RidinHighSpeeds

“But we have to make sure that we do not hesitate to act when it comes to al Qaeda because they are currently stronger than they were at any time since 2001, partly because we took our eye off the ball.” These are the exact words of Senator Obama during the Republican/Democrat debates January 5, 2008. I want you to read what he said a few more times…and now I want you to put yourself in the troops shoes. What are you thinking/feeling right now?

If you are a bit confused as to why I’m concerned with what he said, then you clearly don’t see how he is insulting our troops overseas. Our troops are over in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting to defend America and defeat terrorism. Everyday they have been fighting Al Qaeda, and clearly Al Qaeda HAS been weakened. To falsely say that Al Qaeda is growing stronger everyday simply sends a negative message to not only the President, but also to the troops indicating that they’re not doing their job.

I believe the War should have ended much longer ago when we captured Saddam, however that’s not the case and we need to continue to standby and support our troops. The recent surges have shown much increases in progress, yet Hillary and Obama continue to trash talk our troops indicating the falsely notion that we are not showing progress as Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. What a crock of shit.

__________________
Networked Web Sites
Jon-Kingsbury.com
DefendingTheTruth

mikelew007

They've been severely weakened in Iraq and we already know what we did to them in Afghanistan, that much is true.

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled - washingtonpost.com

In Pakistan (Particularly along the Afghan-Pakistan border) however, they have regrouped and re-gained much of their lost power. Obama is right in saying we took our eye off the ball. We should have done more to completely wipe out Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and we also should have pressured Musharraf a lot more to have done the same in his country while we had the opportunity, while Al-Qaeda was in a weakened state in 2001.

Al-Qaeda thrives in Pakistan tribal haven - World - theage.com.au
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Al-Qaeda 'rebuilding' in Pakistan
Al Qaeda's Pakistan Sanctuary
Taliban, Al-Qaeda Resurge In Afghanistan, CIA Says - washingtonpost.com

This isn't bashing the troops, this is a legitimate criticism of our strategy in dealing with Al-Qaeda. It may be a negative message, but it's a very accurate one.

__________________
http://www.thehungersite.com/
http://www.freerice.com/

vote_progressive

My hats off to you .... good post & it's all true. I admit I'm not fan of the neo-con movement; but that's another story (honestly it has more to do with the wacky idea's of Milton Freedman infecting the GOP than anything). I wish there was a candidate that looked out for the least of our citizens whom I could trust to defeat terrorism. At this point we cannot withdraw from Iraq. I would like to see our reliance on private contractors be diminished (or mostly eliminated). They're doing a horrible job & that's the untold story. I can tell you from personal experience (I am a reservist & was deployed in 2004 - 05) that we're paying private contractors at least triple the amount of money a soldier costs, and for little gain. Had the US Army been put in charge of rebuilding Iraq's electrical plants, oil pipeline and drilling capacity (yes we do have assets that can do these things) it would have been done. Had we used soldiers rather than private contractors to guard vital infrastructure, it would have been protected. However, unfortunately Iraq has become a cash cow for many private interests with strong ties to the Bush administration.

We were originally sold on private contractors because we were told in the long run it would be more expensive to enlarge the Army and Marine Corps. However, it's now become apparent that this is hogwash. It is becoming exceedingly clear that the real intent is to keep these contractors in theater (and use them in future conflicts) indefinitely.

Believe me if we could not recruit enough soldiers we could easily enlarge the Army civilian workforce (it's never difficult to recruit these folks) for much cheaper.

Our current total budget deficit is around $9 trillion. Our annual budget deficit is around $540 billion, and we're paying around $400 billion annually in interest to service our debt. That might sound bad, but our GNP is currently around $14 trillion, making our annual budget deficit less than 3% of GNP (not terrible by any standard). However, this is about the max we want to be at.

Obviously every candidate running for election is promising the voter all sorts of goodies. The democrats are promising universal health care (or something close to it) & a transition to alternative energy; and the republicans are promising to enlarge our border security and the size of the Army & Marine Corps. We probably need all these things; but I've yet to hear a candidate who is telling me how we can have these things, stay on the offense against terror, and afford it?

Certainly greater challenges have faced us as a nation. We've survived two world wars, a civil war, and communism, so I'm certainly bullish about the future. However, I remain frustrated at the pool of candidates out there. Even the so called independents who are considering running (e.g. Bloomberg) are full of bad ideas. None of what I call the "extremist" candidates (e.g. Paul, Kusinich) have the right mix of answers. Basically, we're screwed for yet another generation. Terrorism is not communism. We should be able to defeat Islamic fundamentalism without the extreme strain on our resources past wars (like the cold war) inflicted.

Our economy is amazingly resilient and I assert that we've really got the economic thing down to a science. Unfortunately no politician out there is talking about everything we have going for us? We're an incredibly rich nation with an enormous opportunity to invest in the future. Without a good 10 or 20 year plan alternative energy will remain a pipe dream. Without an equally long term minded plan for healthcare we will continue to have about 15% of our population without medical insurance and we will continue to pay roughly double for medical treatment as compared to other western nations. Our electrical grid is still based on 19th century technology, as is much of the data and audio delivery infrastructure (e.g. cable, phone, internet). I hate to say it but maybe on balance it's time for a democrat? But I don't know. I used to like Thompson, I don't think Giuliani is terrible, and I've always had a soft spot for Edwards. I guess we'll have to wait and see how the campaign shapes up. Honestly, I even think Hillary did a good job in the NH debate last night (frankly, she clearly won). However, another Clinton or Bush smacks of dynastic progression (e.g. the Julian - Claudians). Giuliani I'm afraid has yet to distance himself enough from the neo-con movement, but IMO McCain is much worse (although as a vet I have huge respect for him). I don't know?

nuttyjoe

I'm going to agree with Mike. I don't think Obama was insulting the troops and/or criticizing them; but criticizing our current government's strategy (or lack thereof) in this whole mess. But I do agree with you, RHS; in that Obama needs to watch what he says a little more because he will just shoot himself in the foot if he says the wrong thing. For instance, a couple of months ago when he said that he would choose to pull the troops from Iraq; but send them into Iran. That was an ill timed statement; because right now all the American people want to hear is an end to our troops in the Middle East. Here also, I don't believe Obama meant to insult or criticize, but his timing was not the best for this statement- but I certainly agree that Iran is a problem also.