Am I the only one who does NOT agree that "Announcing a firm date for starting an American withdrawal while also saying such a withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground 'are two incompatible statements,'"? ~ it is a moral imperative IMO that it be explicitly clear that there is a plan with a finite end ~ and it is equally important to give credence to "ground conditions" ~ Sooz

As I said in a previous thread.. President Obama has shown the ability to change the plan as the situation demands.. he did with Gitmo, he did with troops and funding to both Iraq & Afghanistan, he has with a number of platform promises during the election. I personally find it refreshing that a President will bite the bullet despite the fall of Bush Sr. and his "read my lips, no new taxes"! I think our enemies are astute enough to know that if they play games, the date can change.

I have a lot more respect for Obama and his actually listening to the military (which I never felt Bush truly did). Of course that does not change my opinion of his spending, of his health plan, of his socialization of banking and auto making.. If you can not succeed, than you should FAIL.. are you listening USPS! 234 years to get it right.. and you still suck, and y'all are broke to boot!

they should raise postage rates to 60 cents. problem solved.

Nope... because like every government runamuk organization, give them more.. they will spend more... It makes no difference how much they get, they will find a bridge to no where to spend it on!

I have a lot more respect for Obama and his actually listening to the military (which I never felt Bush truly did). Of course that does not change my opinion of his spending, of his health plan, of his socialization of banking and auto making.. If you can not succeed, than you should FAIL.. are you listening USPS! 234 years to get it right.. and you still suck, and y'all are broke to boot!

For a rightwinger, you're downright reasonable Bob. Better be careful or they'll yank your card.

The one thing in your post that I disagree with is your reference to "socialization" of the banking and auto industries - both of which were going to happen - indeed started to happen - under the Bush regime. While it makes good politics to argue that, the fact is that if those industries were allowed to fail it is very likely the American economy would never have recovered and what has been a deep recession would have been a full blown, long, term depression. Beyond that, the simple fact that government money is involved does not make either of them a socialist endeavour. There has been no attempt by the government to control the means of production. They are safeguarding the people's investment in the companies but are not regulating either the number of cars built nor the price those cars may be sold for. The companies are also required to compete in the market place with companies who have had no government intervention.

I think Obama made a wise decision with regard to Afghanistan (although I doubt it will work for a variety of reasons). By setting the date for review and possible withdrawal he's put the Karzai government on notice that it had better clean-up its act. They've got a pretty strong incentive to do so - their lives - since they wouldn't survive long if the Taliban returned. At the same time they've created a problem for the Taliban. If they sit back and wait, it will give the U.S. and Afghan government the chance to bring the country under control. If they continue to fight they'll run into deadly, strength sapping opposition. Either way it's a lose/lose situation for them. Their best bet would be to abandon Afghanistan altogether and concentrate their efforts on either creating a new homeland in Pakistan or bringing down the entire Pakistani government.