Author Topic: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama  (Read 1070 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« on: June 22, 2011, 01:20:05 PM »
???

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2011, 01:24:03 PM »
Palin's fault. 

In all seriousnos though - Team Kleenex will kneepad the stupid ass speech he gives tonight. 

Count on Andre startng another Obama kicking 33's ass thread. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 01:25:50 PM »
Palin's fault. 

Why, did Obama cancel his bus tour halfway through?


Though Palin and her staff never announced a timeline for the remaining legs of her trip, aides had drafted preliminary itineraries that would have taken her through the Midwest and Southeast at some point this month. But those travel blueprints are now in limbo, RCP has learned, as Palin and her family have reverted to the friendly confines of summertime Alaska, where the skies are currently alight for over 19 hours a day and the Bristol Bay salmon fishing season is nearing its peak.

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2011, 02:29:20 PM »
hahaha does she do anything she doesn't quit  ;D

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2011, 07:39:21 PM »
hahaha does she do anything she doesn't quit  ;D

LOL cue the palin kneepadders...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2011, 07:41:14 PM »
Its a lie.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2011, 07:42:19 PM »

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2011, 08:57:19 PM »
Its a lie.

she is now claiming she will return to the tour, but had to go back to alaska for jury duty.

then she mocked the media for announcing her tour taking a break - and she bashed FOX with the link!  haha

it's golden.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2011, 03:44:27 AM »
That speech last night was another dishonest lie filled made for the moron public display alice in wonderland politics. 

Even on morning joe they called it a sham. 

More hoax and chains.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2011, 03:55:55 AM »
Another thing - obama is trying to insult the public since even after his so called withdrawl, there will be more than double the troops than when he go in to office. 

More lies and bullshit from the flash mob Admn. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2011, 03:55:55 AM »
Another thing - obama is trying to insult the public since even after his so called withdrawl, there will be more than double the troops than when he go in to office. 

More lies and bullshit from the flash mob Admn. 

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2011, 06:24:08 AM »
???



That looks exactly like the graph for government expenditures under each presidency.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2011, 06:30:59 AM »
Under Obama, U.S. Casualty Rate in Afghanistan Increased 5-Fold
cnsnews.com ^ | June 22, 2011 | Edwin Mora


________________________ ________________________ ___________________


The average monthly casualty rate for U.S. military forces serving in Afghanistan has increased 5-fold since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.

1,540 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Oct. 7,2001, when U.S. forces began action in that country to oust the Taliban regime that had been harboring al Qaeda and to track down and capture or kill al Qaeda terrorists.

During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the inauguration of President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for 87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties—a rate of 6.5 deaths per month.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2011, 07:19:03 AM »
P.T. Obama and the Oxymoronic Presidency
John Podhoretz 06.22.2011 - 8:59 PM



Isn’t this where we came in? Barack Obama delivers a speech announcing the full withdrawal of American troops from a long war we haven’t yet won. As I recall, he did declare the U.S. would get out of Iraq at the beginning of his administration and reneged on that; indeed, he reneged so much that in recent speeches he has suggested (rightly) that Iraq could be the model for the countries of the Middle East following the Arab Spring! And, hey, remember when he spent months noodling over Afghanistan before committing to a surge of troops there—a surge that is bearing fruit but will now be put under severe pressure from the deadline he set last night? Who’s going to fall for this P.T. Barnum game?

Donna Brazile, the Democratic operative, offered the kind of response that Obama devoutly hopes the American people will offer in a tweet right after the speech: “I like the firmness of setting objectives —even if we change dates, let’s end it.” Yes, sir, that sure is firmness, Obama-style. It’s the firmness of spinelessness, the toughness of weakness, the verhe Oxyy definition of leading from behind. This brilliant man is running an oxymoronic presidency.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2011, 07:36:25 AM »
That looks exactly like the graph for government expenditures under each presidency.

military $ and troops in Iraq dropped bigtime under obama.  he spent a shitload just like bush, just in a diff place.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2011, 07:40:23 AM »
military $ and troops in Iraq dropped bigtime under obama.  he spent a shitload just like bush, just in a diff place.

Funny - yet you still kneepad obama and cnsider Bush the wors potus of all time.  why? 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39578
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2011, 08:33:14 AM »
aterkel@huffingtonpost.com
Democrats Largely Disappointed With Obama's Afghanistan Announcement
First Posted: 06/22/11 09:37 PM ET Updated: 06/22/11 10:17 PM ET





WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers who have been pressing for a sizable and significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan almost universally expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama's speech on Wednesday night.

The president told the nation in a prime time address that 10,000 U.S. troops will be leaving the war by the end of 2011, with another 23,000 coming out by autumn of 2012. The drawdown will fully remove the troops that went in as part of the "surge" that Obama announced in his 2009 speech at West Point. Approximately 68,000 troops will still be fighting in the war.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters on Tuesday that the president needed to put forward, at a minimum, an initial withdrawal of 15,000 troops -- a number that Obama fell short of -- to meet his promise of a "significant" drawdown.

"The president's decision represents a positive development, although in my view the conditions on the ground justify an even larger drawdown of U.S. troops this year than the president announced tonight," he said in a statement after the speech. "I will continue to advocate for an accelerated drawdown in the months ahead, and for enhanced training and partnering with Afghan forces, because only they can provide durable security for their nation."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has been a vocal supporter of a robust withdrawal, also said president's announcement was not what she had been hoping for. "It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of U.S. forces would happen sooner than the President laid out -- and we will continue to press for a better outcome," she said.

"[W]e'll have twice as many combat troops in Afghanistan at the end of his term than we did at the beginning. We should instead have a path to bring those troops home," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Merkley, along with Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), was one of the authors of a letter calling for a "sizable and sustained reduction" of military forces in Afghanistan, which garnered the support of 27 senators. Merkley said he would consider an initial reduction of 15,000 to 20,000 troops to be sizable.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is one of the co-sponsors of the Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act, legislation that would require Obama to submit a plan to Congress by July 31 for the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces, including a completion day.

Obama's speech on Wednesday did not have such a timetable. "Ending the surge in 2012 with a disappointing 10,000 combat troops coming home this year is not good enough. As I have advocated for months, it is time to shift course in Afghanistan to a counter-terrorism mission, with an aggressive drawdown of combat troops," said Gillibrand in response to the speech.

"I welcome the President's decision to redeploy 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer, but am disappointed he did not announce a change in strategy from a counterinsurgency to a counterterrorism mission," added Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who has advocated a strategic redirection toward a smaller military footprint. "Even with fewer troops, if we do not shift our strategy, we will be no closer to a truly secure and stable Afghanistan five years from now than we are today."

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was the sponsor of a measure requiring the president to provide "a timeframe and completion date" for the transfer of military operations to Afghan authorities. It failed by just 12 votes last month. He criticized Obama's announcement on Wednesday as "insufficient."

"The president is right that we need to shift our strategy in Afghanistan," he said. "But a counter-terrorism strategy doesn't need 70,000 boots on the ground, any more than it needed 100,000 boots on the ground. What the president needs to tell us is how -- and when -- he's going to bring all the troops home."

Rep. Pete Welch (D-Vt.) called Obama's plan "a welcome step in the right direction" but said he will continue to urge him to "bring more troops home sooner and faster."

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Out of Afghanistan Caucus, sent out a press release saying the Afghanistan war continues "with no end in sight."

"While I appreciate that the President has decided to bring home some troops this year, the slow speed of this withdrawal unfortunately ensures that the vast majority of our servicemen and women will be embroiled in an unaffordable military quagmire for at least two more years," he said.

And in an interview with The Huffington Post on Wednesday night, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) -- who called for the United States to reduce troop levels to 25,000 by the end of 2012 and to 10,000 by the end of 2013 -- called Obama's speech "disappointing."

"He is maintaining the same counterinsurgency, nation-building mission that we've now been on for more than a year -- one that's been incredibly expensive and commits tens of thousands of troops for the long term in Afghanistan," he said.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who was the only member of Congress to vote against the initial invasion into Afghanistan, called the planned drawdown "unacceptable."

"As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I will work with members on both sides of the aisle to pass my amendment to end funding for combat operations in Afghanistan and to begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of our courageous troops," she said.

Mixed in with all this criticism was a few Democrats who did defend the president's announcement.

Udall's statement didn't criticize Obama's speech at all, but did urge him to "institute a 12 to 18 month flexible timeline for the Afghans to take control of their own security."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) characterized it as "a critical step in the right direction" that will "capitalize on the progress we’ve made in Afghanistan to finish the job and ensure al Qaeda’s long-term, strategic defeat."

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said the new plan "makes it clear to the Afghan people that it is time for them to step up to control their own future because America's sons and daughters -- our most precious resources -- won't be there forever."

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) backed Obama, saying he "delivered on his promise to begin responsibly drawing down our troops in Afghanistan."

This story has been updated.

Freeborn126

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
Re: Troops in Afghanistan during Bush, Obama
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2011, 11:26:34 AM »
Nobel Peace prize goes to the biggest warmonger of a president this country has ever seen.  With exception to LBJ maybe.
Live free or die