Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

was Afghanistan expected?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 09:44 PM
Original message
Poll question: was Afghanistan expected?
based on your recollection of Obama's campaign rhetoric, did you expect that he would ramp up Afghanistan in this way?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not to this extent exactly
but I understood through his rhetoric he wasn't going to end the war either in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I think some people still believe he will withdraw all troops from Iraq. I would find that funny under other less serious circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. perhaps you shoudl have voted no
that was the point of the poll. I dont expect us to be completely out of Iraq. Ill be happy with a major draw down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. My vote was more accurate as a yes, I think.
This didn't entail any surprise on my end, certainly. I was giving speeches at local events prior to the election (prior to the primary election even) identifying him and Clinton as NOT being antiwar candidates despite what people wanted to believe.

I was with one of his full time paid campaign workers earlier this week - their reaction to the speech was "This is Bullshit!"

That was a (smart) person who didn't see this coming, despite how involved they were in getting him elected. That surprised me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. "In this way," NO. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. im glad you noticed that.
it was an important part of the poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. No one expects the Afghan Escalation. Better empires than ours have been broken on those sharp
stoney shores. And so it will be once more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. By definition campaign rhetoric isn't to be taken seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. i think most people know
that what is said before may have to change depending on how things change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. That is one of the reasons
people become cynical of politicians. Campaign rhetoric should be taken seriously. What happens as a result of false promises is that people run to the other side, which has pushed the US so far to the right that mist GOP members would no longer be allowed in even the most Conservative of European Conservative Parties. The Democrats then chase them even further to the right.

Politicians should deliver what they promise. Simple as. If they do that, they may find getting back in somewhat easier.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
28. Funny how some here like to define what's "rhetoric" and what's a "promise" they were denied, eh?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. for arcadian, its whichever he needs at the moment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. He said he was going to do it...
Afghanistan did not change radically since his inauguration, even with the extra troops he added then.

He did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. He said it over and over again
Voting no is nothing more than a protest vote. Either that or we have low information voters here - which I don't believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
48. "Low information voters"..that would be
fauxsn00ze viewers who are the least informed Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. As well as the FauxRage whiners who are the loudest of Americans.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. There's something to study
in the psychological realm..why are the fauxrager whiners, the loudest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. Yes, he made it clear the majority of his policies
would be neo liberal.

Of course the campaign was a 2 year infomercial filled with much more progressive left leaning images and the slogan "hope" everywhere. How many homeless, no health care and hungry people can you be seen hugging and handing free lunches to before people start believing you are actually understanding and empathizing with their plight.

But then you watch the rich get bailed out, the health ins. companies write the so-called reform bill and the lower class kids flocking to the military and on to war because college isn't an option and you realize you've been duped and it's your own damn fault for believing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:43 AM
Response to Original message
13. yes he did say that,,,but I was hoping that in this case he would not follow through
I do not believe anything good will come out of this...but time will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. well, i have great respect for this perspective
i don't necessarily agree with it but its genuine and honorable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
14. Of course. Only those who were not listening
during the campaign - Or simply heard what they wanted to hear - can be surprised now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
15. nothing Obama has done - or not done - has surprised me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
16. THIS is the campaign rhetoric he chooses to honor?!
Of all the things I thought he was just saying to win the election, his Afghanistan spiel was at the top of the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
33. i guess when his presidency is over
you can look back and tally up what actually was honored and what wasnt. Until then, your just guessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Can I help you?
Can I help you understand the difference between "you're" and "your" in usage?

I can also show you how to use capital letters and punctuation, if you really want to learn. I believe adult literacy is important to the country, so I offer you my help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. i think your time is better spent developing
common sense approaches to common systems than worrying about copy edit on an internet message board. kthxbai
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. More gibberish.
Do I need to explain what that word means?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. see, there's that common sense thing again
just keep plugging away at it. You will get it one day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
17. He said he was going to do and he did
no surprise to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elana i am Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
18. it's what i expected which is why he wasn't my first choice
there never has been and never will be anything remotely progressive about obama. having said that, i am very pleased with the job he has done so far. he's having to dismantle piece by piece the brick walls being thrown up in front of him at every turn. and i translated hope and change to a gradual shift in the course of the big ship, not pulling a u-ey.

what i didn't anticipate was the levels of deceit and vileness that the repugs would stoop to. i mean, i know they're lowlife scums, but i wouldn't have ever dreamed that every last one of them would be completely and utterly devoid of ethics, morals and basic human decency they would lie like rugs about obama. if i saw a repug in person right now i don't think i would be responsible for my actions.

also, having a father who is retired air force, he gives me some perspective on the war issue. he was a procurement specialist. fortunately his active duty was all stateside and had more to do with fuel, aircraft parts and munitions than supplies and troops being sent overseas for the gulf war, but he tells me that getting out of a war is every bit as time and labor intensive as getting into one. he says there's no such thing as just picking up and leaving and he told me to chill and wait and see what obama is going to do, because expediting a pull-out would require an increase in both troops and supplies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. were there reall any viable choices that where not hawkish?
by viable i mean choices that could have won the general? Edwards doesn't count because he took himself out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
19. Yes. And I don't remember one iota of Obama Outrage over it last year or even earlier this year.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 11:02 AM by ClarkUSA
So it's funny how much there is now by the usual suspects. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
42. There was SOME
as I was rather surprised to find out when talking about Afghanistan and our continued involvement there. I always thought focusing more on Afghanistan (and withdrawing from Iraq) was something that most of us generally agreed upon. :shrug:

I guess not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
20. There are two answers...
Yes and "I wasn't paying attention".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. people that are outraged because they werent paying attention are being foolish
some are totally aware that it was going to happen but remain outraged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
21. Of course
He would end Iraq, and concentrate of Afghanistan.

Escalation and all those terms are unfair. It's just the way it would and should have been had the neocons not gone into Iraq. Could have been over by 2005 or earlier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
23. if there was a 3rd choice I would have chosen that
Obama made no secret on his hawkish nature of Afghanistan but during the campaign he said he would send two combat brigades. Not really what he has done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. thats not really true
in fact, i think this kind of thinking is shrinkingly dull minded for a group of people that i considered intelligent(until now at least). I think anyone intelligent would expect him to make a decision based on the need he perceives at deployment time. There are many reasons why not making these troop levels choices in advance is foolish and people who think this should reconsider how ignorant it makes them appear. Aside from these common sense reasons, if im not mistake, he said "at least two brigades" and supporting non combat. which is fairly close to what has been deployed. if im not mistaken, he is sending 20K combat and 10K training troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Exactly.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I guess you havent been paying attention
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 01:37 PM by spiritual_gunfighter
He will have sent a total of 51,000 troops since March not to mention around the same amount of contract personel. A modern warfare combat brigade on average is around 5,000 soldiers, talk about "dull minded". If you feel like throwing around insults like "dull minded" and whine about DU not being the way it used to be, maybe the amount of people on DU unhappy with this decision should tell you something about where DU is at, not about where it was.

What was "dull minded" was the decision to send 51,000 troops to a place where there are 100 AQ fighters. In October General Jones said this:

JONES: Well, I think this is one of the central issues and, you know, it could. Obviously, the good news is that Americans should feel at least good about in Afghanistan is that the al Qaeda 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.

Now the problem is the next step in this is the sanctuaries across the border. But I don't foresee the return of the Taliban and I want to be very clear that Afghanistan is not in danger -- imminent danger of falling.


And another view coming from Sen. Feingold

Feingold: Why Surge Where Al Qaeda Isn't?
by Sam Stein

One of the fiercest critics of the proposed surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan warned on Sunday that the policy would distract America from the pursuit of global al Qaeda networks.

During an appearance on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) demanded that one question be answered when considering the implementation of the president's surge policy: Why send troops where al Qaeda isn't?

Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter , although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/feingold-why-s...




What is "dull minded" are the small minority of DUers championing a faulty policy based on a non-existent threat. So feel free to lament how much "DU has changed", but maybe the reality is that DU hasn't changed, you have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. you cant see the forrest for the trees
the point of his strategy, at least as he indicated, was to start advancing assistance to pakistan so that they could push these groups out. The simple fact is that these groups can flow back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan unhindered and pakistan is very aware of this. Mushareff carefully played both sides of the issue by taking US assistance but trying to appear anti-western to his populace. he knew that he did not have the force needed to push these groups out so he had to live with them. The new government is in the same position.

Obama has made it clear that his intention is to help Pakistan force these groups out. If his happens, and the Taliban is in control of any region in Afghanistan, they will pour back in.

The strategy is sound and i couldn't care less about the actual "numbers" of committed troops as long as its enough to to the job. My personal preference would be to flood the country with troops and solve the problem quick so we could pack up and go home.

I understand and respect those who feel that war is never the answer. We are far to war like. but these guys are real and mean to do us harm. We probably deserved to get our teeth knocked out. hopefully we can go back to actual peace time when this is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. We are currently fighting a war in Pakistan
off the books using the CIA, contractors, and in some cases JSOC. If you want to argue that an additional 100 thousand troops are in Afghanistan to offer support for the current CIA conflict in Pakistan, it seems a bit much doesnt it?

Helping Pakistan root out AQ and stabilize a government that may be weeks away from falling, is justified in my opinion. But sending a 100 thousand troops to Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with Pakistan, seems pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. as long as the border between the two is fluid
Both must be approached at the same time. Otherwise Afghanistan will become Cambodia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. By putting a 100 thousand troops in Afghanistan
and the CIA fighting a war using Blackwater and JSOC in Pakistan? I guess if you are okay with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. i am, the more the better
i think a larger deployment is the only way to solve the problem. When we don't give the generals enough people, they tend to struggle. Part of the reason we had so much trouble in Iraq was because rumsfield wanted to do it with fewer troops. Once you decide to do something like this, its much better to overwhelm them, finish it, and get the hell out. To me, more troops means faster solutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
24. Yep. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
32. Absolutely nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SKKY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
39. Anyone who is surprised by this move clearly paid no attention...
...he said it on multiple occasions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
41. Yes- for anybody paying attention to the campaign it should have been
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 04:32 PM by Proud Liberal Dem
Granted, most of us hoped he might do something different but, frankly, I always expected him to do something in regards to the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation other than withdrawal, at least initially. He kept saying that he was going to draw down our forces in Iraq and move them over to Afghanistan to pursue Al-Queda and their once before and likely would be again benefactors, which he correctly IMHO identified (as did many other Democrats at the time and long before were arguing) as being what we should've been doing a better job of since 2001/2002. Whether he can pull a better situation out of a "surge" or not remains to be seen but, honestly, yeah, it was expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
43. Yes.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 04:40 PM by LWolf
It's one of the reasons why I never supported him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
44. Being expected doesn't make it right or smart. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. it makes outrage neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Speaking out about the mistake of escalation in Afghanistan is hardly "outrage." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. true. And what goes on here is hardly just speaking out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. What else could it be? This is a message board - speaking is the only thing possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. it could be spin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rebel with a cause Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
45. Yes!
He has said this is what should be done all the way back to 2004 when he ran for the Senate. Talked to him about it several times. This and health care and other things that he has proposed now. Argued with him a couple of times back then but no surprises now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iceman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
46. Yes.
I'm surprised he didn't do it sooner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
54. Nah, I thought Obama was a lying POS
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
57. It was pretty clear but still a pretty poor idea
which, in my opinion has become more and more clear since the campaign.

There are too damn many ifs, buts, hopes, expectations, and anticipations to actually be a plan. We might as well write a letter to Santa or cross our fingers for all the good that 100k troops and 100 billion a year buy (plus contractors and the loot they demand).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
60. It was unexpected that Obama would bow down to the generals in the Pentagon
President Truman would have fired McChrystal and Petraeus for their insolence in placing the military above civilian authority. Obama surrendered to them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. That's how I see it. And he may have surrendered on healthcare too...
Edited on Mon Dec-07-09 06:37 PM by polichick
A while ago Big Ed asked Sen. Harkin whether the prez/WH has surrendered, and he answered that he (Sen. Harkin) and others haven't surrendered, they're still fighting for the public option. He affirmed that the prez did not mention the public option or abortion in his pep talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
62. No,
to the extent he was specific at all in the campaign, he promised a much more modest escalation, and one with a much more clearly defined mission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 18th 2017, 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC