This isn't just a Democratic situation, please remember who got us into this mess to begin with. I don't think you're ever going to have a consensus on how to "gracefully" exit a war that was ill conceived to begin with.

REALLY? Check your history.

He's the consummate politician, the only thing he cares about is himself. It's no wonder he seems disconnected from the Afghan surge, he already had an exit strategy in place to save half of the democrat's votes. He believes he can sway the other half in 2012. Nice to be manipulated by the Puppeteer.

My question is how did Woodward get the information for his book. Since this is favorable, you have to wonder which one of the White House cheerleaders dropped the dime on Obama, even before the policy was announced. Can you trust anything that comes out of this White House?

Thinkaboutit 1370720-

Just about every American wanted to go after the terrorists after what happened on 9/11/01. Our memories are short....very short. The effects of the feelings we all felt that day only lasted a short period of time.

Then when it actually came down to going after those behind the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans and the times get tough, people like you turn on the government with your 20/20 hindsight and claim we never should have gotten involved in fighting terrorists in the first place.

I understand if the public looks at the War in Iraq as ill conceived, but the war in Afghanistan? Just curious as to what your solution would have been after the attacks on 9/11/01. Would your solution be to secure our borders and forget about the terrorists rapidly growing in Afghanistan? Interesting how a majority of those on both sides of the isle were in favor of the War in Afghanistan when it was "ill conceived", now according to your history book and memory, it was only the fault of the Republicans. Your bias is shining brightly.

By the way, when are you going to start holding THIS President accountable for HIS decisions and HIS actions? If only we could all get away with blaming all of our problems, mistakes, etc. on our predecessors in our own jobs, life would be much easier. Regardless of the mess we were in when this President took office, he must be held accountable for the decisions he is making right now.

Anyway, to keep the discussion going. Please inform me of your "expert" plan explaining how you would have handled things after the attacks on 9/11. I admit that we have made mistakes and could have probably done things better. I am just curious as to what your solution would have been.

Going up on my FB page, well said Bob.

?What history? The one you spin, or the one written by the ruling party? Ever heard of Richard the second? History that liberal brownshirt numbskull!

Funny how Bam's and Bush's "solutions" to a problem differ little. Ha to your retort to Bob's well thought comment, total HA!

I want some CHANGE, change I can see, not just "believe" in.

This isn't just a Democratic situation, please remember who got us into this mess to begin with. I don't think you're ever going to have a consensus on how to "gracefully" exit a war that was ill conceived to begin with.

Ummm, that would be Clinton. He had Osama bin Laden in his grasp after the bombing of the USS Cole and let him go. Had that been taken care of from the start there likely would not have been a 9-11 that would have gotten the American people into a rankle.

And then there is the problem of bad intelligence that led up to the next step. Oh yeah, that was Clinton, too. He cut the intelligence and military budgets so far and so much that school districts had better computer equipment to work with than much of the CIA did at the time.

So, I guess that the mess would be a "Democratic" situation.

Then again, neither party really should be allowed in power this election. Both parties have demonstrated that they are out of touch with America. Both parties need to be taught a lesson by not electing any of them to office in the next two elections. Of course, Americans need to learn the hard way, don't they. They have yet to realize that they have been lied to--repeatedly--by both parties in the interest of votes.

BFRDdrgn, I think, had it right. We want change we can see not change we just can "believe" in.

There are so many aspects to this problem that any turkey can drop by and write a book from whatever angle turns a buck and do so with complete assurance that it will sell to one side or another. But what the theme seems to be is NOT that Obama's policy won't work but that the many strategists (who actually do know better than most of us) actually don't have a clue what they want any more. The main difficulty is the idea of trying to sell "winning" - yet we don't actually know what that means. It could mean that Afghanistan comes out of this as some kind of yankee vassal state - but that is not sustainable, so it is no victory. It could be a strong multilateral multicultural Afghani government which would work well, but would not be a "reliable" US ally. Then there are the consequences for the rapidly distancing Pakistan and the implications this has for an emergent India and Iran. The problem is that winning is not an option - nobody has ever won in Afghanistan (though Alexander might have deluded himself so) - that is why the best option is an exit strategy with as little egg on face as possible. Maybe the best would be an Obama/Osama dialogue and an agreement to sort out the issues without any more paddling in other people's ponds. Blowing the place up may gratify a few egos, but bear in mind there are completely innocent civilians amidst all this - not to mention the many people with substantial skills wasting their productive years chasing each other's shadows instead of being back at home rescuing an economy drowning in its own militarism.

And then discarded as useless =

The road to hell is paved with people who had GOOD intentions. Lets face it, Obama is in way over his head. His advisors are academics, just like him and have never had to make decisions in the real world.

Before Obama was even the Democratic nominee, my daughter questioned his policies. She said that hope and change were good ideas, but what did he have planned to carry them out? Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there was no well-thought out plan. I truly wish there had been, but I have yet to see it develop.

Advice to those who will listen: Advisors: Kick them all out. Quite listening to yesmen. Get people who actually know what the job is, and how to POSITIVELY accomplish the goal. Problem solving: establish what the problem actually is and decide the goal. Fill in the blanks in between with logical thoughts and actions.

For example: (and this will be simplistic folks because I'm no bean counter) Problem: Oil well rupture. Solution: Get it capped/sealed ASAP. 1. On day one, save as many people as possible. 2. Day two, put the back up plan in place. (What, no back up plan? Then there shouldn't have been any drilling in the first place). Since the driller had no plan, then the government should take over to secure and make safe our country. 3. Day two--in the afternoon: assess the current emergency. Brainstorm solutions. Contact everyone in the world to see what can be done to resolve the issue. 4. Day three: order the parts to fix the problem. 5. Day four: parts arrive. Submersibles on the scene (and yes, in this day and age, it can be done overnight.) 6. For the rest of the week, use all the corrective scenarios until the problem is solved. 7. Fine the spiller of the oil, make them clean up the mess, and quit politicking it to death. 8. Do follow up on all the other wells and adjust as necessary. (I told you it would be simplistic, but it's a place to start.)

This administration waited 90 days, and then decided to form a committee to look into the problem. 90 DAYS! To look into it! If you want something totally messed up, where nothing will ever be done, form a committee! Day two, in the morning, should have had the committee's solutions in place. I know, things move slowly, but sometimes slow isn't the way to go.

Now we hear all the fallout about this or that; conflicting personalites, power struggles, yesmen, politics, etc. If someone with authority were in charge, they would get people who could work together toward a common goal. And the goal should be the same for all. Don't get me started on the war or the economy. It doesn't matter who the president is. What matters are the goals that need to be achieved. Right now, we have no solid goals (or solutions), and I think we need them, as soon as possible. And the committees have had their chance. It's time to take of the reigns and be a driver, not someone along for the ride.

Browad Detective, well said, and if Obama had any balls, he would do what he said, and get us out of there. The support for him would triple if he just did what he promised.

Have there ever been any "solid goals" in this country? From day one, there have been disputes over the direction we should take on every single issue that came to light. That is one of the "benefits" of a democracy/republic. Goals by a "leader (executive branch)" mean nothing if you don't have the "rulers (Congress)" behind you. Just look at the obstructionism of the last 18 months (and during other administrations.) If the members of Congress really worked with the President and his/her team to accomplish those "goals", imagine where this country might be.

Never heard it put that way and I watch a lot of the BAD Fox programs but I think that's the best description I've ever heard of the Dems. Our security is being run by the hell no we won't go crowd!

I have a question.....WHY have we never really gone after Bin Ladin? The day after the attack on the twin towers the administration in charge at the time quietly loaded up all of Bin Ladin's relatives that were here in the U.S., and gave them first class accommodations, sending them home. WHY? Then we start a war based on a complete lie attacking a country that, by all available evidence, had nothing to do with the attacks. WHY? Something like 15 of the 19 high-jackers were from Saudi Arabia, also the country where Bin Ladin is from. Saudi Arabia is also the exporter of the radical version of Islam that teaches this hatred of anything not of Islam. The Bush family is heavily involved in the oil industry, as is "Dick" Chaney. I'm beginning to see a connection...........Saudi Arabia is a MAJOR producer of oil...........Iraq was a competitor.......THE WHOLE THING STINKS OF OIL AND BIG MONEY!

Anti-trust. I agree. Too bad for all the incumbents. I'm voting against any incumbents on the ballot. I've had it with the "game" that's being played. But the internal strife at the White House is, again, a bunch of people trying to be power brokers, who have no idea how to work as a team. We all lose because of this. It's all about them. How sad.

'asked if his deadline to begin withdrawal in July 2011 was firm. “I have to say that,” Mr. Obama replied. “I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.” '

So politics is more important than success in Afghanistan.

Very telling.

PS - Remember that Obama always called the war in Afghanistan "The good war - the right war", vs the Iraq war, which was won because of Bush's surge strategy - even AFTER Harry Reid pronounced it "lost".

@zapper: But are the options any better? So far, I haven't seen many candidates who would be any better than those already in office. Angel? O'Donnell? Fiorina? Paul? The only candidate (if I lived in the district) that I would even consider voting for is the one running against Boehner in OH8. Otherwise, I'd have to do the same thing as I've done in the past.....cast a NO VOTE ballot (or NONE OF THE ABOVE in some states.) The only way we will ever get change (and probably not even then because of the diversity of this nation) would be for us to force a Constitutional Convention and pass the proposed election/campaign finance reform amendment located at www.faircampaignreform.us.

Corruption and lack of consensus has been an ever increasing problem in the US governance.....at all levels, not just the federal.

@Roy: Did we really "win" anything in Iraq? There is still fighting going on and it will continue for decades or centuries. WE cannot solve the cultural differences of that nation any more than we can solve our own. Until the local factions can find a way to live peacefully together, there are NO winners in Iraq or any of the other civil wars throughout the world.

Obama a good person?.Gimme a break.An egotist right out of the corrupt Chicago political machine. Watch your wallets!

Curious Bob - do you personally know Obama to have the opinion that he is a good person?

The greater interest should not be in the persona but in its obvious inability to handle the job.

anti-trust proponent…Have there ever been any "solid goals" in this country?

Yes, Obama’s goal was to push his own agenda and to hell with the people.

Goals by a "leader (executive branch)" mean nothing if you don't have the "rulers (Congress)" behind you. Just look at the obstructionism of the last 18 months (and during other administrations.) If the members of Congress really worked with the President and his/her team to accomplish those "goals", imagine where this country might be.

Someone has to stop this ridiculous spending and wasting our tax dollars on frivolous paybacks to cronies that helped get him elected! His stimulus did NOT stimulate the economy. His primary agenda was cramming healthcare down everyone’s throat when more than half didn’t want it! He has bailed out companies that should have been allowed to fail so other companies could have taken their place by running their companies correctly.

He has set up new Wall Street policies that protect big banks, not consumers. He will have the largest tax increase in history on his watch by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire. He lied about transparency and bipartisanship. He has created a bigger divide in this country and has bowed down to leaders of muslim countries and apologized for the US.

In other words, he is NOT a leader, but a destroyer and failed president and you have the nerve to defend him??

I agree that Obama is a good person. He doesn't sound like he was fully prepared for the presidency. Despite his facade of cool and collected, he loses his temper fairly frequently. His "terms paper" cracked me up! He's no more ready to be president than I am if he thinks, "Just follow this sheet of paper" is how war is waged. He IS right that he only has a limited amount of time for Afganistan. On that front he is spot on.

Was anyone surprised that Karzai is mentallly ill?

I don't think Democrats are the ones with all the special interest problems. All politicians have them. It's par for the course.

Anti-trust: I don't know. I just know that working together is much more effective than pulling apart. At this stage of the game, all I've been seeing is the separation, not the aggregation. We all have things to offer, some better than others, but back stabbing, separatist ideas, powerplays, "all about me" viewpoints, political grandstanding, foot dragging, etc., have no place in real problem solving. It's too bad, because we all lose. Again, it's sad that so few understand this.

This all boils down to governance. The American public may not have been aligned with Bush 43 policy and movement but outside the turf battle between Gen Powell and Rummy there was a solid game plan from the executive branch to the congress. No such plan exists today, even when there was a super majority. The Dems are too conflicted inside to govern.

This is what you get when you elect someone President that has no leadership experience. Heck, no experience at much of anything other than campaigning and community organizing. Throw in a bunch of Academics, that make up his Adminstration, with no real world experience and only theory to go on and this is the disaster you get.

Agree 100% with all you've said, Fedup!!

To All,

When I heard the report about the new book on the BBC this morning as I was driving to work it sounded much worse than it apparently is. After I read the article above I felt better about the situation.

It's normal and common to have disagreements within the ranks of advisors, especially politcal advisors. Bob Woodward is still riding the fading glory of his Watergate pulitizer. He's become the political Kitty Kelley.

Well, I guess everybody has to make a living.

After reading the above article I didn't find anything especially damning. What I did find was an expression of compassion and understanding by the President for the American people. He is obviously trying to do what is right and best for America and he's got his non-military advisers and military advisers giving him contradictory advice.

The military (understandably) is advising a build up to a "victory" in Afghanistan. That isn't going to happen. In the last 1,000 years nobody has "conquered" Afghanistan. Not the Brits (who came the closest) and the not the Russians (who discovered the lesson of "Viet Nam"). We can and should complete the mission, find Osama Bin Ladin and the rest of his dwindling group of fanatics and deal with them. Then we need to get out. The Taliban, or another Islamic fundamentalist group will flood in behind our departing troops and Afghanistan will be just like it was 10 years ago. I pity the Afghan people, but dealing with the human rights violations there is the WORLD's responsibility, not just ours.

The same will probably happen in Iraq and it could be the Iranians that move in, silence the Sunnis and undo what the Brits did when they devided the two pieces of the old Persian Empire after the First World War.

WE NEED TO GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. We don't understand the politics and we don't understand the people.

Obama obviously agrees and is doing what he can to accomplish that end. But he has to be careful. He doesn't want our departure to look like Saigon.

Obama IS a good man, a non-military, civilian caught between his core beliefs and the strong opinions of his military advisors. HE MUST listen to them, because they have the knowledge and experience he lacks. But what they recommend runs against his desire to get us out of a no win situation.

What this book portrays is the normal consequences of a civilian President faced with a military situation and his unique way of dealing with it. This is common and very normal. FDR faced similar problems only he had Churchill and Stalin stirred into the mix.

We would all be well-advised, if for no other reason than the sake of the country and our young men and women fighting overseas, to help and support the President at this time.

Let's put politics aside for the next 12 months on this one issue. Let's back the President and let's get the job done in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. Discord and petty party politics only helps the Taliban and Bin Laden and harms the people we sent to Afghanistan to do a job.

Let's put our people ahead of politics.

Thanks GALILEO1

I am amazed that the WH gave this kind of access for a book that lays out so much info that quite frankly portrays this WH as quite dysfunctional.

It seems that a General was removed while at the same time many other people expressed similar sentiments even those still in uniform. One thing this shows is that succeed or fail there is no way that this can be out at anyone's feet but the POTUS.

None of this surprises or shock me as I have no illusions about people all agreeing on things in power. I am amazed that this was published while this conflict is still going on though. It seems rather reckless to me.

The can of worms that the president faces today are the same ones that the past administration had on their plate. I always wondered why Bush never finished the job in Afghanistan in the time he had available to him. Could it be that for no other reason that faced with the same problems his team had no good answers to get out either?

The military had Osama Bin Laden bottled up in Tora Bora, only to have him escape to Pakistan. At that point things got balled up in international negotiations to where we find ourselves today fighting the Taliban, rather than finding Bin Laden.

So there you have it.... two different administrations... identical circumstances.... and people are upset because the end result seems to be the same. The world is much more difficult than... "Nuke em all and let God sort them out"

The whole problem I have had with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is the fact that we have been fighting to uphold corrupt regimes. With Iraq we had a government that had no desire to do anything but see how much money they could pocket from the public works that we were paying for out of our dime.

Then you take Afghanistan and they are even much worse, the corruption in Iraq was at least hidden so it was not out in the open, in Afghanistan it is openly done, in fact the worst of the criminals is the President of Afghanistan's own brother.

Personally I think the only way we would have succeeded in such a corrupt place, where people look at corruption and accept it is the way of doing business, is maybe to have set up a McCarthy type of government that we had in place in Japan after we conquered them in World War 2. At least this way the corruption even though not totally done away with (back to the people in this part of the world thinking this is the natural way of doing things), at least it was contained to a manageable level instead of a huge vacuum that is sucking billions of our dollars into corrupt officials pockets.

The other problem is that this time we even have corruption affecting our people that are working over there now, during the McCarthy government in Japan we did have contractors over there, but they were totally under military control. If there was problems with corruption they were dealt with swiftly, and some cases were put to the gallows if they were shown to have been corrupt.

In some ways I would have much rather put private security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would have been able to do a better job without the political restraints that hold back our troops and have our men die in the name of political expediency, but this will never happen because both our laws and the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Charter looks at Private Military forces as illegal enemy combatons and have no protection from the law, and they are not controlled by the law, except the rather washed down law the government passed concerning them during the Bush presidency.

I think in the end, we need to decide what it is that we wish to achieve, and what we are willing to put up with, and in some cases look the other way from, and then format a plan that actuallymakes sense.

Well, first off, I think some amount of quarreling is good, whether or not this amount is counterproductive is up to you to decide.

@Governmentforthepeople

I thoroughly understand why the Afghanistan War was started. It makes clear sense why we would want to hunt down and capture/kill the people that caused the death of nearly three thousand Americans. What I don't understood is why the Afghanistan War is still going, or at least in the manner it is now. Since 9/11, there have been at least 18,000 Afghani Civilian Deaths (estimates are always low when it comes to war casualties), far more than 9/11 was, and look at our success in capturing Bin Laden and stopping Al-Qaeda. We have no idea where he is, we don't know if he's even in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we are bankrolling a corrupt, weak and ineffective government that is hated by its own citizens, and spending even more money and more importantly lives financing our war against a guerilla resistance that knows the territory well. The parallels between the Afghanistan War and the Vietnam War are astounding, and I hope this time we have the courage to admit we aren't making progress and need to pull out before we do even more harm. If illegal immigration is as big an issue as some make it to be, why are we worried about Afghanistan when the terrorists can just come through Mexico? Pulling out the troops and putting them on the border makes more sense if that's really the case.

Its good to have constructive criticism, all on board means dead heads at the wheel.

I have ideas, I know who am I?

Dust the areas where we know they are hidding, use a dust that isn't visible to the naked eye. Track movements and plan. We are creatures of habit.

We need to get in their heads. Be smart a little at a time and key players at first. They will think its someone in their mist betraying them.

Creatures of habit. They use it against us all the time. Democracy is messy and they know it.

Really? These policy differences are worthy of a book? They're not worthy of an article of this length.

What WH in our history has never had differences among the factions in such a debate? The names are different, but the for and against (__fill-in-the-war__), the pettiness and name-calling have been going on for as long as we've HAD a WH.

Randy from Maine.

My husband and son are both Military. My husband has been back and forth to Afghanistan since 9/11. His response to his duty is "I am here (Afghanistan) to keep them from coming over there (USA). I think that says it all.

Unless we get the Republicans out of Congress and the Senate... Things in This Country will never get better!!! They want to see the President Fail... That is a real sad thing to do to the Country!!!

Mr. O

Do Presidents hold pow wows with former presidents? Experience or alternative thinking could help. Just a thought.

I don't mean to insinuate anything.

ThinkAboutIt: The war they should have gone after was the Iraq War... They said the same thing about that war... But yet Obama got that one stable!!! Why don't they think the same thing could happen with the Afghanistan War??? It is better than doing nothing!!!

idiots elected an idiot wait maybe not the unions are happy their not exactly idiots they are getting your money. why isn't anyone complaining about this war why are they not storming into Congress where is code pink now.

they accomplished their agenda they the liberals control everything and they are going under the identification of a Democrat. the only thing these people can run is a non profit organization. wait they also take the tax payers money wow a double whammy unions and non profits

what happens now the brightest economist have all quit excet the tax cheat gietner. I guess we will have to see what the second brightest can do

brilliant!!!!

governmentforthepeople, I agree with you completely but the people that I believe you are talking to have all drunk the Cool-Aid. They walk around much like the people in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (the 60's version). So no matter what you ask or say they spew that leftist rhetoric and then begin calling names. Also the vast majority really have no understanding of history or politics. For example in a post following one of yesterdays stories this individual stated that historically the Unions havebacked Republicans and that only since Obama have the Unions backed Democrats. This is the mentality and the level of education of the average liberal. Their direction is all based on feelings and little to nothing based on logic or education. That is unless they were indoctrinated beginning in grammer or high school..... Keep fighting the good fight and vote, vote, vote.

That's racist Curious Bob,

Why does it have to be a ghetto White House?

Isn't a blend of people the best way to represent all people? It sure sounds like if people like you represented people like me, I would be screwed.

America is a blend of many, many people and therefore we are represented by a blend of many people, when you have many people trying to come to consensus on anything, it's bound to be a lively process. The bottom line is that they came to a consensus and created a plan and are currently executing and finishing this war that other people started and didn't finish.

I only hope that when a group of people gather to make binding decisions that in this case affect our Troops, that it would be a lively conversation!

As to answer the whole "look at who got us into this" statement, that would be former President Clinton who did nothing about the bombing of the USS Cole, the attacks on our embassies, and let's not forget the first attempt on the towers in (I believe it was) 1992 when a truck full of explosives was parked in the garage. And we did what? NOTHING!

The strategy for the war in Afgahnistan was solid at the outset, but since Bush decided to distract our efforts with is bs in Iraq, it has turned a once solid mission into a total clusterf__k. I don't blame Obama for the problems with the war now, what I do blame him for is the normal agenda of the democratic party with it's "if you don't pay attention to it, it will go away" policies.

Want to win? Stop fighting an Assymetrical war in an area where people support the people you are fighting. Take the chain off the dog and let them do thier job. Send a firm message of "Give up the terrorists or we will become the conquoring nation we once were" (ie. Germany after WWII). The fact is, they are not scared of us because these kinds of things don't look good on CNN, FOXnews, or MSNBC. However, we really need to look at it is 9 years after and these people have not been brought to justice.

Obama, you're another professional politician. I hate professional politicians. You don't listen. You don't learn from mistakes. You don't pay attention to history. Neither did Bush, neither did Clinton, the list goes on and on. But you bull@!$%# the American public with promisses that you can't keep, illusions that hit every middle class person in the heart, and shout to say "it's thier fault for your problems" to get everyone to fall in line. People like me, we're sick and tired of lines and lies like that to get us to vote for you. Show some convictions. Show some testicular fortitude and stop playing both sides of the line.

I remember 9/11. I remember friends that I lost. I don't forgive and I never forget. Gen. Shwarzkopf said it best when he said "Forgiveness is between them and God, it's our job to arrange the meeting." That's conviction.

Thinkaboutit 1370720..........but we did not go after the terrorists ! We put that on the back burner, allowed bin Laden to escape, and spent our blood and treasure on a war in another country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. Now, about 7 years later, we are trying to find a way out of the Iraq disaster, and finish up the Afghanistan disaster. The terrorists we should have gone after in Afghanistan are very likely gone from there for several years, there is no longer much point to putting our troops in danger to nation build in Afghanistan, lets get out and let the CIA continue covert operations against terrorists wherever they are hiding this week.

You guys are way misinformed about Mr. Obamas purpose. He has responsibility. No one has been as good as Obama and you know its true. Think up until the election we were building a responsible person to lead our country. Yes. We found Obama to be a win. Why do people have such a big problem. If your so unhappy move out of the DC area. Better yet. Obama solves problems. That is the truth. When he is gone you will see that he has the end. Where is he and how will he help the US if he is not the President. They should make his position perminate. One thing that is wrong with this world is that there are small hate groups that keep getting away with crime. I hate that. Sometimes I think why would they bring that drama to work for caring individuals to be hurt. Anyways we are all Gods children so lets not argue or be ungreatfull. Think:

"...he set a withdrawal timetable because, 'I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.'"

Good to know Obama - our commander-in-chief - prioritizes the well being of his political party and his own political aspirations above the lives and well being of our soldiers serving in Afghanistan. We should have fired Obama and kept McChrystal.

I did not see the word "victory" mentioned anywhere. That is what presidents used to worry about.

NEWSFLASH !!!!

B-O is an evil, wicked individual whose only agenda is self realization with mal-intent.

Man, get educated... SEE what his affect is having on America. Do you still have a job ??? Do you own your own home or even qualify for one ??? Could you even get a small business loan if you had to ?? Probably NOT because OUR "bailout" money is being held by the banks wiith the "wealth distribution" going to the FAT CATS !!!

B-O has made it abundantly clear that OUR taxpayer money, literally STOLEN from us, went to a failed "bailout" attempt with the only thing it did was continue to line the pockets of the Obama Congress, wallstreet, big business and payola to organizations like ACORN and mob controlled unions !!!!!

Here's a website to watch how B-O operates: http://www.exposeobama.com

Along with a petition to IMPEACH this rotton SOB:

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/sign-the-petition/

WAKE UP !!!!!!

IMPEACH OBAMA AND PELOSI NOW !!!!

I think the quote from Petraeus on Axelrod is hillariously appropriate.

Bottom line - this book shows that the same mistakes made during Vietnam are being made here... Politics and politicians have no place in micromanaging military operations. Congress has the responsibility to decide to go to war or not, to make up the goal, and to hand that to the President and tell him to get it done. The President should hand the directives to the military, and then cut them free to handle it - especially when the President has zero intelligence about the military. If he gets in and tries to press his own opinion and muddle things up - more lives will be at risk.

lmk02, the surge and plan for withdrawing from Iraq was set in place during the Bush presidency. I'll give Kudo's to Obama for following the plan, but there is no way he gets the credit for making up the plan. Stop trying to revise history.

The problem with afghanistan is that there is no plan set up and those that are supposed to make the plan seem to be more concerend with their own backsides instead of being concerned with doing what needs to be done. Sh1t or get off the pot. Either get in there and do the job that needs to be done no matter how distasteful it is, or get out. Please make up your minds before more of our troops die needlessly.

Janine-1645002...My husband and son are both Military. My husband has been back and forth to Afghanistan since 9/11. His response to his duty is "I am here (Afghanistan) to keep them from coming over there (USA). I think that says it all.

EXACTLY!! The liberal democrats just dont get it! Do you want to fight them in their back yard or YOURS???? How many innocent civilians, including YOUR children have to die in the US if they come here again? They did it more than once...dont be foolish!

zapper45701 - Excellent comments and thoughts; however all anyone needs do is read the comments to realize our government has lost all ability to use common sense to solve problems. It is not about problem solving it has become about who is control the Democrats or Republicans and now we have the Tea Party to contend with. The whole political systems needs an overhaul but there are too many people who have lost their ability to think individually and are wiling to be lead around by the nose believing all of their parties rhetoric.

This is Change!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upYdbkSnd0M

he had a dry run in the Senate, all who voted for him should have reviewed his voting record, that told me all I needed to know about the community organizer, woof, woof

I thought that Pres. Obama had the correct solution when he repeatedly pointed out during his campaign that we were fighting the wrong war. Since we knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, we ought to get out of Iraq and go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That made a lot of sense to a lot of Americans.

So go do it! Get bin Laden! The war in Afghanistan will be over when we have captured or killed bin Laden. I have no interest in which corrupt leadership is in control in Kabul or Kandahar. They will continue to steal elections, siphon off funds, and grow poppies for the drug trade no matter what we do. But, capturing bin Laden would have a monumental impact on our opinions about Obama and his party. That should be the only goal in this war.

Curious Bob...

Sometimes, I feel like I should just save a file so I can copy and paste it. Reason being, people out there seem oblivious to Obama's past. I know 90% plus didn't even go on the internet and do research before they voted for this guy.

So here it is in a nut shell. He attended a radical/racist black church for 2 decades. His kids attended that same church. What "good" man does things like this? His best friend and mentor for over 2 decades was/is Reverend Jeremiah Wright...a radical and a racist. Is this your definition of a "good" man? Go to Google, type in "Jeremiah Wright video" and watch who he considered his best friend and mentor. As an example, if your best friend and mentor were a crack head, what does that say about you? He, himself, said something along the line, "I used to be black until I ran for President". Wake up call...he has always been half black and half white. Why would he say something like this? Because he has always viewed himself as black as evidenced by his attendance and relationship with the aforementioned reverend and other racist radicals. Additionally, he wanted to capitalize on going down in history as the first black president...even though he is not black. Add in the fact that the liberals would do anything to win the presidency, like try to get every African American vote and add that to the fact that liberals, just as conservatives, will almost always vote for their party, even if they know he or she isn't a good candidate and boom, we have it!

Take into account the fact that he had zero executive experience...he was only a junior senator and a lawyer. The wonderful thing about lawyers is they think the can do everything. The reason is most of them have an ego bigger than the state of Texas. Unfortunately, Mr. Ego can't run his own life properly, how do you expect him to run a country?

And here we have a totally inept guy running the presidency and nearly every politician in Washington, even his own party, is scratching their heads and wondering if this conundrum was worth it.

Well, at least we know why General McChrystal said and did what he did. I always suspected this to be an issue based on my fact collecting. Now, we got a guy with zero military experience, zero executive experience (unless you want to count the last 2 year crash course) and one huge ego.

I'm not sure the Republicans ever played this dirty, but for the last 3 years, I've watched the Democrats take a crap on America all while acting like its savior. As a party, the dems need to clean up their act and start worrying about what is better for the US and its people, not their friggin' party.

If what we have now is the shining example of the Democratic Party, then I have to say you may have "won" the presidency, but you have surely failed in every other way.

Wonderful....the president's national security team has been "squabbling" over strategy and his economic team members are quitting day by day.

Good to know !

The consensus was certainly to "punish" Afghanistan after the attacks of 911. It was a consensus derived from supporting the president at a time of de facto war. The president unfortunately used this support to launch two invasions. Perhaps people have learned from this; in any case the bipartisan support which Bush received has certainly been lacking in the Obama administration. The opposition uses every means at its disposal to demonize the present administration. The attacks of the so called Christian right led by far right radio personalities are nothing short of despicable. There is nothing wrong with disagreement but cogent argument and logical thinking should be a part of that discourse. I am not a democrat but I am willing to give Obama four years to try and get us out of this mess which he inherited. The idea that Obama could not get everyone to agree on the most difficult issue facing our nation seems pretty normal to me. Would it be better if he surrounded himself with "yes men". How about some bipartisan support and if we don't like the results we can vote him out in four years time. People should really try to think for themselves rather than following self-serving politicians who have their own agendas.

What I find particularly disturbing is the anti scientific bias which appears to be an integral part of this criticism. What is the agenda of the Tea party? Their attitude appears to be an attack on all fronts if it serves their interests. By serving as tools for the creationists and non global warming activists they engender a bias against scientific methodology which is worrisome. Look at the state of science in Islamic countries if you wish to see what happens when science interferes with religious orthodoxy. Religion has no place in politics; it should be an entirely personal matter I could care less if you believe in witchcraft or "the laying on of hands to cast out devils" as long as it is not reflected in your governance and politics. Unfortunately this is seldom the case. If you wish to see how a theocracy operates look to Iran as an example. The West has spent hundreds of years emerging from the darkness and I don't believe we should take even a single step back down that road. Religion can be good servant but it is a very poor master. Does anyone really want someone in charge of nuclear weapons who espouses a "Last Days" theology. I certainly do not.

Boomer57, I welcome the Tea Party just like I welcome the Libertarians and Greens and any other upstart movement or party. In other nations that use a more parliamentary system, there are many parties to choose from allowing you to choose a party that is fairly specifically molded to your personal priorities. With so many parties, coalitions have to be formed and the parties HAVE to work together to get ANYTHING done. The parties go into the government knowing and expecting this. The problem with us is that we basically have only 2 parties at a time that can hold real power and that is how our government is designed. George Washington warned of this when he said:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

Simply put he's saying with only two political parties, those parties eventually will stop focusing on governance and instead spend all there time and energy solely on trying to beat each other so that they can hold and abuse power. Eventually the governed masses will lose faith in the system, stop voting for parties and policies (since they're a mirage anyway), and start voting for individual personalities. Eventually, a strong personality from one of the major parties will rally this public sentiment into a personal power base, and this will destroy freedom in our country.

Our Founding Fathers were some pretty smart dudes. Some would use the word "prophetic".

All the criticism being leveled at Obama is equally appropriate leveled at G W Bush and his administration. He was said to be a good man too but he went after his "enemies" with a vengeance. Doesn't sound good to me.

