U.S. Will Be Out Of Afghanistan By 2017: White House

[Better Believe It]

U.S. Will Be Out Of Afghanistan By 2017: White House
November 26, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will not be in Afghanistan eight years from now, the White House said on Wednesday, as President Barack Obama prepared to explain to Americans next week why he is expanding the war effort.

It appears highly unlikely Obama will offer a specific troop withdrawal timetable, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president would stress that the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was not open-ended.

"We are in year nine of our efforts in Afghanistan. We are not going to be there another eight or nine years," Gibbs told reporters. "Our time there will be limited and that is important for people to understand," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/11/26/news/news-us-afghanistan-usa.html

[debbierlus]

1. 2017? That is ANOTHER eight years.

We do not have the need.

Nor the money.

Nor the troops.

For this fucking insanity.....

They are getting ready to ask for another 50 billion dollars. Meanwhile, Rome burns.

Mass protest NOW.

[Garam_Masala]

98. We don't have the money but we can borrow it from China..

they will give us all the loans we need! At a paltry 6% interest!!

[ClarkUSA]

2. The OP headline is misleading as it's a total guess on the reporter's part. Surprise, surprise.

:eyes:

[tekisui]

3. I would bet any sum of money we will not be out by 2016.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Perhaps you & the reporter of this article have something in common... I'm not into hypotheticals

:shrug:

[tekisui]

8. Open your eyes to the reality.

We are further entangling ourselves in a mess that cannot be easily undone. Understanding the history of the region, our involvement and the current trajectory, doubling down is going to get us stuck.

[ClarkUSA]

10. I would be surprised if President Obama does not share your concerns, which is why...

... he demanded exit plans from all of his Pentagon chiefs two weeks ago, causing much MSM mediawhore brouhaha because
they were surprised that he dared to delay his expected decision. I am sure he will not make his decision lightly. I am also
sure he is well aware of "the reality" of the situation as much as he was of it in 2002 when he made his opposition to the
IWR known prior to its vote. His words seem prescient now. Kudos to President Obama for winding down the unnecessary,
reckless and soulless Iraq war.

Rooting out Osama bin Laden and the mushrooming of Al-Qaida influence in the border regions between Afghanistan and
Pakistan is not only necessary, but long overdue, as Pres. Obama said repeatedly during the campaign season. And unlike
Iraq, he has the approval and support of the countries involved. While I doubt he will provide a military timetable next
Tuesday, it's clear he will have an exit plan in mind when he tells us of his decision.

I only hope Pres. Obama doesn't listen to Hillary's push for the maximum number of troops wanted by Gen. McCrystal. Thank
goodness VP Biden has real foreign policy experience and favors a more comprehensive approach which features less troops
than what Hillary/Gen. McCrystal wants.

[tekisui]

12. AQ isn't mushrooming.

I agree with Raul Grijalva

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that Obama is trying to be too pragmatic in his approach to Afghanistan. Grijalva's caucus has been pushing for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq.

"This is a buildup and a significant one," Grijalva said. "You can't split the baby on this one. You either begin to get out or you build up."


This is getting us further into it and it will be harder to get out.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Heads of state and people in the region differ with you.

Stating that the core of al Qaeda has shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan, the British Prime Minister
Gordon Brown on March 22 said that Britain was about to take the war against terror “to a new level,”
The News reported. Britain will release on March 24 a new counter-terrorism strategy called Contest
Two, billed as the most comprehensive approach to tackling the threat of terrorism by any government
in the world. Writing in The Observer, Brown said: “We know that there is an al Qaida core in northern
Pakistan trying to organise attacks in Britain. We know also that there are a number of networks here…
Al-Qaida terrorists remain intent on inflicting mass casualties without warning, including suicide
bombings. They are motivated by a violent extremist ideology based on a false reading of religion
and exploit modern travel and communications to spread through loose and dangerous global
networks.” Al Qaeda is still active in Afghanistan, but the threat has crossed the border, he
said, adding: “Over two thirds of the plots threatening the UK are linked to Pakistan.”

http://afghancitizen.blogspot.com/2009/03/britain-prim-minister-core-of-al-qaeda.html

[tekisui]

18. None of those suggest AQ is mushrooming.

Just where they are, what is left of them. They are broke, financially, and have the lowest numbers in years.

