Via ABC's Rick Klein, the powerful grassroots liberal group is coming out against Obama's proposed Afghanistan escalation:
After talking to MoveOn members about this possibility for months, it's become clear what most of us think: This is wrong. Everyone knows that George W. Bush left a mess in Afghanistan, but escalation only deepens our involvement in a quagmire.
It'll cost the lives of thousands of American troops and Afghan civilians, and it won't make us safer. And with urgent priorities like health care, the climate crisis, and a struggling economy to tackle here at home, it simply does not make sense to divert billions more dollars to this war.
More and more foreign policy experts are coming to the conclusion that military escalation is not going to solve the problem in Afghanistan. And the majority of Americans already oppose the war. So today the President needs to hear from those of us who disagree with his decision.
Reactions like this one are why the White House will be eager to play up their reported three-year time line [Update: which the White House now denies]. But that, of course, will rile the pro-war Republicans whom Obama may need to ensure passage of war funding. One source put the conundrum well to me in an email:
The danger right now is if they’ve written a speech that ends up being the perfect storm in which the President alienates every possible constituency – left, right, and center – because it tries to offer a sop to every possible constituency.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (3)
"The danger right now is if they’ve written a speech that ends up being the perfect storm in which the President alienates every possible constituency – left, right, and center – because it tries to offer a sop to every possible constituency." Right on... and reinforces how BO has acted on the stimulus package, health care, bank regulation, foreclosure crisis, climate change -- whatever. Whether deserved or not, all political sides now view him as the "Wuss in chief". Extreme demands treated as a reasonable way to compromise are the way to best beal with the Neville Chamberlain's and Millard Fillmore's of this world
"The danger right now is if they’ve written a speech that ends up being the perfect storm in which the President alienates every possible constituency – left, right, and center – because it tries to offer a sop to every possible constituency." Right on... and reinforces how BO has acted on the stimulus package, health care, bank regulation, foreclosure crisis, climate change -- whatever. Whether deserved or not, all political sides now view him as the "Wuss in chief". Extreme demands treated as a reasonable way to compromise are the way to best beal with the Neville Chamberlain's and Millard Fillmore's of this world
Sorry gdbittner, you're wrong, and not just a little wrong but way the 180 degrees wrong. So is MoveOn, G-d bless 'em f***k f*****g Michael Moore, he may be well meaning but he's an ignoramus on serious f-p issues, totally out of depth and off-base.
Though not ideal - what could possibly be ideal in Afghanistan? - Obama's decision is the right and smart move, and he shouldn't be doing a whit less; even if he might have done some better by sending more forces, the force he's decided on is adequate to the job to responsibly fulfill our (U.S.'s) commitment there, leaving open the possibility of eventually drawing down and the responsibility for the long haul solution is returned to the Afghanis ... view full comment
Sorry gdbittner, you're wrong, and not just a little wrong but way the 180 degrees wrong. So is MoveOn, G-d bless 'em f***k f*****g Michael Moore, he may be well meaning but he's an ignoramus on serious f-p issues, totally out of depth and off-base.
Though not ideal - what could possibly be ideal in Afghanistan? - Obama's decision is the right and smart move, and he shouldn't be doing a whit less; even if he might have done some better by sending more forces, the force he's decided on is adequate to the job to responsibly fulfill our (U.S.'s) commitment there, leaving open the possibility of eventually drawing down and the responsibility for the long haul solution is returned to the Afghanis themselves.
You know what, Mike? Obama means to successfully defend this strategy and he will be backed by most if perhaps not all the stakeholders, come h*ll or high water. That's my bet. It might not turn out well for him politically, but he fully knows that and I believe accepts it, much as Bush meant to see it through. I continue to believe Bush was wrong on Iraq, and I feel more sure of that now than ever. But Obama is taking the right course in Afghanistan, which is a whole different ballgame, one we can't afford to lose.
You know what, Mike? Obama means to successfully defend this strategy and he will be backed by most if perhaps not all the stakeholders, come h*ll or high water. That's my bet. It might not turn out well for him politically, but he fully knows that and I believe accepts it, much as Bush meant to see it through. I continue to believe Bush was wrong on Iraq, and I feel more sure of that now than ever. But Obama is taking the right course in Afghanistan, which is a whole different ballgame, one we can't afford to lose.