How does stating, "He's doing what he said he'd do", excuse the fiasco in Afghanistan?

[rug]

[Taverner]

1. We gotta just get out of there

Not sure how, or what we do...

But get out now if you want there to be an 'America'

[social_critic]

6. It's fairly simple

Forget about imposing democracy and human rights, let the non-Pashtun Afghan get weapons, and tell them they can fight the Taliban if they feel like it, or they can surrender and go back to the middle ages. And start pulling out gear and troops in an orderly fashion. Clear out by the end of 2011. It can be done. If I were Obama, I would force Petraeous and a large portion of the military brass into retirement, and put in some fresh non-neocon leadership. It's time to end these imperial wars, and the next time neocons like Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage et all proposes a war, I say we strap parachutes on them, give them weapons, and toss them over the battlefield they propose to start. I'd love to see what they do if they have to fight rather than sit on Fox egging others to die for idiotic ideas.

[Taverner]

14. Sounds good to me

[jancantor]

2. It doesn't. However,

it does properly respond to statements that express SURPRISE that he is doing so, or that he is selling out his promises by doing so, etc. One can think his policy is wrong, while understanding that it is not a betrayal of how he ran for president, etc.

[xchrom]

3. When you want 'your side' always perceived in

A positive light -- you'll take any spin you can.

[BlueIris]

15. Any spin indeed. And it's worn so thin, you can read newsprint through it. nt

[laughingliberal]

4. There is no excuse. nt

[superduperfarleft]

5. It doesn't, and it never did.

It's simply an attempt to impugn the motives of someone offering legitimate criticisms, and it's a cheap shot that says more about the accuser than it does the accused.

I voted for Obama DESPITE a lot of things, not BECAUSE of these things.

[xiamiam]

7. good question..i prefer a president who has the wisdom to recognize a fools folly in war..nt

[RKP5637]

8. There is no way that region is going to be settled without a permanent force

there for years and years. The infrastructure does not exist for a sustainable country the way the US thinks it should be (if even correct), it will collapse when we leave. We need to get the hell out of there. The way we're doing it now there will be no Afghanistans left standing. All we do is sow the seeds of hatred for the US IMO. It's a flawed strategy.

The US can not run around being the police force of the world and meanwhile our country is falling apart in many many ways. And what the F does winning mean anyway, just what have we won, more death and destruction ...

[cliffordu]

9. How does that 'question' excuse your chronic hatred of all things Obama?

[rug]

11. Cliff, that's for another thread called Deflection 101.

Now, can you answer the question at hand?

[cliffordu]

17. Yours is not a question and you fucking well know it.

[Puregonzo1188]

10. It doesn't. Could you imagine someone criticizing Bush during his second term for continuing the

Iraq Occupation and a DUer responding with "He's doing what he said he'd do"?

No, you can't.

[emilyg]

12. It doesn't.

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. It seems a though he really didn't understand what he was getting into there.

His stated purpose was something to the effect that our security hinged on snuffing out all the potential terrorist in Afghanistan.

[Scurrilous]

16. Let's put you in charge.

:thumbsup:

[patrice]

18. Whether you or I like it or not, it's never been about excuses nor justifications.

We a moving toward "limited" nuclear engagements.

There is no criteria.

It should just simply end.