Governmentforthepeople makes a correct statement about the feelings of the people immediately after the 9/11 attack but failed to point out the misdirection the administration took by going into Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan. If Bush had leveled a full attack on Afghanistan and sealed off the borders, he could have captured Osama bin Laden and left the country for the people of Afghanistan to straighten out among themselves but Bush had no intention of killing bin Laden. Speaking about Osama bin Laden on March 13, 2002 Bush said "I truly am not concerned about him". General Richard said "the goal has never been to get bin Laden" on April 6 2002. On April 8, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld said" bin Laden 's threat has been "neutralized" and their "goal was to stop terrorism to the extent we could". Nothing in the Bush administration even hints that six months after the attack on 9/11 that they had any desire to bring Osama bin Laden to justice for the attack on the WTC and the only reason for that to be the case was #1. Bush family ties to the bin Laden family and #2. he had plans to attack Iraq for Saddam's so called attempt to kill his father. If you don't believe this just Google it and read for yourself.

Being here while he it there, Now there are some questions he answered.
BO quoted as saying "I have two years with the public on this" and pressed advisers for ways to avoid a big escalation, the book says. "I want an exit strategy," he implored at one meeting.

So as I read this i am seeing why MR President has layed out these crappy ROE's and has tyied our hands when it comes to taking the fight into badguy land. He does not want a big escalation while he is on duty. We are good-2 for on troops and we are winning every fight and battle the "Muj" has thrown our way. We have taken minimal CIAs and KIAs compared to previous wars and campared to where those wars were fought. We are fighting on terrain that is like the Moon or Mars, and we are winning. But since the president does not want a escalation we are leashed back to sit around as targets. Now that is the worst thing a President can do. he is will to advise his people to denie any escalation i.e. menaing us going out and actually winning this war and do to his views on escalation thinks he will stave off any harm by limiting our actions and activities and keeping us confined in certain areas as sitting ducks with out his or some executive approval for CAS when the "Muj" tries to over run certain POS.
So if he were to take the angry dog off the leash he could very well win this war in a few months. therby restoring the afghanies confidences in us being fully commited to helping them and hitting the badguys as they cross the valley to new positions that were denied to them a few years ago. All we are doing is letting them get a foot hold back in places where we drove them out in 2001-2002 and letting them replentish their ranks as they learn our tactics and observe our movments.

This book is going to highlight what a majority of Americans do not know on what is happening and why it is not happening. Basically we have a President who could not run a ROTC Platoon and is now scared that anything he does will make the situation worse here. But I'll tell you what SIR, Doing nothing is just as bad. We are here for a reason. You agreed that this was the right fight. But now you are to worried about being re-elected thna doing the right thing. I would gladly take a President who was willing to do the right thing and bow out after he completed the mission. Or just a President that has the NEWTZ to say, hey this is not my area of experties will you help me with this. And turn it over the generals who have spent thier entire careers leading and training troops. It Ok mr. president Not to have the answer for everything. But one must acknowledge that they do not infact know everything. But I feel that is not in your character. Man -Up Sir! You ar enot a soldier and have know idea on what it take to be one. So leave this to the professionals and stop creating more choas in world full fo it.

I thought that Pres. Obama had the correct solution when he repeatedly pointed out during his campaign that we were fighting the wrong war. Since we knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, we ought to get out of Iraq and go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Well, those on the ground over there know better than to say that there were "absolutely zero" WMDs. There were limited numbers of them. Some of the soldiers were exposed to Sarin gas canisters hidden in underground caches.

Well, there was that and all the receipts for a whole lot of WMDs gone missing since just before the invasion. And, then there were over 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium that had to get out of there before terrorists got their hands on it. Oh, and then there were all the papers found after Saddam was captured that showed that he had full intent of starting his nuclear ambitions again as soon as was opportune for him.

And let's not forget that Hussein was sending checks written for tens of thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers who blew up Israelis and Americans. Distraction or not, that nutjob had to go!

Bloggerich

I'd rather have an intelligent man that graduated from Harvard Law School with honors than a nitwit that went to college for communication-journalism. Yeah, she was a governor of Alaska but quit after only 2 years. What would she had done if elected to vice president? Quit that too? McCain was so senile that he didn't know that Iraq and Pakistan didn't share the same border and referred to Czechoslovakia which hasn't exist since 1993. Before you jump on Obama and his 57 states Google Snopes.com for an explanation of that. It's not as the Republicans seem to want it to be.

dcpyle

Keep making excuses for the Bush administration goofs. G W Busdh said himself that there were no WMD's in Iraq as they had implied. Google "Bush no wmd Iraq" read for yourself. The WMD's you speak of were sold to Iraq by the US during the Reagan administration and were useless. He had already used the ones that would work. Rumsfeld and Cheney made the statement that Iraq was making WMDs (even though the UN inspectors said no) as the reason for the invasion. They were wrong.

My problem with conservatives is their lack of reading comprehension and/or their continuous distortion of facts.

I've read the comments and people overlook the obvious. The fact that there were "battles" means Obama's cabinet is not made up of "yes men". It's the job of the President to hear all views and then make a decision. It sounds like that is what he did.

Of course, some of you don't like anything he does and wouldn't be satisfied if he found Osama Bin Laden.

@Zapper - on the oil disaster. What you said about the government waiting 90 days is false. The well was capped inside of 100 days. Anything you read on timelines indicates what steps were taken, and no one waited around.

Woodwards book title tells me that he is a Republican. This book was meant to come out now to influence the elections. These wars were Bush's not Obama's. Still, for Obama, if you can't take the heat...get out of the kitchen.

For the Republicans waiting to get back to power. I hope you have some ideas other than tax cuts and pandering to big business. I still have yet to see a coherent health care policy, after all, you'll have to replace health care with something if you repeal it.

All I really hear is criticism and blocking and stalling. Nothing new, just a means to an end, and in the end not very helpful.

Fed Up, with FEDUPW/FED

Fed, I don't recall anybody here suggesting that we shouldn't take down the 9/11 terrorists. If George II had sent the troops to Afghanistan instead of wasting time and lives in Iraq, the mission in Afghanistan would have already been accomplished, Osama would be dead or in custody and Al Queda would be gone. That was YOUR president that screwed the pooch.

Obama and the rest of us so-called "libs" want to complete the mission in Afghanistan and we want it done with the minimal loss of US and Afghan civilian lives. That takes boots on the ground. Something Bush never understood. He was more intent on getting even with Saddam than in dealing with the people really responsible for 9/11.

So cut the cr*p Bud. You don't like the President, we understand, no further communication is necessary from you. We get it. OK?

In this particular situation YOU PUT AMERICAN LIVES AT RISK when your carping along with that of Rush, Sean, Bill, and Ann she-wolf of the SS, distracts the President even for a second.

Why don't you put the lives of our troops before your political agenda and let's get the job done in Afghanistan and bring our troops home.

dcpyle..

How convenient that you just skip right past the 8 years of George W Bush in your comments. The one that happened to be in office on 9/11 and instigated the fiasco of the Iraq war while all but ignoring the real culprits in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Clinton was in office before 9/11, remember. Yes, we knew Osama was dangerous (and that is why he advised the Bush administration to keep tabs on him, which the neglected to do), but he had not yet attacked us. We can not just go around killing people we disagree with (unless you are George W Bush and Dick Cheney)!

Larry...I guess your missing it. Sorry I can't help you. I didn't mention Palin or Alaska. Additionally, McCain was the better choice, since you brought him into this post. Obama has a history and you likely never looked at it. If you did, and you didn't and you won't, you would see what I posted as far as facts about his life before the presidency, are true. You can argue in his favor all you want. In fact, it is my belief that when people see the facts and then steer away from them by bringing up other politicians, parties etc., they have some sort of vested interest and , therefore, are try to redirect others away from the facts posted by another.

What you are really saying to me is that you are OK with a radical, racist egotist with no executive experience. So now I have to wonder if you have a vested interest in the same.

Eric, you are the one ignoring the obvious. This president is - and has from day one - executed the Afghan war not to win but to advance his own political standing. To the detriment of the safety of our servicemen and servicewomen, I might add.

Statements like:

"...he set a withdrawal timetable because, 'I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.'"

clearly illustrate this.

Larry, I would rather have neither.

Wow, the oblivion here is rampant.

First. the terrorist were training on Bill Clinton's watch. They knew that terrorists were training in Afghanistan, so why didn't Bill send troops to Afghanistan? Hmmmm? So then Bush gets elected and months later, 911. Thanks for doing nothing Bill. Probably didn't want to jeopardize the dems winning the presidency by going to war in the last half of your term...and with the Monica Lewinsky thing going on, not to mention the tech bust which led to millions of Americans losing their jobs and watching them go to India and China. To much negativity already, we can't go to war. In the end, it didn't matter.

So then here is Bush having to take America to war. As I remember, the economy held up pretty well even though we had been attacked during the recovery of the tech bust and within a few years things were OK. But then the Dems took congress in Bush's last 2 years and BAMMMM, the housing market bust. Call it coincidence if you would like. So here we are with Obama for two years and nada. Nada, nada, nada! A lot of liberal fluff and nothing else. Well, at least you can fall back on blaming Bush. The reality is that this is typical liberal BS. Overall, Bush was a decent President, not the best maybe, but decent. So 2 years from now, Obama's legacy will be that he basically blamed Bush for his failures. Yes, I know, there is still two more years to cause "change". Not sure what kind of change as nothing has happened thus far. Unless you take into account that many Americans are now finally walking up to the fact that they need to take back control of the government. But this is not a policy Obama implemented, its a policy Americans are implementing.

I know both parties play games to win, but I believe the Democrats have no limit to the extent they will go. Clinton let 911 happen because he didn't want to jeopardize the Dems winning in the next election. Fail. Last two years of Bush's presidency, the Dems take congress, financial markets bust. Dems don't want to lose by narrow margin like in previous election, so they need something to push them over the top. A savior if you will. Who could that be? Well, who do we have that's black and can appeal to white Americans too. That will give us the African American vote and that will push us over the top. Well, we got this guy Obama in Chicago. He's half black and half white, he's a lawyer and a junior senator. OK, let's run with that. We'll put him against Clinton and let America choose whether they want an experienced woman or a racially diverse public preacher...I mean speaker. OK, its Obama. Let's run with it. We'll just sit back and watch as nearly all the Dems vote Dem and the African Americans come out of the wood work to vote for a "black" man.

Good plan, it worked. But they thought they would have it all covered as there were thousands of Dem politicians that would help Obama make up for his short comings. You never took into account his history or his ego, did you? Welcome to America!

The Truth is Out...

Obama is a DEFEATIST

Obama does not want to win against Bin Laden

Obama does not want to win in Afgan, where we were attacked, his "Good War".

Obama wants us to "take" Terror Attacks.

Those are the dumbest five sentences ever written in the English language.

Then the sixth dumbest sentence ever written has to be "Yes We Can".

I think this administration and the last one lost its way in the purpose of this war. What ever happened to Bin Laden? I thought this was the reason for war? Obama and all the crooks in Washington should be ashamed of themselves for putting politics ahead of peoples lives. Hilary is right, Obama is incompetent and inexperience. As a conservative Independent I am against this so called presidents agenda. I feel that the American voters were dooped into believeing "CHANGE" WELL this is not the change I was hoping for to have a socialist country. The American people need to be a little bit more smarter in who they vote for and blaming Bush for everything is old. Obama needs to grow up and be a real man and take some responsibilities for his actions. Obama is a child in my opinion.

YES, we did!

Reading through these comments with all the opinions about what Obama and the Congress and the military should have done or shouldn't have done, and everybody's experience or lack of experience and good intentions or lack thereof...do you honestly think that electing people with even less experience and/or understanding of our system of government in order to get rid of incumbents is going to improve the situation? Corporations and the wealthy-greedy have been given the keys to the kingdom, and the newbies will do the bidding of their owners just as much as the incumbents do. It's the system that needs to be fixed, not the personnel.

This just another example of the Obama failures. We've elected a man who we knew little about & had no experience either domestically or internationally.

Just goes to prove that Gen McCrystal's assesment of Obama and his staff was correct. He was a little to vocal about it and it hurt their feelings and they tried to hide it by firing him.

wait and see what Mac's book intails.

Funny. I have never thought of Obama as a good person. And you know what else?

He needs to step down. The harm that he has done is sufficient to ingratiate him to do what's right. Hell--in some countries, ritual suicide would be expected of him.

Mike in SA, Obama's position has been clear since election. He ran on sending two more brigades to Afghanistan, and he's done that. In progress are: ending nato restrictions hampering commanders, training and equipping an Afghan army, increase military funding to Afghanistan and making conditional funding to Pakistan that they pursue anti-terrorism efforts.

That isn't selling out America at all, that's keeping all of us safe.

No one should be surprised about the position this character has taken,after he did say he was raised Muslim and that he was one of them. The only thing Obama is interested in is himself!! Most Presidents don't pat their selves on the back every time they get in front of a camera.

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City…Obama and the rest of us so-called "libs" want to complete the mission in Afghanistan and we want it done with the minimal loss of US and Afghan civilian lives. That takes boots on the ground.

Really? Is that why Obama didn’t WANT more boots on the ground? Didn’t he vote against it? In fact, didn’t he vote NOT to support the war financially when it REALLY counted? We WOULD have been LONG gone by now

Face it, your man is a FAILED president with NO clue what to do and WILL go down as the worst ONE TIME president in history and he knows it!

And if Clinton had done HIS job with Osama, we would not be there now, so STFU!

The poll found that 53 percent of respondents disapprove of how Obama is managing the war in Afghanistan (just 37 percent approve

Unless the picture improves, Obama's Democrats will have a hard time retaining their congressional majorities in November. Obama may have run as the change candidate in 2008, but the public's attitude toward the federal government is as negative today as it was during George W. Bush's second term. Only one in five Americans claims to be "basically content" with Washington, while three of every four describe themselves as either frustrated (52 percent) or angry (24 percent). Anger in particular has reached its highest level since NEWSWEEK first asked the question in 1997

Remember that this is the same reporter that brought down Nixon. Too bad he didn't do similar "exposes" on the administrations between Nixon and Obama. That would be "fun" reading, wouldn't it? We'd most likely be just as "shocked" about all of the infighting that occurred in each of those administrations.

anti-trust - you shouldn't even trust your own assumptions. You clearly don't bother to research something a little bit before stating it as a fact.

Why should anyone trust anything you submit?

Google "bob woodward bush books" and you'll find three. And they are fun reading and they chronicle a lot of in-fighting. But it was in-fighting among people who actually had some background, rather than a bunch of geeky partisan hacks who never set foot on a battlefield.

..."But it was in-fighting among people who actually had some background, rather than a bunch of geeky partisan hacks who never set foot on a battlefield."...

Like Dick 5 Deferments from Viet Nam Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, & Richard Pearl. The only one that donned the uniform was Donald Rumsfeld and he never saw a battlefield either. To add to that, Rumsfeld, one of the most disliked of the Secretaries of Defense, spent much of his energy making sure that high level dissent in the military was muzzled and over-layered by his loyalists. Man do we have short memories in this country!

Neither the Bush nor Obama administration had/have viable solutions to the can off worms that is now open.

Anti_trust Proponent: What is a real shame that He didn't go after Bush Jr the first time the Supreme Court put Him into office!!! It is funny how they go after those that are trying to make This Country better for the Middle Class, Poor and Small Business... But when it benefits the Roch they do nothing!!!

After reading this article it's more than clear that the best way to resolve all the problems described in it is for the US to completely get out of Afghanistan. It doesn't take a genius to see that. For crying out loud, why are Americans always complicating matters for themselves and the rest of the world? These people need to take a deep breath and relax for once.

Obama is way in over his head being Commander in Chief during Wartime. He took this job, wanted it badly, but has no knowledge of Foreign Dealings, familiarity with US Military, and how a War is run.

He disses his first Military Leader, McChrystal, because of sensitivity to his ego, then brings in Petraeus, who can't pick up on an ongoing War and start from the beginning again.

I knew there were going to be clashes between Petraeus and O. Why did he take the job?---He was Bush's Military Leader for the Wars. Knowing that piece of info, most likely there are going to be political and personality differences.

Now what happened to the critical "Colin Powell" on the War during Bush's term. Wasn't he also involved and supported Obama on this War and Admin. He's quiet. What does he think?

O is stubborn and only listens to himself. This will cost him a re election. We have to get out of there, even if it means we "have egg on our face".

Who could get along with Axelrod?

Olias

If they would kill Osama bin Laden they would have a reason to pull out but to do so without killing him would allow him to just come back and declare victory.

President Obama, after being warned repeatedly by his advisers about the threat of another terror attack on U.S. soil, said in an interview two months ago that the United States could "absorb" another strike.

The comment was included in the new book by journalist Bob Woodward, "Obama's Wars," excerpts of which were reported by The Washington Post and The New York

That says it all.

Sounds very interesting! Woodward has always put out interesting reads.

Mopman:

Yes, you are correct in your statement. O also wants to get out of Afghanistan to save the Democractic Party. He's only thinking of politics (his own) when it comes to saving himself. It happens in many admins., but the fact is it may not be a wartime situation; we are losing too many soldiers in one day, almost every day---9 yesterday?

Does Obama meet with the families of the deceased soldiers. Does he greet their coffins in a Military Way?

Woodward, surprisingly is unbiased in his politics. He did uncover the Watergate Scandal/Richard Nixon..

Good for Woodward. The truth shall be told. So we can "absorb" another 9/11.

What does that say. Does he care about the US and the Welfare of US citizens?

Thinkaboutit, not every war is difficult to end. Victory such as in WW I and II was relatively easy to recognize because it was a military victory. Korea and VietNam were political wars, run by politicians back in the United States not by the CG on the fields of battle. Same thing is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's why Iraq I was a clear cut victory, the General was given his marching orders and then Washington stayed out of it and let him get the job done. When you have a bunch of politicians running the war, it will never be won. They will always look for a graceful exit strategy that means the war continues in a different form.

Iraq I a "clear cut victory"?

anti-trust proponent,

Yes. Iraq is no longer in Kuwait.

But did that really solve anything in the region? The only thing that war did was to protect Bush41's oil interests. It did NOTHING to solve the overall problems that exist in the region. The US cannot continue to involve itself in the civil wars within other nations or regions just to "protect our interests (oil and other natural resources that we are stealing from the locals.)"

C'mon, atp. Solving anything in the region? Really?

Did we really step in to solve something, or to expel invaders from a sovereign nation? (aside: and if we could do that, why can't we expel the invaders from our own country? But that's a different thread).

The only resolution in that region is going to come when one side annihilates the other. The war being fought in the Middle East, and increasingly in the West, has been going off and on for 1,200 years.

Until this country gets leaders who understand that and act appropriately, it's going to be the same old stuff.

thinkabout it:

Base line. Woodward is out to sell books. $$$$$

RPF, my point was that it was NOT our responsibility to "step in to expel invaders from a sovereign nation." That was the responsibility of the defense department of that sovereign nation. Bush41 took action to protect the oil interests, plain and simple, just as Bush43/Cheney got us into Iraq II for the benefit of their military/industrial complex buddies (Halliburton, et. al.) and to gain back the oil interests that were nationalized under Saddam.

@Hawaii2: You're right, that has been Woodward's only baseline since his success at the WP in the Nixon scandal.

Anti-trust you are making my point. The military operation was clearly defined and achieved. The President of the United States made the call not to go after Baghdad. The war was fought without political intervention. The issues you bring up have nothing to do with military victory but rather point to political issues. Once you get away from the specific objective in Iraq 1 to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait at the request of the government, then you face gray areas that can not be won only lost.

Eric, you are correct. It was 32 days after the blow out that the committee was formed. However, it was five months to the day before the well was declared sealed/dead/whatever. So during that intervening four month period, what did the committee do? And how quickly did they do it? (I don't remember where the 90 day number came from, probably a scribbled note somewhere that I misread. I apologize for my error.) Again, I don't think our government did much to get this disaster under control. And I think we will suffer for it for a very long time. Also, the bottom line is that people were not working together to come to terms with what could be done. I believe that BP was strong armed (and rightly so) to provide funding to clean up the mess, but beyond that, our government did very little. I wonder how much more of the very little will continue.

Now we are involved in a war in Afghanistan that has been continuing for nine years. Nine years! Seven on the first watch, two on this one. And we are nowhere near getting the problem resolved. We keep hearing about advancements and making friends with the Afghanis, and their political turmoil, their tribal commitments, their Taliban, their abuses, their corruption, and on and on. Frankly, I'm fed up with it. Being nice isn't doing the job. War is a dirty rotten business, and the sooner people (on both sides) find out how really terrible it should be, I truly believe they would straighten up their act.

I wish the people in the WH would realize this.

Only the state controlled media has not noticed the utter cluelessness in the Obama administration.

So are you saying that Mr. Obama should just turn over control to some like...a Dick Chaney. Maybe we could be at war forever, while Haliburton and Chaney get richer.

Until you actually have a copy of the book to read, how do you know exactly what the book portrays? This article is only one reviewer's opinion of what Woodward wrote.

OK Let's Say it's perfectly obvious from Our Own Interpretations that Axelrod is a "Spin Doctor"!!!! Don't Need to Read the Book to figure that out. PBS Station already ran the "Obama War" which depicted the "Inner Disputes" and Obama using Rahm Emanuel to "Enforce His Wishs"....I mean Policies!! Obama is just like Holbrooke "Egotistical Bastards" to Quote Our Vice-Pres. This Book is just a Repeat but may hold more detail. I'm amazed that Obama let anything Negative go into Print though. :-)

Valerie...You might want to check out the Fact that ONLY TWO Dems voted against going to War and Alot of the "Blue Dogs" are making Big $$$ off the Wars and off the Gas Price Gouging of 2008. Check out Pelosi's & Reid's Fuel Addictive Bill from some Fun Reading.

Deeply Agreed.....Since the American Citizens' put their lives and their childrens' lives at Risk, the Citizens should have the Biggest Vote when voting to go to War. Not Our Congressmen who most have never served therefore don't realize the risks/loss. Oh but how they use their Care about the Military & It's Families for the Campaign Rhetoric. We lost a lot of Power at all levels when we gave in and handed that power to the Feds.

Dude you are completely delusional!

Darren Miller,

Then explain why BHO EXPANDED the Afghanistan War?

The UN and 47 other Countries had the job of 'Nation Building', sense Dec 2001. Were they making mistakes? Sure, as was expected.

BHO - Instead of working with the UN and the other Countries to fight WORLD Terrorism. Choose to make this 'His War' and go after OBL, for EGO and Political GAIN.

AC Robertson

He is just trying to finish what Cheney and Bush did not.

And, broke one of his most cherished campaign promises in the process. He himself spoke on public television and said to the effect of: "...within 60 days of taking office, I will bring our troops home." Uh, no. Still there.

That said, however, and in fairness, he is between a rock and a hard place and was clueless about things at the time he made that promise. We cannot cut and run or we will end up with another Vietnam on our hands. Not might; will.

But, then again, America was warned in the first place that this war on terror would not be won in a year or even in five years. We were even told openly that it may even take more than ten years. Most of America was all for it at the time but thanks to the Media we ended up forgetting all about us being in it for the long haul.

valeriegaines,

Bush Jr and the UK removed the Taliban from power and turned over the Afghanistan operation to the UN Dec 2001.

The LAST TIME - OBL was seen in a video was in October 2004, in an address to the ... Osama Bin Laden in still from video (07/09/07)

The LAST Authenticated contemporaneous video message from Osama bin Laden appeared in December 2001...

There was a tape attriputed to Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel, seeking to harness anger over the Gaza offensive with a new message posted on the Internet during Jan 2009. The authenticity of the tape could not be independently confirmed.

The White House dismissed the call to jihad, "It appears this tape demonstrates his isolation and continued attempts to remain relevant at a time when al-Qaida's ideology, mission and agenda are being questioned and challenged throughout the world," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House.

OBL has been dead for YEARS

AC Robertson

OBL has been dead for YEARS

You may be right, however we, meaning the general public, critize the President we assume we know all of the facts.

Even though this book gives us, and our enimies, a lot of information I think we would be very niave to think that there are no other facts that we don't have.

AC Robertson - great posts!

Bush Jr and the UK removed the Taliban from power and turned over the Afghanistan operation to the UN Dec 2001.

People tend to forget that we had an exit strategy long before Obama took office, i.e. let the UN handle it. It still confounds me that Obama made escalation of combat operations in Afghanistan a central issue in his campaign for President. It absolutely was a political decision - just another way to criticize Bush/Republicans for fighting the "wrong" war in Iraq instead of the "right" war in Afghanistan. Or maybe he assumed that killing American soldiers in Afghanistan would be more popular than killing American soldiers in Iraq. Either way he was wrong.

It is good to not have yes men, but the only way to succeed is to have a common goal. Those people have no idea what their goal is, other than to figure out a way to keep their jobs.

Darren Miller: before everyone sees what you just stated. I totally agree.

The fact that these rejects and dropouts of the war on terror were experts and advisors just says that Obama did the right thing in kicking 'em out. This is a war that, originally had one purpose. To seek justice for those who were attacked on 9/11. The course changed direction and everyone followed. Throughout the years, everyone involved was slowly revealed that they didn't know what they were doing and when they did, they were going off of false information, and lately, working with interpreters that couldn't speak languages to keep the peace.

Why shouldn't Obama fire these buffoons?! They all admited they weren't sure OF ANYTHING concerning this war on terror! So far, it looks like Woodward exposed the dumb-sses and 'we the people' have to still hope and pray that the Party of No doesn't intervine with the REAL PATRIOTS that have to fix this mess. I wonder who can do that, and how many truely are out there? Seriously! I'm in wonder now!

I'm so glad Woodward exposed the worthlessness of these so-called experts and advisors. It seemed like nothing is possible with them in charge and constantly spitting on our hopes of a better tomorow. I hope Obama fires all of them. If they have concerns, that's totally understandable. But these "experts" and "advisors" are doing nothing but spit, and so they should be let go.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

Dear SAtownMytown,

Least we not forget that while BHO is firing ALL of those 'so-called experts and advisors' lets hope and pray that he will completely do the job and resign himself from his job too - being HE is the one who hired or ordained ALL of these losers!!! There is some saying, something to the nature of 'like minds stick together or run in packs...'?

Darren Miller...... The only way to get things done is to have people in your administration who think for themselves and aren't afraid to tell the president that they think he's wrong. This is proof of the change that this administration had promised and has embraced and implemented.

Wasn't Gen. Mc Chrystal one of those men? Here was another guy that told the world of BHO's ineptness and the egotist fired him. BHO the kid was what, six, when Mc Chrystal was learning protracted warfare in Vietnam? At least GB Sr. had the good sense not run the Kawait war from the White House, but gave the job to the pros. (Stormin' Norman, Powell and Company.)

BHO's ego and fear of being alienated by his own party and the country (thow in inexperience) has made him a ranting lost little boy of late. Tell him what you think and get fired.

Last American: he didn't hire them, he just let them keep their jobs. DUH DUH DUH.

Those imbisiles spoke against the odds AFTER the Obama admin came into the white house, and decided to show their true worthlessness to Woodard. Woodward is obviously out for publicity cause he's writing about "statements made at secret meetings" and such. Come on man, if you really think it isn't his lame attempt to save his -ss from some kind of trouble, at a time where everyone in the current admin is needed, you're as blind as a bat. I'll bet real money its all to avoid him getting into trouble with or frowned upon by the people, more than it is by the government. He's probably got a good enough attorney to run a trial to the ground, so all that's left is pressure from the public to face. So he writes this book that feeds into the " this ruined nation" hype, and gets on every critics good side, since they believe its true anyway. That way, when someone's exposed the worthlessnes of him, the people will find it hard to believe because of his 'testamonial" book. He'll seem like the guy that was right all along. And his defense to the people will be that his worthlessness was explained in his book. And guess what? The critics and feeble minded will believe it!

Dude, even a not-so-last american like me, because I've still got plenty of america in my viens, can see through this smoke and mirrors, cover my -ss, "I'm only an advisor", you're right as far as you know, bull@!$%#.

why don't you do the same? GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

Darren:

This is proof the people leaving in High Positions in the WH don't want to be associated with the Obama Administration's failures. They want to further their careers after leaving during a normal term in office without any negativity perceived by others..

If they leave now, there will not be a stigma put upon them. No one wants to be a part of a "losing" team.

I agree that war cannot be won. But you analogy with Vietnam gives hope. Out of that particular shambles came a country with some real direction and some real progress, and is now (admittedly 35 years later) getting somewhere. Trouble is that that strength grew out of soundly defeating, over a period of a century or so) three external powers - first China then the French and finally the Americans - at the same time as finding a resolution to a long and bitter civil war. Afghanistan is not quite the same kettle of fish - though they have seen off the Russians and may well soon see off the US - but whereas Vietnam was at least geographically relatively simple, Afghanistan is not. And while Vietnam and Cambodia merge rather seamlessly and overlap in the Khmer Krom, the merging cultural areas across Iran, Afghanistan and central Asia are much more complex and have currently one powerful component in Iran and a potentially powerful component in Khazakhstan (Tajikistan is sitting quietly at the moment). Training and leaving might work if those being trained are on the surviving side and that means, as Bill Kamps rightly observes, involves talking WITH (rather than to or at) the Taliban - it didn't work in Vietnam because the dialogue was politically shagged from day one by not recognising that the obvious partners were not the ones chosen. They were too busy labelling the patriots as communists or barbarians to actually read the situation correctly. On second thought - there is another parallel - maybe we are too busy labelling the Taliban as terrorist or barbarian to listen

Not to mention that there are other much more dangerous groups than al-Qaeda emerging from the shadows across the border in Pakistan and operating across a quite different set of networks. These groups appear to be quite happy that we are fixated on al-Qaeda and Taliban because they can then move with impunity and avoid the blame. Some are just waiting in the wings in Pakistan and India for a suitable opening. Sectarian violence, yes, but the patchwork is much bigger than Afghanistan and link themes across the entire Eurasian landmass.

Just look at Ireland and the centuries it took to bring some semblance of peace there, and they still haven't achieved total peace. The US has a similar, and in some ways even more complex, pot stirring with the cultural hatreds building more steam every day. Are we headed towards another civil war after the last one 150 years ago?

And Bush was this military genius...NOT.

“I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

It is telling where Obama's focus is,... not winning, not destroying the enemy and not the troops, but HIS POLITICAL FUTURE.

Yeah, those dang unionized arms dealers and suppliers who take food from our children's mouths!!! Shame on Boeing, Raytheon, Haliburton(?) and all those blood sucking companies that supply and support them for employing bad, evil people who want to kill each other. When are we going to stop paying those workers exhorbinate union wages and start putting that money into the mouths of us who don't work for a living...come up with something better losconinhum

Our greed for 24/7 "news" also adds fuel to the divisive fires. Don't put all of the blame just on a president. WE are all to blame, since we clamor for every tidbit of divisive comments we can gather.

How do YOU propose to "secure" our borders? WE are the ones arming those drug cartels, or did you miss that story yesterday? Yes our national security is at stake, but not just from the south. It is at stake from within our own borders and around the world. We can no longer be an "isolationist" country any more than any other nation in the world. "Prosperity" has dictated otherwise since over the last two centuries especially, world trade has become vital to the future of every nation in the world.

He has brought more division to our country than any time since the beginning of the civil war.

This is a very telling statement. The Civil War happened because the slave-owning states decided to believe that Lincoln was an unacceptable president, and they convinced themselves that he'd remove their freedom to own slaves if he was elected. Should Lincoln not have been elected, if it was going to cause the Civil War? Was it Lincoln's fault that the South decided to use him as an excuse to go to war to defend their "right" to own and oppress human beings?

This is what I see on the right-wing today, especially among the Tea Party. They're looking for a reason to revolt, and if they have to make up a reason, they will. So they say that Obama is a socialist when he's not, they say that he's raising their taxes when he's not, they say that health care reform has death panels when it doesn't, they say that he sides with illegal immigrants against Americans when deportation numbers are up over the rate of the previous administration... they are looking for a reason to revolt and they don't care if it's the truth or not.

Same as before the Civil War.

It's not Obama's fault, it's the fault of the people who have decided to be opposed to him.

Jabba, some times you amaze me in the way you are so prone to lump people into your tidy little ideas of groups. You have no notion of what other people think and you are so defensive. I voted for a President who happened to be of mixed race. I thought that was a plus. His mixed race has actually turned out to be a hindrance to him. It probably would have been better if he were not on the tight rope, pulled both ways. The professor and cop thing is an example of that. If he had stayed away from that very minor issue, I wouldn't have heard the gripes about "that black President" or "that white President". Yes I heard both, over the same issue. It was really rather funny.

Your attitude about the insecurity of our borders is a perfect example of the division of the country. Obama and the Dems gave a standing ovation on TV to a corrupt Mexican president when he talked about the "lazy Americans". Who is that not defending another country over ours.? At that moment, he should have corrected Calderon, very politely, of course. I don't even think that Obama would intervene if the armed Mexican army attacked in force to take over San Diego, Tucson, or El Paso. Due to the current violence in Juarez, I think El Paso will be the first to fall. Gov. Perry asked for a meeting when Obama was at Fort Bliss a few weeks ago to discuss the issues in El Paso along with our other border towns. He was told flat "no".

The people that are upset concerning the illegal immigrant thing are not the "rednecks" you imagine. Except for Texas and California they were not even involved in the Civil war. And we were on opposite sides of the fighting! The fact is the bordering states are being attacked. Drug cartels, armed Mexican officers on American soil, and lots and lots of illegals who are smuggling, stealing identities, and using social services that they are not entitled to. Maybe you do not "see" it where you live. But down here it is in the local papers almost daily. Yes, this has happened even during the Bush watch, but the dam has burst under Obama. He promised us "change" all he is given us is an amplified version of "status quo".

I am not a tea-bagger, Repub, Democrat, or far left progressive. I do not believe as the "birthers". I am one of those highly sought after Independents that can make or break an election. We are the "unknowns" in the election because we vote our hearts, not our party lines. The White House and Legislative branches now in power have seemed to have forgotten that since the last election. They are so worried about keeping votes that they already have to try to win the Independents. It does seem that that is going to bite them in November. Now even some of the hard core Dems are starting to worry. I never vote along party lines because of the very problem that Obama is having. Even though I do think he was faithful when he promised change, he can't do it when he must be faithful to a group trying to cover there own a$$e$.

I am so hoping that the Dems do lose control of both the House and the Senate. It seems like we actually get more accomplished when there is a near equal division of party members. The pressure and retaliation against there own party disappears then because it does no good. Those representing the people can actually vote their hearts and not that of the biggest bully in the yard.

I'm sorry... but you are wayyyyy off track! The Tea Party came about because the American People are fed up to here with both Congress AND the Administration... not, as you surmise, BHO!

We, the People don't oppose a single man, you idiot! There are 535 of them that we oppose!

Why is it the Democrats have to blame EVERY problem or event on the Right Wing Republicans???

Not a damned one of them currently in office deserve to be there any longer.

It is the right and the duty of ALL Americans to force them out and send them packing... while we still have a little bit of our Constitutional Liberties left!

TCG-L

Anti trust, when I propose closing the borders, I do not mean go into an isolationist state. We haven't done that since before WWII. Until we were forced to join the worlds forces. I mean that if employers on this side of the border are forced to not hire illegal immigrants, and they are not given any social services or promises to fast track citizenship, they will go home. At that point it will be easier to detect the gun runners going south, the drug dealers going north. There will not be the huge number of mules to aid in the smuggling either north or south. At that time, with an increased number of border patrol agents guarding the borders, it will be easier to spot the undesirables and threats to our security. Have you ever tried to find a friend at a crowded place? If you have you will know who difficult it is to find one person out of all the people. The would be terrorists know this. Some are sneaking into Mexico and Central America, learning basic Spanish, and joining the massive flow over the border. They are hiding in plain sight. With out the flow, they have less cover. The approved border crossings would, of course, till be open to those with legitimate business on both sides of the border. The flood of illegal immigrants and the majority of smuggling is not happening at these crossing as much as the outlying areas. Probably the flow of visitors would increase at the at secured crossing areas, and that is fine. The fact remains that we have to know and control WHO is in this country illegally and the government has no idea. Nor have they shown that they even care.

Ignorance is not a solution to our problems. The 24/7 news even now does not show everything that we, the public need to know. It is sad when you have to jump form news site to news site gathering different versions of the same story and then HOPE you are making an informed decision with the results you gather.

No, I am not putting all the blame on Obama. But it is not our desire to be informed that is the issue. Yes, some of the news does separate some of us. Those that take the our side, your side, stance. But we should not go back to the times of WWII when the news you got was a much skewed version of the truth weeks after the event. Instant news is responsible for the bonding of America when the terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them. Instant news has aided in the safe return of children shortly after they were abducted.

I think at heart, Obama wants the "change" he promised. But when you surround your self with those who have their own personal agenda, plus have your own family problems to contend with, it makes it hard to stand up to those who do not want change for the better of all, but want change for the better of me.

We are one of the countries under the biggest threats of attack, due to past world policies. But we do not have very good security except at airports. Even then, domestic flights are not scrutinized as they should be. The latest supposedly "dry run" showed that. Even if it was an innocent mistake. The terrorists now see a new vulnerability. Change planes at the last moment, use the wifi on planes, send an email to a blackberry device in your luggage that missed your flight, and you can take out two airliners for the price of one.

I am not proposing that people lose their freedoms. Just a little line time.

Texana Deb:

Congratulations on being one of the most logical people to comment as well as you did it without an attack on anyone. Well done.

Mr. Obama did not have the experience or background for the job of president, he was only a junior senator to start with and had no military experience at all, and it seems that people forgot we were in two wars when he was elected.

As for the war in Afghanistan, like any war, you must have a concise and deliberate course of action, considering our military strength and size the war is more than winnable.

Politics destroy victory, not just on our side either, the afghan government should have been told to stay out of our way unless they were going to help, you cannot say you can only fight here or there; there should be no ROE when fighting this type of war, we are not fighting a conventional army.

When politics get involved the fighting force turns from the soldier to the politician and you have dozens of deferent opinions wrangling for control, once that happens the enemy wins.

Public opinion also causes political siding, I believe keeping the public informed on what your goals are helps, not necessarily telling how, but at least what is going on helps with public opinion.

You cannot fight the political side, the public opinion side and the war all at once; the first two will always take precedence over the last.

The Geneva Convention is a wonderful thing for a “Gentlemen’s war”, unfortunately we are not fighting “Gentlemen”, when one side is forced to follow the GC, the other side has a distinct advantage, yes we are “civilized”, however war is not.

We are fighting an enemy that is nothing but short of cold blooded murders, they will murder dozens of their own people to kill one American.

Show us the truth to the statements that the illegals are "mules." Yes, it is difficult to "find a friend in a crowd." But what does that have to do with the discussions in this thread, any more than what illegals have to do with this story on Woodward's book. In actuality, according to some of the reports that I've seen, the number of illegals has dropped way off because of the recession and the growing number of deportations this administration is processing. The number of "illegals" in this country has dropped by around 2M under this administration. Not all illegals come across the Mexican border either. They come in from Canada's vast unprotected border and by boat at every section of our coastal waters. Spanish is not the only language the "terrorists" are learning to get into this country. Some of them have mastered English better than some of our own citizens. Part of the problem with our whole immigration system for decades has been that we have never had a real way of tracking even the legal "visitors" once they arrive in the country. We don't require them to verify their whereabouts during their stay nor do we have any way of knowing that they have over-extended their visit. Student visas and work visas have been a real problem. Immigration is NOT just a problem caused by this administration. It has been an ongoing problem for many decades. The real problem is that, even with today's advanced technology, we still have NO control over it. And that in a way is part of the problem with the "freedoms" of the US Constitution. Those freedoms are not restricted to just our "legal citizens." You are right re: airport security.....there are still a lot of problems even with that....and that is especially true with the inbound international flights. I used to work for an FBO operation at our local airport (in the USVI.) Charter flights into and out of the country can be a real hassle. Foreigners have cards that they have to fill out upon arrival that are supposed to be turned back in upon departure (at the charter/FBO operation.) If those employees are not diligent in getting the cards back and turning them into Customs, that foreigner is never recorded in the system as having left. Imagine the same problem at the Canadian border with all of the unprotected area (non-border crossing points) as well as the Mexican border. Alaska and Hawaii, as well as all of the US Territories, are other border problem areas. Travel from those two states and the territories back to the US mainland is pretty open by air......no passport required for US citizens....thus, you get fake ID in any of those states/territories and you can enter the mainland with no hassle. That is some of the complexity of immigration that BOTH parties have failed to address for decades.

Instant news has also led to much of the divisiveness in this country, not just the "unification of 9/11". Today's technology has done little to give any of us the "true facts" of any issue. What are the "true facts" and according to whose interpretation? That is, and has always been the problem since day one of our founding. I wonder what Woodward would have written if he had been around during the founding of this nation and the "internal struggles" that went on among our founding fathers. We the voters who elect our "leaders" do very little to actually educate ourselves on the candidates before we vote for them. That has been my point all along. WE are just as responsible for all of the dissension within the federal government as the leaders themselves, since we are the ones who elected them.

Anti trust

OK first, don't get upset because I answered your question.

How do YOU propose to "secure" our borders?

In my first post, I was mentioning some of the challenges facing Obama and things that I am disappointed in personally.

In response to where I got my info, here are just a few. They are not called Illegal immigrants in the stories, just Mexicans. I was trying to be PC and not name nationalities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31drugs.html

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1004/100429elpaso.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38843735

54% of all illegal immigrants are from Mexico

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/illegal.pdf

Yes, some illegals come across the border from Canada, at shipping ports like LA, Miami, New York. It is harder for illegals to sneak in by water, except for maybe those that just by pass the border at night in little boats traveling only a few miles. But as Cubans and Haitians have found, the long distance water crossings are not very productive. It is hard to hide from the Coast Guard when you cannot travel only at night. But the Canadians are not clamoring to come to our country. They have a healthier country than ours right now. So there is no "hiding among the masses" on the north border. And yes, most of the illegals of non Latino origin come on work visas and student visas and never leave. Many of the illegal Latinos even come on work visas and don't leave, which is another problem with the guest worker system. The rest just "run for the border".

This is a problem that has existed for at least 10-15 years on the Southern borders. True, it is less than it was 2 years ago, not thanks to Obama. I guess you could credit Bush in a round about way. If he caused the financial collapse, then he should get credit for less immigrants. They come here to work, there are less, jobs, therefore less illegal immigrants. The problem is that it SHOULD and could be a lot better. make every empoyer use E-verify to guarantee the right of the worker to be working in this country. Any employers that do not follow the Federal law on this should be fined and/or lose what ever licences and tax breaks they receive. Do not allow social services to be given to illegal immigrants, do not force public hospitals to be the G P for them, or force/encourage state funded schools to pay for the education of their children. This sentiment is for all illegal immigrants, those the Latino ones are mostly what we deal with here.

I disagree with your view of instant news. The news if truthful, will anger some, please others. But the reaction will be at least as bad if it is not delivered in a timely fashion. Would you want to find out a week after the US had been invaded? I wouldn't, I would want to know, at least I might have a chance to protect my family and not be caught unaware.

Yes, many of our voters vote blindly, by what they hear, read on one skewed news site, or what their favorite celebrity thinks. It is a crying shame, but there is nothing we can do about it unless the two party system is abolished. But that would open even more cans of worms. We do vote for the representatives in the legislature and executive branches. But really, when you vote, you only have what the candidate tells you or the dirt the opposition digs up to guide your decision. Afterward, we just have to write to our representatives and let them know our feelings, then ride it out and hope for the best. We cannot change the outcome of any votes by the legislature. When one side is too heavily close to a filibuster free majority, the bullies come out. The Dems tried to get their own incumbents out in the primaries to punish them for their previous votes. The tea baggers appeared to unseat the Repubincumbents. It has become very dog-eat-dog. But the solution is not to limit the news to the public, but rather to get the public interested, concerned and informed. I love blogs sites like Newsvine, even though people can get nasty sometimes. It has increased my interest and knowledge in a lot of areas. If someone mentions something I don't know about, I look it up. I read liberal sites, conservative sites, and some I am not even sure what they are. But I try to weigh the information I get and look at what the two conflicting sites have in common. The truth is usually somewhere in there. Even then it a crap shoot on what we will get for our representation, but it is an informed crap-shoot.

Obama is not a loser, I am sorry. He is displaying rather more humanity than does the suggestion to nuke people out of existence. That might be OK in a computer game but this is real life. Not only that Afghanistan did not attack us - we attacked Afghanistan - or more correctly that part of Afghan political life that happened to have sided with the Russians long ago. Fortuitously there was some evidence that Osama ben Laden was there and he was a legitimate target - but it was al-Qaeda and not Afghanistan who was cited as the enemy. Yes, bring everyone home, but bring them home with dignity and respect before it is too late - none deserve the fate of the Vietnam vets (although Abu Ghraib does suggest that some of the Iraq involvements might deserve it)

That's an extremely shallow observation and a very irrational solution. To say the least, you're entire comment resonates a tone of stupidity.

Leftisreporting:

I had a similiar thought earlier. As a parent, if my child was killed on the battlefield today, I would be very angry for my loss while the President was worrying about the potential loss of his parties support. If we as a nation, and he as the President, are not committed to a particular goal of winning or finding a solution to the terrorist issue then we should not be fighting at all. Personally I feel that the protection of our nation is worth fighting for but this war may not be the act of protection that we need.

We should, in my humble opinion, be more concerned about the stability of our economy and the creation of a sustainable economic engine for the United States. A single injury or loss of life in this struggle, while we have a Commander in Chief who is more worred about his party backing him versus sustainable goals of resolution of the current war on terror, is wrong.

Very good posts Left, JWright and robo. Obama is in a tough situation that is increased by the views of his party. "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party." My "quote" might not be 100% accurate; if not, I apologize. The gist is there. Either he loses the support of the party, or sets a withdrawal date. Because he was voted as Democrat, no matter how well he performs, he will never win over those that vote straight party Republican. I would not want to be him. I agree with all of you, don't nuke, of course, but be in the war to win. anything that is done half heartedly does not succeed. Why should winning a war be any different?

I got to thinking last night about the Dream Amendment. Illegal immigrants could become citizens by going to college or joining the military for the U S right? I do know that many young people that were educated in our public schools would be accepted to colleges here, but others, newly from their home countries would not. They would need to join the military to take advantage of the citizenship offer. I got the feeling that those people, in addition to the men and women who voluntarily joined with no ulterior motive were being used as warm bodies offered for slaughter.

I can't believe you really think that CIA stuff is new. During the Vietnam war they were every where. Ever hear of Air America? It's just business as usual.

You are forgetting about the involvement of Carter. Carter has received MILLIONS from the Ben Laden family. It was his Administration that was training, funding, and supplying weapons to OBL.

It was WJC that did NOTHING when OBL was behind the bombings of the; USS Cole, Khobl Towers, WTC, and 2 - US Embassies. Killing and injuring hundreds of US Citizens and Military personnel.

It was WJC that did NOTHING when he had the chance to have OBL - ASSASSINATED.

If Carter had not do this and if WJC had done ANYTHING. IMO - 9-11 would never have happened.

Clinton did respond to the attack on the USS Cole. He blew up a factory in Sudan because it was producing chemical weapons and sending them to Iraq.

Ned Dragons,

As Clinton explained in a 2006 interview, both the CIA and FBI “refused to certify that it was Bin Laden was responsible” for the attack on the Cole until early 2001 which foreclosed on the possibility of a full response during the Clinton administration.

GIULIANI: Khobar Towers, Tanzania, USS Cole. What you see there is, in some cases, no reaction, and in each case an inadequate reaction. The first attack on the World Trade Center, where we dealt with it as if it were a criminal act. And when you listen to the Democratic rhetoric, it sounds like they want to go back to dealing with it as if these are criminal acts and not acts of war, acts of terror.

President Clinton ordered the pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan attacked during Aug 1998, alleging that the plant had links to Osama bin Laden, exiled Saudi-born millionaire suspected in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998.

It was the largest pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum and employed over 300 workers, producing medicine both for human and veterinary use. The factory was used primarily for the manufacture of anti-malaria medicines and veterinary products.

The USS Cole was BOMBED, October 12, 2000.

On August 7, 1998, powerful car bombs exploded outside the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Tanzania killing 224 people and wound some 5,000 others. Four suspects were arrested and upon interrogation and torture claimed to have known Osama bin Laden. The four were convicted in US federal courts and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Somewhere and someone later comes up with the claim of Osama bin Ladin being involved in part of the financing of that bombing mission.

75 Cruise Missiles all launched to hit their targets at the same time on two continents indicate the vast scope and cost (Hundreds of Millions of dollars) of President Clinton's operation to kill Osama bin Ladin and destroy an extensive Taliban training complex 94 miles south of Kabul and a chemical factory producing the building blocks for chemical weapons in Khartoum, Sudan.

Osama bin Ladin had moved to Afghanistan two years earlier from Sudan and was said to have links to a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that made the precursors for nerve gas, (VX) among other possible chemical weapons.

At the time of this massive cruise missile attack and sea operation (positioning the guided missile destroyers) for this attack to take place, President Clinton was under active investigation over the Monica Lewisksny affair. Many lawmakers accussed President Clinton of creating a terrorist with Osama bin Ladin as the fall guy to take the invasive media off of Clinton and Lwisknsy.

Former President Bill Clinton publically stated the French officials that were previously told of the operation tipped off Osama bin Ladin personally. I have heard the same report from additional sources as well. Because a large number of the cruise missiles would need to fly over Pakistan's airspace, the US State Dept. informed Pakistan of the planned attack a day in advance. It is possible Pakistani ISI agents could have tipped Osama bin Ladin off as well. The very day Pakistan was alerted to the impending attack, a tracking beacon the CIA had planted inside Osama bin Ladin's satellite phone for one of the cruise missiles to home in on was disabled and Osama bin Ladin quickly and quietly slipped out of Afghanistan several hours before the attack took place.

In Vietnam, the Green Beret's enlisted and trained indigenous fighters in Vietnam and from Lao's to fight against the North Vietnamese fighters. Their training and equipping a new army backfired when the indigenous fighters were pushed into Cambodia where they destabilized the Cambodian government resulting in Pol Pot's horrific slaughter of his own people and the ethnic and cultural genocide that followed.

A similar attempt by the CIA was made with the Iraqi Kurdish fighters to enlist them to cross over the Iranian border to attack and kill as many Iranian's as they could. That backfired as well as many Kurdish fighters had long running blood feud's with the Turkish civilians living along their shared border region and began slaughtering Turkish civilians until the Turkish officials went directly to President Obama and told him to pull the plug on the CIA supplying and equipping the Kurdish fighters which he apparently ordered the CIA to do.

A huge number of civilian deaths resulted from just these two examples of American taxpayer dollars being funneled by the CIA into creating covert army's of indigenous warriors who often have far different agenda's than their CIA handlers which result in whole-scale slaughter of civilian people in those regions.

That was a very interesting history lesson. Thank you.

Ross.....Russia could have Won in Afghanistan IF America wouldn't have got involved on the Opposing Side to train & created the Taliban & "Freedom Fighters" & OBL. We created & built the Insurgents....Now they've turned on us!! Just like Iran and Pakistan....We've given Billions of $$$ for Intel on OBL and help to secure the Pakistan Border, but No good has come for them. We just handed Iran Millions to increase their Missile Program. Where do you think that will get us? America is ssssooooo Stupid in the Fact that we freely Aid & Abide these 3rd World Countries to attack us. Right Now the Insurgent Forces in Afghanistan/Iraq are fighting our forces w/New Recent-Made Weapons....Wonder WHO is aiding & abiding them against us?? Probably Russia!!!!! :-P

Of course, I meant "despair" not dispair.

Jeannie, it didn't matter, your point was clear.

Well said Jeannie.

Under the Bush administration Cheney called the shots.

And a state representative, and a Senator...

Incidentally, half the signers of the Declaration of Independence had on their resume nothing more significant than "lawyer". Every member of the Massachusetts delegation was a lawyer and a Harvard grad. If you look at the Founding Fathers and the early presidents, you'd see a lot of people with a resume matching that of Obama.

My God, this president is more interested in getting votes than worrying about our country's sons and daughters in Afghanistan. What a low life. His non experience which the news media never brought up during the presidential campaign is showing proof of his lunacy.

Obama has surrounded himself with academics rather than people of quality and knowledge. We're in a sad state of affairs. God help America.

jabbausaf, there is a big difference between Obama and the Founding Fathers, " they had common sense. The only thing Obama has going for him is his egotistical arrogant attitude and his disdain for everything America stands for. Remember when he campaigned he was going to" Fundamentally Change America"!!!

You cannot let countries or terrorists groups attack your homeland without retaliation. We went into this war in Afghanistan the wrong way. We should have lolled Bin Laden till he thought we were not going to respond and then when he least expected blows his ass out his bed along with his top henchmen and then left the country. There is no such thing as a democratic way of life in a muslim country. We should not have went in to Iraq until they showed a serious threat to us. Sadem knew how to handle muslim radicals he killed them. That war was about freeing up the oil. We have not had an honest president since I can remember they all are in it for money and self gain.

It's a dog eat dog world. I guess that's what they'll put on the epitaph of the human race.

Yeah, that's what we need, short quips from a maniacal, near psychotic general who loved war.

hey fsw nice comments. Are your a doctor? Gen. Patton was nothing short of tactically brillant in WWII. If you knew anything about history you would know that he was a major reason we won the war. The 3rd and 8th armys race across Europe undser his leadership was unparalled in warfare. Thank god we had him and not some coward like you. or we all would be saying Seig Heil to the Boys from Berlin.

fsw; where did you come by your assessment that GEN Patton was a "maniacal, near psychotic"? He was a brilliant tactician and inspired leader, and his soldiers revered him because his methods resulted in victories with minimal loss of life. Even the Germans recognized him as the best we had.

Your impression must have come from your intensive study of George C. Scott's portrayal in the movie. Pretty flimsy research.

Patton was a maniac and even Patton knew it.

Patton was a maniac and even Patton knew it.

You got that right. And I'd take dozens of maniacs who know they're ones over one who is but doesn't know it.

True enough, but that's why the germans were afraid of him

... and the russians...

... and the english....

... and the americans....

The only way to 'win' in Afghanistan would be to kill everyone. Same problem we had in viet nam; the enemy looks just like the friendlys. I think we can rule that option out.