SnyderShrugged Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Weak, SHF, very weak. How so? It seems pretty accurate. I know he did campaign on sending 2 more brigades. whats your beef? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 How so? It seems pretty accurate. I know he did campaign on sending 2 more brigades. whats your beef? According to Sirota's own article, Obama campaigned that he would shift the military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and increase troop levels there by at least two brigades. Sorry if I can't muster much outrage toward any "broken promise" because Obama the President, after a review of information available to him as President, sent more troops than Obama the candidate estimated would be needed. Quibble over troop levels? Maybe? Outrage over a broken promise? Give me a ****ing break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 According to Sirota's own article, Obama campaigned that he would shift the military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and increase troop levels there by at least two brigades. Sorry if I can't muster much outrage toward any "broken promise" because Obama the President, after a review of information available to him as President, sent more troops than Obama the candidate estimated would be needed. Quibble over troop levels? Maybe? Outrage over a broken promise? Give me a ****ing break. I didnt see SHF as being "outraged". You called him "weak" for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I didnt see SHF as being "outraged".You called him "weak" for posting. SHF implied that the article refuted the notion that Obama was following up on a campaign promise with his Afghan decision. My "weak" comment was directed at that - and the article's - weak premise. The "outrage" comment was directed at the tone of the article - which has a smarmy tone of righteous indignation - and not at SHF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 SHF implied that the article refuted the notion that Obama was following up on a campaign promise with his Afghan decision. My "weak" comment was directed at that - and the article's - weak premise.The "outrage" comment was directed at the tone of the article - which has a smarmy tone of righteous indignation - and not at SHF. gotcha, sorry for misunderstanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.