93 World Trade Center bombing, Kobar Towers terrorist attack, USS Cole terrorist attack, and terrorist bombing attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Africa in 1998. By the way, that’s fact, not re-writing history there beau.
Now, as far as the equipment issue goes, yeah, at first the troops needed different equipment than the equipment they had, if you didn’t know this is a common occurance in warfare. But President Bush put into production the manufacturing for these new ideas and tried everything he could to get the troops what they needed. Now there is equipment that is specific to this type of warfare. Too bad the nincompoop-in-chief we have now isn’t allowing this technology to go into production. For example, the fire suppression systems in military vehicles, vests, etc. There are other technologies developed in addition thanks to the Bush years but obama refuses to put these costs into his budget.
You need to put things into perspective beau, or just get the full story before you write something so asinine!
November 29th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Ron, I brought up Iraq because you said Bush kept us safe after 9/11, but going into Iraq didn’t make anything safer in American or for American troops. No one in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and there were no WMDs there either. Going into Iraq arguably made the world less safe for Americans.
As for your overly ridiculous attempt at making me look like I think cruelty is fine, please shove it. I think Hussein was a crook beyond description, and I am glad that he is gone, so when I say it’s was for nothing, I mean of course that it was not for making the US safer. Lying America and allies into a war that everyone in their right mind now regrets we’re in doesn’t come close to ‘keeping us safe.’ Having said that, I am not yet convinced that things are going to be better in Iraq than they were under Saddam Hussein. I seriously hope so, but that remains to be seen.
Re: “Our troops are the best in the world, they did a great job, and they helped millions of unfortunate people to the best of their abilities. They are all heros but are so modest they refuse to accept the title, God bless them!”
I also trust that American troops are the best in the world, and I agree they have helped millions. Risking one’s life for other is heroic, and I don’t really care in the least whether they accept the title or not – what difference does it possibly make? As for God’s blessings, you probably won’t be surprised if I say the idea that a god would favor American troops over anyone else is childishly gullible.
Quickly on Afghanistan: I also do not agree with Obama’s decision to send 50% more troops. I don’t think there is a point in staying if the job can’t be done well, so either send as many troops as needed or pull out. Occupying a whole country because Al Qaeda would move back in is just not a clever way to spend money, IMO.
Yes, any president would have increased domestic security after 9/11. I am no fan of Clinton’s choices in this regard (at least in hindsight). But, please, compare 9/11 to those other terrorist attacks you mention, and tell me they scared everyone even a tenth as much as 9/11. No.
Regarding equipment, I must defer, because I don’t know about the details of warfare. What I do know, and repeat, is that troops and generals were highly dissatisfied about equipment for more than just he beginning of the war in Iraq.
In conclusion, I am not saying Obama is doing better or worse with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, but just that your high regard for Bush is thoroughly misplaced.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Bjorn,
In YOUR OPINION my regard for President Bush is thoroughly misplaced, however, we all knew where he stood. Whether you agreed with his policy(s) or not is another story.
Lying America and allies into war? Who? Russian intelligence? British intelligence? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? other American politicians? If you don’t recall EVERYONE was accusing saddam hussein of having WMDs. And just because they weren’t found doesn’t mean he didn’t have them, hide them, or give them to another country. If he gased his own people i’m sure he had them and was able to germinate more since they were chemical and/or biological.
America being safer for going into Iraq is the subject of another debate, which I do believe we are safer for, and that too is a matter of opinion. Iraq was never part of the above post nor my original post that you seemed to misconstrue. Again another misconstrued statement is that God would favor American troops…where did I write that God would favor American troops over any other troops? I simply wrote God bless them, since they fight for my freedoms and my country’s Constitution.
Even if those attacks I named didn’t scare American’s 1/10th Clinton did NOTHING. So to generalize that any president would tighten domestic security is a hypothetical which I do not base my arguements on.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
“Lack of purpose and elevated suicide rates happened during Bush.”
incorrect, though a nice lie to spread.
the troops were thrilled when the surge in iraq worked, and afghanistan was having free elections for the first time in history.
the number of military suicides since obama took office is higher than in all of 2008, by far. the number of suicides since obama became the front runner is also higher.
the troops simply have no faith in obama.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
once a many agains, you fail to understand the difference between causalty and correlation. After serving up to 6 tours or recurring iraq and afghanistan duty under bush it finally took its toll by the time obama got elected and the suicides you are seeing now had their origins during the bush years. obviously. so will it help some suffering soul to go back under a 7th and 8th tour under obama? what do you think? its cumulative ptsd as well as incident ptsd. wake up. get alert.
November 29th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
“In YOUR OPINION my regard for President Bush is thoroughly misplaced, however, we all knew where he stood. Whether you agreed with his policy(s) or not is another story.”
Sure. Bush stood for lying us into a war. Lying that Saddam had WMDs, and lying that Saddam had anything at all to do with 9/11. No, many did not believe neither of these two lies. Remember the uranium rods? This was faulty intelligence that was acted on, and yet it was shown that the administration knew well that there as nothing there.
“America being safer for going into Iraq is the subject of another debate, which I do believe we are safer for, and that too is a matter of opinion. Iraq was never part of the above post nor my original post that you seemed to misconstrue.”
No, I mentioned Iraq first. But I did so because you said Bush kept us safe, and my point was that are less safe because of the invasion of Iraq, and that includes the soldiers who were/are sent there. In case you’ve never noticed, the rest of the world are nearly unanimously upset with Bush and America for invading – on false premises.
“Again another misconstrued statement is that God would favor American troops…where did I write that God would favor American troops over any other troops? I simply wrote God bless them, since they fight for my freedoms and my country’s Constitution.”
No, you’re right, you only said “god bless them.” But that they should be blessed does mean that they should gain some favor and/or protection from God. That’s what a blessing means. But sure, you can claim you personally mean something entirely different. Let’s forego the point, shall we? It’s getting a little off topic, and it’s my fault.
“Even if those attacks I named didn’t scare American’s 1/10th Clinton did NOTHING. So to generalize that any president would tighten domestic security is a hypothetical which I do not base my arguements on.”
Sure, it’s hypothetical that any sitting president on 9/11 would tighten domestic security. I understand that you don’t think so, and that you admire Bush for doing so. I just fail to understand how you think any president would not do anything about domestic security after hijacked planes fly into WTC and Pentagon. Only Bush (or a republican president?) would increase airport security?! All countries did that, no matter whether they liked Bush or not (which they mostly didn’t).
To recapitulate: I initially responded to your statement that “President Bush kept us safe in the years after 9/11, gave our troops all the tools they needed to fight and win, and this kept them alive.”
Again, domestically he didn’t do anything admirable – just what I THINK any other sitting president would have done, plus some really bad things like suspending habeus corpus and torture prisoners. He did not give the troops all they needed – maybe there were good reasons, like you pointed out, but saying that he did runs counter to common knowledge. The troops were not kept alive (4367 American troops dead so far (http://icasualties.org)).
November 29th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
actually brian you are completely off base … as usual.
the troops actually liked and trusted bush. i am in a military family and even though they are almost all dems, they trusted bush as commander-in-chief.
that is true of basically the entire military even now.
however, the troops have very little faith in obama. they mistrusted him from the beginning and he has done nothing to change that, in fact he has given them every reason to doubt his character.
they basically think he is using them for politics, like going to give his speech at west point. to obama, they are nothing but a photo-op. they still have not forgotten he refused to visit the wounded in europe because he could not take his photographers.
naturally, there is a racial split. african american soldiers still support him overwhelmingly … but the rest just do not.
probably with good reason.
November 29th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
“Sure. Bush stood for lying us into a war.”
nope … the dems have lied to you on this and made you believe this canard.
it is absolutely false.
the dems voted for the war overwhelmingly and the top congressmen of both parties were thoroughly aware of the situation.
you just prefer to assuage your conscience by lying to yourself and everyone else that you were mislead.
you were only mislead by the democrats desire to go to war so they could get kerry elected.
November 29th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
bush sold us the false iraq war,, not even you can deny that. the dems in congress at the time were idiots. obama voted against it, the president we have now. bushjr gave him a second war called afghanistan too. and a third war called somalia, and fourth war called iran. though nobody will admit that yet.
November 29th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
now if bush and rummy and franks had blocked the backside of tora bora when it would have made a difference….we likely would have gotten bin laden, zawhari, even omar. but he didn’t. he outsourced that job to a well known unreliable war lord……so not only was bush’s decision to throw the us into war with iraq a false sales job,, his administration mismanaged its handling and its aftermath, unbelievably
November 29th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Brian, Obama wasn’t a member of Congress for that vote.
But I’ll keep that between you and me.
November 29th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Sorry lisab. I should have left that easy lob for you to smash.
November 29th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
“bush sold us the false iraq war”
no … the dems were not “sold” anything
they ran to war because they were afraid to be seen as weak after 9/11
all the major contenders for president spoke in favor of the war.
again you just are trying to negate your responsibility by blaming emmanuel goldstein
November 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
somalia was from clinton
iran is from carter
iraq was leftover from bush 1 when he did not get rid of saddam then
only afghanistan is bush 2’s war
although it has probably been lost by obama