bilmardre's Comments (250)
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 14:26:15 in Media
“Which gets me to the question, if liberals believe that the Afghan government is just a puppet, and Al Quaeda is significantly weakened, why have they not spoken up more for the withdrawal of our troops before now, you have had 8 years? Why the relative silence until now?”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 10:52:33 in Media
“I think just about everyone knows that.”
bbrecht replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 13:46:40
“If only...”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 10:36:09 in Media
“What are you talking about? Obama doesn't support "war of choice".
He was against the war in Iraq from the start, and said all it would do is draw attention away from Afghanistan, which it did. And 9 years later, hear we are.”
He was against the war in Iraq from the start, and said all it would do is draw attention away from Afghanistan, which it did. And 9 years later, hear we are.”
hark replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 10:56:27
“Yeah, here we are, facing more wasted years in Afghanistan. Terrific. Thanks for the pep talk.”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 10:17:43 in Media
“I don't understand that logic. Why leave 20,000 troops to toil and die in a under resourced effort?
Why leave 100? If the call is to remove all troops now, why wasn't the call to remove the 20,000?”
Why leave 100? If the call is to remove all troops now, why wasn't the call to remove the 20,000?”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 10:12:47 in Media
“I think the plan is weaken the enemy, drive them out of population centers. Do our best to stand a competent Afghan army and police force, and turn it over to them, let them deal with a weakened Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and get out. That is the best we can do, but in my mind it must be given an honest effort.”
triplbee replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 15:10:32
“1. Because Bush lied about the conditions he used to justify the invasion of Iraq;
2. Because there were five times as many US troops in Iraq as there were in Afghanistan until recently;
3. Because initially there was good reason to invade Afghanistan.
There are your answers.”
2. Because there were five times as many US troops in Iraq as there were in Afghanistan until recently;
3. Because initially there was good reason to invade Afghanistan.
There are your answers.”
bilmardre replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 14:26:15
“Which gets me to the question, if liberals believe that the Afghan government is just a puppet, and Al Quaeda is significantly weakened, why have they not spoken up more for the withdrawal of our troops before now, you have had 8 years? Why the relative silence until now?”
triplbee replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 13:25:39
“This is pure science fiction. The govt there is a corrupt, US puppet. Ditto for the army and police forces. The Taliban and Al Qaida are already significantly weakened.”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 09:57:50 in Media
“You have got to do better than that.”
Pema replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 10:25:57
“no i dont... taken away without counsel. no thats the nuke option from gov to citizens. and i said its the tip of the iceberg.”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 09:47:15 in Media
“No, I understand completely. I don't think it is a good idea to pull out of Afghanistan after spending 9 years of blood and treasure with the Taliban resurgent.
Although I don't like it, I think it is a better idea to do the job right instead of ignoring it for 9 years then saying I quit.”
Although I don't like it, I think it is a better idea to do the job right instead of ignoring it for 9 years then saying I quit.”
triplbee replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 10:02:10
“If you know the barest shred of our history since WWII, you will know that we have never successfully defeated a home grown guerilla army. Why would you think we'd be able to do so now, in one of the most remote, inhospitable areas of the world?”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 09:42:13 in Media
“Whiberals!”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 09:34:21 in Media
“Your post only makes sense if you believe Obama has done nothing since becoming President.
And I for one will ALWAYS bring up Bush, because I think it is important to see the distinction that Bush was given 8 years to bring this Country to it's knees, and Obama is given less than a year to clean it all up.”
And I for one will ALWAYS bring up Bush, because I think it is important to see the distinction that Bush was given 8 years to bring this Country to it's knees, and Obama is given less than a year to clean it all up.”
CCHighlander replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 10:20:11
“W came in to fix Clinton's screw up... until 2006 when the libs took over in congress everything was the best this country has seen... didn't hear the crybaby BS like now... Obama in less than a year has done more damage to this country than ANY president in history.. WAKE UP PEOPLE... start looking at the facts. Don't hate what you don't understand
doesn't matter... it will always be Bush's fault.. give it a rest. Us repubs know it's the libs way. always blaming someone else for their screw ups.”
doesn't matter... it will always be Bush's fault.. give it a rest. Us repubs know it's the libs way. always blaming someone else for their screw ups.”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 09:22:22 in Media
“Well, it is good to tell it as it is, as you see it. But I think it would only be considered courageous if there was something serious at stake, like the safety of Americans or something like that.”
Arianna On The 'Supreme Irony' Of Obama's Nobel Speech (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 11, 2009 at 09:15:55 in Media
“Good questions. But I have a question I have asked over and over, and have yet to get a answer.
Why did liberals let the Afghanistan war drag on for almost 9 years and basically say nothing?
If there was one anti-war protest against Afghanistan will someone please let me know.
(Of course the MSM also said nothing, but I no longer expect anything from the MSM).”
Why did liberals let the Afghanistan war drag on for almost 9 years and basically say nothing?
If there was one anti-war protest against Afghanistan will someone please let me know.
(Of course the MSM also said nothing, but I no longer expect anything from the MSM).”
1dogs2 replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 10:22:29
“Barbara Lee (D, CA) was the sole vote against the authorization of the Afghan war.”
ResistanceisFutile replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 10:12:57
“We did discuss it and we expressed our extreme displeasure with another war.
We were labeled traitors for our efforts.”
We were labeled traitors for our efforts.”
triplbee replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 10:00:24
“Probably because there were 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and 150,000 in Iraq.”
Pema replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 09:53:39
“we were called un patriotic, american citizens taken and treated as criminals. thats just the tip of it.”
mrportman replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 09:43:57
“I remember watching the Afghan President on C-SPAN beg the United States not to forget about his country when we planned to invade Iraq. He knew all too well we would and did.
The reason we are still in Afghanistan is because we didn't finish the job. Instead, our conservati ve/republi can President went after Iraq under the false presumption that they housed WMDs. With our attention diverted, gains made in Afghanistan were lost.
We didn't help them build an army, or any type of security. Their own President couldn't leave the capital city. These were the same conditions which allowed the Taliban to setup shop in the beginning and is why the Afghan war has been extended for such a long period.”
The reason we are still in Afghanistan is because we didn't finish the job. Instead, our conservati
We didn't help them build an army, or any type of security. Their own President couldn't leave the capital city. These were the same conditions which allowed the Taliban to setup shop in the beginning and is why the Afghan war has been extended for such a long period.”
etcetc replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 09:34:35
“there were terrorists hiding in Afgan. that is a a fact. those terrorists attacked us. terrorist groups based in iraq did not attack us. understand now?”
nellie replied on Dec 11, 2009 at 09:31:59
“Because all complaining is defrayed until there is a Democrat in the White House.”
Is Obama the First Black President or the First President of Black America?
Commented Dec 09, 2009 at 16:46:44 in Politics
“Absolutely!”
Obama's Surge
Commented Dec 09, 2009 at 11:32:14 in Politics
“"A grimmer view is that Obama has fallen under the influence of military-financial interests, and Washington's rabid neocons who seek permanent war against the Muslim world. Obama's "surge" may only expand, intensify, and prolong the Afghan conflict"
The above is a good statement, but I would argue it is all of America that had fallen under that influence, allowing the Afghanistan project to drag on for 7 years, under resourced and basically ignored.
Obama made a difficult decision where there was NO good decision. He decided to resource the effort correctly for the first time, weaken a insurgent Taliban, train and prepare Afghan forces to take responsibility, and get out. That is all that can be done. This is what should have been done 7 years ago.
The other options, just leave with a resurgent Taliban, basically telling all Americans that the blood and treasure spent over the past 7 years was for absolutely nothing.
Or let it drag on for another 7 years.”
The above is a good statement, but I would argue it is all of America that had fallen under that influence, allowing the Afghanistan project to drag on for 7 years, under resourced and basically ignored.
Obama made a difficult decision where there was NO good decision. He decided to resource the effort correctly for the first time, weaken a insurgent Taliban, train and prepare Afghan forces to take responsibility, and get out. That is all that can be done. This is what should have been done 7 years ago.
The other options, just leave with a resurgent Taliban, basically telling all Americans that the blood and treasure spent over the past 7 years was for absolutely nothing.
Or let it drag on for another 7 years.”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 17:11:26 in World
“I am confused about a couple things. We have been in Afghanistan for 7 years. The effort there has always been secondary to Iraq, yet we have spent billions there and lost many lives. We have been there for seven years and Congress, our media, nobody has ever asked the question why. I don't recall one antiwar protest against Afghanistan. So the question is why have we lost lives and treasure in Afghanistan for 7 years?
This is the question the media would be asking the President if he had decided to arbitrarily pull troops out on a given date. Other questions they would be asking, why did we leave with the Taliban growing in strength? How could you leave a unstable Afghanistan with a Islamic nuclear neighbor? What was the deaths of those American soldiers for? Why did we spend billions there? These are the questions the media would be asking Obama over and over. This in no way should have swayed Obama's decision, and I don't think it did. I think he chose the best of the bad options he had. But this would have been the media environment had he chosen differently.”
This is the question the media would be asking the President if he had decided to arbitrarily pull troops out on a given date. Other questions they would be asking, why did we leave with the Taliban growing in strength? How could you leave a unstable Afghanistan with a Islamic nuclear neighbor? What was the deaths of those American soldiers for? Why did we spend billions there? These are the questions the media would be asking Obama over and over. This in no way should have swayed Obama's decision, and I don't think it did. I think he chose the best of the bad options he had. But this would have been the media environment had he chosen differently.”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 16:16:41 in World
“Only Bush can start a war of choice in Iraq and get re-elected and let Afghanistan drag on for 7 years.
Obama would never start a war. He gets enough criticism trying to end them.”
Obama would never start a war. He gets enough criticism trying to end them.”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 16:02:24 in World
“Obama can not dictate we have a public option. Each Senator has a say in that, and Obama can not force them to change their minds. Banking reform is coming, though the GOP is going to fight it. We will never have full employment.”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 15:41:59 in World
“Well, you could just tell them the truth, in fact they died for no reason, the past seven years was for nothing.”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 15:39:02 in World
“Not just a nice phrase if it was your son or daughter. I am sure the parents would want answers as to exactly why we have been in Afghanistan for the last 7 years. And why just arbitrarily decide to leave on this date?”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 15:25:57 in World
“We are getting out of serious trouble. Whats amazing is that Bush was re-elected and, well he doesn't speak so well.”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 15:24:09 in World
“Sure didn't vote for letting it drag on for another 7 years or just leaving without putting in a honest effort to make things right.”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 15:21:27 in World
“Wow, that's some good revisionist history.
Not one of the perpetrators was Afghan or Taliban, but ALL were members of Al-Qaeda, who had bases in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. The leader Bin Laden who approved the 9/11 attack and provided monetary support was offered Afghan citizenship by the Taliban.”
Not one of the perpetrators was Afghan or Taliban, but ALL were members of Al-Qaeda, who had bases in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. The leader Bin Laden who approved the 9/11 attack and provided monetary support was offered Afghan citizenship by the Taliban.”
wadenelson1 replied on Dec 08, 2009 at 16:23:01
“Revisionist history?
Please point out one thing that is not factual in my post.
Terrorists don't need "bases" with jungle gyms and obstacle courses. What they need is Internet access, cellphones, WiFi, and explosives. What are they going to do, belly crawl with boxcutters beneath barbed wire for "training?"
Al-Q needs Afghanistan like a fish needs a bicycle. They'd could conduct business just as well from Yemen, Somalia, Waziristan or Indonesia.
You clearly confuse "foot soldiers" with "terrorist s."”
Please point out one thing that is not factual in my post.
Terrorists don't need "bases" with jungle gyms and obstacle courses. What they need is Internet access, cellphones, WiFi, and explosives. What are they going to do, belly crawl with boxcutters beneath barbed wire for "training?"
Al-Q needs Afghanistan like a fish needs a bicycle. They'd could conduct business just as well from Yemen, Somalia, Waziristan or Indonesia.
You clearly confuse "foot soldiers" with "terrorist
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 14:34:11 in World
“Which politician do you know is going to go home and tell their constituents that lost sons and daughters in Afghanistan, "sorry your son died for nothing, but at least we spent billions in the process. Hopefully when the Taliban takes back control of Afghanistan they will not offer their land and resources again to groups who have declared war on us, and if we're lucky they won't meddle too much in nuclear Pakistan"”
wadenelson1 replied on Dec 08, 2009 at 15:16:49
“"dying for nothing" is nonsense. A nice phrase, like "freedom fries ain't free."
Sending ADDITIONAL troops to die for no further result is what is completely insane.”
Sending ADDITIONAL troops to die for no further result is what is completely insane.”
maxhardon replied on Dec 08, 2009 at 15:06:59
“So we're going to tell the families that their sons and daughters fought to support a corrupt government whose main business is dealing in opium, but that this is somewhat preferable to letting the Taliban back, and at any rate worth dying for? At least it is worth it to let other people's children die for?”
Sartre Meets Afghanistan: Obama's "No Exit" Strategy
Commented Dec 08, 2009 at 13:57:26 in World
“Sad that now Democrats not only have to perform their traditional role of cleaning up the GOP's economic messes but now have to clean up their National Security blunders as well.
The GOP wasted billions and many lives letting Afghanistan drag on under resourced for 7 years because they were distracted by their adventure in Iraq. Now 7 years later the Taliban is resurgent, with a nuclear armed Islamic neighbor. It takes a Democrat to resource the effort correctly and set a timetable for us to begin getting out.”
The GOP wasted billions and many lives letting Afghanistan drag on under resourced for 7 years because they were distracted by their adventure in Iraq. Now 7 years later the Taliban is resurgent, with a nuclear armed Islamic neighbor. It takes a Democrat to resource the effort correctly and set a timetable for us to begin getting out.”
One If By Land replied on Dec 08, 2009 at 14:43:03
“"set a timetable" Ha! Ha! You didn't read the article, did you?”
Obama Admits We Can't Have Guns and Butter -- Then Chooses Guns
Commented Dec 07, 2009 at 19:59:45 in Politics
“What I was told was we haven't had health care reform in 60 years, we have been dithering in Afghanistan for 7 years while losing lives and spending billions in tax payer money but thats pretty much OK, The Country was on the brink of financial collapse, even with all the geniuses we seem to have with their opinions, and we are trying to wind down from a war of choice, which was good enough to get the sponsor re-elected.
I think we are a Country primed and ready for Palin.”
I think we are a Country primed and ready for Palin.”
LeftRight replied on Dec 07, 2009 at 20:32:53
“Yeah, and I think that 2+2=75!!”
Obama Admits We Can't Have Guns and Butter -- Then Chooses Guns
Commented Dec 07, 2009 at 17:49:14 in Politics
“My biggest fear when Obama was running for President was he would get into office and try to clean up corruption only to find corruption was the only thing holding the system up.”
Rule Of Law replied on Dec 07, 2009 at 18:25:21
“We agree totally on that--and so it has ever been. This may be a bit off topic here--maybe not, it applies in my mind to the real lack of willingness this admin has shown for cleaning up one of the worst crimes, and most damaging to our national reputation:
Administration wants suit against Yoo dismissed
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, December 7, 2009 (12-07) 11:33 PST SAN FRANCISCO --
The Obama administration has asked an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing former Bush administration attorney John Yoo of authorizing the torture of a terrorism suspect, saying federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues. Read more: http://www .sfgate.co m/cgi-bin/ article.cg i?f=/c/a/2 009/12/07/ BA061AVC89 .DTL#ixzz0 Z2memGKH”
Administration wants suit against Yoo dismissed
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, December 7, 2009 (12-07) 11:33 PST SAN FRANCISCO --
The Obama administration has asked an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing former Bush administration attorney John Yoo of authorizing the torture of a terrorism suspect, saying federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues. Read more: http://www


