Would you have supported an Afghan War Surge under bush?

[tekisui]

Poll question: Would you have supported an Afghan War Surge under bush?

I use a thought experiment when judging policy decisions. How would this decision be received had it come from bush? With some of Obama's moves, I would have been shocked if bush had done it--because they are reasonable and well-meaning. Others, I would raise holy hell over.

So, if bush had DOUBLED the troop number in Afghanistan at the wishes of the generals, how would you have reacted? I remember when bush surged in Iraq, no one here was too pleased.


Would you have supported an Afghan War Surge under bush?

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[timeforpeace]

29. We would have been calling for his impeachment if he had pulled this.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[SIMPLYB1980]

2. Yes. As long as he pulled out of Iraq.

[treestar]

14. Exactly - that's the part that wouldn't have happened under the neocons

[SIMPLYB1980]

18. And a big reason why I voted for Obama.

[Recursion]

3. I was pleased (or at least less angry) at the Iraq surge

I think both wars were mistaken, but an operationally sufficient commitment to a mistaken war is still better than an operationally insufficient commitment.

[Kaleva]

8. +1

[timtom]

4. Certainly not!

Illegal invasion and occupation is scurrilous, regardless of the President's ostensible politics.

[WonderGrunion]

56. What was illegal about the invasion of Afghanistan?

Iraq was certainly an illegal war of aggression, but Afghanistan? They provide refuge to the man responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11. As far as I'm concerned, Afghanistan can be nuked until it glows in the dark.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[WonderGrunion]

66. I'm so terribly hurt by your scorn.

NOT!

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Sebastian Doyle]

71. Where's your proof that CIA agent Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 2001

Because Chimpy said so?

Of course you want to nuke innocent people, so you probably WOULD believe that fucking piece of shit.

[WonderGrunion]

72. The Taliban said they wouldn't turn him over.

If he wasn't there, they would have said "We don't know where he is"

Simple logic.

[Sebastian Doyle]

73. Who told you the Taliban said that?

Chimpy? FAUX Noize?

It was also reported that he was visited by a CIA station chief in Dubai while he was getting kidney dialysis. Not very likely that he would be hiking around the mountains of Afghanistan in that kind of condition.

[WonderGrunion]

77. John Kerry

Stop trying to make me out to be a freeper. You're very wrong.

[Sebastian Doyle]

84. If you support nuclear weapons being used on a nation that has never threatened the United States

then you are not a Democrat

[WonderGrunion]

88. Afghanistan was housing the man and organization that caused 9/11

That makes them a direct threat that was responsible for using weapons of mass destruction against us. Only Democrats have used nuclear weapons against any other country.

[Sebastian Doyle]

92. I'm not convinced that Truman made the right decision either

But at least Japan represented an actual threat to the United States at that time.

[WonderGrunion]

97. At the time we nuked Japan, they were already crumbling

There is ample evidence that nuking Japan was not necessary, it was a demonstration to "Uncle Joe" who the big player in the world really was. Try not to revise history too much. FDR interned a race of people because of fear and mistrust, much like Hitler did to the Jews. That doesn't mean that FDR = Hitler.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

139. Afghanistan had NO central government.

Still doesn't.
Al Qaeda was a small group of Saudi criminals that was renting space from a tribal warlord in the wild ungoverned interior desert.

International Law Enforcement to interrupt funds from Saudi Arabia/"offshore" banks coupled with a small surgical strike (a la Mossad) was the appropriate response to 9-11.
9-11 did NOT justify the death of a single Afghani civilian.
Still doesn't.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[WonderGrunion]

87. And only truthful reports come out of CIA station chiefs.

:sarcasm:

You can't cherry pick the reports of a lying agency to support your world view.

[Sebastian Doyle]

89. I don't think the report came from the CIA itself.

Obviously Chimp, Poppy, and Cheney would have plugged that leak. I forget exactly where it was first published, being 8 years ago, but it was verified by several independent sources, from my recollection.

[WonderGrunion]

100. How about you source that and get back to me then.

I think that Chimpy ,et al, would fake a report like that so they could float an OBL is now dead story. OBL wouldn't stop making tapes though. More to the point, he was a better political asset alive than dead.

[timtom]

79. First of all, like the invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan

was already on the books prior to 9/11.

Second, the U.S. never provided Afghanistan the requested proof they claimed they had of bin Laden's complicity in the event.

"QUESTION: Ambassador, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they asked you to surrender Osama bin Laden. Are you going to surrender him?

ZAEEF: Surrender, this is not the new way and this not the new thing. We want justice. We want justice. We don't want to surrender that without any proof, any evidence. Where is the evidence? Where is the proof? We cannot able to do that.

QUESTION: The United States provided direct evidence...

ZAEEF: Not to us, not to us. We are the part of this issue. Not provide this evidence or not provide this proof to us."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/02/se.26.html

http://valis.gnn.tv/blogs/15910/June_6_2006_FBI_says_No_hard_evidence_connecting_Bin_Laden_to_9_11
(This one you'll have to get a cached copy.)

Six months after 9/11, Bush said he wasn't interested in finding bin Laden. (cf. with previous statements about getting the terrorists.)

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html

There's much more, but that's enough for now.

Iraq invasion is bogus.
Afghanistan invasion is bogus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

[WonderGrunion]

80. So this is proof that Afghanistan never denied having Osama bin Laden

They simply refused to turn him over without more evidence. They did have him. Which is why they deserved to be attacked.

[timtom]

95. We refused to supply proof that he did it.

A simple request, no? We SAID we had incontrovertible proof.

Simple. "Here ya go, Mr. Ambassador. Check this out!"
Never happened.

And, of course, you checked out the part where Bush wasn't interested in finding him?

Come on. Get critical! Start thinking.

[WonderGrunion]

103. Bush wasn't interested in finding him.

OBL made a very valuable political asset for the Bushies. Why would they ever want to find him?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

81. "3000 Americans" ---

Please stopp saying that. That does an incredble diservice to the many, many non-Americans who died that day.

And you do know that OBL did not plan, finance, or execute 9/11?

[WonderGrunion]

83. Tell that to John Kerry or Max Cleland

Or even Dennis Kucinich. He voted for the Afghan invasion too. Your comment reeks of MIHOP madness and has no value on any serious discussion board.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

94. Don't take my word for it --

How about the FBI?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

The government has admitted that there is no evidence linking him directly the 9/11 attacks, which is why you will not see that crime on the FBI site. His idealogy certainly influenced the perpetrators of the attacks, but he was not directly linked to them.

"On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, [phone], to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?”  Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”  I asked, “How does that work?”  Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence.  Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice.  The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury.  In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.  He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623


As for those killed on 9/11, some 236 people from 115 other countries were also killed.

[Echo In Light]

5. No. End the Aggression

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. And I don't support it now, didn't support the original incursion

I know too much about the history of this conflict. Our CIA (with the help of the Saudis) ENCOURAGED the creation of militant Islamic forces in Afghanistan to harass the Soviets.

[WonderGrunion]

55. So you feel we deserved 9/11?

You're basically saying we reaped what we had sown. If that's the case, why the concern over Afghan civilians? They are simply reaping what their government has sown.

[EFerrari]

62. No, she's saying this was blowback brought to you by the geniuses at CIA.

[WonderGrunion]

64. And the Afghan War is blowback brought to them by the geniuses in the Taliban

I guess it's OK to kill Afghan babies after all. Yay! :party: :toast: :woohoo:

[EFerrari]

68. Not really. George Bush was going to invade Afghanistan no matter

what the Taliban did or didn't do. Your comparison doesn't really work except for the part where you compare one set of gangsters to the other.

[WonderGrunion]

69. Bush wanted Iraq

Afghanistan was a diversion he really didn't want. It got in the way of the "Project"

[EFerrari]

130. I know. And that's doubly true for that old felon Rumsfeld. n/t

[Name removed]

118. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Not that the American people deserved it, but that cynical, conniving actions (encouraging

the Afghan rednecks to become Islamic militants opposed to everything the U.S. is supposed to stand for, just to harass the Soviets) usually end up biting the ass of the cynical conniver.

[WonderGrunion]

85. Which cynical conniver died on 9/11?

Ted Olsen's wife doesn't count.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. Reading comprehension, man

Of course nobody deserved to die on 9/11. That's the tough thing about blowback. It usually hits someone other than the real culprit.

I maintain that there would have been no innocent people killed on 9/11 if the cynical connivers hadn't spent the previous 25 years messing around in the Middle East and Central Asia where they had no business.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[WonderGrunion]

104. And if we didn't overlook Israel's attacks against Palestinian

refugee camps neither the Munich Massacre or the Beirut bombings would occur. We didn't make Al Qaeda attack us. The afghan war is blowback too.

[Moondog]

7. Hell, no. n/t

[bullimiami]

9. no. nor do i now.

we entered afghanistan for selfish reasons, worked to install a corrupt us "friendly" government with a sham election and i dont see where we have now changed course drastically.
karzai is "re-elected" and still has our support. the country is still a corrupt and dangerous mess.

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. BS. We went into Afghanistan,

because the Tali ban was harboring Al Queda. Or are you a LIHOP/MIHOP'er?

[BeFree]

22. BS

We went into Afghanistan for reasons that were trumped up by 9/11.

Do you really believe that Bush didn't know the attacks were coming?
He was warned, you do know? Right? You do know that fact?

[SIMPLYB1980]

24. LoL!

So DK voted for reasons trumped up by 911? :rofl:

[BeFree]

27. Way to avoid the question

Are you really worth any time replying to?

I think not. What a waste.

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. Not avoiding a thing.

I laugh at foolish people.

[BeFree]

31. Then answer the question

Do you really believe that Bush didn't know the attacks were coming?
He was warned, you do know?

[SIMPLYB1980]

32. Yawn.

He may have new they were coming, but that does not = LIHOP/MIHOP and doesn't excuse the terrorists from doing what they did. But if you want to side with the people who committed 9:11 have fun with it. Will you answer my question now?

[BeFree]

33. May new(sic)?

Where have you been? All the evidence is that he knew. Are you making excuses for Bush, and laugh at those who want to expose him for the asshole he really is?

[SIMPLYB1980]

35. No he should have done more.

Are you making excuses for Al Queda? And why are you afraid to answer my questions I'm answering yours.

[BeFree]

38. Yawn

I have read and researched greatly about 9/11 and can't tell you what happened. Except that Bush knew it was coming and didn't raise a finger.

Anyone who thinks they know what happened, and who was behind it, is a fool.

Now, what was your question?

[SIMPLYB1980]

40. But I thought you were sure you had a handle on it.

:rofl:

[BeFree]

42. No

You are the one who laughs at anyone who suspects bush had a hand in it, so it is you who thinks they know what happened, eh?

How dare you laugh at serious questions of bush. Are you on the correct site?

[SIMPLYB1980]

44. Anyone that belives in LIHOP/MIHOP

for 9:11 deserves ridicule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eVFDY8IN1s&feature=player_embedded

[BeFree]

45. What do you base that on?

You believe what Bush says? Even tho he knew it was coming? That he didn't raise a finger? You seem to feel you know what happened.

And where did you get that feeling? From Bush and the M$M, obviously.
Now who deserves ridicule?

[SIMPLYB1980]

46. And what do you base your views on?

Zeitgeist? Are you worried about the Illuminate or the Freemasons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

[BeFree]

50. My view is...

...I am not a fool for what Bush or the M$M claims.

Even after much research and discussion, it would be foolish to claim one thing or another. And even more foolish to think that Afghans had to pay for what happened that day.

And triply foolish to laugh at anyone who doesn't believe Bush and the M$M.

[SIMPLYB1980]

51. No it's very simple.

Al Queda was responsible for 9:11. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool. Still plenty of blame to go around, but their is no way to absolve them and the Taliban for the attack.

[BeFree]

52. If that is what you believe

Then why after 8 years are we still bombing the crap out of the people of Afghanistan? It took less time to defeat Germany and Japan.

How damned fundamental of you to call foolish anyone who doesn't believe that a bunch of cave dwellers could defeat the US military, but, then, there we still are in Afghanistan, fighting cave dwellers.

There must be some serious profits being made from that invasion. EH?

[WonderGrunion]

58. And there is evidence that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen

Was WWII an illegal war or unjust on our part. No one made Al Qaeda attack us on 9/11. Just because * was incompetent and couldn't protect us does not mean that we were wrong to retaliate.

[BeFree]

59. So

You too think we are justified for 8 years of bombing innocents?
Innocents who had zilch to do with 9/11?

You morally question me about WWII, now where is your morality justifying this occupation?

Face it, you are way out of bounds talking shit like that.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

11. Nope

Bush never had any intention of finishing any war he started.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. K&R

:thumbsup: I didn't support the war on Afghanistan so NO.

[JohnnyLib2]

13. No.

I'd have thought and written "quagmire," and will again.

[QC]

15. Bush does not look dreamy in his swimsuit. n/t

[HopeHoops]

16. And I don't support one under Obama - HOWEVER...

I trust Obama's decision on the matter WAY more than anything that came out of BushCo. We obviously don't have access to the information that he does, but at least I can trust that he isn't doing it to feed money to contractor buddies.

[StarfarerBill]

17. No, nor under actual-President Obama, either.

[Lerkfish]

19. and I don't now.

my issues before the election was to get us out of pointless conflicts, end torture, restore habeus corpus, repeal DADT, support gay marriage, and support health care reform.

so, I'm only partially happy at this point, if only because I LIKE obama as a president. I'm hoping he'll address my concerns, but to be honest, I'm feeling a little like I did when Clinton was elected president, and he campaigned on making it ok to be gay in the military and instead served up DADT.

I don't want compromises. Republicans never compromise, why should we?

[n2doc]

20. Didn't then (n af or iraq) and don't now. n/t

[chill_wind]

21. No.

[tavalon]

23. No, and I don't support it under the new guy

I was against the Afghanistan War from day one and nothing has changed my mind.

[TwilightGardener]

25. Yes. We had relatively few troops there for many years, not enough resources and attention.

edit to add: The Iraq surge just threw more dead bodies onto a bogus war. Afghanistan had merit, unless one doesn't believe AQ exists.

[rucky]

26. Not to prop Karzai. Maybe for some other objective.

Though I can't really think of one at the moment.

[TexasObserver]

28. No, and the fact that we have a Democratic president doesn't change that.

[mike_c]

34. HELL no!

And I don't support it now!

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan!

[BolivarianHero]

36. No...

The only way I would support it would be if it was the wholesale attack on Islamic extremists to prop up a governing alliance of feminists and socialists....Since Washington's agenda is to replace anti-American religious wackos with pro-American religious wackos, I see no reason to support the war.

[phasma ex machina]

37. K&R

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Nope. It was a PR stunt then. It's a PR stunt now.

It was a stupid move on every level then. It's an even more stupid move now.

But, presidents have to prove their "tough". Even if it means killing people.

[MrMickeysMom]

41. I'm surprised there are 12 "yes" votes at this point

However, I would not have been as surprised with Bush's surge, that's for damned sure.

[tabasco]

43. Yes, if he agreed to get the hell out of Iraq. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. What kind of stupid question is that?

Bush has proven himself to be one of the worst military strategists of the last fifty years. There is literally nothing the man could not fuck up. You could just as well ask if I'd have supported the D-day landings if they'd been managed by an ostrich and a ball of twine.

[Regret My New Name]

48. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems like there was more support here for the Afghan War when Bush ,,,

was in office..

I just remember that war being close to a 50/50 split amongst people here.. Maybe I misread things then and now, or has things changed?

[SIMPLYB1980]

49. Just a small group of really loud people against it.

No biggie what they want doesn't really matter to what the outcome will be. Obama will get what he wants on this.

[EFerrari]

63. I think the more people learn about the situation there

and the worse things get here, the more support goes down. I don't think it's a Bush/Obama thing, in other words.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. The handwriting on the wall is in neon now. It says, "We lost, get out, get over it."

:hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. So that disqualifies the question, in a sense

No?

[EFerrari]

129. Maybe it depends on how you hear the question?

People change their minds over time.

[alcibiades_mystery]

133. The question is whether people would have supported the surge under Bush

I can only assume that that means "during the time Bush was in office." Do you read it as if Bush had sought and won a third term? No? So then the situation now seems beside the point when it comes to the initial question. The fact is that turning full attention of the military toward Afghanistan was a major plank in the Democratic Party platform throughout most of the Bush years, from 2004 at least onward. There is no doubt that people can change their minds over time, but that's not what the question in the OP contemplates, except through some pretty absurd contortions.

[EFerrari]

135. I see what you mean. Yes, that's right, the Democrats did support

refocusing on Afghanistan.

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. People forget that this was a major plank in the Kerry campaign

Of course there was more support for it during the Bush Presidency.

[Sebastian Doyle]

86. People also forget who wrote that plank for Kerry

namely Will Marshall, co founder of the DLC and a PNAC signator.

[alcibiades_mystery]

90. Maybe so

Plenty of people seemed to support it, however.

Including here. I wonder what I'd find if I went back and did the search on some user names on this point.

:shrug:

[WonderGrunion]

93. It wasn't Will Marshall adressing the Democratic convention

It was John Kerry. He very vocally supported that position.

[Sebastian Doyle]

99. But who wrote the speech?

Possibly Marshall. In any event, it's no secret that Kerry was taking bad advice from the DLC, and had been voting to the right between 2000 - 2004 because those treasonous cowards told him he had to move to their distorted fictional "center" to be a viable candidate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

102. So you're saying Kerry didn't believe his own policy position

on the Afghanistan War? Or that he was too dumb or bamboozled to develop his own position? And that the entire Democratic machinery went into overdrive pushing the "Wrong War" position for the better part of four years or so?

Seriously? That's your argument?

[WonderGrunion]

105. Thank you Alci

It seems that everyone here has selective memory loss about key articles of the Democratic platform for the last 8 years.

[Sebastian Doyle]

108. Fuck the DLC, fuck their platform, and fuck them calling themselves "Democrats"

They are no more "Democratic" than the "Democratic Republic of East Germany" was Democratic.

[WonderGrunion]

111. Dean supported Afghanistan in the 2004 primaries too.

Dennis Kucinich voted for Afghanistan to be invaded. Your purity test for Democrats would leave a very tiny tent.

[Sebastian Doyle]

115. People initially bought into the justification

Because Al Qaeda was actually formed by the Bush Crime Family to fight in Afghanistan, a lot of people bought the crap that Chimp and Cheney put out about them being there in 2001. There was also a political cowardice factor involved.... nobody wanted to be seen as opposing the "president" on national security less than two months after the 9-11-01 operation.

But none of that has a fucking thing to do with RIGHT NOW, and the fact that Obama should have a much clearer picture of the facts. Unless his people are also lying to him (which wouldn't surprise me with neocon hacks like Holbrooke involved)

[Sebastian Doyle]

107. Don't ask me to defend John Kerry's position on anything in 2004

He got my vote in November by default, as "the candidate that was NOT Chimpy". But I thought he was a pathetically weak candidate, because he ran on the DLC's platform, and not as the guy who questioned "how you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake".

[WonderGrunion]

109. I was a Deaniac in 2004 too.

I was even one of his delegates to our state convention too. Dean considered Afghanistan to be a "good war" too. Don't rewrite history.

[BeFree]

124. 10 percent

Just 10% of the public was against the war from day one. Now it's just about 10% for.

Back then any politician against that illegal invasion was history.
They ain't stupid.

[alcibiades_mystery]

110. So you'll agree that it was Kerry's position that the war in Afghanistan

was the correct war to fight, and that the Bush administration distracted us from that effort with the Iraq invasion? And you'll agree that this was the platform of virtually all the candidates in the 2008 primary?

This doesn't seem like a hard thing. Plenty of Democrats spent plenty of time yelling "Afghanistan, not Iraq!" all during the height of the Iraq War. Now suddenly everyone forgets. Meh.

[Sebastian Doyle]

112. I'll agree that the DLC agreed with Chimp & PNAC, and that Kerry was dumb enough to buy into it.

That doesn't mean it was the right position.

[WonderGrunion]

114. As did Dean, Clark, Edwards and Kucinich

Were they all DLC? Or are you just selectively remembering your history?

[alcibiades_mystery]

122. If you go back to the top of this sub-thread

when you started huffing and puffing incoherently, you'll find that the post you responded to didn't say anything about that. It merely stated that this was Kerry's position, and that a helluva lot of people agreed with it. You seem to believe that now, so I'm not even sure why you responded in the first place with nonsense about Will Marshall and the like. The only claim was that it was Kerry's position. You don't now deny that, and even assent to it, so I guess I was right up there.

Finis.

[Sebastian Doyle]

128. You're the one who brought Kerry into it.

What the fuck did he have to do with what is taking place NOW? Let alone the troll's contention that we should nuke Afghanistan.

[alcibiades_mystery]

132. This has been the Democratic position for years

That's what it has to do with it. Moreover, I was responding to a post that suggested more support among Democrats for Afghanistan under Bush. Follow the thread, ace.

[Sebastian Doyle]

134. It is not now, nor has it ever been a "Democratic position"

The DLC does NOT define what the fucking "Democratic position" is. Although they clearly like to think so.

And how somebody voted in October 2001 when the whole fucking country was confused has nothing to do with NOW, when a lot more facts have come out.

Not the least of which being the fact that Osama Bin Laden is dead and burning in Hell, and even according to the previous administration, didn't plan 9-11-01 after all, because Khalid Sheik Ron Jeremy "confessed" to it after being waterboarded 183 times. Which the Obama adminstration seems to agree with, since they're putting him on trial, and seem sure of a conviction.

So clearly we are NOT in Afghanistan to "get the people responsible for 9-11" because we already have them.

So what valid purpose is there to continue the occupation of that country?

[alcibiades_mystery]

138. That's not the question I was addressing

2004 Democratic Platform for America

Focus on Afghanistan to avoid renewing terrorist haven
Preventing Afghanistan and other nations from becoming terrorist havens. Nowhere is the need for collective endeavor greater than in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration has badly mishandled the war's aftermath. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. Instead, he has all but turned away from Afghanistan, allowing it to become again a potential haven for terrorists. We must expand NATO forces outside Kabul. We must accelerate training for the Afghan army and police. The program to disarm and reintegrate warlord militias into society must be expedited and expanded into a mainstream strategy. We will attack the exploding opium trade ignored by the Bush Administration by doubling our counter-narcotics assistance to the Karzai Government and reinvigorating the regional drug control program. Beyond Afghanistan, failed and failing states or countries with large areas of limited government control need international help to close down terrorist havens.

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/dem_platform_2004.htm

2008 Democratic Platform

Win in Afghanistan
Our troops are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but as countless military commanders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledge, we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. We will finally make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be.

We will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions–with fewer restrictions–from our NATO allies. We will focus on building up our special forces and intelligence capacity, training, equipping and advising Afghan security forces, building Afghan governmental capacity, and promoting the rule of law. We will bolster our State Department’s Provincial Reconstruction Teams and our other government agencies helping the Afghan people. We will help Afghans educate their children, including their girls, provide basic human services to their population, and grow their economy from the bottom up, with an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year–including investments in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers–just as we crack down on trafficking and corruption. Afghanistan must not be lost to a future of narco-terrorism–or become again a haven for terrorists.

SOURCE: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Tell me again how adding troop strength in Afghanistan has "never been a Democratic position." Unless you also believe that the platform determined by the Party is not the official position of the Party?

[WonderGrunion]

113. Not just Kerry. Dean, Kucinich, Clark and Edwards all supported

Invading Afghanistan. Sebastian's Democratic party couldn't get enough electoral support to ever launch a national candidate.

[berni_mccoy]

53. Bush turned his back on the International Support for the UN Mission in Iraq

Obama is doing the right thing to be finishing the job.

[WonderGrunion]

54. I would have supported removing all troops and nuking Afghanistan

The Afghan government gave aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden after 9/11. Bush never had a solution to punish OBL after 9/11 or those who would protect him.

[Moochy]

127. Great Idea, And A Totally Acceptable Democratic Position

Nuking Afghanistan is a pretty reasonable position. You and your friends set me staight with all of the deleted posts!!! Gobama!!! Go Afghanistan nuclear strike! Go Dems!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

57. President Obama did not lie about WMDs to get America into a war in Iraq

Reasonable people can trust President Obama to do things that they would not trust President Bush to do.

[Swamp Rat]

61. I didn't support the original invasion of Afghanistan, and I NEVER will.

If Obama does not get us out of Afghanistan soon, it will destroy his presidency and our country.

We cannot sustain illegal wars-on-credit any longer.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. Yes, if it came with Iraq withdrawal

Indeed, that was just what John Kerry argued for in 2004, and it's one of the reasons I voted for him.

[Blue_In_AK]

91. No, and I don't support one under Obama either. n/t

[G_j]

106. wrong then, wrong now nt

[gleaner]

117. No.....

I would not have supported an increase of the troops by Bush any more than I do by Obama. I do not support war period. It is just as wrong no matter who is waging it. This is an untenable situation just as Viet Nam was, and it should be stopped now. Too many people have already died.

[cowcommander]

120. Yes

But Bush is still a fucktard for letting the situation deteriorate so badly in the first place because of his Iraqi adventure.

[David Zephyr]

123. Excellent question.

Hopefully, you might make a few people put down their pompoms and think.

[Moochy]

125. No

No, and furthermore I'm against nuking Kabul too. Unlike some on this thread seriously.

[paulsby]

126. support it under obama, would have supported it under bush

consistency...

it's what's for dinner

[Nikki Stone1]

131. No, and I don't support it now

Of course, I never supported the war at all.

[lib2DaBone]

136. Not just no... Hell No....

Obama is going to announce his decision on Afghanistan troops from West Point Military Academy on Tuesday night...

Why do I not get a warm fuzzy feeling from this announcement?

I pray to god he doesn't send 37,000 more young people into the meat grinder.. and for what? OIL OIL OIL

[Iggo]

137. Good gawd, of course not.