Um, About Obama's Afghanistan Campaign "Promise"...

[jgraz]

http://www.openleft.com/diary/16306/um-about-obamas-afghanistan-campaign-promise">Um, About Obama's Afghanistan Campaign "Promise"...

by: David Sirota
Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 15:44

In the days since President Obama announced he is massively escalating the Afghanistan War (and yes, a 30-40% troop increase is massive), it has become assumed fact that he is just fulfilling his campaign promise. The idea is that nobody has a right to be angry at him, because hey - he promised it!

Of course, that's an absurd notion in that (as http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/01/afghanistan/index.html">Glenn Greenwald points out) you could similarly argue that hey - since George W. Bush promised in 2004 to escalate the Iraq War and privatize Social Security, nobody had a right to oppose that either...and nobody made that argument.

But even if you accept the "Obama promised an Afghan escalation so STFU" premise, it still doesn't really fly - because here's the thing everyone's forgetting: He never "promised" to double the size of the Afghanistan occupation. Not even close.

As you can see from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/">Politifact and http://www.newsweek.com/id/162316">Newsweek, President Obama promised to send 2 more brigades. As the http://www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/oud/">U.S. Army's website shows, a brigade is up to 5,000 troops, which means President Obama specifically promised to send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He in no way promised send 47,000 more troops - or 9 brigades worth of troops - to Afghanistan, which is what he has done between http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29242187/">his February escalation of 17,000 troops and now his December escalation of 30,000 more troops. And he in no way promised to send http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/so_how_many_private_contractors_are_there_in_afgha.php">tens of thousands more private military contractors.


http://www.openleft.com/diary/16306/um-about-obamas-afghanistan-campaign-promise">More...

[Cant trust em]

1. It's an awful argument, but some people act like this is breaking a campaign promise

He kept the promise and it's still a bad idea.

[jgraz]

16. Depends on how honest you expected Obama to be

Yes, you can lawyer your way through this and say he was *technically* not breaking a campaign promise. But there were those other campaign promises: HOPE, CHANGE and YES WE CAN.

Try this analogy: You're dating someone and she says "I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you." Then, later, you find out she's sleeping with your best friend. Would you feel betrayed? After all, she never promised NOT to sleep with your best friend. What are you complaining about?

What Obama did during the campaign can, at best, be described as emotional manipulation. Now I know this happens in every campaign but, there again, Obama held himself up as something different from all the rest. I think people are fully justified in feeling betrayed by this decision.

[Cant trust em]

30. Then I'd tell those kids to grow up.

Welcome to the real world. If someone votes for a candidate based on amorphous campaign slogans, then they get what they deserve. There's some line in the Audacity of Hope where Obama says that he's like a blank slate that people project their vision on. That's what I think this "betrayal" is like. People expected X and they got Y.

[jgraz]

37. Were you saying that during the campaign?

I don't remember a lot of "IT'S JUST AN AMORPHOUS CAMPAIGN SLOGAN" during the general election. Most people on DU were buying the YESWECANHOPECHANGE mantra hook, line and sinker.

[Cant trust em]

39. I like it and it makes me feel great, but I don't see it as a binding agreement.

I do believe in hope and change, I worked as a field organizer for the campaign, but I also understand the practicality of governing. Tough decisions are going to have to be made. I've always been very aware of the actual ability of Obama to create real change.

[jgraz]

40. So, to come back to my analogy

You think the boyfriend should not feel betrayed?

[Cant trust em]

44. I feel like the expectation between a man and a woman is much more explicit

than one a politician uses during a campaign.

Factors on the ground for policy making change over time, forcing leaders to shift and develop new strategies. I think this is part of that.

The analogy you have assumes that nothing has changed, but the person's actions reflect some intent to deceive.

I don't think that Obama went into this decision lightly, but felt that given how the situation in Afghanistan had changed that this was a decision that he had to make.

[jgraz]

48. For the most part, I agree with you wrt: politicians

Which is why I remember listening closely to Obama's rhetoric, looking for weasel words and other hedging. I distinctly recall coming away from his statements thinking, "Damn, this guy's actually serious."

So, I guess I got conned. In the immortal words of George W. Bush: "Can't get fooled again."

[Cant trust em]

49. I really do feel like deep down, Obama wanted to come in and be different

I actually think that the war escalation is not the best example of feelings of unmet expectations. I think that the post-TARP restructuring of our financial sector is what's let me down the most. I would have liked to seen extreme strings tied to the money. In essence, we're going to bail you out, but you're not going to create another bubble like this. I feel like a lot of what is slowing Obama down is a middle of the road Congress and obstructionist republicans.

[jgraz]

50. Abso-friggin-lutely

If you see even a few of my posts, you'll notice that I concentrate a lot on Obama's financial betrayal. That one is explicit and incredibly disappointing.

[Cant trust em]

54. I met a Herb Allison a few weeks ago

He's the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability (AKA TARP guy). He spoke a little bit about now that we've stabilized the banks, we want to make sure that we take care of small businesses. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard to swallow sometimes.

[jgraz]

55. Ok I first read that as Herb Alpert

That's what I get for going sleep-free for two days.

[Cant trust em]

56. I almost called him that to his face.

[ZombieHorde]

94. What is the real world, besides a TV show? nt

[mkultra]

67. In your analogy , the girl would have to have said..

"I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you. But im going to sleep with Afghanistan"

Since he actually spelled it out in his campaign.

[jgraz]

85. Where did he spell out 47,000 more troops and thousands of contractors

And no specific exit strategy?

Can you point to that speech?

[mkultra]

88. you switch your position like every republican i know

First you where complaining that he went in at all, now your complaining that he didn't specify exact numbers or pre-specify an exit strategy. You must be aware that you aren't really convincing anyone with this kind of chicanery.

Let me boil it down so you cant try to confuse the topic further. He made it very clear that he would be going back in to Afghanistan and that is exactly what he did. He kept his word. If you don't like it, to damn bad.

[jgraz]

89. Projection, thy name is mkultra

You specifically used the words "spelled out", shifting from the usual apologist claptrap of "well, he never promised he WOULDN'T massively escalate a pointless war."

So, Mr Consistency, I ask you again: when, exactly, did Obama "spell out" his plans for Afghanistan?

[mkultra]

90. That would be Aug. 1, 2007 for one

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/22/obama-ballyhoos-afghan-stance/

"Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve," Obama said. "As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."



There you go Mr. Uninformed.


For extra gravy, check out the truth o meter about what others claimed ABOUT Obama.

[jgraz]

91. Ah, the old weasel words again. From 2+ years ago, no less.

Again, from the next paragraph in the article:
Now, sure, if you wanted to be obsequiously propagandistic in your fealty to President Obama, you could argue that he gave himself a two-word out when he made his Afghanistan campaign promise - he said he'd send "at least" two more brigades. So yeah, you could lawyer it to say that technically, he hasn't "broken" a campaign promise - just like Republicans lamely argued that even though Bush in 2000 said he was against nation building, he also said he wanted to protect America, and that latter clause meant his Iraq adventure wasn't breaking the promise in the former clause.

Congratulations on your obsequious propaganda.


Now, here's what normal, intelligent adults might expect from the phrase "spelling out" (from the comments on the article):

I will send 50,000 more troops to Afghanistan even if the mission there becomes obviously futile, even if the government there shows itself to be hopelessly corrupt, even if the CIA keeps funding the Taliban, even if Afghani civilians keep dying at an alarming rate, even if the plight of Afghani women keeps deteriorating, even if we keep creating terrorists, even if the American economy is struggling and desperately needs jobs...

Of course, why should we expect our HOPECHANGEYESWECAN president to actually be honest with us? :eyes:

[mkultra]

92. your statement would be true if not for other facts

His intent to take a careful approach to the situation means that before you commit troops you commit to an analysis first, then choose numbers based on that analysis. Any normal intelligent adult could tell from his statements that his intent is to ramp up Afghanistan and these same said adults should also know the choosing the troops numbers would be done at escalation time, not two years in advance.

My point is well made. He made it very clear that he intended to shift focus back to Afghanistan. I expected it, why didn't you.

[arcadian]

2. That doesn't correspond to the light beaming out of Obama's ass

Like war hawks on DU have been saying.

[NJmaverick]

7. Hey it's the guy that thinks Bill Clinton is in league with the Bush family

:thumbsdown:

[arcadian]

12. Hey, chummie, don't look now but a lot of DUers

don't particularly care for right of center Bill Clinton and his dynastic family.

[cali]

13. bwahahahaha. trust you not to know the meaning of a simple word

like dynastic.

[arcadian]

14. The Clintons aren't a political dynasty?

[cali]

35. why, no. no, they're not.

n., pl., -ties.

1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.

[arcadian]

Interesting that most political writers don't share your limited view.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22clinton+dynasty%22&cf=all&sugg=d&sa=N&lnav=d2&as_ldate=2003&as_hdate=2006&ldrange=1992%2C2002&hdrange=2007%2C2008

But then again, nobody has ever accused you of being a Beltway insider or Washingtonian brain trust now have they?

:rofl: <-@U

[cali]

41. lol, genius.

a google page as proof that "most political writers think the Clinton's are a dynasty?"

You're cute when you're on the defensive, sweetie.

[arcadian]

43. Bwahahaha! and your naïveté is amusing

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie

[NJmaverick]

15. not many think that Bill Clinton is in league with the Bush Family though

which was in FACT what I said.

[arcadian]

19. ORLY?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1716851

"If you go back and read what (Bush) said in the campaign, he's just doing what he'd said he'd do. You've got to give him credit for that... No one has the whole truth," Clinton said.

[jgraz]

24. pwned.

[NJmaverick]

26. I am sure you BELIEVE that

sadly your perspective is a bit askew

[NJmaverick]

25. You posted the wrong link, it didn't show any poll that had MANY DUers supporting your assertion

[spiritual_gunfighter]

31. +1 n/t

[avaistheone1]

95. As if they are not.

Clinton did Bush's dirty work on NAFTA.

[cali]

3. I wouldn't argue that people don't have the right to be angry at him

over the escalation. I would and do argue that claiming- as many are doing- that they've been betrayed by him because of his decision to escalate it, is dishonest. Oh, and he said he'd send at least least 2 brigades.

[jgraz]

5. Glad you mentioned the "at least" escape clause

Reading on...

Now, sure, if you wanted to be obsequiously propagandistic in your fealty to President Obama, you could argue that he gave himself a two-word out when he made his Afghanistan campaign promise - he said he'd send "at least" two more brigades. So yeah, you could lawyer it to say that technically, he hasn't "broken" a campaign promise - just like Republicans lamely argued that even though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqiBwsjAa2s">Bush in 2000 said he was against nation building, he also said he wanted to protect America, and that latter clause meant his Iraq adventure wasn't breaking the promise in the former clause.

Yes, Obama maybe hasn't broken an explicit campaign promise on Afghanistan (while, of course, explicitly breaking promises on everything from NAFTA to Gitmo) - and he certainly didn't promise to end the Afghanistan War (nobody has said he did). But I'd say he also isn't simply "fulfilling" a campaign promise by escalating the troop increase he committed to by a factor of four (and again, that's only counting U.S. military troops, and not private contractors).

[NJmaverick]

11. "your fealty to President Obama"

Was this written by Glen Beck?

[arcadian]

17. Continuation of foreign wars

doesn't often fall under most people's definition of Hope®. And certainly, continuation of Bush era policies doesn't fall under most people's definition of Change®.

[jgraz]

20. You forgot YES WE CAN™

Which has now become WELL, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO IF IT DOESN'T UPSET TOO MANY REPUBLICANS.

