Obama waiting until after the election to announce troop decision

[Willie99]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...ll-likely-seek-more-troops-but-not-40000.html


tell me this POS is not playing politics with our troops and our effort in Afghanistan!!! There is no denying this fact now.

The Retard in Chief is a POS. He's simply a bad man, the wrong man at the wrong time. He has no values that he's unwilling to sell, he has incredibly poor judgment and no backbone. He's a pathological liar to boot.

Amazing stuff

He's no Bubba, he's no RR, he's no JFK, he's no Truman, he's no Abe and he's not even an FDR.

He's a Jimmy Carter without balls, and Jimmy's were MIA.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

He doesn’t want to fuck up 2012 in 2009. Why do you think health care doesn't start till 2013.

 

[barman]

If we're going to be heavily invested in mercenary campaigns, it's likely best to wait until after the Afghan run-off election is completed to best decide how many troops we will commit as soldiers for hire in the latest Wash DC chapter of The Forever War.

 

[Willie99]

"The Afghan runoff election", LOL

flavor of the day, see what sticks eh?

what are the variables in play with the Afghan runoff election? Do you really believe "THAT" will decide our course of action?

He's going to send more troops, but not until after elections day here in the states.

 

[barman]

"The Afghan runoff election", LOL

flavor of the day, see what sticks eh?

what are the variables in play with the Afghan runoff election? Do you really believe "THAT" will decide our course of action?

He's going to send more troops, but not until after elections day here in the states.

Might want to re-read the coverage, HuskyAmigo

It references the Nov 7 Afghan run-off election results.

The U.S. does not have notable elections in play during odd numbered years. You're thinking perhaps of Nov 2010



As to your posed question above, my Reply is Yes of course.

If the Afghans election results are in line with what WashDC would prefer, there's likely less need for U.S. military intervention.

However, if the Afghans don't vote the way that WashDC prefers, it might merit sending in more troops to do some more killing and "security" work until those folks get the message of How It's Gonna Be.

 

[Willie99]

I know what the story says, but I also know when the elections are in this country. What do you really think matters most to him?

I'm predicting that no matter what happens in the Afghan elections, he's sending more troops. He's just playing politics with military lives.

We shall see.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

If we're going to be heavily invested in mercenary campaigns, it's likely best to wait until after the Afghan run-off election is completed to best decide how many troops we will commit as soldiers for hire in the latest Wash DC chapter of The Forever War.

It has nothing to do with the Afghan elections.

1. He doesn’t want to piss of the far left.

2. He doesn’t have the balls to get out. That would make him look weaker than he already is.

The old adage of “when you don’t know what to do”, “do nothing and hope the problem solves itself” isn’t going to work in this case.

There’s a big difference between campaigning and governing.

One he's good at, the other, he stinks.

 

[BetIt]

I'm predicting that no matter what happens in the Afghan elections, he's sending more troops.

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion more are going, it's just a matter of how many......that's not much of a prediction.

As for holding out until the election here in the states, it's a pretty far reach IMO. I don't even think it would have an effect on turnout at all.

 

[barman]

I know what the story says, but I also know when the elections are in this country. What do you really think matters most to him?

What do the Nov 2010 elections in the U.S. have to do with the cited news story?

 

[Willie99]

What do the Nov 2010 elections in the U.S. have to do with the cited news story?

the article cites the date of the decision time table, I just don't accept their explanation as to why

 

[Willie99]

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion more are going, it's just a matter of how many......that's not much of a prediction.

As for holding out until the election here in the states, it's a pretty far reach IMO. I don't even think it would have an effect on turnout at all.

I disagree, I think they're very much concerned about public perception. If the Democrats get beat bad, it will be a poor reflection on him. I think he doesn't want to turn off his base by breaking that promise before election day here in the states.

Otherwise, if it's "a forgone conclusion" as you concur, why the delay?

 

[BetIt]

I disagree, I think they're very much concerned about public perception. If the Democrats get beat bad, it will be a poor reflection on him. I think he doesn't want to turn off his base by breaking that promise before election day here in the states.

Otherwise, if it's "a forgone conclusion" as you concur, why the delay?

Exactly what promise is that? That's not sarcastic either as I don't really know which one you're speaking about.

You could play devil's advocate and say Obama's "dithering" fires up the conservative base even more. Shit, if he really wanted to fire up his base and was concerned about the election, why not announce a complete withdrawal? Also, VA is lost...probably has been since Obama won the election since VA has always gone the exact opposite of the preceding presidential. In NJ, the campaign isn't even about a troop increase or not, I don't even think this decision effects turnout at all. This is a silly argument that is completely subjective.

As for why the wait, well maybe because it depends on what type of partner you have the Afghan government. Since the first election was so full of fraud, maybe your objectives (and hence troop numbers) change if you see a repeat in the runoff and you do not have a willing partner in the gov't.

Again, this is all complete speculation on everyone's ends.....we can't even begin to understand everything going into these decisions. The information, scenarios, etc.

 

[xpanda]

Obamessiah is losing his base and he knows it.

 

[barman]

I disagree, I think they're very much concerned about public perception. If the Democrats get beat bad, it will be a poor reflection on him. I think he doesn't want to turn off his base by breaking that promise before election day here in the states.

Otherwise, if it's "a forgone conclusion" as you concur, why the delay?

Maybe I'm thick, but where are you getting the notion that Obama will wait until the results of the Nov 2010 elections (55 weeks from now) before making his announcement? The article only cites the Afghan run-off election that is coming up in two weeks.

 

[Willie99]

this years' elections

VA, NJ & 1 house seat

the ugly trend for the GOP started in 05.

if I were talking about 2010, I would be mentioning losing significant seats in Congress, I'm talking about perception

 

[barman]

oh...I'm educated that those three elections even take place in an odd year November

Well then sure...I'm sure that Obama is waiting to see how that one House seat turns before he makes this important foreign policy announcement.

 

[ScottL]

I must have dreamt we already had an election Because Obama is still on TV campaigning everyday. If only he could govern as well as he runs.

 

[nimue77]

Disgustingly Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the right war and sending more troops there.

I disagree, I think they're very much concerned about public perception. If the Democrats get beat bad, it will be a poor reflection on him. I think he doesn't want to turn off his base by breaking that promise before election day here in the states.

Otherwise, if it's "a forgone conclusion" as you concur, why the delay?

 

[Willie99]

oh...I'm educated that those three elections even take place in an odd year November

Well then sure...I'm sure that Obama is waiting to see how that one House seat turns before he makes this important foreign policy announcement.

well, there are actually many a more elections throughout the country and, short memories help your position

one must of forgot about the perception and the Bush bashing and the GOP is dead talk that arose after 2008, 2007 and 2 or 3 "special elections" in that time frame.

No wait, he's still "thinking" about what to do in Afghanistan, LOL

 

[Willie99]

well, there are actually many a more elections throughout the country and, short memories help your position

one must of forgot about the perception and the Bush bashing and the GOP is dead talk that arose after 2005, 2007 and 2 or 3 "special elections" in that time frame.

No wait, he's still "thinking" about what to do in Afghanistan, LOL

fixed the year

hno: