While perusing articles this week I saw a comment that said Obama was the black Bush. So, this week he had to endure that and also former President Carter said Obama was a victim of racism. It seems like 44 is annoying everyone. They say if a referee is annoying everyone consistently he's doing a good job. Does that apply to Obama?
What caused our country to have this terrible economy, deficits as far as the eye can see and failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The terrible policies of Bush 43 are the answer for all of them. Obama 44 came into a blazing inferno with a patched up hose. 43's failed policies have placed the US in such awful predicaments that it is going to be difficult to extricate ourselves from them. As an example there is the closing of Gitmo--a living hell for the detainees as a result of W's policy of considering the Geneva Convention obsolete. Obama wouldn't have this to deal with if W hadn't initiated this atrocity but how does the US get out of it while retaining some semblance of honor? Where do the detainees go? The GOP has enlisted Rush, Hannity and Beck to demagogue against the detainees being imprisoned in the US. If we don't take any of them why would our allies? How do you get out without destroying the nation's standing in the international community? But staying in makes you criminally culpable after the crime as the article "Accessories after the fact" at
To many people these considerations don't matter. To them Obama has failed. Many liberals and progressives consider him to be a 43 and 1/2. Many people realized that during 43 and 1/2 's campaign that he was only talking generalities and that he was going to be just another politician, but we also heard the "Change we can believe in" and getting out of Iraq segments of Obama's platform and we thought he would be left of the political center--no worse than center-left. We wanted someone who would end the GWOT wars, respect the checks and balances in the US government, and restore our nation's good name by prosecuting the criminals--in this case war criminals in 43's crew.
The article "McChrystal Flown to Denmark To Discuss War With Obama" at
shows that Obama might have trouble in convincing the GOP propaganda machine that he is going to be as much of a warmonger as 43 was. If he doesn't put enough resources into Afghanistan to match Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's demands--500,000 troops over five years, the GOP will be on Obama in an instant as a flip-flopper.
The article states "Republican leaders in Congress have called on Obama to approve McChrystal's request quickly". Obama is quoted as saying that he will "commit more resources to Afghanistan" which is typical, vague, political speech, and which won't cut it with the GOP. Obama must agree to reach McChrystal's totals for a successful counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. If Obama doesn't reach those numbers FOX News, Clear Radio Channel and all of its minions in the print industry will have phrases tarring and feathering him such as weak on defense and pre-9/11 thinker in an infinite loop. If he puts too much of our resources in Afghanistan then he alienates his leftist base. The House has already acted. Their opinion regarding Afghanistan is their October 8th Defense Authorization Act--H.R. 2647, which calls for a focused and smart strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan; not a surge of troops and additional spending. The House knows who votes fro them--their leftist base, and Obama better realize that also.
43 got the man--Petraeus, he knew would support his policy in place. Obama should have learned this lesson. McChrystal isn't supporting Obama--which isn't surprising as traditionally military people favor increasing military involvement. Also McChrystal might have learned from Petraeus the value of getting involved in politics to further his aims.
Obama has made many contradictory remarks concerning Afghanistan but the article continues "In the days leading up to the deliberations this week, senior White House officials emphasized what they say have been the administration's achievements against al-Qaeda, underscoring that defeating the terrorist organization, rather than rebuilding Afghanistan, has always been Obama's stated goal."
Bill Clinton had to fight the Newt Gingrich radical right. The former president became famous for "Triangulation". Clinton used Gingrich's idea, modified it a little, kept the name the same, and watched as the GOP accepted legislation that appealed to both the right and left.
Now the GOP is in a mess they never experienced previously. The only force now in the GOP is the right-wing extremist crowd. These dolts who scream unintelligibly at town hall meetings are the pace setters for the current GOP. There are plans for their vapid attack dog--Palin, to be their nominee.
There is no hope for Obama to take the Clinton's triangulation concept and apply it to his situation. Sure the GOP back in Clinton's days impeached him for having consensual sex with a 25 year old woman. That was moronic, but the GOP hatred of Obama is easily 10 times worse than it was for Clinton. Whatever Obama does he will be attacked by the GOP. His words have been vague enough that anyone could vote for him, but pretty linguistic accomplishments are dashed by cold political and concrete policy concerns and they don't cut it against the GOP either.
The article continues "Although participants described the discussions as fluid, divisions are becoming clearer between those in the administration who want to broaden the U.S. effort, including sending in additional combat forces, and those who want to adopt a narrower anti-terrorism effort focused primarily on al-Qaeda."
The GOP had traditionally been against nation building and 43 even used that in his 2000 campaign, but if Obama doesn't make a McDonald's at every corner in Afghanistan, the GOP will attack him. They will also attack him for increasing the debt if he follows through on their demands. He is "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" so he might as well enjoy himself.
Also the military wants a huge commitment as the article continues "Asked whether a more limited counterterrorism effort would succeed in Afghanistan, he said, "The short answer is: no. You have to navigate from where you are, not where you wish to be. A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy."
The people pushing Obama to accept McChrystal's dictates are the GOP. If Obama does he won't gain any support from the right-wing and he'll alienate his progressive base who are wondering "Why is he having this long process to reach a decision on Afghanistan?" they know what they want and have an idea what Obama promised them in the campaign. Obama's initial vague statement that he will "commit more resources to Afghanistan" has recently been modified to trumpeting our improvement against al-Qaeda, underscoring that defeating the terrorist organization, rather than rebuilding Afghanistan, is the goal. The strategy of attacking al-Qaeda solely is seen as being cheaper and requiring less troops, but with Obama, too frequently, the words say one thing and the action another. However these words play out Obama better make sure he keeps his progressive base satisfied.
Left-leaning people hated 43's usurpation of power. The article "Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely" at
suggests Obama is doing just that as it states "President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges.