ca.news.yahoo.com/.../usa/us_afghanistan_nato_military_obama "A "formal request" for more troops vetted by the US and NATO military chain of command had not yet been presented to the president, Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell said."

This article I cite , "Obama has McChrystals troop request-what now?", says a copy of the request went to regular channels, and one went to Gates directly to Obama, before being vetted.

Pharm, sounds interesting. Yet a pentagon spokesman, quoted in the last article said they were involved.

Just for clarification; CNN Politics.com 10/07/09: "The presidents receipt of the informal version of the resource request-before it had been reviewed and commented on by McChrystals superiors, including Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates- is a departure from the traditional process."

inconvienient-

your postings approach the level of being troll-like but since I have read other postings by yourself, I conclude that you may believe what you post rather than post for the sake of irritating others.
I see that, according to you, proper grammar trumps the lack of substance in your arguments. I would honestly like to know if you have berated others here for spelling and grammar mistakes? If posting on a message board is not an excersise in formal writing then we can dispense with the petty flaming I have seen from others here for errors in spelling. What I learned about sentance structure is obviously not the same as whatever "outcome" you have learned.

As for me refering to you as "humorless", it seems to be fitting. You give the impression of being angry about anyone who does not immediately post some kind of "wow, great post" whenever you choose to drop some pearls of wisdom.

Perhaps I had too much confidence in my fellow citizens to make the connection with "Gen Pershing" and "driving the Hun out of the low countries" with WW1. I originaly wanted to equate with Pershing chasing after Villa but thought that would be taxing the minds of those who slept through history classes.

My concern is not that you don't get the joke but that you demanded that I provide a source. I can live with my joke being deemed convoluted.

Now we get to your apparent belief that I am an alternate version of RAF. You keep writing snarky comments implying that I am a clone of another poster then pose as if to say that you would never acuse someone of such a thing. You are entitled to you delusions but the best comparison here is of the ex girlfriend that was dumped carying on about how you "don't care" if your ex boyfriend is dating a hot cheerleader yet you continue to bring him up at every opertunity.

If nothing else would you please explain how any joke I make would ".. dictate the fate of a collective people"

For someone who can have his writings (or humor) dismissed as being "laughably arrogant and / or convolluted" I sure must have quite a bit of influence.
I don't believe any of my statements have given an indication of which way O should proceede on A-stan, merely that he should be able to formulate a policy.

Yeah I am worried what you think...

Who is going to get the last word? I'm on pins and needles.

"You just informed me I should hold my breath waiting for your answer, yet now you claim it's already been given?"
-
This statement is indicative to your inability to read, lack of comprehension, ignorance of topics, or just a simple need to argue for no reason.

I provided this answer in your response to wanting a book report on foreign policy. This has nothing to do with other questions, already answered, that you want repeated because you failed to read them the first time.

"In other words, you can't factually prove that a requested troop level increase irrefutably equals a change in a foreign policy? You admit you were just bloviating?"
-
To keep you from getting too deep in a disillusion here, you do understand the state departments view on policy and the defense department view on policy (both approved by the president) are different?

"a simple scroll down the page proves I've previously asked all questions I've raised"
-
Really? Your question: "Which U.S. military commanders stationed in Afghanistan stated a desired change in Obama's "policy"; appears twice on this page. The first when you asked it, ONCE. And the second when I informed you it was the only time asked.

"You will state which previous statements, and you will be specific and list them all so I'll be sure not to miss any, "
-
Get a life you dolt. If you read comments before pontificating this would not be an issue...like asking questions (your wording) once and saying you are still waiting for an answer...in fades the music from the twilight zone.

"At least I know not to end a sentence with a preposition."
.
Ah, what an archaic myth. Do you also believe you're not allowed to wear white after Labor Day? When not extraneous or for a formal/critical piece of writing, it is perfectly acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition. Maybe you should just stop now while you're ahead.
.
"my opinion is you can string as many words together as you wish and still not have a point."
.
That's true. Thanks for your opinion.
.
"if I were to insert a paragraph in this posting stating that "I like beer" and then continue on remarking about the specific kinds of beer it would not serve to further my point."
.
Which has no relevance to my posts. I guess you should be more careful with what you accuse me of, hmm? Your charge was that I "type much but say little", which is inherently impossible as I've pointed out and you've admitted.
I've not inserted paragraphs about liking beer, and everything I've typed here has served the points I make. You've failed to back your assertion, which is really just a weak insult, showing you don't have anything of relevance to offer other than fallacies and falsehoods as you're just an incarnation of the likes of vatoloco, dub190, RetiredAirForce, etc.
.
"If I appear to be 'convoluted and laughably arrogant'..."
.
Just like RetiredAirForce (again, how convenient), you too seem to be A) unable to read, or B) disingenuous in the extreme. Which are you? Because, despite you quoting me, you still falsely accuse me of claiming you are convoluted and laughably arrogant, when it is clearly your attempt at humor that I was describing ("your form of humor is convoluted to the point of inapplicability, and laughably arrogant despite it...").
.
"you can forgive if I 'jump' to conclusions after ghosting on these boards for quite some time and reading your pseudo-intellectual writings."
.
Not really, no. Your judgment of my sense of humor was admittedly derived due to your convoluted and sarcastic contrast being inaccessible to anyone but yourself (you can't even explain the correlation when prompted). I didn't get your inapplicable "joke", one which you arrogantly believe so important as to dictate the fate of a collective people, so therefore you've charged me as humorless, something you couldn't possibly know about me no matter how many of posts you've read here or how long you've "ghosted" (aka lurked).
.
"for the record: I am not a schitzo multiple username person."
.
Granted your similarities to RetiredAirForce are intriguing, what makes you think I care? Do you have a guilty conscience?
.
"posting on these forums IS 'a game'."
.
That's your own delusional belief to deal with.
.
"I post because I find a topic interesting not out of hope to convert the masses."
.
So that's your self-imposed delineation between playing this "game" of yours or not? Thanks for sharing the rules. Let me know when you "win."

one more minor point.

.
posting on these forums IS "a game". I have never seen a single persons point of view undergo a major shift due to a posting on a message board.
.
If anyone thinks otherwise, they have not put much effort into thinking.
.
I post because I find a topic interesting not out of hope to convert the masses.

Do I really? Because, as long as it's grammatically correct, the more one types the more one "says". It's an inherent correlation. Humor apparently isn't the only thing you have a poor understanding of.

At least I know not to end a sentence with a preposition.

my opinion is you can string as many words together as you wish and still not have a point. Yes, you are "saying" more but if I were to insert a paragraph in this posting stating that "I like beer" and then continue on remarking about the specific kinds of beer it would not serve to further my point.

"Humor is subjective, but given that your form of humor is convoluted to the point of inapplicability, and laughably arrogant despite it, it's therefore unappealing to the masses (or likely anyone not you), so I won't bother giving any weight to your opinion on my sense of humor (a conclusion you've blindly jumped to after just now reading a handful of my posts)."

If I appear to be "convoluted and laughably arrogant" after (I don't have the exact count) a couple of posts then you can forgive if I "jump" to conclusions after ghosting on these boards for quite some time and reading your pseudo-intellectual writings.

I will concede this:
I should not make personal attacks on a board and will attempt to refrain in the future (feel free to say what you will ) I appologize for insulting you personally but I will continue to insult any ideas with which I disagree.

for the record: I am not a schitzo multiple username person.

"To your wanting a source for skipping chain of command during a phone call, you obviously need more help than can be given here."
.
What is your basis for your diagnosis that I need "help" due to my asking for the source of your inferred words, stated as fact? Where did you receive an education that would make any diagnosis of a person's condition by you credible?
.
"Already answered."
.
False; you have not specified which "quoted sources in the story" disprove any of my claims. A failure to do so now will effectively cause you to concede your unsubstantiated claim as the lie that it is.
.
"that liberal arts education has caused you to loose your grasp of reality."
.
In other words, you can't factually prove that a requested troop level increase irrefutably equals a change in a foreign policy? You admit you were just bloviating?
.
"Already answered."
.
You just informed me I should hold my breath waiting for your answer, yet now you claim it's already been given?
.
"A simple search shows you never posted this."
.
A simple search shows, yet you can't? Your claim is false; a simple scroll down the page proves I've previously asked all questions I've raised again for you. Not surprising you're still avoiding them all.
.
"The ones I asked for the source...after you posted it."
.
Are you illiterate? You will state which previous statements, and you will be specific and list them all so I'll be sure not to miss any, or you will effectively concede that my statements were in fact from the source cited and that you've failed to prove your unsourced assumption that a briefing to the president is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk to be true.
However, you are at least continuing to bolster my claim that you lack logical reasoning or evidence of your claims and have nothing more to offer here other than resorting solely to your insistent falsehoods and fallacies. It's the only thing you've been successful at here, and I wouldn't want to take that away from you (nor would I want you to stop proving me right). Post on!

To your wanting a source for skipping chain of command during a phone call, you obviously need more help than can be given here.

I see this is to difficult for you to understand; big surprise.

"Which specific "quoted sources in the story" disprove any of my claims?"
-
Already answered.

"You'll need to fully outline Obama's Af-Pak policy as you understand it, "
-
LOL, yeah hold your breath and wait for a book report...that liberal arts education has caused you to loose your grasp of reality.

Can you factually prove that a requested troop level increase irrefutably equals a change in a foreign policy?
-
Already answered.

"I'm also waiting on you to answer these questions: Which U.S. military commanders stationed in Afghanistan stated a desired change in Obama's "policy."
-
A simple search shows you never posted this question...guess you haven't been waiting to long for an answer.

"Which previous statements? Be specific and list them all so I'll be sure not to miss any."
-
The ones I asked for the source...after you posted it.

No, I'm not sure what your point is. It's "lame" (subjective) to question BunBun's delusional belief that comment posters (plural; 'we') are "playing" a game? Do feel free to elaborate in great detail on how that's "argumentative".
Also, if you believed I understood you due to my sharing of your delusional belief that you have an audience here reading your posts, does that mean you concede you yourself were "lame" and "argumentative" in holding that belief? Double-edged sword...
.
"The sources for chain of command are numerous"
.
I've not asked you to cite a source on a chain of command. I've asked you to cite your sources for your contradictory claims that "a briefing to the president is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk"; that "phone calls, teleconferences, and personal meetings will of course skip some of (the chain of command)"; that the request went "through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama"; and that "nothing (Obama) says in those personal meetings will be different than what has already been discussed with his commanders." Or were you just inferring words, stated as fact, without a cited source? Because I know some people who would say that is "weak."
I'm also waiting on you to answer these questions:
Which U.S. military commanders stationed in Afghanistan stated a desired change in Obama's "policy." Provide the quote containging the word "policy."
Can you factually prove that a requested troop level increase irrefutably equals a change in a foreign policy? You'll need to fully outline Obama's Af-Pak policy as you understand it, first, and then explain exactly how a difference of several thousand more troops being deployed to the currently supported Afghanistan conflict would change the Af-Pak policy to the point of being a new policy.
Which specific "quoted sources in the story" disprove any of my claims?
What is your basis for your diagnosis that I need "help" due to my asking for the source of your inferred words, stated as fact? Where did you receive an education that would make any diagnosis of a person's condition by you credible?
.
"cite your source for your previous statements…as they were not in the story you provided."
.
Which previous statements? Be specific and list them all so I'll be sure not to miss any.

The sources for chain of command are numerous, I will be glad to dig one up for you as soon as you cite your source for your previous statements…as they were not in the story you provided. If you want to play the source game be prepared to participate.

Questioning your use of we was precisely done to show how lame it is when done (serves no purpose other than to be argumentative)…I see you got the point.

It's also odd that you would question my use of the word 'we' in relation to a delusional fantasy on the part of BunBun, when you've previously expressed your own delusional belief that you're speaking to an audience when you post here...

Concerning your question about the "we", it is in regards to an apparent shared delusion between you and BunBun. You've both expressed belief in a game that is played by posting comments here, which numerous people do. The answer to your question rests with the two of you.
.
I'm also still waiting on you to cite sources for the claims that "a briefing to the president is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk"; that "phone calls, teleconferences, and personal meetings will of course skip some of (the chain of command)"; that the request went "through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama"; and that "nothing (Obama) says in those personal meetings will be different than what has already been discussed with his commanders." Or were you just inferring words, stated as fact, without a cited source? Because I know some people who would say that is "weak."

"Do you believe we know we're "playing" too? Is that part of your fantasy?"
-
Who is we that you are referring to too?

"It's a little thing called chain of command."
.
That's not a source. Fail.
.
"To your wanting a source for skipping chain of command during a phone call, you obviously need more help than can be given here."
.
Skipping the chain of command? But that NEVER happens! The chain of command is ALWAYS followed, and nothing can EVER be passed ahead in the chain without first being scrubbed through (according to you, at least)!
Or were your inferred words, indicating such a belief as fact, without a cited source, just a weak claim? Your unsubstantiated claims are starting to contradict themselves, RetiredAirForce...funny how that can happen when none are based on verifiable facts or sound logic.
.
Why would one need "help" for wanting the likes of you to provide a credible source for any and every thing you assert here as fact? What are you basing this need for "help" off of? Your unsubstantiated opinion-as-fact (again)? Are you able to diagnose this need for "help" thanks to your phantom degree in pop psychology?
Do share, as it will likely further bolster my claim that you lack logical reasoning or evidence of your claims and have nothing more to offer here by resorting solely to your insistent falsehoods and fallacies. Don't stop yet!
.
Also, while you're at it, I'm still waiting on you to cite sources for the claims that "a briefing to the president is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk"; that "phone calls, teleconferences, and personal meetings will of course skip some of (the chain of command)"; that the request went "through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama"; and that "nothing (Obama) says in those personal meetings will be different than what has already been discussed with his commanders." Or are you just inferring words, stated as fact, without a cited source? Because I know some people who would say that is "weak."

"you seem to be a singularly humorless person."
.
Humor is subjective, but given that your form of humor is convoluted to the point of inapplicability, and laughably arrogant despite it, it's therefore unappealing to the masses (or likely anyone not you), so I won't bother giving any weight to your opinion on my sense of humor (a conclusion you've blindly jumped to after just now reading a handful of my posts).
.
"you type much but say little."
.
Do I really? Because, as long as it's grammatically correct, the more one types the more one "says". It's an inherent correlation. Humor apparently isn't the only thing you have a poor understanding of.
.
"thanks for playing."
.
Aww...cute. You've conveniently adopted one of RetiredAirForce's favorite catchphrases; one that indicates you have nothing relevant to offer for consideration or rebuttal in regards to this article, while admitting you delusionally believe you're 'playing' some kind of game, and that you believe others are playing it as well. Do you believe we know we're "playing" too? Is that part of your fantasy?
.
"that part wasn't so much of a joke as it was a comment on the horsepower of your brain."
.
Says the person who thought I claimed that "comment" to be a joke, yet never did, instead merely comparing its senselessness to that of the "joke". Funny you mention horsepower of the brain...what are you running on, precisely? A blender motor?
.
"this bunch in office does not seem to find the urgency in making any decisions other than health care legislation and devaluing the US dollar."
.
Which, yet again, shows no correlation to your convoluted Pershing comparison, making your "joke" a pretty huge flop. Do you have anything more than your bias to back these accusations? Or are you just another incarnation of vatoloco, dub190, RetiredAirForce, etc?

"I'll type slowly so you can follow..."
.
inconvenient -"That makes about as much sense as your "joke.""

that part wasn't so much of a joke as it was a comment on the horsepower of your brain.

my joke that you failed to "get" was a comment on how this bunch in office does not seem to find the urgency in making any decisions other than health care legislation and devaluing the US dollar.

"Try 1917-1919 (including the occupation). America did not declare war on Germany until April 6th of 1917."

yes I know, but I was too lazy to edit my post. I figured someone would have fun correcting me.

inconvenient- you seem to be a singularly humorless person. you type much but say little.
-thanks for playing.

"I'm still waiting on you to cite sources for the claims that "a briefing to the president is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk"
-
It's a little thing called chain of command. To your wanting a source for skipping chain of command during a phone call, you obviously need more help than can be given here.

Can I breathe yet, DiGriz?
.
I agree with everything that DiGriz wrote in his last post. Isn't it enjoyable when logic can be accepted above partisan divides? I would add, in regards to the call for Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan, that such an issue is partly the reason for the amount of time that this decision has taken, since the administration is also developing a generalized plan for eventual withdrawal as well as deciding on how large the immediate troop increase should be. I think despite misgivings, you and Obama agree that we should be looking towards the day we leave Afghanistan, even if it's not in the immediate future.

"The President and his staff have all of the intel they need on Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are in the best position to make this decision. It is prudent that they take as much time as needed to come-up with the new strategy."
-
Oh yeah? Try saying that convincingly with 107-122mm rockets exploding within a hundred yards of you and screaming over your head once....

"back in 1914-1918 the commander of the AEF"
-
Try 1917-1919 (including the occupation). America did not declare war on Germany until April 6th of 1917.

"If you read the story it lists the quoted source..."
.
Incorrect, and more than likely an intentional lie, given your lack of ability/willingness to reference a quoted source that you claim to be so obviously apparent. I've read the story in its entirety several times, as I was the one to provide it, and there is no such "quoted source" that, according to your weak lie, "proves" the assertion that Obama received his own copy of the troop request before CentCom and the Pentagon had finished their reviews to be false, or the assertion that a briefing to the president is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk to be true... but, again, feel free to bolster my claim that you lack logical reasoning or evidence of your claims and have nothing more to offer here by resorting solely to your insistent falsehoods and fallacies. You're doing nicely so far; keep it up!
.
Also, while you're at it, I'm still waiting on you to cite sources for the claims that "a briefing to the president is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk"; that "phone calls, teleconferences, and personal meetings will of course skip some of (the chain of command)"; that the request went "through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama"; and that "nothing (Obama) says in those personal meetings will be different than what has already been discussed with his commanders." Or are you just inferring words, stated as fact, without a cited source? Because I know some people who would say that is "weak."

"I'll type slowly so you can follow..."
.
That makes about as much sense as your "joke."
.
"see, there is this thing called sarcasm."
.
Well you obviously know more than I, since I've never heard of this "sarcasm" thing (I spelled that right, didn't I?).
Sorry, but sarcasm is not inherently humorous, so your "sarcasm = it's a joke" theory is a bit drafty from the holes.
.
"back in 1914-1918 the commander of the AEF (American Expeditionary Force) was Gen Pershing..."
.
And?
.
never mind."
.
Oh, good, it must've just dawned on you too how inapplicable your drawn contrast was.
.
"I hope someone got the joke or we are in more trouble than I thought."
.
"We?" Speak for yourself; no collective group's fortunes are dependant on whether people understand your attempts at convoluted and arrogant 'humor.'

"The mighty 'O''s staff have just drafted an executive order authorizing an increase in troop levels..."
.
Source?

I'll type slowly so you can follow...

see, there is this thing called sarcasm.

back in 1914-1918 the commander of the AEF (American Expeditionary Force) was Gen Pershing.....

never mind. I hope someone got the joke or we are in more trouble than I thought.

Oh? And which specific "quoted sources in the story"
-
If you read the story it lists the quoted source...

Inconvenienttruth, hold your breath....
-
I agree with everything that inconvenienttruth just said in the post below. It's a correct assessment, IMO. I would only add that the President should get us out of here (Afghanistan), for reasons I have previously offered for consideration.

The President and his staff have all of the intel they need on Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are in the best position to make this decision. It is prudent that they take as much time as needed to come-up with the new strategy.

"You blaming Bush for a War Obamao supported is ridiculous."
.
Who blamed Bush for Afghanistan? I mean, sure, it was his decision to go into Afghanistan, but at least it was the right one. So there's no "blame" to be had for the initial action. However, he then decided to make some more decisions...bad decisions. Decisions not about Afghanistan, but Iraq. And because of it, the Bush administration dithered on and neglected Afghanistan. And that is what Bush is rightfully blamed for, which has no relevance to whether President Obama supports our efforts against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan or not.

BUSH! give it up. Obama is the President. You blaming Bush for a War Obamao supported is ridiculous.

"The mighty 'O''s staff have just drafted an executive order authorizing an increase in troop levels..."
.
Source?

"Either give them what they need over there to accomplish the thing or bring them home. Not a hard decision!!!Don't let more men and women die because you can't make up your mind Mr. President!!! There blood is on your hands now!!!"

Actually, the Obama administration is developing both. I'm not sure what makes you declare as "easy" the decision to send or retrieve tens of thousands of Americans from an overseas war zone after having invested 8 years of dithering and neglect to a region that should've been a top, possibly sole, priority following 9/11, and which has become more troublesome due to that lack of focus. The assumption that the lives of soldiers stationed in Afghanistan are directly linked to when Obama decides on how many troops to send is false as, no matter when he decides, none will be deployed as a result of that increase until after the holidays. Casualties in a war don't cease in relation to how quickly increases in troop numbers are decided, as casualties are inherently unavoidable in large armed conflicts. It's actually closer to being accurate to suggest that more men and women will die because Obama will be making up his mind very soon, which you admit by acknowledging that the blood will be on Obama's hands - something Obama takes seriously, but which you declare to be "easy."

You still fail in proving the claim of "always scrubbed through command levels before reaching (Obama's) desk" to be true. Falsely accusing me of not reading doesn't change that. Falsely accusing me of suggesting that command levels are "not in the loop" doesn't change it, either. Nor does dishonestly ignoring previously provided quotes that both precede and follow your quote regarding command involvement, which makes it clear that "Obama asked for and received a personal copy of his Afghanistan commander's request for more troops BEFORE TOP MILITARY OFFICIALS HAD FORMALLY REVIEWED IT"..."THE REQUEST HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THEY ADDED THEIR FORMAL COMMENTS." - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/stor...
Which means the request had NOT been "scrubbed through" command levels before reaching Obama's desk. But maybe you're just "reading impaired", and that's why you repeatedly missed those quotes?
.
"Gates is a level (chain of command)...yet it went through his office also."
.
Playing dumb? Or showing your true colors?
Yes, Gates is a LEVEL (singular). Which doesn't change that your claim of "a briefing to the president is ALWAYS SCRUBBED THROUGH command LEVELS (plural) before reaching his desk" is false. That claim also contradicts your later claim that "phone calls, teleconferences, and personal meetings will of course skip some of (the chain of command)", which you've previously claimed is "always" followed in the same manner. You've claimed these (self-contradicting) assumptions as fact, and so I'm still waiting on you to cite your source. I'm also still waiting for you to cite your sources for the claims that the request went "through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama," and that "nothing (Obama) says in those personal meetings will be different than what has already been discussed with his commanders." Or are you inferring words, stated as fact, without a cited source? Because I know some people who would say that is "weak."
.
"The quoted sources in the story disproves your continued spinning words."
.
Oh? And which specific "quoted sources in the story" are those? Ahh...nevermind; this is just another declaration without backing substance. How typical of you. Still assuming it's true merely because you say so? That, if you just shove your head far enough into the sand, you can alter reality? Incorrect; you've failed to prove that a briefing to the president is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk, and I have proven that Obama received his own copy of the troop request before CentCom and the Pentagon had finished reviewing it... but feel free to keep insisting this isn't so, as it doesn't alter your repeated failure. In fact, feel free to bolster my claim that you lack logical reasoning or evidence of your claims, having nothing more to offer here other than your insistent falsehoods and fallacies.
Chop Chop! You've got work to do...

No hurry, we've already had EIGHT YEARS to make virtually no progress.

There is no hurry,

The mighty "O"'s staff have just drafted an executive order authorizing an increase in troop levels for Gen Pershing's efforts to push the Hun out of the low countries.

he will get to the current unpleasantness ASAP.

Either give them what they need over there to accomplish the thing or bring them home. Not a hard decision!!!Don't let more men and women die because you can't make up your mind Mr. President!!! There blood is on your hands now!!!

"you still fail in proving the claim of "always scrubbed through command levels before reaching (Obama's) desk" to be true"
-
Guess you decided not to read again, one more time for the reading impaired.

"U.S. Central Command commander Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been and will continue to be included in the review." Keep thinking they were not in the loop.

Gates is a level (chain of command)...yet it went through his office also.

The quoted sources in the story disproves your continued spinning words...please keep trying.

Also of interest - my assertion that "nothing 'went through' any office other than the SecDef delivering one unreviewed copy of many to the President while other copies were still in the offices of CentCom and the Pentagon undergoing reviews," was in reference to your claims that the request went "through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama," and that "the (request) went though (Petraeus') office based on the story you are quoting from."
Not in the story: the request went "through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama." You've inferred words, and claimed your assumption as fact. Please cite your source. Because, according to you, RetiredAirForce, inferring words, you claim as fact, not in a cited source...is weak.
.
The factual words that I've quoted, which were used to infer that the copy of the report Obama received was not the one reviewed by CentCom and the Pentagon that would be passed on to Gates for final approval, and that nothing 'went through' any office other than the SecDef delivering one unreviewed copy of many, do indeed appear in my cited source. Try reading next time, instead of being lazy, or dishonest, and resultantly making false charges.
.
As you point out, "you can keep trying to spin word games all you want", because no matter your tactic, you still fail in proving the claim of "always scrubbed through command levels before reaching (Obama's) desk" to be true.

Yeaaah... I think I've left your post out on its own long enough for any readers to get a good long look at it and allow its contents to sink in. Hopefully, others found it as humorous as I did.
.
"Inferring words, you claim as fact, not in your cited source…is weak."
.
A brilliant assessment, RetiredAirForce. None better. Given the genius of that logic, let's apply it to your post, too, shall we?
.
Not in the story: "...phone calls, teleconferences, and personal meetings will of course skip some of this ("this", aka the chain of command, which you've previously claimed is "always" followed in the same manner)." You've claimed this assumption as fact. Please cite your source.
.
Not in the story: "That being said, nothing he says in those personal meetings will be different than what has already been discussed with his commanders." You've claimed this assumption as fact. Please cite your source.
.
None of your "facts" prove that your claim of "always scrubbed through command levels before reaching (Obama's) desk" was correct. None disprove the reality that Obama received his copy (reached his desk) before CentCom and the Pentagon (command levels) had finished their review (scrubbed through). Nor do any disprove the reality that nothing 'went through' any office other than the SecDef delivering one unreviewed copy of many to the President while other copies were still in the offices of CentCom and the Pentagon undergoing reviews. The source proving all this has been linked here many times. It's even been cherry-picked by you, so it's obvious that you've at least skimmed it. Which makes it unsurprising that you believe there is no mention of these realities, which are made clear "in the story" here:
"President Barack Obama asked for and received a personal copy of his Afghanistan commander's request for more troops before top military officials had formally reviewed it...The request usually would go to U.S. Central Command and to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Each would give their comments about the request before Defense Secretary Robert Gates submitted it to the president...Instead, the president asked Gates for the document last Thursday, and Gates submitted an 'informal request,'... the strategy review isn't complete...Petraeus and Mullen have seen the troop request, but...Spokesmen for Mullen and Petraeus couldn't say whether either knew the request had been submitted before they added their formal comments." - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/stor...

Inferring words, you claim as fact, not in your cited source…is weak. Not in the story: "this was not the copy that had been reviewed by CentCom and the Pentagon that would be passed on to Gates for final approval." Please cite your source for this. Not in the story:" "nothing "went through" any office other than the SecDef delivering one unreviewed copy". Please cite your source for this.

Facts: The President received his copy from Gates; came through the office of the SecDef. Gen Petraeus and Gen Mullen have been and will continue to be included in the review; CentCom command, CJCS. Both of these are directly from a quoted spokesman at the pentagon.

You can keep trying to spin word games all you want. The facts remain, the operational/theater commander will pass information to higher levels through the chain of command; centcom to needed offices above. To keep you from declaring gotcha moments; phone calls, teleconferences, and personal meetings will of course skip some of this. That being said, nothing he says in those personal meetings will be different than what has already been discussed with his commanders.

Stars and Stripes Mideast edition Nov. 10th, the Marine Corps Birthday (Ooorah), reports that Obama has "unofficially" settled on a deployment of 30K more troops, plus 4K or so civilian trainers/advisors by the end of 2010, which includes one Marine brigade, elements of the 101st Airborne, and the 10th Mountain Division. The article says that Obama is withholding an announcment pending a November 23rd summit with NATO leaders, attempts to convince the Netherlands and Canada to scrap plans to withdraw their forces, and to give time for P.R. efforts to sell it to the American people.
-
LBJ?

I'm right here, crafty, though there is no B.S. of mine; I'm here, yet again, to clean up RetiredAirForce's.
.
"Please provide the source for this tale."
.
You can find it in the post made on Nov 9, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. The source also appears in numerous other posts made by pharm and me. In fact, the source is the very article you've referenced to here. The very article you insinuated I hadn't read before citing. The very article that keeps proving your petulantly repeated denials wrong.
As has been posted before, here again is the proof that you three blind mice immaturely chide me for:
http://article.wn.com/view/2009/10/08/Ob...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/stor...

Come on Inconvenienttruth. You are the one obsessed with proof. Where are you now? Your BS is leaking through the bucket, you better get a mop.

"nothing "went through" any office other than the SecDef delivering one unreviewed copy "
-
Please provide the source for this tale.

" this was not the copy that had been reviewed by CentCom and the Pentagon that would be passed on to Gates for final approval. "
-
Please provide the source for this tale.

Third time is the charm(I Hope) www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/76751... The first paragraph states Obama asked for, and received McChrystals requests before they went through regular channels.

Pharm, I did at the suggestion made by Inconvenientgorelie.
The whole article is a run around. Just like the run around Obama is giving us while our soldiers die, because they don't have the support they need. They don't have the Commander in Chief they need either, they have an anti-American terrorist forgiving liar who hates Christianity as much as he hates freedom.

Watch Obama give a two minute shout out before he addresses the 13 dead and 30 wounded in Texas! 2:27 into his speech (supposedly about the shooting) he decides he's done propagandizing us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXd......
BUSH would have given a crap! He would have been visibly choked up. Not this monster, he doesn't even care. He sure is enthusiastic during his shout out! Then he goes into teleprompter zombie mode for the boring subject of the mass murder of AMERICAN HEROES!

sorry, www.mcclatchdc.com/homepage/story/76751....

Read any, or all, it doesn`t change what the first paragraph says.

yeah, but don't read the rest of it...

dub, go to www.mcclatchydc/homepage/story/76751.htm... and read the first paragraph.

Let's see Inconvenienttruth, I would love to ignore your CONSTANT annoying requests for proof from everyone you oppose, simply because you have no counterpoint to offer, but still want to push your wacky Commie in Chiefs agenda no matter the consequence. I will try and satisfy your hunger.
In the words of Rahm Emanuel ” [You] Never let a serious crisis go to waste."
When it comes to made up crises there's the "swine flu National Emergency", the "health care crisis", "global warming", "economic crisis" (now true due to people listening to the MSM), "auto makers crisis", "hate crime crisis", "Education crisis" -need more? Don't worry Barry will make more up soon. The next one will be an "oil crisis" Mark my words.
As for the real ones he ignores, there's The War on Terror (here and abroad), The unemployment crisis, the murdering of 3,000 babies a day, business crisis due to taxes and regulations, immigration, the brainwashing of our children by Liberal teachers, Iran nukes, Israel vs. the world, North Korea, and the losing war on drugs.
You said: "President Barack Obama asked for and received a personal copy of his Afghanistan commander's request for more troops before top military officials had formally reviewed it" -Prove it.

"I hardly think you're entitled to be expecting any answers to your disingenuous questions"

Is this an admission on your part that you cannot provide any explanation as to why threre are no jobs?

And, jobs are part of an economy.

No one is confused but Obama. He clearly clearly he wants to avoid his failing social domestic agenda. It will fail. History will prove it. Just wait.

You seem to be confused, vatoloco; no one mentioned jobs, nor would it have an impact on the reality that Afghanistan and the economy have been and are being handled in an ongoing manner.
.
In addition, I hardly think you're entitled to be expecting any answers to your disingenuous questions when numerous claims made by you have gone intentionally unsubstantiated, showing you're unable to walk your talk.

"which have been and are being handled in an ongoing manner"

Where are the jobs mr. president you supposedly said were going to happen?

Did dub190 just cite an op-ed from an openly conservative-slanted website as evidence of his vague accusations?
.
What are the so-called "manufactured crises"? What are the so-called "real crises" that have gone "unattended" by Obama?
.
"reportedly to convince China and other Asian nations that he isn’t distracted by other crises"
.
Reportedly? Cite that "report."
.
"He could cancel the trip to deal with them, but he will not."
.
Because Afghanistan and the economy, which have been and are being handled in an ongoing manner, cannot continue to be dealt with while Obama is in China? Do you assume the President has a wheel of daily activities that he spins to choose the one task to focus on that day?

"President Barack Obama asked for and received a personal copy of his Afghanistan commander's request for more troops before top military officials had formally reviewed it... The request usually would go to U.S. Central Command and to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Each would give their comments about the request before Defense Secretary Robert Gates submitted it to the president... Instead, the president asked Gates for the document last Thursday, and Gates submitted an "informal request"... the strategy review isn't complete, and top national security advisers held a three-hour meeting Wednesday afternoon to discuss Pakistan. A similar meeting is scheduled Friday to discuss Afghanistan... U.S. Central Command commander Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been and will continue to be included in the review...Petraeus and Mullen have seen the troop request...Spokesmen for Mullen and Petraeus couldn't say whether either knew the request had been submitted before they added their formal comments." - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/stor...

"For him to define a problem as a crisis and demand that congressional action be taken now, and not delayed a year, a month or a day, is a commonplace. But when the action is taken and subsequently fails, the president ignores the failure and moves along to demand action on another “crisis.” "
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i...

While the president’s time is taken up with manufactured crises, real crises go unattended. The president is leaving for Asia this week, reportedly to convince China and other Asian nations that he isn’t distracted by other crises, such as Afghanistan and the economy.
He could cancel the trip to deal with them, but he will not. The trip speaks for itself, unless the president wants to drop in on Gen. McChrystal on a detour to the trip home.

www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/76751...

This is the dirt we get when people go to school for too long. Obsessed with how phrases are stated and words are used? Pretty pathetic. Snobby.

The claim that the report went "through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama" is incorrect. Obama received his copy before McChrystal's request had been "scrubbed through" any command levels; their review was still pending and had not even been passed along to Gates. Obama asked for his copy, of which there are multiple, ands it was delivered to him by Gates; this was not the copy that had been reviewed by CentCom and the Pentagon that would be passed on to Gates for final approval. This copy predates a "scrubbed through" review from CentCom and the Pentagon, which would normally been reviewed and passed along to the President by the SecDef, save for this case where a unreviewed copy "reached his (Obama's) desk" before that process had been completed. A process which you claim "always" happens, in that order, yet which I've proven does not necessarily, or specifically.
I've contradicted nothing, and nothing "went through" any office other than the SecDef delivering one unreviewed copy of many to the President while other copies were still in the offices of CentCom and the Pentagon undergoing reviews. Unless you had another topic of concern, this issue is resolved.

Who is going to get the last word? I'm on pins and needles.

Correction--command levels (first sentence) in my comment should be pentagon.

“It's not a failure when I actually succeed in proving my assertion, which in this case was that your claim of "always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk" was wrong. Obama received his copy (reached his desk) before Centcom and the Pentagon (command levels) had finished their review (scrubbed through). Your baseless denial of this fact is incorrect.”
-
LOL, after realizing you were wrong you toss in command levels to try and defend your false premise. For the record the commander of centcom is a command level; yet this went though his office based on the story you are quoting from.

"Entirely irrefutable fact"
-
You mean the one contradicted in the very same story you quote from?

"nothing was "scrubbed through command levels" before reaching Obama's desk"
-
So going through CentCom commander(Petraeus), CJCS (Mullen), and SecDef (Gates) before reaching Obama somehow in your mind means nothing was scrubbed before getting to him?

Zoom we know it will never be you...you never stay to defend your points.

Who is going to get the last word? I'm on pins and needles.

"Ok, so let me get this straight..."
.
All you need in order to "get it straight" is to understand that your continuing fixation on my posts from article to article, without my ever initiating contact with you, that result in irrelevant and personally related postings from you will be dismissed outright as evidence that you are done here due to having nothing more to offer other than falsehoods and fallacies. Thank you for proving my assertion for me. Keep it up!

"The fact the report was presented by the SecDef is proof it went though his office."
.
And the quote in which I claimed that Gates did not have a copy of the report? Oh, wait...I never made that claim. Hmm. So, the fact that the report was given to Obama by Gates isn't actually being disputed? Nice strawman, though.
.
"Yet you still cling to your tale of claiming I was wrong?"
.
The fact that your claim of "a briefing to the President is ALWAYS scrubbed through command levels BEFORE reaching his desk" is incorrect in the case of Obama receiving his own copy of the report before CentCom and the Pentagon had finished their review is something I stand by, yes.
.
"For the record I stated; "A briefing to the President is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk."
.
Which is incorrect, as in this case nothing was "scrubbed through command levels" before reaching Obama's desk, as Obama was presented with his own copy before CentCom and the Pentagon had finished their "scrub through", aka review. Entirely irrefutable fact.
.
"You then TRIED (but failed) to present some quote in an effort to claim my word of 'always' was incorrect"
.
It's not a failure when I actually succeed in proving my assertion, which in this case was that your claim of "always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk" was wrong. Obama received his copy (reached his desk) before Centcom and the Pentagon (command levels) had finished their review (scrubbed through). Your baseless denial of this fact is incorrect.
.
"yes you are still ignorant on this and many other topics."
.
Yes, another declaration lacking proof.
.
"The article you stole..."
.
"Stole"? Hahahaha...
.
"showing it went through central command, Petraeus, Chairman of the Joint Chief, Mullen and the SecDef's office"
.
Incorrect; it had not "gone through" previous to Obama receiving a copy. Review by CentCom and the Pentagon was still incomplete at that time.

"try again dictionary boy."
.
Your name-calling, while obviously coddling your questionable self-esteem, does not change your failure here.
.
"It is apparent based on your pattern of commenting, 'you are done', you have failed to back your dribble"
.
I've backed my cogent arguments with evidence and logical reasoning. You've ignored most of this, and have failed to refute what little you do bother to embarrassingly engage in, instead focusing on continuing with your admitted fallacies and falsehoods, which serve as evidence that you have nothing more to offer and are therefore done here.
.
"Shame though, I enjoy watching you proclaim things that aren't true."
.
I provide evidence that you haven't refuted. You provide obvious lies and personal insults, all irrelevant to the article or discussions about it. The one proclaiming untruths is you, and it's obvious why you'd enjoy it.

The fact the report was presented by the SecDef is proof it went though his office. Yet you still cling to your tale of claiming I was wrong? For the record I stated; "A briefing to the President is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk." You then TRIED (but failed) to present some quote in an effort to claim my word of "always" was incorrect; yes you are still ignorant on this and many other topics. The article you stole your lame quote from even backs these as facts; showing it went through central command, Petraeus, Chairman of the Joint Chief, Mullen and the SecDef's office; evidence to my previous statement...try again dictionary boy.

It is apparent based on your pattern of commenting, "you are done", you have failed to back your dribble and this is your way of convincing yourself to stop because you are in over your head, yet again.

Shame though, I enjoy watching you proclaim things that aren't true.

Ok, so let me get this straight....with all your assumptions, suppositions, and outright fallacies, what you're really saying is "Blah blah, blee blee blah. Blah blee blah blah!"
-
Yeah, I think I've got it. :D

"Nobody told you to or asked you to pay attention to anything we comment on"
.
When you directly respond to a comment of mine, you’re specifically asking for attention from me.
Speaking of not being "told...or asked", remind me exactly where I've initiated any discussion with you, ever. Yet here you are, again, fixating on my posts to which you respond with nothing but fallacies and falsehoods irrelevant to preceeding comments or the article at hand.
.
"Please, make your 'threat' real."
.
No problem.
This post has been dismissed outright as evidence that you are done here due to having nothing more to offer other than falsehoods and fallacies.
.
"I've been dismissing your condescending and crappy effluence..."
.
You follow my posts from article to article, not to reply to me in relation to the topic at hand, but merely to name-call. You haven’t dismissed me in the least. I look forward to further postings from you proving my assertions of you to be true. Go on now; do my work for me.

"Yes please think that."
.
Given the evidence, it requires willful ignorance to come to any other conclusion, let alone ignore the fact that you've openly admitted what I've accused you of.
.
"It has long ago been discovered..."
.
An immature lie made up off the top of your head.
.
"stop posting easily refuted rubbish and people would not have to correct you on it."
.
If it's so easily refuted and corrected, why have you utterly failed to do so, instead admittedly mocking and insulting with fallacies and falsehoods that are wholly irrelevent to the topic at hand?
.
Such posts, like this one from you, are nothing but evidence that you are done here, due to (admittedly) having nothing more to offer other than your fixated animosity. Back to proving my assertions for me, through your continued posting, I see. Odd how you end up doing so every time.

"Proof again you are overly ignorant. You grasp the first thing you find, believe it, without fully reading the article it came from."
.
Where is this proof, exactly? You haven't provided any; merely a declaration.
I fully read the article, thank you. It's the reason I cited it.
.
"Hmmm if it was submitted right from the General"
.
Where are you deriving this? Where did I state Obama's requested copy was submitted "right from the General"? You stated that McChrystal's report couldn't have made it to "Washington without first being washed through Central command and the Pentagon; SecDef level." I responded that "Obama received his own copy of the troop request before CentCom and the Pentagon had finished reviewing it." This is true. However, without basis, you declared that stating that truth proved my so-called "ignorance." In response to your false accusation, I provided you with the article you've quoted here, which states "President Barack Obama asked for and received a personal copy of his Afghanistan commander's request for more troops before top military officials had formally reviewed it...", thus proving that Obama, as I said, "received his own copy of the troop request before CentCom and the Pentagon had finished reviewing it." My statement was correct, and your off the cuff denial, without backing substance, displayed your own personal ignorance.
.
"why did it go through the SecDef?"
.
Because multiple copies were delivered to multiple sources.
.
"This tidbit alone proves your ignorance"
.
I've never stated anything to contradict what you've pointed out. What about that fact shows my so-called "ignorance"?
.
"Strange how the commanders still are included, as I said, further ignorance on your part."
.
I've never stated anything to contradict what you've pointed out. What about that fact shows my so-called "ignorance"?
.
"Again for the thick skulled liberal types, you are wrong..."
.
"Wrong" about what, precisely? I've never stated anything to contradict what you've pointed out.
.
So unfortunate that, even when you're on topic, you still fail.

"you try and make everyone here believe that you actually care about the common man."
.
Evidence of this unsubstantiated claim?
.
"You belong to a cetain class (liberal elite university institution latte drinking opposing school vouchers but I send my kids to parochial or private school)."
.
Evidence of this unsubstantiated claim?
.
"Underneath all you spout lies a naked man who tries to compensate for something you are truly not."
.
This isn't even a grammatically correct sentence. I'm pretty sure you're missing words or punctuation.
.
"You are unpatriotic"
.
False.
.
"hate American culture"
.
False.
.
"and probably drive a Volvo."
.
False.
.
Care to take your own advice, vatoloco? Instead of relying on flippant words of disregard and unsubstantiated ridicule, try acting by actually offering examples of your assertions about me. Or are your cowardly hit-and-run posts all you have?

Further irrelevant, personally related postings will be dismissed outright blah blah blah blah...
-
Nobody told you to or asked you to pay attention to anything we comment on, numbnuts. Please, make your "threat" real. I've been dismissing your condescending and crappy effluence since the day you crawled out of your hole again. But it has made me laugh, for which I'm thankful....

“I'd just like to specifically point out how utterly pathetic and pitiful it is for not one, but two individuals on these boards to fixate on me”
-
Yes please think that. It has long ago been discovered people that cannot briefly get their point across without a dissertation are the quickest to claim the victim card when questioned. A small hint for the liberal jester, stop posting easily refuted rubbish and people would not have to correct you on it.

“"Always"? So...who's the "ignorant" one, again?”
-
Proof again you are overly ignorant. You grasp the first thing you find, believe it, without fully reading the article it came from.

Point 1. “the president asked Gates for the document last Thursday, and Gates submitted…”. Hmmm if it was submitted right from the General why did it go through the SecDef? This tidbit alone proves your ignorance, but I will go on.

Point 2. “ U.S. Central Command commander Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been and will continue to be included in the review.” Strange how the commanders still are included, as I said, further ignorance on your part.

Point 3. “Petraeus and Mullen have seen the troop request” Again for the thick skulled liberal types, you are wrong…IGNORANT: unaware, uniformed, or lacking knowledge---pick one they all fit.

"I'd just like to specifically point out how utterly pathetic and pitiful it is for not one, but two individuals on these boards to fixate on me and stalk my postings "
-
I don't do that. Really..... You aren't going to cry, are you?.... Just grab your wubbie and put your thumb back in your mouth. You'll be o.k.

I still want to know if he deducts the big, floppy shoes and the orange hair as a business expense. Provide the Cliffs please, I don't want to read through all the rambling:)

It's utterly sickening to know that you try and make everyone here believe that you actually care about the common man. You belong to a cetain class (liberal elite university institution latte drinking opposing school vouchers but I send my kids to parochial or private school). Hardly is this the case. Underneath all you spout lies a naked man who tries to compensate for something you are truly not. You are unpatriotic, hate American culture, and probably drive a Volvo.

I'd just like to specifically point out how utterly pathetic and pitiful it is for not one, but two individuals on these boards to fixate on me and stalk my postings in order to railroad any discussion that may relate to a corresponding article by degrading discourse into tangential rhetorical fallacies once these individuals realize they actually require substance and logical reasoning to hold a discussion with me, despite their paradoxical reliance on me to give them the sense of self-worth that they should've otherwise been able to gain by posting something relevant and credible. I’m clearly viewed as a threat in this love/hate relationship of yours, given the time you two have devoted to me so far, RetiredAirForce and DiGriz. I guess I should be flattered.
Further irrelevant, personally related postings will be dismissed outright as evidence that both of you are done here due to (admittedly) having nothing more to offer other than falsehoods and fallacies, until the time comes when you can learn to stay on topic like intelligent adults and back your arguments with evidence and reason.

"No, it's not."
.
You've done nothing to prove it is.
.
"I just think you're stupid. Not 'misguided' or anthing like that.... just plain stupid."
.
And what, precisely, is this judgement based on? Or is this just another example of one of your many empty opinions, void of any reason?
.
"I have no respect for you as an individual on these posts because you have none for anyone else"
.
First, you don't need to respect me or the substantiated truths and logical reasonings I post.
Second, I have plenty of respect for those who respect themselves enough to offer substance to support their thinking. You're not one of those.
.
"and the only 'substance' in your posts, which amount to ripping apart what others say, rather than make your own statements or comments, has the consistancy and smell of fecal matter"
.
Incorrect on all points. Just more empty words from you without any backing substance. Typical.
.
"when you take into account your true intent."
.
Oh, I can't wait to hear this one! What is my "true intent", DiGriz?

"Military policy/plans include troop levels. A change to the level is a change to the plan."
.
So now the resources = the plan? Let me try this out:
Cars include tires. A change in the brand of tire is a change to the brand/model of the car. Yes?
Anyway, you apparently can't even decide on the principles, or the terminology you want to apply to them (a strategy in a conflict is not inherently an administration's policy). So to save on the intentional confusion your distortions cause, maybe you can factually prove that a requested troop level increase irrefutably equals a change in a foreign policy? You'll need to fully outline Obama's Af-Pak policy as you understand it, first, and then explain exactly how a difference of several thousand more troops being deployed to the currently supported Afghanistan conflict would change the Af-Pak policy to the point of being a new policy. And...go.
.
"he has had even longer to make a decision based on what he knew was coming."
.
That would be incorrect. I'll invite you to revisit the self-evident timeline yourself.
.
"This proves you are indeed ignorant. A briefing to the President is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk."
.
"Always"?
http://article.wn.com/view/2009/10/08/Ob...
So...who's the "ignorant" one, again?
.
"You just said he requested it right after the new general took command"
.
Which doesn't substantiate your false claim that I "believe the president did not know it was coming."
.
"I continually mock you on your ignorance of the topic as well as jabbing you about your liberal arts education; the latter being fun."
.
Which illustrates that you have nothing else of substance to offer for consideration or discussion regarding this topic. All you have left are immature falsehoods and fallacies to be easily disproved or dismissed out of hand, proving that while you may find it "laughable", it's also entirely true.
.
"Thank you for making my point, again."
.
That's just it - you don't actually have a point. You just admitted you don't have one. You just admitted that all you've done is mock and hide like a coward behind your falsehoods and fallacies in place of offering substance or reason in your arguments (which no longer have anything to do with the article thanks to your obsession with me) because you don't have the courage to act according to your convictions.

"I "proudly" share cited sources when applicable in order to give additional substance and credibility to my posts; a common courtesy, often practiced by those with higher educations, that is apparently beyond the ability of the likes of you, DiGriz, or vatoloco."
-
No, it's not. I just think you're stupid. Not "misguided" or anthing like that.... just plain stupid. AND funny, in your own stupid kind of way. I have no respect for you as an individual on these posts because you have none for anyone else, and the only "substance" in your posts, which amount to ripping apart what others say, rather than make your own statements or comments, has the consistancy and smell of fecal matter, and though eloquently presented at times, which I will grant you, only amounts to polishing a turd when you take into account your true intent.

"A public shame is falsely stating that I am a "self-professed liberal arts understudy", or that I "proudly" share cited sources when applicable in order to give additional substance and credibility to my posts; a common courtesy, often practiced by those with higher educations,"
-
Thank you for making my point, again.

"substance which you ignore to instead shallowly focus on semantics"
-
Laughable. I continually mock you on your ignorance of the topic as well as jabbing you about your liberal arts education; the latter being fun.

"There's nothing to substantiate that I "believe the president did not know it was coming."
-
You just said he requested it right after the new general took command...

"Obama received his own copy of the troop request before CentCom and the Pentagon had finished reviewing it."
-
This proves you are indeed ignorant. A briefing to the President is always scrubbed through command levels before reaching his desk.

"Yes, Obama had requested McChrystal’s report shortly after he replaced McKiernan."
-
If this was true...he has had even longer to make a decision based on what he knew was coming.

"Incorrect. A recommendation for additional troops is not a change in overall Af-Pak policy."
-
You are too dense. Military policy/plans include troop levels. A change to the level is a change to the plan.

"A change of this size did not start in the battle/command staff and make it to a piece of paper and off to Washington without first being washed through Central command and the Pentagon; SecDef level."
.
Obama received his own copy of the troop request before CentCom and the Pentagon had finished reviewing it.
.
"it is moronic for you to believe the president did not know it was coming."
.
There's nothing to substantiate that I "believe the president did not know it was coming."
.
"A public shame is a self-professed liberal arts understudy who has writing references, to include downloadable dictionaries and undergrad writing guides (proudly sharing both) and still manages to misspell simple words."

A public shame is suggesting that an occasional typo drastically alters the substance of my posts; substance which you ignore to instead shallowly focus on semantics (at least I would guess this to be your suggestion, as there wouldn’t be any reason to be ashamed of a typo otherwise). Which is odd, considering your own grammar errors exceed mine (does that make your shame greater? Following your logic...). Although, it's totally understandable when considering how safe of an alternative that option is in contrast to engaging in logical and evidenced reasoning to support or refute claims.

A public shame is falsely stating that I am a "self-professed liberal arts understudy", or that I "proudly" share cited sources when applicable in order to give additional substance and credibility to my posts; a common courtesy, often practiced by those with higher educations, that is apparently beyond the ability of the likes of you, DiGriz, or vatoloco.

A public shame is not having the courage to act according to your convictions, and instead offer absolutely nothing other than fallacies and falsehoods to avoid having to acknowledge that cowardice. A public shame is deriving a sense of worth by stalking another person’s posts in order to engage in those fallacies and falsehoods in a cry for attention.

A public shame is disregarding requests for substantiation, abandoning your hollow claims to stand as facts. It still remains for you to quote U.S. military commanders stationed in Afghanistan (McChrystal in particular) as stating a desired change in Obama's "policy."

A public shame is to state that one ~2 month time period is “scant” while another ~2 month time period is “slow/long.” A public shame is making references to an “old” and “new” policy when the overall policy of a renewed focus in Afghanistan and increased aid to Pakistan hasn’t changed. A public shame is claiming a troop increase request equates to a change in Af-Pak policy.
.
"Let me know when the so-called public shamming commences so I can get a bowl of popcorn and enjoy it."
.
Better hurry! You're missing the in-progress show. Not quite the same as watching men dance, mind you...

"time to... back this... statement up."
.
I've already backed it up.
.
"The Webster's dictionary attempt was an abject failure."
.
Incorrect; it was suitably successful in backing my truthful assertion. Stating that you have an opinion is making a claim.
.
"For reference..."
.
For reference, you've already made clear that there are "many definitions of each word" (as evidenced in the fact that your chosen definition of "claim" was the third one offered from that source, out of 11), so I'll gladly thank you to not suggest that only the definitions you provide are the correct/intended ones. Your cherry picking doesn't refute the reality that stating an opinion is making a claim.
.
"Start tap dancing, this will be fun to watch."
.
That’s your own business if you have fun watching men dance for you, but I'm going to have to pass on your offer. You're a far better dancer, anyway; go ahead without me.
.
"Curious how you callously state ('certainly none have been stated by you') I provided no facts and then address the same non-fact later."
.
"Curious" that I refuted your unsubstantiated opinions-stated-as-fact, despite my observation that you'd offered no facts? How is that "curious", precisely?
.
"you are more than slightly ignorant of the timing and facts of this in addition to your ignorance in the way the military and civilian leadership operate."
.
Timing and facts of what? What is "this"? And how so, for either? Because you declare it? Ha. Cite evidence of such claimed ignorance.
.
"This shows he can make a decision based on surrounding information and advisors in a time period less than the current one"
.
Not when the two time periods are approximate.
.
"at odds with your accusation of 'a prudent decision'".
.
That he's taken the same time on this decision (in this case, 2+ months is "slow/long") as he has on the initial troop deployment (in that case, 2+ is "scant") is at odds with the fact that it is untrue that Obama has allowed ideals to "get in the way of making good, prudent decisions", as so proven by his deliberativeness in considering Afghanistan? How so?
.
"Requesting an increase in troop levels is a change in the current policy."
.
Incorrect. A recommendation for additional troops is not a change in overall Af-Pak policy.
.
"The basis for the decision had been numerous weeks (proceeding) in the making"
.
Yes, Obama had requested McChrystal’s report shortly after he replaced McKiernan.

"Did you have something of actual worth to share, or are you truly so dependant on my repeated public shaming of you in order to feel of some value?"
-
Lol, the nattering ne'er do well has spoken, albeit with spelling errors again. A public shame is a self-professed liberal arts understudy who has writing references, to include downloadable dictionaries and undergrad writing guides (proudly sharing both) and still manages to misspell simple words.

Let me know when the so-called public shamming commences so I can get a bowl of popcorn and enjoy it.

Curious how you callously state (“certainly none have been stated by you”) I provided no facts and then address the same non-fact later. It is utterly obvious you are more than slightly ignorant of the timing and facts of this in addition to your ignorance in the way the military and civilian leadership operate.

He put forth a new strategy (look it up skippy, means policy and/or plan) two months after taking office. This shows he can make a decision based on surrounding information and advisors in a time period less than the current one; at odds with your accusation of “a prudent decision”.

Requesting an increase in troop levels is a change in the current policy.

The official troop request, matter of policy, was not put forth until September. The basis for the decision had been numerous weeks (proceeding) in the making; and the military leadership was aware. A change of this size did not start in the battle/command staff and make it to a piece of paper and off to Washington without first being washed through Central command and the Pentagon; SecDef level. This also would have been included in briefings at upper levels; it is moronic for you to believe the president did not know it was coming.

To your off handed remarks of oath of service I will say this; playing fantasy football is not a sport. If you need that explained it will require crayons and a good liberal arts kindergarten teacher to assist you.

"Stating your opinion is making a claim."
-
What a blowhard, time to grab your dictionary and writing guide references to back this silly statement up. The Webster’s dictionary attempt was an abject failure. For reference from you previous esteemed downloadable dictionary:

claim: (an assertion that something is true or factual)

opinion: (a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty)

Start tap dancing, this will be fun to watch.

ROFLMAO!!!!

"You're not military, and never have been"
.
You're so certain, which means you'll have no problem explaining what evidence you have to prove this ignorant assumption.
.
"so you wouldn't know the difference between following orders, and following someone giving them because you trust them and want to."
.
Ah yes, just another thing only military can do. Back up on your "lowly Soldier" soap box again, I see.
.
"The reasons why? I don't need to explain them to a clown like you, nor will I waste my time."
.
Nor do I need to waste my time answering any farcical questions of yours. Glad we could clear that up.
.
"You're not interested in my opinion anyway."
.
Correct; I’m interested in your reasoning behind your opinions. I didn't know they let the illiterate into the military. Pathetic...
.
"You never answered my question regarding your business attire vs. a tax write-off"
.
Oh, you mean that was what you consider to be a serious question? Why do you ask; are you seeing a business opportunity in your future? Already like to put on makeup; dress in flowing, colorful outfits; and play around with children, so you figure you might as well get paid for it while you're at it? Good luck with that... You should talk to RetiredAirForce. He knows some funny jokes.

You most certainly did, DiGriz. It's no more different than your silly insistence that stating an opinion is somehow not the same as making a claim. If you have no confidence/faith, you don't hold trust. If you don't trust someone, that makes them untrustworthy. Confusing, I know... and yet I'm the "numbnuts" (haven't heard that insult used since I left the playground)? You sure are sore over having your "lowly Soldier" ego bruised, huh? No wonder you're looking for a glorious master to serve; you're apparently the sensitive type who needs someone big and strong to defend your feelings.
.
So I'll take both of your posts, DiGriz and vatoloco, to be admissions of failure to live by your own professed standards? That neither of you has any substance to support your biased assertions against Obama and are all talk and no action? No surprise there.
.
As with RetiredAirForce, I'll ask: Did you have something of actual worth to share, or are you truly so dependant on my repeated public shaming of you in order to feel of some value?

I really, really hope this person never passes any genes.

You said he was untrustworthy, by the way....numbnuts. I never did, at least not to you.

It's simple, numbnuts..... I don't see him as a leader. I have no confidence in him yet. He's got work to do. Maybe I will someday, but he's done nothing that would make me WANT to follow him. You're not military, and never have been, so you wouldn't know the difference between following orders, and following someone giving them because you trust them and want to.
-
The reasons why? I don't need to explain them to a clown like you, nor will I waste my time.
-
You're not interested in my opinion anyway. You just want to argue with people and make suppositions for the sake of doing it to amuse yourself. Pathetic.....
-
You never answered my question regarding your business attire vs. a tax write-off.....the big floppy shoes, big red nose, orange hair....

The claim that Obama is a weak untrustworthy leader, in your opinion. I’ve made nothing up. Here it is, verbatim: "My opinion is that Obama is weak, and I have no faith in his leadership". Stating your opinion is making a claim; it’s not some semantic loophole (an impression you seem to be under). So, "right off", you made a claim. There’s no difference. As shown in my comparison, and in light of the fact that a "claim" is an "assertion in the face of possible contradiction" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...).
.
Again, I will gladly tell you exactly why you should follow your oath of service in dutifully obeying your Commander without question,DiGriz, despite your opinion as well as your false notion that confidence is reliant upon pomp and circumstance, once it is you who substantiates the claim that Obama is a weak and untrustworthy leader (you refer to using common sense and reason, but I see no proof of this). Provide evidences that would rightfully give you reason to believe this, oh stereotypical "Soldier" on his soapbox, so that I may better understand someone like you.
.
You wonder "what side" I’d be "saying"? Care to expound?
.
Aww... did the "lowly Soldier" have his massive ego dented?

What claim, oh enlightened one? Why do you make crap up? I said right off it's my opinion. My opinion. Not claim. There's a difference. Compare what I said to what you wrote, and then answer the question. But you don't answer questions, do you? You ask them. That's all you can do. My oath of service? You brought that up. I follow it, and what he has me do. That's my job. I question what he tells me to do, however, as is my right. Again, there's a difference.
-
I wonder what side you'd be saying if Bush was still my CiC.... Actually, no I don't. You're pretty transparent that way.
-
Can you write off your fuzzy orange hair and red nose as a business expense? Numbnuts..

I will gladly tell you exactly why you should follow your oath of service in dutifully obeying your Commander,DiGriz, despite your opinion as well as your false notion that confidence is reliant upon pomp and circumstance ("glorious"? *snicker*), once it is you who substantiates the claim that Obama is a weak and untrustworthy leader (you refer to using common sense and reason, but I see no proof of this). Provide evidences that would rightfully give you reason to believe this, oh stereotypical "Soldier" on his soapbox, so that I may better understand someone like you.
.
Although, I think I'm starting to get a better understanding. Regarding your subtexts inquiring about a "glorious master" for you to serve, I'd say MY opinion is that you're lucky Obama opposes DADT.

My opinion is that Obama is weak, and I have no faith in his leadership. What great words, oh high and mighty inconvenientnotruth, would you extoll upon this lowly Soldier to hearten my resolve and plant the seeds of confidence in my CiC?? Tell me of all his glorious triumphs of leadership, oh wise*ss one, so that I may serve my master without respect to personal opinion, common sense, or reason, and thus, be just like YOU!! Tell me!!!

Care to take your own advice, vatoloco? Instead of relying on flippant words of disregard, try acting by actually offering examples of precisely how Obama is "weak" as CiC. Or are your unsubstantiated hit-and-run posts all you have?

Oil and water. Obama in front of the Navy.

"You seem a bit confused; Obama outranks any officer as the leader of the United States' armed forces, and is making decisions as such"

Probably the weakest commander in chief next to Carter.

Action not words.

What facts? Certainly none have been stated by you, RetiredAirForce. But please don't hold back; share these "facts" of yours.
As for me, there is nothing incongruent about the fact that it is untrue that Obama has allowed ideals to "get in the way of making good, prudent decisions", as so proven by his deliberativeness in considering Afghanistan.
.
"the requested change in his policy is at odds with his change from the 'old' policy"
.
Is this one of your "facts"? No; looks like more of your disingenuous distortions due to your general lack of a grasp on reality. "Requested change in his policy"? Incorrect; McChrystal's assessment report, as requested by Obama, recommends an increase of troops at the President's discretion, and presents no change in Obama's overall Af-Pak policy. Therefore there is no "old policy" on Obama's part (unless you were insteading referring to Bush's "old policy" of neglect), as his current deliberation over the recommended troop increase is not separate from his earlier announcement of a renewed Afghanistan focus and increased Pakistan aide or the initial deployment of two brigades originally intended for Iraq to Afghanistan at the suggestion of Secretary Gates, and instead simply represents a continuation.
.
"His new policy did not revolve around when McCrystal would show up, it started in March."
.
There is no "new" or "old" policy other than in terms of Obama's renewed focus on Afghanistan in contrast to the previous administration. And, yes, Obama's requested assessment from his new Afghan General is a continuation of his announced intentions in March.
.
"The commanders in the field are requesting a change to his current policy; they see it not working."
.
Incorrect. Quote U.S. military commanders stationed in Afghanistan (McChrystal in particular) as stating a desired change in Obama's "policy", and cite the source if you'd prefer this accusation not be dismissed outright.
.
"If he took a scant 8-9 weeks to decide on the first policy/plan change how long should the second change take to decide?"
.
A "scant" 8-9 weeks? In other words, 2+ months? Funny, because that's the same time frame that Obama has been considering the McChrystal report. I never knew "scant" and "slow/long" (as you word it) were synonymous.
And again, you're under the false impression that there was a "first policy/plan." McChrystal's recommendations and Obama's consideration of them do not represent a "second change." Obama's current, continuing deliberation over McChrystal's Septmeber assessment report is separate from neither his earlier announcement of a renewed Afghanistan focus and increased Pakistan aide or the initial troop deployment at the suggestion of Secretary Gates. A shame you're still unable to grasp that reality.
.
So, did you have something of worth to share, or are you truly so dependant on my repeated public shaming of you in order to feel of some value that you're now stalking my posts?

So glad you find humor in facts.

To portray his effectiveness as a leader is in his deliberate and slow approach to the requested change in his policy is at odds with his change from the “old” policy after being in office ~ 2 months.

His new policy did not revolve around when McCrystal would show up, it started in March. The commanders in the field are requesting a change to his current policy; they see it not working. If he took a scant 8-9 weeks to decide on the first policy/plan change how long should the second change take to decide? After all it is his plan.

Take your time digging through your dictionary to come up with a number on how long it should take. If the first resource isn’t helpful you can always try your undergrad writing guide.

Hahaha... that was a good joke. But seriously, your inept questioning of the blatantly obvious context of this discussion is hardly "over (my) head", especially given my total lack of surprise at your cognitive inability. The only part I don't understand about your post is why you effectively admitted such a shortcoming through your open exhibition of ignorance.
Apparently you've chosen to continue to display your lack of comprehension; you "see" nothing except your own arrogant assumptions and purposeful distortions. There is nothing incongruent about the fact that it is untrue that Obama has allowed ideals to "get in the way of making good, prudent decisions", as so proven by his deliberativeness in considering Afghanistan. His current, continuing deliberation over McChrystal's (who didn't even replace McKiernan until June) assessment report, as requested by Obama, is separate from neither his earlier announcement of a renewed Afghanistan focus and increased Pakistan aide or the initial deployment of two brigades originally intended for Iraq to Afghanistan at the suggestion of Secretary Gates.
However, no comparable military action has taken place since late spring, and so by indicating that Obama has not "acted already on Afghanistan" in order to instead make a prudent decision, I refer to the topic of this article: Obama's yet-to-be-made decision regarding the request for 40,000 more troops. It is also in reference to Ezoner's false suggestion that Obama is "waiting" and idealizing instead of working with Congress and military officials to develop an Afghan strategy, a suggestion that was in reference to the topic of this article as well. I pity you for not being able to grasp that reality (or seemingly reality at all, in general).
So, did you have something of worth to share, or are you truly so dependant on my repeated public shaming of you in order to feel of some value that you're now stalking my posts?

Yes I see that was over your head...either by forgetting he already has a plan in action, done less than two months after swearing in, or just not wanting to do the math yourself to figure it out. This just doesn't fit the fluff he "acted already" comment.

I'm really not surprised at all that you're unable to contextually infer what is being discussed, RetiredAirForce, although I am a bit confused as to why you would effectively admit it publicly.

"If this were true, Obama would have acted already on Afghanistan without spending the time to make a prudent decision."
-
Which time, now or his previous strategy, layed out after his swearing in, already being used?

"He urgently ran to Europe to play to the cameras for the Olympics."
.
Urgently? Nah. But it was really despicable and selfish of him to use his status to attempt to lure the Olympics to the U.S.
.
"I would have more impressed if there was a 5 day summit between Obama, the Pentagon and key political leaders to set a strategy for Afganistan, and even then, things will need to change."
.
Obama is briefed every morning on Afghanistan and has spent far more than 5 days setting his strategy. Just yesterday Obama held a meeting with the country's top military officials regarding Afghanistan. Deliberations continue daily.
.
"As the enemy adapts, so must we, we need to be creative with solutions, but in the end the miltary leaders need to be making the decision. Not a community organizer."
.
So by 'adapting to a changing enemy in creative ways', you mean 'rushing ahead with increased manpower over altered strategy'? Community organizer...? Oh, you mean the Commander in Chief? You seem a bit confused; Obama outranks any officer as the leader of the United States' armed forces, and is making decisions as such.
.
"We must save this or that urgently. Then must slow down and think for months on things he doesnt want to do at all."
.
Reforming health care after decades of debate? You're right; that is urgent. Sending hundreds of thousands more troops into a war zone? You're right; deliberate thought should be given over a period of time, as Obama rightly does not want to act recklessly with American lives.
.
"If he waist long enough, Americans will grow weary of the Afgan effort"
.
Already have.
.
"(their voter fraud, god forbid we look at our own)"
.
Yes, we really should've taken a closer look at voting issues in 2000 and 2004.
.
"He is the worst kind of manager. Letting ideals get in the way of making good prudent decisions."
.
If this were true, Obama would have acted already on Afghanistan without spending the time to make a prudent decision.

HAHA...Yeah; they are really out of business. Did anyone see the world news today out of Pakistan? It's safe to say the Taliban is getting STRONGER, and the real threat will be in Pakistan, and NOT Afghanistan! If the Taliban ever takes over Pakistan (and that is not out of question with the strength they are gaining there), they will have there hand on a nuclear arsenal.
.
Like most wars the US has become involved in. This is just one massive waste of $$$$, resources, and American lives. I really don't hear anyone talk about the cost of these wars any more. The left was big on it with Bush in office, but what about now? It's not like we are massively in debt as it is. This is not like the Gulf war where other countries paid for it, and we ended up making a ton of $$$$ off it. This is costing us billions to fund, with no end in site, and all for the purpose of what exactly? To kill a guy that is likely all ready dead?

I find it hilarious that Republicants are basically parroting Dick Cheney, the most hated Republican in the nation, who in 2002 actually said "The Taliban regime is out of business".

You people just don't get it. He urgently ran to Europe to play to the cameras for the Olympics. I would have more impressed if there was a 5 day summit between Obama, the Pentagon and key political leaders to set a strategy for Afganistan, and even then, things will need to change. As the enemy adapts, so must we, we need to be creative with solutions, but in the end the miltary leaders need to be making the decision. Not a community organizer.

The reality is that Obama creates his own detractors. He sets himself up for failure. We must save this or that urgently. Then must slow down and think for months on things he doesnt want to do at all. We see that everyday, at work, at home. When you don't want to do something you delay the actions. But in this case, he came out in favor of Afganistan and now finds himself between a rock and and the far left. If he waist long enough, Americans will grow weary of the Afgan effort, He can blame it on others (their voter fraud, god forbid we look at our own), he can just wait and others will do the dirty work for him.

He is the worst kind of manager. Letting ideals get in the way of making good prudent decisions. You never really know here he stands, and when you think you do, he changes his mind, or did he??? Unless its for redistribution of wealth........ that he has down.

From Newsweek:
The number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in January 2008 was 26,607. Over the next six months, the Bush administration raised the total to 48,250. President Bush described this policy as "the quiet surge," and he made the standard arguments about the need for a counterinsurgency capacity—the troops had to not only fight the Taliban but protect the Afghan population, strengthen and train the Afghan Army and police, and assist in development.In January 2009, another 3,000 troops, originally ordered by President Bush, went to Afghanistan in the first days of the Obama presidency. In February, responding to a request from the commander in the field, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops into the country. In other words, over the past 18 months, troop levels in Afghanistan have almost tripled. An additional 40,000 troops sent in the next few months would mean an almost 400 percent increase in U.S. troops since 2008. (The total surge in Iraq, incidentally, was just over 20,000 troops.) It is not dithering to try to figure out why previous increases have not worked and why we think additional ones would.
*
Isn't the definition of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

Unidentified wrote..."just keep letting troops die over there while you educate yourself on ways to avoid doing what your experienced generals are suggesting"

Hmmm....and just what did the "experienced generals" under Bush suggest? and how many of them were replaced because "W" didn't like what they suggested?

The thing that always amuses me when you engage in a conflict like this is that we just assume that the country will be Democratic if given the opportunity to vote. What would happen if we liberate the country, and the people vote for the Taliban, or Al-Quida in a legit election? Or vote the Bath party back in Iraq? Do we then honor these openly elected governments? And don't think it can't happen. Many of these countries don't want democracy. The cultures are nothing like ours what so ever.
.
As I have said many times; the Afghan war was "won" in about 3 weeks, after we shock and awed them in Torra Borra, and likely killed Bin Laden (I strongly believe they say he is alive just as a PR campaign to keep the "war on terror" going) and most all of the main Al-Quida figures. Now you are just stuck in a endless war of insurgencies, much like the Soviets were when they tried to occupy the land.

One of the few times I actually agree with zoom!
The world may really be coming to an end in 2012!

"Or we can continue to let them pick us apart."

Or, we can leave. We are in the middle of their 35 year civil war. I supported our initial action there, but have come to the conclusion that our purpose for being there has long passed. The purps long gone.

Diverting troops from Afghanistan to invade Iraq was not "doing a better job".

Zoom, sorry but Bush was doing a better job handling Afghanistan. I'm waiting for Iraq to collapse here shortly. Afghanistan has continued to get worse even though Obama clearly stated this was a war he supported. Obama should shut up until he makes a decision rather than pander to the press about taking his time. He just makes us look weak by going public with his hesitation. If we put more troops in there now and squash the Taliban, we'll avoid heavy troop losses going forward. Or we can continue to let them pick us apart.

lovethemidwest, I simply corrected the lies posted by Ezoner. Where is your outrage at Ezoner for blaming everything on Obama? Back on topic, where is your outrage that we're STILL fighting in Afghanistan after EIGHT YEARS?

There is something eerie about watching Obama standing in front of our military. That scene just does not look well.

Zoom, are you in love with Obama? You act as if h e can, or has, done no wrongs. Constantly blaming everything on the last idiot we had as our president isnt going to help the current idiot we have in office. Where are all these jobs he said his "stimulus package" was going to create? What happened with his statement that with his "stimulus package" the unemployment rate would peak at LESS THAN 8%? seems all his "stimulus package" did was put this country into an insurmountable debt. he hasnt even been in office a year and already has screwed this country for years and years to come. And we still have to deal with this for another 3+ years? Oh good god, were in trouble.

DiGriz, that was excellent.

Happy Halloween!!
-
See if you can figure out the local celebrity friends of Mr. Obama.....
-
http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/1RpN7K5...

He rushed the stimulus bill and we are still waiting to be stimulated.
Anytime Bush even got close to doing something about health care the Dem's jumped on the do nothing cart. So don't try to blame everything on the Bush Admin or the Rep's. The Dem's were just as much a problem.
Obama would rather vote present then make a decision that he might be held to.
Fully support the troops or get out of the way and let someone in who will. Decisions have to be made before the fact not after the fact on the battlefield.

I have to chuckle at Republicans complaining that Obama is taking too long to decide what to do in Afghanistan, considering they had SEVEN+ YEARS to get the job done. This is now the third longest war the U.S. has been involved in, after the Civil War and WW2. Maybe an actual strategy might be in order.

"Obama has no problem deciding that we should all be under the same healthcare plan"

Exaggerate much? When did Obama decide that? What did Republicans do to fix health care during the Bush administration again?

"that he must urgently take over the banking system"

Uuhhh, that happened under Bush. Remember TARP?

The truth is no additional US troops will arrive in Afganistan until 2010 regardless of when President Obama makes this decision.
.
There is no need to rush.
.
Once again, the partisans wanting to criticize use a half truth to make to so.

Obama has no problem deciding that we should all be under the same healthcare plan, that he must urgently take over the banking system, that a $900 billion stumulus is needed, that we must rebate our cars (then tax the heck out those that buy them). But following military recommendations, I gotta think about that....

Maybe McCrystal should have went in to Obama and convinced him it was HIS idea to increase troops in Afganistan, then it would need to be urgent. Ohhhh but he did during the election process when he talked about the war in Iraq..... Sounds like he doesnt know what to do unless he is told by the far left wingnuts.

Is Obama really the one making the decision?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu...

While Obama's taking his time, Americans are being killed. And what the hell are DEA agents doing over there? Are we bringing our failed war on drugs to Afghanistan now? Where in our constitution does it say we should be doing THAT? Get the soldiers home NOW. NO MORE SCREWING AROUND!!!

No don't rush, just keep letting troops die over there while you educate yourself on ways to avoid doing what your experienced generals are suggesting and satisfy the far left. I'm sure the troops over there will understand. Obama is weak and politically driven by his parties extremist. I'm sure other countries are observing Obama's inability to make decisions.