nonniey Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 A fairly non partisan article (imo), that again alludes to the weakness of the President (again imo). "......The long debate has made Obama look indecisive and uncertain -- because he has been. And the leaks of conflicting positions have given his critics ammunition for the postmortem debate over any decision he makes. If Obama chooses to go small, hawks will accuse him of ignoring the advice of his own military commander, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who asked for 40,000 additional troops. If he goes big, doves will accuse him of ignoring the advice of Ambassador Eikenberry, who said the additional troops wouldn't do much good........... Click Link for full article http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus15-2009nov15,0,381782.column Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Yeah, You look indecisive by taking some time to think about the mission. A strong president would just commit 20,000 troops and then leave it up to the next guy 8 years latter to figure out if they should be there, what they can accomplish, and whether that's what we want to do as a nation. Obama should just fire generals who disagree with him, and leave the 20k troop levels and proclaim Afghanistan is doing great... Obama's such a wuss. Being Rational isn't macho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 So, your point is that no matter what Obama does, he's going to be attacked. And in your opinion, this says something bad about Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 So, your point is that no matter what Obama does, he's going to be attacked. And in your opinion, this says something bad about Obama? I take it you didn't read the Article, either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 Yeah, You look indecisive by taking some time to think about the mission. A strong president would just commit 20,000 troops and then leave it up to the next guy 8 years latter to figure out if they should be there, what they can accomplish, and whether that's what we want to do as a nation.Obama should just fire generals who disagree with him, and leave the 20k troop levels and proclaim Afghanistan is doing great... Obama's such a wuss. Being Rational isn't macho. Your response indicates you didn't read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I take it you didn't read the Article, either? Your point is that some other part of the article is more relevant to your point than the part you quoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkHog Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I just can't believe that he had three months to consider the plan and then said that he needed to know the conditions to withdrawal. This just proves to me that he wasn't really even thinking over the proposals for three months because I would have asked for those things right at the beginning. This is terrible leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 So, your point is that no matter what Obama does, he's going to be attacked. And in your opinion, this says something bad about Obama? If he is needlessly delaying a choice...YES But in the end, he still has to make a choice. When Obama launched this review of his strategy in Afghanistan, it was a good thing. But the longer it goes on, the more costly it becomes. Nature,War and Leadership abhor a vacuum. Leading is tough and certainly will be second guessed by all sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 Your point is that some other part of the article is more relevant to your point than the part you quoted? Larry, simply put his indecisiveness will allow him to be attacked no matter what his decision and being indicisive definately says something bad about Obama. I believe he is a weak president and all indications since he took office support that belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 This "nonpartisan" article says that delaying is making Obama look like he is suffering from indecision. I read another "nonpartisan" article several days ago that said this is a deliberate strategy by Obama to send a strong message to Afgan leadership. And so it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 This "nonpartisan" article says that delaying is making Obama look like he is suffering from indecision.I read another "nonpartisan" article several days ago that said this is a deliberate strategy by Obama to send a strong message to Afgan leadership. And so it goes. I said it was "fairly" non-partisan. It still is critical of the President but it also defends his initial "dithering" among other things (ie it has give and take both pro and con on the President). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I said it was "fairly" non-partisan. It still is critical of the President but it also defends his initial "dithering" among other things (ie it has give and take both pro and con on the President). The article has a subheading: "His strategy deliberations are starting to look like dangerous indecision." This does not strike me as a non-partisan subheading. Also note that the article does not account for the possibility of this being a deliberate delay. Excluding such obvious possibility is suspicious. Maybe you have a different opinion of what it means to be non-partisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 If this is a deliberate delay why not declare it as such publicly? Seems simply a excuse to put off a tough choice,while leaving our troops and allies hanging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 The article has a subheading:"His strategy deliberations are starting to look like dangerous indecision." This does not strike me as a non-partisan subheading. Also note that the article does not account for the possibility of this being a deliberate delay. Excluding such obvious possibility is suspicious. Maybe you have a different opinion of what it means to be non-partisan. What part "fairly" don't you understand? Used in this connetation it means moderately, such as not completely critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 If this is a deliberate delay why not declare it as such publicly? If the delay is deliberate, then obviously it is important to create a sense of uncertainty. Next week maybe I'll tell you the reason why bluffs are not declared openly in poker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 What part "fairly" don't you understand? Used in this connetation it means moderately, such as not completely critical. I think that an attempt to be non-partisan is a necessary component to constitute something as "fairly non-partisan". I believe that I supplied evidence to show that such attempt was not made. Obviously you can think that an attempt to be non-partisan was made, or that such attempt is not necessary for the "fairly non-partisan" classification. I would not agree with that, and that's ok. Not much to discuss here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 If the delay is deliberate, then obviously it is important to create a sense of uncertainty.Next week maybe I'll tell you the reason why bluffs are not declared openly in poker So it is a bluff since he does not have the stones to call Kahzi on it? Bluff my god dammed ass Added The uncertainty is harming both morale and the mission not Karzai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 So it is a bluff since he does not have the stones to call Kahzi on it? Not sure what this means. Bluff was just an example. The uncertainty is harming both morale and the mission not Karzai We can argue whether the delay was a choice, and we can argue about it's effects. The first one has an answer, but we will probably never know it for sure. The second one has infinte possible answers, and we will definitely never know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The second one has infinte possible answers, and we will definitely never know for sure. I can tell ya from first hand testimony it is hurting morale in Afghanistan...for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 If this is a deliberate delay why not declare it as such publicly? If this is a consular ship, where is the Ambassador? Don't know why I just thought of that line, but I did. No point whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 We should pull all but a 1,000 troops out of Korea and send them to Afghanistan. First order of business is blow up all the Taliban schools with the students in them. :evilg: They're learning how to blow themselves up anyway, let's just save them some trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 First order of business is blow up all the Taliban schools with the students in them. :evilg: They're learning how to blow themselves up anyway, let's just save them some trouble. That was so wrong but so funny! LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I can tell ya from first hand testimony it is hurting morale in Afghanistan...for sure If that is indeed the case, and that is the only measure of mission success, then yeah looks like we got this one figured out for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I keep remembering an expression from a book, once: One mark of a good commander is the ability to make quick decisions. If they happen to be right, that's even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 This "nonpartisan" article says that delaying is making Obama look like he is suffering from indecision. McManus doesn't have partisan credentials. He seems to be one of the most credible sources of opinion pieces I've seen posted on the forum. http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/aroundthetable/mcmanus.html Doyle McManus, Columnist for the Los Angeles Times, has reported for more than 30 years on national and international issues from Washington, the Middle East and Europe, and has covered every presidential election campaign since 1984. As the former Washington Bureau Chief, the bureau he lead was been widely recognized as one of Washington's best news operations, with four Pulitzer Prize winners among its 40 reporters and editors.McManus is a four-time winner of the National Press Club's Edwin Hood Award for reporting on U.S. foreign policy, most recently in 2004 for articles on the occupation of Iraq. He has also won Georgetown University's Weintal Prize for coverage of foreign affairs. He is author or coauthor of three books including Landslide: The Unmaking of the President 1984-88, a bestseller named by The New York Times as one of the most notable books of 1988. He appears frequently on PBS's ''Washington Week,'' CBS's "Face the Nation" and NPR's ''Weekend Edition Sunday.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.