Cheney is an arrogant buffoon ~ for someone too cowardly to serve himself [proven via 5 deferments], he sure does love sending other people off to war ~ the "Bush administration's strategy" on everything is exactly why the Rs are OUT of power ~ and "America's armed forces are in danger" BECAUSE of that "Bush administration strategy" ~ Obama is not "dithering" on anything ~ he is studying the change in conditions and options available before making a decision ~ and I am still hopeful he will deny the request for more troops ~ Sooz

actually, the irony of this remark is that Bush didn't follow Cheney's advice in Afghanistan either. so, what exactly is he saying?

I don't suppose his latest rant is related to the fact that his predetermined prior to 9/11 invasion into Iraq dropped the ball on the stated mission at the time that is an occupation of Afghanistan after year upon year there. I wonder what percentage of people in the nation place value on what DC ( or DV ) has to say. And what success in Iraq is he referring to ? The fact that no WMD were found ? The fact that he and his cohorts didn't care about what the inspection group had to say on the topic thereby he was able to push through his agenda and is among the group that has the deaths of all those civilians and the military etc on his head ? Is that the success he prides ? Where was Darth when Rove was blaming our allies ? Silent of course ; absolutely silent. It doesn't get more offensive than that. He has the wrong dither.

I read this op ed in the washington post the other day and was wondering if anyone had a thought about the opinion presented.

Obama's Afghan Squeeze Play

By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, October 18, 2009

Is President Obama dithering on Afghanistan, as critics claim? Or do loyalists praising his deliberate pace have it right? Both camps rush past the obvious: The president is almost certainly applying a calculated, cold-blooded squeeze on his partners in the Afghan endeavor to get what he needs for a successful policy.

Obama is orchestrating a drawn-out review that is actually a policy instrument itself. That reality is (happily for Obama) obscured by the miasma of leaks, counter-leaks and guesswork that has settled over official Washington. But three things are absolutely clear:

First, Hamid Karzai cannot be accepted as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan on the basis of August's election. He should either accept an immediate runoff ballot or agree to become Afghanistan's ceremonial president and appoint a national unity government to run the country. Only then can the United States and its allies move forward to significantly expand military and civilian aid to Kabul.

Second, NATO's European members must greatly increase their involvement (and spending) in civilian reconstruction projects and provide some more manpower. Little noticed in Washington's overheated debate about troop numbers, a new U.S.-European bargain on counterinsurgency is an essential feature of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's bestseller of a secret report to the president.

Third, the Obama administration must not slip back into letting Pakistan present itself as an aggrieved party whose delicate national sensibilities are unjustly offended by suggestions that its army and intelligence services might be ripping off U.S. aid and covertly encouraging terrorism.

They are doing just that. And they must continue to be told directly that Washington is keeping score. Congress gently did that in passing a $7.5 billion, five-year aid bill that requires assurances that the money will not be stolen -- provoking nationalist outcries in Islamabad.

This third task will be easier if Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others cease publicly moaning about how "we turned our backs" on Pakistan in 1989. Pakistan's refusal to heed U.S. warnings about developing nuclear weapons forced the Bush 41 administration -- of which Gates was a senior official -- to halt aid to a country determined to become a proliferation rogue.

Pakistan spread nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea and continued its support for Taliban and al-Qaeda networks for its own perverted reasons of national security and/or greed -- not out of hurt pride.

Yes, Pakistan is the problem from hell and essential to the fight for Afghanistan. But the record of the Bush 43 and Obama administrations shows that only when the United States applies pressure -- instead of apologizing to Islamabad for the past or trying to play three-dimensional strategic chess with its rulers -- does Pakistan provide significant support for U.S. goals.

Afghanistan's Karzai has turned into a similar problem for Team Obama. He successfully resisted Washington's efforts to get him to resign or hold fair and free elections in August. Allegations of widespread fraud call into question Karzai's ability to work with the administration, which now prefers to watch him twist in the wind rather than frontally assault him. Obama gave subtle but clear backing for U.N. coordinator Kai Eide on the fraud issue by instructing the U.S. ambassador to appear with Eide at a Kabul news conference.

But this leaves only one weapon to squeeze Karzai into sharing power with more honest, competent Afghans: the threat of U.S. withdrawal. Obama allows that idea or something close to it to linger in the air as the review ostentatiously grinds on, perhaps to get Karzai's attention. But there is a harsh reality behind the implicit threat that both Washington and Kabul must understand: Obama could be driven to dramatically scale down U.S. support if Karzai continues to be a major obstacle to change. Karzai can push Afghanistan over the brink if he does not work with Obama.

A similar warning is directed at European nations that have stinted on combat support while emphasizing their largely theoretical commitment to reconstruction and development. McChrystal believes that NATO must become more active and deeply involved in reconstruction efforts if the United States adds tens of thousands of troops for military tasks. New European troops, even if the numbers are small, also are needed.

Afghanistan is at the brink, as Obama's review prudently recognizes. Only a focused effort by Washington and Kabul -- and other capitals -- can pull it back. The president is right to give that message time to sink in everywhere, see what results it produces and then act.

http://www.washingtonpost.../AR2009101602505_pf.html

btw macro ... do you have any idea when the battery for his stone heart is to give out ?

it doesn't matter. he is going to get a brain transplant into a clone.

I very much prefer ridicule to anger ~ mainly because ridicule just might enrage Darth ~ �~ Sooz

the man has no mind for matters military. i have heard it countless times, from people with more experience than Darth will EVER have in this world.

And I shall call her Mini-me!

LMAO, FF ~ too funny because it is SO true ~

Sooz

VERY strong words ~ that some of believe are very well deserved ~ Sooz

wow. i could not possibly have said it better than General Eaton did. and without any of his shiny bits.

FF ... #7 ... ROFL !

After concurring with the Ret General's comments above ... I found this a funny addition by Joan Walsh :

"I think Cheney should take a break from speechifying, maybe spend more time at home with his family, frightening his grandchildren."

I also found this funny and quite true as a matter of fact : " Mr Secret Bunker calls Obama ' afraid ' . Wingnuts clap , world yawns "

He's more in evidence out-of-office than he was when in-office.
The man who wrote the chickenhawk best practice manual.

you can say that again. he was a FIXTURE for this first 90 days out. he has been relatively quiet since the enhanced techniques memo came out.