[ClarkUSA]

21. You offer only fact-free rhetoric and refuse to accept "reality" despite my credibly sourced links.

There's really no point in discussing the matter further, under the circumstances. :hi:

[tekisui]

25. Sorry, I thought you had been paying attention.

Dr Sageman has impeccable credentials: a forensic psychiatrist, sociologist and scholar-in-residence with the New York police department, he served as a CIA case officer in Islamabad in the late 1980s, working closely with the Afghan mujahedin. His most recent book, based on an analysis of more than 500 terrorist biographies, convincingly argues that Bin Laden and his ilk have ceased to function as an organisational or operational entity and that the "present threat has evolved from a structured group of al-Qaida masterminds, controlling vast resources and issuing commands, to a multitude of informal local groups trying to emulate their predecessors by conceiving and executing operations from the bottom up. These 'homegrown' wannabes form a scattered global network, a leaderless jihad."

(snip)

First, the claim that fighting a war in Afghanistan protects the streets of New York and London from terrorist attack. The crux of Dr Sageman's argument, and empirical research, is that, since 2002, there has not been a single terrorist plot in the west that can be traced back to Afghanistan. "The few that have any link to a transnational neo-jihadi terrorist group are linked to Pakistan," he told me. These include the 7/7 attacks and the more recent liquid bomb plot – in fact, as Gordon Brown himself conceded in December 2008, three-quarters of the terrorist plots investigated by British authorities can be traced back to Pakistan – and not Afghanistan.

Second, the claim that a resurgent Taliban poses a threat to the west. Dr Sageman is adamant that the prospect of "deeply divided" Taliban forces retaking Kabul and returning to power in Afghanistan is "not a sure thing". Nor would a Taliban return to power "mean an automatic new sanctuary for al-Qaida." The relationship between the two organisations, he says, "has always been strained … indeed, al-Qaida has so far not returned to Taliban controlled areas in Afghanistan." It is a view shared, incidentally, by a senior member of the Obama administration, the national security adviser, General James Jones, who told CNN that "the al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases. No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

Third, the claim that Afghanistan will benefit from an Iraq-style "surge" of western troops. This was Sageman's testimony on Capitol Hill:

Let me answer that with an old Middle Eastern proverb. 'It's me and my brother against my cousin. But it's me and my cousin against a foreigner.' So if we send 40,000 Americans ... that will coalesce every local rivalry; they will put their local rivalry aside to actually shoot the foreigners and then they'll resume their own internecine fight ... Sending troops with weapons just will unify everybody against those troops, unfortunately.

Dr Sageman is keen for policymakers in the west, who promote falsehoods and myths about Afghanistan while sitting "several thousand miles from the war zone", to acknowledge the futility of escalation, instead of recognising the success in ridding Afghanistan of al-Qaida, as long ago as 2002, and now switching the focus to Pakistan. He has another useful ally in the White House, in the form of the vice-president Joe Biden, who has been pushing in recent weeks to divert resources from Afghanistan to Pakistan and reformulate the terrorism problem as "PakAf", not "AfPak". But our own prime minister's decision to send a further 500 troops to the killing fields of Helmand flies in the face of such thinking. Dr Sageman is perplexed. "The problem is in Pakistan," he tells me. "But that's not where we are sending troops to. We're sending them to the nation next door."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/26/afghanistan-al-qaida

[ClarkUSA]

30. Now you have 1 source who has no security clearance and hasn't been in the region since the 80's...

I guess British PM Gordon Brown, the Obama administration and the Pakistani PM don't know what they're talking about because
"a forensic psychiatrist, sociologist and scholar-in-residence with the New York police department" knows better, right?

Gimme a break. :rofl:

[Garam_Masala]

99. Sorry but president is 10 times smarter than Dr Sageman

mainly because the president gets his daily intelligence briefing (DIF)
which Dr Sageman has no access to.

[tekisui]

102. We should trust our President, like Brittany Spears said, huh?

[vaberella]

7. Exactly. Crap post. n/t

[tekisui]

9. You really expect an escalatation will get us out in a shorter period?

That would be naive thinking.