[VMI Dem]

4. Ask them about his campaign claims that marriage is between a man and woman.

They'll tell you he just said that to get elected.

[NJmaverick]

9. Here are his promises and their statuses on GBLT issues

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/gays-and-lesbians/

[NJmaverick]

6. To the aurthor of this article= Liar! liar! pants on fire!

Article says- "As you can see from Politifact and Newsweek, President Obama promised to send 2 more brigades."

Politifact ACTUALLY said- "he will send at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan,"


Shameful lies told to further an even worse agenda

[jgraz]

8. Clicking on links: a key concept in using Teh Internets

From the very next paragraph:

Now, sure, if you wanted to be obsequiously propagandistic in your fealty to President Obama, you could argue that he gave himself a two-word out when he made his Afghanistan campaign promise - he said he'd send "at least" two more brigades. So yeah, you could lawyer it to say that technically, he hasn't "broken" a campaign promise - just like Republicans lamely argued that even though Bush in 2000 said he was against nation building, he also said he wanted to protect America, and that latter clause meant his Iraq adventure wasn't breaking the promise in the former clause.

[NJmaverick]

10. Sorry telling a lie and then addressing the lie doesn't make the original lie correct

the sneaky author hoped people wouldn't click on his support links because it would expose him for the liar he is.

[jgraz]

18. No, making a point and then addressing possible quibbles with the point = NOT telling a lie.

Your inability to read more than four paragraphs is not the author's problem.

[NJmaverick]

28. Sayings something false makes that person dishonest and not someone to listen to

you can't move past that basic FACT because you wish/want something else (like to have another false reason to Bash our DEMOCRATIC President.

[jgraz]

38. Glad you finally admit you're dishonest and should not be listened to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5524913&mesg_id=5527157

I expect you'll stop posting now -- or at least include a disclaimer on every reply.

[bvar22]

47. WOW.

That deconstruction of NJmaverick was a thing of beauty.
Thanks.
Saving the link.
:patriot:

[jgraz]

51. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take me very long to find a crystal-clear example.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Ignore the sniggering attacks. Here's someone INTELLIGENT telling the TRUTH re: Obama's decision..

General Clark totally supports the strategy behind President Obama's decision:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER:... It was a strong speech, Larry. I think he laid out an important case.

I agree with a lot of the sentiments that Michael Moore expressed. I do think in this case, the president limited the objectives. He's not talking about nation-building. He's not talking about building a democracy.

I think he pointed right at the objective, go after Al Qaeda. He didn't talk about Pakistan, but Pakistan is all over this speech. And the simple truth is that, as he said, you can't get at Al Qaeda in Pakistan without doing more in Afghanistan.

So I think that he's going to put a lot of pressure on the Pakistanis and give them a lot of help and expect them to do a lot more directly against Al Qaeda while the U.S. forces in Afghanistan also work against Al Qaeda and work for a very minimalist objective with the idea of getting ourselves out of there in a responsible way pretty quickly...

CLARK: I think victory here is we go after Al Qaeda, particularly in Pakistan. We do it with the leadership of the Pakistanis, we give them the support to do it, we build a strong relationship with Pakistan, and we leave behind in Afghanistan some kind of minimally stable government.

If we have to go back in there at some later time, if we have to leave a residual force, if we have to leave some special forces and intelligence collectors there, we might have to do that.

But the point is the objectives in Afghanistan are pretty minimal. What we really want to do is go after Al Qaeda. And that's a war that there won't be a victory parade. Mark's exactly right on that. But we'll know when we're winning. We've already done a pretty good job against Al Qaeda. We just need to finish the job a little bit more in Pakistan, and we can't do that if we don't hang on in Afghanistan.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/01/lkl.01.html

[spiritual_gunfighter]

33. You obviously didnt read the whole article

It is addressed, you should read it before commenting next time.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. he can get the job 3 times as fast

:evilgrin:

[jgraz]

23. I think you accidentally a word there.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. done, done, done!

slip of the mouse!

[Thrill]

22. So what? This isn't going to change his decison.

Its easy, if you don't like it, show him when he's up for re-election.

This is pointless

[vaberella]

46. Exactly. I say just vote him out and we'll get a Repub who doesn't mind extending military rule.

Since Obama is really that bad.

[ClarkUSA]

27. He kept his campaign promise to "finish the job" in Afghanistan and will be ending two wars by 2011.

:)

[NJmaverick]

34. Stop that, don't you know the rules?

you are suppose to make up your own campaign promise that you then attribute to Obama and then bash him for not keeping it. Then if someone questions what you did you talk about that person's "fealty to President Obama".

[ClarkUSA]

42. You've got the 24/7 Obama Outrage Club's MO down pat.

Too bad no one cares about David Sirota's contrived hair-splitting except the Bad News Bunch. :)

[Cha]

53. It's batshit blind and this is what this country has to deal

with..both ends of the extremists can't deal in reality so they make up shit as they go along and just know there's idiots out there who will buy it.

WTF..don't any of those writers think they'll get readers if they go with the facts?

Fuck 'em if they can't handle reality.

[ClarkUSA]

58. Good thing Pres. Obama understands batshit crazy after last year & is brushing it off his shoulders

<<Fuck 'em if they can't handle reality.>>

Absolutely. Let them snigger and sneer... who the hell really cares what they think in the real world?

When 2011 hits and Pres. Obama welcomes the last of the combat troops home from the Middle East,
I'm sure David Sirota, Matt Taibbi, Counterpunch, SocialistWorker.org, HuffPo and the 24/7 Obama
Outrage Club members who are their rhetorical disciples here at DU will still be whining about
something, anything, and everything Obama.

Of course, we'll be the ones doing this :eyes: and this :nopity:

It must suck for the Failers to know that their pathetic bitterness means nothing in the big scheme of things.
I mean, a vast majority of the whole world loves Pres. Obama's 2011 exit plan, the U.N. and Human Rights
Watch approve of his decision, and a majority of Americans like it, too.

:fistbump:

[dionysus]

93. ooooh, major bonus points for use ofthe word "fealty"

:thumbsup:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. It's not that anyone's saying to STFU, per se.

It's that the histrionics weren't displayed when Obama made the campaign promises. No one went into fits of rage. No one said "THIS ISN'T CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN!" Instead, they overlooked it, or worse - decided that since no politican ever keeps their promises that Obama would surely come over to their side once he's in office.

It's the hypocrisy of saying you no longer believe in Obama or that he's lost your vote when he's doing what he said he'd do in the first place that most take objection to. Technically speaking, you should've never "believed" in the first place if you actually paid attention.

On edit: It's like if Santa Claus himself tells you that he doesn't exist (stay with me here), but you believe he exists anyway, put out the milk and cookies, wake up on Christmas morning, find no gifts, and then whine that you expected Santa to exist.

[jgraz]

36. We expected Obama to make intelligent decisions

When he made those "promises" (of a much smaller escalation), it was before a blatantly fraudulent election and the exposure of the Karzai family as a world-class drug cartel.

We expected Obama to make the right decisions and lead. He isn't doing that here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. Ahh, and I presume you have the market cornered on intelligence?

A disingenuous comment if I've ever seen one. You're telling me that there's no intelligent reason imaginable for either escalating in Afghanistan? If that's the case, it's not Obama's intelligence I question.

Believe it or not, just because you believe something to be true, that doesn't end reasonable, intelligent debate.

[jgraz]

59. So explain to me WHY it's an intelligent decision

Try to use an explanation that doesn't boil down to "I trust Obama implicitly."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Obama explained his own decision.

You've deemed it "unintelligent". You could've said you disagree or that you think he's wrong, but you picked unintelligent, which means that no reasonable person with an IQ over 90 would ever even contemplate going this route.

So you'll excuse me if I pass on the offer. It wouldn't be intelligent of me to waste my time on someone that isn't going to bother considering it.

[jgraz]

61. I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt

If it was an intelligent decision, then it was a craven political one that uses our troops as fodder for his re-election hopes.


BTW, I knew you couldn't come up with a single reason why the decision makes sense. Thanks for not disappointing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. Nice attempt to bait me.

But seriously, I'm not biting.

[jgraz]

63. I'm not baiting you. I'm proving you don't know what you're talking about.

There's a subtle but important difference.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. If you say so.

You're clearly more intelligent than all of us, so I'll assume you're right on this too. :hi:

[jgraz]

68. I'm not saying I'm clearly more intelligent than everyone else.

Just you. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. And Obama.

So I guess I'm in good company.

[jgraz]

70. Like I said: I was just being nice to Obama

I really think this is a craven political decision by an intelligent but fundamentally weak man.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

71. And that's "nice"?

:eyes:

[jgraz]

72. See, there's that intelligence factor again.

As I said before, assuming Obama made a dumb decision is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

You may not know this, but intelligent people can make dumb decisions.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

78. Seems more like you have a personal problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4158677

[jgraz]

79. Um... Brain Trust? I didn't post that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

80. Oh, but you posted in the thread.

You probably are a complete fucking retard, but you're not quite THAT dumb.


I can post idiotic photos too.

[jgraz]

81. Wow, Genius. Were you AROUND for the primaries?

And did anyone ever show you how to link to a specific post? Have your mom help you out with that.

[impik]

73. Oh yes, and it there wasn't election fraud, i'm sure you would support

Obama's decision, right? And who made you that judge of the "Intelligent decision"? You don't have 0.00000001% of the information Obama has. So you'll excuse me if i trust him more than i trust you.

[jgraz]

76. I won't excuse you one bit.

Unless you can provide one piece of evidence as to why committing another 30,000 troops (and tens of thousands of contractors) makes sense.

Again, "my president, right or wrong" is not an argument.

[LWolf]

84. Bullshit.

I am not "No one." I didn't display histrionics or go into fits of rage, but I damned sure did condemn Obama's agenda, strongly, and often.

I paid close attention.

That's why he never earned my support.

[impik]

45. He said "at least" two brigades, and in any case, what is it

a market?? He's the CIC, he sees the intelligence, he made a decision that is absolutely in the line of what he talked about during the campaign. This is seriously stupid.

[jgraz]

52. From the very next paragraph

Now, sure, if you wanted to be obsequiously propagandistic in your fealty to President Obama, you could argue that he gave himself a two-word out when he made his Afghanistan campaign promise - he said he'd send "at least" two more brigades. So yeah, you could lawyer it to say that technically, he hasn't "broken" a campaign promise - just like Republicans lamely argued that even though Bush in 2000 said he was against nation building, he also said he wanted to protect America, and that latter clause meant his Iraq adventure wasn't breaking the promise in the former clause.

[Jennicut]

66. It is not inconsistent with his thinking on the Afghan situation but it is still a mistake in my

opinion. This is a needless argument.

[Lord Helmet]

74. Obama was clear about Afghanistan. You're lost in the weeds with this argument.

[jgraz]

77. Exactly when did he say he'd escalate by 47,000 troops (and thousands of contractors)

The closest he got was promising to "finish the job". What, exactly, did that mean?

[jgraz]

82. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *

Why am I not surprised. :eyes:

[BklnDem75]

87. Because it's a stupid question?

Why would Obama make a campaign promise to send 47k troops before he became president and got more information? Were you drinking when you posted that?

[ShortnFiery]

75. KnR

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

83. "Um, About Obama's Afghanistan Campaign 'Promise'..."

He never promised to set a date to begin withdrawal either.

Now what?

[jgraz]

86. He also never promised not to nuke Chicago while fucking a puppy on live tv

I guess we have THAT to look forward to now... :eyes: