And they didn't look too happy either...

I listened to the speech and as much as Obama has a way of lighting a fire under people, he also knows when to put aside the rhetoric and get down to the issues. Last night's speech did that very well. One of the main reasons why I was supportive of Obama from the very beginning had to do with his perception of the war in Afghanistan. He said from the start that he didn't support the Iraq invasion and that all it served to do was divide the country and "take our eye off the ball" - Al Qeada and the Taliban. Last night he pointed out very clearly that there is no defeating them by occupying Afghanistan in an open-ended commitment. The way to defeat them is to ensure that the Afghan AND Pakistani people have the means to protect themselves from the Taliban. With the Taliban under control, Al Qeada has no fertile ground in which to grow. All of this could have been accomplished a long time ago if the Bush Administration hadn't shifted the focus to invading and occupying Iraq. But that said, it can be achieved now that the US has a President that is determined to once again focus on what we went to Afghanistan for in the first place. I say "we" because Canada has been there since the very beginning and we have shed our blood disproportionately to the other European NATO countries. I am relieved to see that there is finally hope that our troops haven't died in vain. That's been my biggest concern throughout the Bush years.

Well said, Sid ~ I was particularly pleased with how Obama quashed Cheney's "dithering" comments ~ there are plenty of reasons to question or to not like or agree with Obama ~ but using fear and anger by intentionally distorting and making stuff up is just ... stupid ~ Sooz

Winter effectively shuts down everything in Afghanistan except in a few low areas. That goes for our troops and the enemy, whoever it is at the moment.
Cheney might not know that it's winter there.

Why would he have to know it? Can't he just carry on inventing his own reality a' la his "rice n' roses" and "last throes" scenarios.

he should have thrown in a few "Semper Fi"s like Bush used to do.

But I like him more now than I did yesterday.

The speech succinct, to the point, no rah rah rhetoric. The General requested 40,000... he got 30,000 but his mission was narrowed to specific duties in populated areas.. strictly to support the existing government. It will be the duty of the Afghan Army to take on the Taliban.. with our training, they are up to the job. I do not like the get out of town timetable, but Obama has shown the ability to change his stance as the situation requires. So, I do not believe our enemies will use the date to their advantage.

All in all.. well done, well received (at West Point), and a plan that can succeed.

As far as the appearance of people that were falling asleep.. I was an assistant instructor at the Naval Academy for two years.. it was not unusual for the tireds to hit in my late class. These kids are up at 05:30.. their schedules and physical activities are impressive... to be bundled into a warm auditorium for a period of time (long before the show started!), makes being totally alert very difficult.

And I will end with...

Semper Fi!

Saying "Semper Fi" at West Point would probably not go over too well.

neither did "bring 'em on".

It's just my opinion, but I think Semper Fi should be between Marines. As a Woman Marine veteran, I consider it much too important to be thrown about by everyone.

So, how do we pay for this continued bullshit?

Well, we could go back to all the banks that the fed gave money to, but never used it to make new loans or refinance, which is why we gave it to them, but never included it in the "rule book". We could go to all the "earmarks" from Dems and Republicans together and jerk back the money for bridges to nowhere and fish farms in Alaska. We could get Medicare to actually DO THEIR JOBS.. and not waste 49 Billion dollars, like they did in 2009 (to date). We could reduce the cast and crew of "support" in congress by about 50%.. and let the elected morons read their own bills instead of having the minions run the country. We could make congress use the same medical plan they are trying to foist on us. We can get ride to the 3,200 limousines currently owned by the government. That is a start..

Katy, BTW.. I served 28 months in the Republic of Vietnam with the 1st Marines and the 3rd Marines as part of the Navy Fleet Marine Forces Seabee Battalion.. and honoring Marines with Semper Fi, never bothered me. Understanding Always Faithful is something that many people could benefit from...

And Katy.. Thank you for your service!

Bob, yes, I had read about your service on another thread. I have no problem with you honoring Marines with Semper Fi or with Marines honoring you. I was in from 68 through 72 and heard many tales of the seabees. What a fantastic honorable group they are. I don't think you guys have ever gotten all the credit you deserve.

I agree the principle of always faithful is something everyone could benefit from. I was actually agreeing with gop that Semper Fi at West Point may not go over too well. lol.

I certainly thank you for your service, too, and welcome you home.

I totally agree with your list of ways to pay for the continued war. How many of those things do you think will happen?

So, how do we pay for this continued bullshit?

The same way as we paid for it during the last 8 years before Obama became President and before it became fashionable on the right to moan about the fiscal costs of war.

Yup, those Army grunts can get testy.. but they still understand being faithful to the code.

Jabra.. yes, true.. fortunately, it will never become unfashionable to look at the last guy in office to cover for the errors of the present guy.. who by the way has spent more in one year than both Bush presidents together... in their 12 years.

You hoped for a complete meltdown of our economy?
Btw, not doubting your numbers here, but do you have some link to a reputable site where I can look for myself?

jabra2, so the idea of change Obama ran on is bs? We'll do it the same way as it was done under Bush.

The cost in lives and limbs has always been my priority. However, I don't think it's a right wing thing to question how much and how we'll pay for it along with everythng else.

Same way as under Bush?
Obama set a deadline which distinguishes his way from Bush's way.
Obama also doesn't exclude the expenses from his budget unlike Bush.
Obama also approved of sending in more troops into Afghanistan as requested by the generals on the ground unlike Bush and chickenhawk Cheney who dithered on the generals request for more than 8 months and was finally filled by Obama in March 2009.

I like such change.

Usually it is not. I'm just not used to such questions from the right wing when it concerns costs of wars. Those questions, for some mysterious reason, only start when there is a Democratic President at the helm.

Here is a graph for Bush Jr vrs Obama, read it and weap... you will note the 2009 alone, is almost as large as the total for Bush Jr. Bush Sr. was minute in comaparison.. the light red is the White House estimate, the dard is the Budget Office.

jabra, I asked the question and I am far from right wing.

I asked how we're going to pay for it. You said the same as the last 8 years. The things you listed have nothing to do with that or with my comment.

I see a graph. I see numbers. I see years. I do not see a designation for what the number of dollars represent, or a source for the graph. That would help. It could be the amount of the national debt, the interest on the debt, the cost of rebuilding Iraq, the planned expenditures (obviously, since it runs to 2019), Many Bush programs had future expenditures that the national budget must provide.

Is there maybe some question here as to the actual amount of spending that can be laid to the 2009 time period. If I recall correctly, from 2001 through 2008, there was a massive amount of money allocated to the DOD, much of which was spread over a period of years into the future, beyond 2008. It allocated to commitments to be expected in future financing of rebuilding and further military involvement in the middle east. Also to contracts for building of the enormous (most expensive in the world) American Embassy in Iraq, and attendant costs for personnel to take up the space. All of this spending incurred enormous indebtedness. The Bush Administration borrowed money with as much irresponsibility as any of those oft-mentioned people who couldn't afford their mortgages. This saddled the incoming administration with increased national debt interest being required well into the future to prevent default.

Obama has not yet acquired a "signable" health care bill, so there can be no "expenditures" in the 2009 year for his health care bill. In all honesty, what has he spent all of this money on? The "bailout?" Pardon me, but wasn't the initial "bail out," the largest one, the AIG and Wall Street "bail out" formulated, or approved in September of 2008, during the Bush Administration? I could be wrong, but it seems I remember Bush being involved in the first allocation of funds. I know the first little check for a "stimulus" I received was in the summer of 2008. If I recall correctly, there were funds allocated during the Bush years, but the dispersion of those funds was to be incremental, and extend into the time AFTER Obama was sworn into office. Does anyone else remember it being that way? It's kinda amusing since so much of what Obama has proposed has been voted down or held in limbo, I find it really difficult to understand how he could have actually "spent" all that money, or commited to "spend" all that money. "PROPOSED" spending, maybe?

I honestly do not recall the details, but I seem to recall that Bush's expenditures were mind boggling. And the fact that he was "borrowing" us into insolvency was troubling to me. Especially in light of his much extolled, GOP pleasing tax cut along with an expensive, open ended, very potentially expansive war.

I cannot argue that the graph is there. I can question what the graph represents, what is the source of the graph, and what is the history of financial commitments made during the Bush years, including hugely increased national debt and the interest thereon, that were handed over to Obama. I don't think the claim of outspending both Bush presidencies can be possiblem, but it may be so.

Could someone help me out here, as I am having a lot of trouble getting computer time right now. Anybody know off the top of their head how much previously allocated spending was handed over to Obama? And could we have a source for that graph?

I don't mind Obama being charged with spending, but this just doesn't seem to add up.

Thanks.

jd

Who are you trying to fool, Bob?

Excellent points, jeanne ~ I'll see what I can dig up ~ but I'm almost positive that the original $700B approved so near the end of gwb's term was split 50/50 because the prior admin could not disburse that much before leaving office ~ so that's $350B right there that Obama "inherited" ~ and that graph certainly does not take into account some of the TARP funds that are being repaid now ~ I'm not sure how a valid calculation and comparison can actually be made given the overlaps ~

Sooz