[ClarkUSA]

11. The surge in Iraq worked by most analysts' reckoning & Pres. Obama is now beginning to w/d troops.

That's "the reality" so it's not "naive thinking" at all.

[tekisui]

13. It wasn't the surge.

It was the Sunni Awakening.

Besides that, Afghanistan is not Iraq. Iraq had a more functional government, and the violence hasn't ended in Iraq, only the US casualties. There really isn't anything successful about Iraq. It looks like they aren't even going to have their elections in January.

[ClarkUSA]

20. The Sunni Awakening would not have succeeded without the security provided by the surge.

They were two sides of an equation that proved to be a mission success. If you think counter-terrorism expert Gen. Petraeus
launched one tactic without factoring in the effect of the other, then you're the one who's guilty of "naive thinking".

:shrug:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

28. I really love this. Using Iraq as a model for success.

And offering some praise to Petraeus. I remember when we used to call him Betray-us.

Now, you and the other party-liners are defending a surge.

Iraq is still as messed up now as it was then. Just less US dying. The only success was having someone listen to the American people and start withdrawing.

[ClarkUSA]

32. I'm refuting your earlier point. I'm not a rigid ideologue who can't give credit where it is due.

As for Gen. Petraeus, who do you think thought of the Sunni Awakening tactic you credit with such success in Iraq? :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

88. The Sunni Awakening preceded Petraeus surge by months

and your revisionism won't change that.

[vaberella]

39. Did I ever say that?! You like the OP have problems with reading posts and articles.

Ditto for the author with a crap title that makes no sense in relation to Gibbs and is total sensationalism.

[tekisui]

44. Ok. I ask now, do you think a surge will get us out quicker than

8 or 9 years?

I don't.

[vaberella]

62. What is this talk about 8 or 9 years?

No where in the article does it say anything about us taking 8 or 9 years to end the war. Nor does that increase in soldiers you asking about to end a war fall into this 8 or 9 year equation. How do you expect to answer, when I have no idea why this 8 or 9 years is pimped about.

Secondly, Obama did increase the troops in Iraq by a few thousand---and we've already read that the soldiers are taking down camps and some brigrades are coming home. So Iraq is cleaning up. Third, I'm waiting on Tuesday to hear Obama's reasoning and plans and if I find them logical. I don't know what th best idea is and I doubt you do either and if you tell me get our troops out now you're as inhumane as letting them stay there. Why? Because we'll Afghanistan in the same mess we left Pakistan---disatrous. It was bad when we went in but now it's just almost unliveable and we killed may people ther ein our 8 years and created inhumane acts. How would that be to just completely eliminate our people ther when there are some civilians trying to make some positive changes under our jurisdiction? It would not be responsible to just remove the troops one by one without leaving something behind and it's not good to leave our troops there indefinitely.

So to be honest..I don't know what the best idea is and I'm not privy to all the information that is going on and I want to hear what Obama is going to say and his plans and see if that's reasonable course of actions. People may claim to have a good idea but no one here knows what the best plan of action is, no one.

[lazer47]

4. Have you people not been listening,, THE WORLD WILL END IN 2012,,

pay more attention..:toast:

[vaberella]

5. How in the hell does this title relate to what Gibbs said?

We could be out in months listening to Gibbs statement. This is crap.

[tekisui]

14. lol. It will take the majority of next year just for the Second Surge.

[vaberella]

33. Are you not understanding my statement?! Is it that hard to grasp.

The title misrespresenting Gibbs' words. No where in the damned article does he say we will be out by 2017 or that we will be there for 8 or 9 years. That's the damned point. This post is spreading misinformation and there are people on this board pushing it as fact. Note the OPs response to me. So don't "lol" as if I'm missing some point.

[Better Believe It]

15. Once again vaberella, it's simple math! 2009 + 8 = 2017

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

"We are in year nine of our efforts in Afghanistan. We are not going to be there another eight or nine years," Gibbs told reporters. "Our time there will be limited and that is important for people to understand," he said.

[2tr4nqued]

16. Obama's goals in Afghanistan are naive and unrealistic.

Obama is wrong. The Afghanistan war is not worth fighting. Obama should not send more troops. He should bring them home.

[IndianaGreen]

19. and he will get a lot of people killed for nothing

[ClarkUSA]

22. What are his "goals"? Since you are obviously privy to an advance copy of his speech next Tuesday.

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

26. Obama's goal is to tell the GOP he has cojones

Unfortunately Obama did not take the opinions of the American people into consideration (a majority opposes war), or the Afghani people (they all want the US out).

[jenmito]

29. Then why did he REJECT all 4 plans presented to him? He wanted an exit strategy

which the GOP does NOT want. Also, all of the Afghanis do NOT want the U.S. out. I guess you don't remember the thread a couple weeks ago about Code Pink members going to Afghanistan and being surprised that the Afghan women they spoke to wanted our troops to STAY.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Obama's plans reeks of Nixon's Vietnamization

We have all been down this path before!

[jenmito]

40. What IS his plan? Did he tell you before he told the rest of us?

[ClarkUSA]

42. According to her, his only "goal is to tell the GOP he has cojones".

Oy vay, what can one say? :crazy:

[jenmito]

45. I know. Some people just like to make Obama look bad DESPITE the facts. They're the Faux anchors

of the DU.

[ClarkUSA]

48. The goals are similar: 24/7 Obama Outrage serves their hateful need to demonize the President.

Their usual insensible moaning and wailing will no doubt reach screeching proportions next week. :puke:

[IndianaGreen]

89. A President about to embark on a course that will bankrupt our country

not to mention the number of lives this folly will cost.

[Baltoman991]

52. Oh good!!!

An insider. Perhaps you can share with the rest of the class what his plan is. Or is that reek you're smelling actually your pure hatred for all things Obama? :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

34. I prefer unbiased facts to the fact-free anti-Obama rhetoric that seems to be the norm for you.

:hi:

[IndianaGreen]

36. I will make it a point to post every civilian casualty and US troop deaths

until the Kool-Aid drinkers here come to their senses and realize how pointless this war is.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Go ahead. That doesn't mitigate the fact that you have offered no facts to back up your rhetoric.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

46. The facts will be the new graves at our national cemeteries caused by Obama's wars

[ClarkUSA]

50. Tacky grandstanding on "new graves" doesn't prove "Obama's goal is to tell the GOP he has cojones".

:puke:

[jenmito]

27. It's also simple comprehension: Saying we WON'T be there another 8 or 9 years

means we could be out ANY time.

[vaberella]

31. Don't patronize me. You are SPREADING misinformation!!

Where does Gibbs say we wil be ther for 8 or 9 years. I'm tired of people spreading lies and passing it as truth and then comig off condescending as though they're saying some fact. No where in Gibbs' quote does he say we are there or 8 or 9 years. And yet everyone is running with this.

[Better Believe It]

65. I'm just doing simple math. 2009 + 8 = 2017

Now tell me what is "patronizing" about this math.

Could be out by 2016, or maybe not.

In any case, do you like Obama's choice of West Point to give his war escalation speech?

[vaberella]

69. I want to call you a liar but I don't think it's in the rules.

Nothing in the article even says and the quote you keep pimping says nothing about us saying in Afghanistan for 8 years. But you keep pushing it as fact. I'm surprised you're still allowed to post this.

On the last statement---I have no feelings either way. I just want to hear what he has to say so I can understand his reasonings. His choice of venue is not my concern.

[jenmito]

23. Saying we will be out BY '17 does NOT mean we won't be out BEFORE '17.

Obama himself said he doesn't want to pass the war in Afghanistan to another president. I doubt he's planning on keeping it going 'til the last day of his second term.

[vaberella]

37. That's the thing as well. No where in the bloody article does Gibbs say well be out by 2017.

Or anything of the nature. He doesn't we'll be out by 8 or 9 years. He just says we won't be there that long. This is my problem with the entire OP. It's basically spreading a lie.

[jenmito]

43. Exactly. Yet people are "doing the math" and concluding that Obama said we'll be there 'TIL

2017. I guess common sense isn't all that common-or the usual suspects are purposely spinning the story to make Obama look bad. :shrug:

[vaberella]

60. No they are definitely spinning on purpose. This is straight up nonsense.

I think his thread and those like it should be locked. This is out of hand.

[avaistheone1]

41. Like we are going to get out early!!! When have the generals ever wanted to do that?

Remember we were going into Iraq for a matter of weeks - now we are still there eight years later.

Has Obama made any predictions when the Afghans will be throwing rose petals at our feet?

[jenmito]

47. Since when were the generals the POTUS? Do you forget that Obama REJECTED the plan of the

generals because there was no exit strategy?

Yes, I remember all the lies the BUSH admin. told. What does Bush have to do with Obama and HIS statement that HE will FINISH the war (like he's finishing the one in Iraq?)

[avaistheone1]

49. Yes, yes, yes....

Obama rejected the plan :thumbsup:

and now Obama is committing our troops there for at least seven years :thumbsdown:

Bottomline all of this is a bunch of theatrics. Obama will do what Bush did and abdicate to the generals, in turn the generals will point fingers back at the president and we will be Afghanistan far, far longer, than SEVEN LOOOOOOOONNNNNNG years.

[ClarkUSA]

51. "now Obama is committing our troops there for at least seven years" Really? What's your source?

:shrug:

[jenmito]

54. She also said we're in a double dip recession, "proving" it by posting links to

articles showing people WORRYING about a possible FUTURE double dip recession. :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

56. ROFL...she's got a recognizable MO, I see. She shares it w/many others desperate to demonize Obama.

Thanks for the chuckle. :)

[jenmito]

58. She sure does. Many posts to her have gone unanswered,

an you could see. My pleasure. :)

[ClarkUSA]

61. ...

:fistbump:

[jenmito]

63. ...

:fistbump: back atcha!

[avaistheone1]

68. Obama isn't a devil.

He is an angel. He is going to start war to achieve peace.

It all makes so much sense.



:sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

72. You haven't answered my question: what's your source for your "seven years" war claim?

You said: "now Obama is committing our troops there for at least seven years" What's your source? Hmm?

I'd expect someone who has ANY credibility to have something to back up such a claim. :)

[avaistheone1]

74. Read the article. Or just do the math. 2010 plus seven years equals 2017.

DUH! The title of the article is "U.S. Will Be Out Of Afghanistan By 2017: White House"

You can read can't you? Perhaps not. :eyes:

Sorry it is over your head.

[vaberella]

75. Once again---where in Gods name does Gibbs---who the author is quoting...

say we will be out in 2017. Where other tan in the bloody title does it even suggest that? Gibbs' never says ANYTHING of the sort. Which is why I don't see how 2017 is arbitrarily the number of our leaving Afghanistan and this is directly from the WH. You can't even find that in the article---but using the title as the basis of this trash. And people talk about "cheerleaders" defending all things Obama does---apologists for him. There are some people who are willing to spew any right wing crap for dissent even though it's obviously sensationalism as long as it hurts the President politically and gets a rise out of others on this board.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Nowhere does it say that "Obama is committing our troops there for at least seven years"

You are fabricating nonsense. And the NYT headline is as misleading as you are. Surprise, surprise. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

84. Yeah, it's all about Obama? Damn that's beyond conceited.

Massive FAIL!

[avaistheone1]

67. Psst ... a future double dip recession that will start in 2010.

Oh no, that is what 2 months away?

Oh please say she didn't post articles about that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!










:popcorn: :rofl: :rofl:

[jenmito]

70. We are NOT in a double dip recession and may very well not get INTO one!

All the articles in the world don't show we ARE in a double dip recession. DUH!

[ShortnFiery]

83. Thanks for American Perspectives of Hope complements of Disneyland.

I couldn't take enough drugs or drink enough alcohol to believe anything other than the FACT that the Average American (not Wall Street - they have our tax dollars) is in *financial dire straits.*

[jenmito]

95. We're still coming out of the recession. Things are slowly improving. You and the poster who

agrees with you don't know what a "double dip recession" IS.

[jenmito]

53. You're a lost cause. You obviously are not living in the fact-based world. NOTHING

you said is true. If you think it IS true, where's your proof?

[ShortnFiery]

91. Well put. eom

[IndianaGreen]

90. Bush lied for 8 years, and on Tuesday, Obama will lie to us about Afghanistan

and our Democratic Congress will go along with the this war, just as a previous Democratic Congress went along with LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.

[jenmito]

100. I'm so sick of your Obama hatred. You can continue to bash him without involving me.

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

55. No, if the MIC had it's way ... and it HAS so far, we'll be there for 50 more years.

But we'll truly GO BROKE first. There won't be any more money to glean from the taxpayers from the USA so all the MIC corporations will move out of the USA and set up shop in Dubai to the highest bidder.

But in the mean time, why NOT give our War Profiteers another TRILLION dollars to send our youth out to KILL and DIE in the name of American hegemony? :crazy:

[jenmito]

59. I'm going by what Obama has said and what he WILL say on Tuesday night.

I trust him more than I trust you and what YOU say about it.

[ShortnFiery]

81. Then you also must value Obama above numerous foreign service officers and CIA agents.

It's NOT just ME making this argument. Unfortunately, you've invested so much emotion into believing that President Obama is "the alpha and omega" for our country's welfare INSTEAD of what he is: a super intelligent POLITICIAN. :(

Below is the link to a video containing the perspective of MANY other people who are much more "in the know" than myself. Be sure to keep those blinders secure IF you bother to view this video at all. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

The war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that American civilians will be killed in a future terrorist attack. Part six of Rethink Afghanistan brings you three former high-ranking CIA agents on the record to explain why. There is no “victory” to be won in Afghanistan.

[jenmito]

96. I trust Obama to make an intelligent, informed decision after consulting with many experts, reading

history books on past wars, etc. I'm sick of you accusing us Obama supporters of worshipping him and blindly supporting him. I don't need to see that bull when I come to the DEMOCRATIC Underground. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

92. Rick Warren sure did a lot for the trust issue, didn't it?

[jenmito]

97. Obama never promised not to allow Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration. Get real.

[marlakay]

57. My husband is right the military, corporations and banks

run this country.

The politicians just play around them.

[avaistheone1]

71. We both voted for Obama in my home

My husband caught on first. He saw that Obama is just another politician who puts himself and his needs first before those he serves. No doubt he is a telegenic and appears to be likable, but it is reported he can be cold and calculating.

It took me quite a bit longer to grasp the fact Obama is just another political animal and can not be trusted like most of the others.

[harun]

87. +1, you've learnt who the real boss is.

[treestar]

93. Not to be snarkey, but why don't you tell us what you think rather than

what your husband thinks?

[AngryOldDem]

64. That soon?

:sarcasm:

[vaberella]

66. Did you read the bloody article?! Where does Gibbs say we're out in 2017?

Do you know that for sure? What if we're out in 2013 or something. No one knows--because Gibbs definitely said not up to another 8 years but he said nothing about it being 8 years.

[Generator]

73. Sheeettt....even Bush could have accomplished that much

Our cup of pride runneth over. (OKAY I give-no war with Iran-so fuck it-Obama IS the peace maker)

[vaberella]

76. You believe this post?! For bloody fuck's sake!! n/t

[ClarkUSA]

78. Gee, and I always wondered how Fox News viewers could be so dumb.

Now I know. :hurts:

[Better Believe It]

79. 16 years is way too long to be in Afghanistan. Bring our troops home now!

[ClarkUSA]

80. Uh huh. Tell me, does your crystal ball give out lottery numbers too?

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

82. Tell me when you're either going to join the Contractors and/or the Military over in Afghanistan ...

since you seemingly view it as such a righteous WAR? You sure as Hell can't have my children and I've already served in the military. :(

[ClarkUSA]

85. Spare me the histrionics & the Christianist terminology. I'm disinterested in indulging either one.

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

86. No slight challenge. You think these two occupations are so GOOD and you BELIEVE in all things

President Obama, then you go *set the example.* If not, you are just another warmonger who has never studied Military History OR knows better and has a large chunk of change invested in the War Profiteering Industry. There's no other explanation - this (an escalation of troops) is that WRONG!

[treestar]

94. You sort of turned Gibbs' quote inside out

He was making a generalized statement and you pretended it was specific.

[mcablue]

101. What if Palin wins (God forbid) in 2012?

Or any other Republican? No matter how good our current President's intentions are, a subsequent President might easily ask that our troops stay there.

[BklnDem75]

103. Dumbest thread ever

I keep proving myself wrong when I tell myself it couldn't possibly get as dumb as this. Thanks for proving me wrong.