White house goes after Fox News

[MdA]

.....
Now I sign on to the Colin Powell line that if you break it you fix it. The trouble is there is no stomach anywhere on the political spectrum to actually do that.

Your right....especially in the White House. America is waking up.

[keith]

Your right....especially in the White House. America is waking up.

You really think so?

I'm not convinced. After all in Iraq troop levels peaked at 150,000ish (and at that level only briefly). Afghanistan currently only has 50,000ish and that's a big jump from the last few years. There are more Nato troops in Afghanistan of course. Given the nature of the conflict; about the same population size as Iraq the same (ish) geographical size somewhat less welcoming locals and less than conducive terrain. The 30-40,000 extra troops sounds more like the most that can realistically be asked for.

All the talk about the best forces in the world is fine but it's the political will to pay the price(s) for putting the required number of boots on the ground, and keeping them there, that counts.

[MdA]

You really think so?

I meant that America is waking up to the fact that the President is not willing to sacrifice his political base to make this very tough decision.....meanwhile American and NATO soldiers continue to die.

[Inquartata]

The final goal of our being in Afghanistan is to have a reliable democratic gov't in place there that can maintain rule of law, right?

That's not the goal that Mr. Obama iterated when he talked about "right wars and wrong wars".

That goal among others made Iraq a "wrong war" for him. What made Afghanistan an acceptable committment was that those responsible for the 9-11 attacks were based and organized there and sheltered by the then-government of the country. Has this rationale changed into nation-building? Isn't that one of the things that got Bush so excoriated by the left?

So the expectation is that Obama should just hurry up and make a decision before this election debacle is sorted out?

Yes. What's so hard about it? We did not base the timing of the surge in Iraq on non-military considerations like elections, did we?

Of course, THAT was decided by a man with military and executive experience, so I suppose we shouldn't hold our current CiC to that standard. We should make allowances. Perhaps that Nobel Peace Prize will substitute for decisiveness, rather the way the pocketwatch substituted for the Tin Man's heart.

You don't think it's a good idea to wait until the election is resolved before making these crucial decisions?!

I think that militarily it is never a good idea to subsume military policy to non-military concerns. ( In other words, no, not particularly. )

Why is this an issue? If they can't even hold fair elections and have a basic functioning gov't then our being there is a moot point. He should be waiting to see how this essential element of a stable gov't plays out.

Because we are fighting a hot war, and taking casualties, and the enemy is growing stronger and more aggressive.

Why are elections an issue to you when this is the case?

Some excuse can always be found for doing nothing. Meanwhile, the military situation continues to deteriorate apace. The military situation is our real business there: defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban. And the rest is secondary.

.... and if they don't? The trouble here is that sabre rattling is just that. What exactly are they actually doing (other than traditional outlet favoritism)? Fine for folk to use words like threaten, attack, silence but unless the White house actually does something it's so much hot air. Sounds to me as much about reminding folk that just because the previous administration went with Foxnews talking points, don't expect this one to.

Since you insist on bringing up the tu quoque "previous administration", lets wonder together how such comments from it would have been greeted. There would have been no defense on the grounds of "Oh, it's just talk, there's no action behind it", would there? No, it would have been around-the-clock shrilling about how it intended to destroy the First Amendment and how this was the next step in its ongoing campaign to grind civil rights under its jackbooted heel.

My question is: Why is there even a lukewarm defense of this sort of thing? Is it just because Obama can do no wrong?

In doing something you mean like getting Karzai to back down over vote fraud and agree to a run off?

No. I mean "something" about the military situation. The part that concerns us most urgently. The part that involves Americans dying while Nero fiddles...

Why exactly does this concern you less than a non-mortal question like which crook will be President of Afghanistan? That's something which is decidedly less urgent IMO than the matter of whether or not there is even going to BE a President of Afghanistan, or a mullah instead...

[Hauptman]

What ever happened to having an exit strategy and timelines? Wasn't that what the democrats were screaming for when GB was in charge in Iraq? Why should it be any different for Obama. And isn't our goal in Afghanistan to kill the terrorist that caused 9/11. Why do you hold Obama to different standards than you did Bush? Never mind the last question, we all know the answer.

Who says I'm holding Obama to a different standard? Because you say so?

In case you've forgotten, Obama has only been president for 9 months, did you expect him to "win" the war overnight? His commanders asked for more troops and he gave it to them. Now they're asking for even more troops, and he's actually taking the time to make the right decision because let's face it; whichever choice he makes he will be slammed by people like you.

If the goal was to just go in and kill the terrorists then it has been a dismal failure especially since it's been 8 years now, so your theory there must be wrong.

If the goal is to establish a stable gov't that can keep rule of law and keep the terrorists under control then that was mostly a failure as well given the level of corruption and fraud we've seen from the Aghan leadership we put in charge over there.

Yes, we won't have a long-term stable gov't there if we don't win militarily, but it makes no sense to commit more troops to that goal if there is no reliable gov't to make stable. The last Afghan election was a mess, and until this week we didn't even know if there was going to be a run-off election or what else might happen. It makes perfect sense to hold off on committing more troops until we see where the political situation is heading.

You may not agree with the premise, but it at least makes sense, and all the crap here about Obama's ego, laziness, and political agenda is typically partisan and false.

[Hauptman]

That's not the goal that Mr. Obama iterated when he talked about "right wars and wrong wars".

That goal among others made Iraq a "wrong war" for him. What made Afghanistan an acceptable committment was that those responsible for the 9-11 attacks were based and organized there and sheltered by the then-government of the country. Has this rationale changed into nation-building? Isn't that one of the things that got Bush so excoriated by the left?

You're deliberately mixing apples and oranges. Yes, attacking Iraq was wrong because the only goal was nation building (and possibly personal motives on the part of the last administration) and had nothing to do with U.S. security as the propaganda had us believe.

The goal in attacking Afghanistan, however, has always been about U.S. security because as you point out, that is where the terrorists were operating. Nation building in Afghanistan is not the goal, it is the means necessary for long-term security because if we leave without a stable gov't there then the terrorists will just move back in, and go back to business.

[Inquartata]

If that's the case, then why is "Exit" one of the options which this administration is apparently considering in it's "long think"?

A nation goes to war, very often, for political reasons; hence the famous Clausewitz dictum. But once war has been undertaken, it should be prosecuted militarily, using military methods and strategies devised and instituted by military experts and officers. It should not be subjected to purely non-military restrictions. It is not a good tool for creating social institutions and erecting political structures. That is not what armies are designed to do. They are designed to defeat other armies, whether traditional or insurgent. And to insist that they wait for thus and such political conditions to mature while they are taking casualties from foes whose hands are not thus tied is a recipe for...well...Vietnam.

Not only does precisely this appear to be going on, assuming you are right and this isn't just about Obama playing Hamlet---you know, the play about "a man who just could not make up his mind"---but the way it is going is is being designed by a President with no military experience and a history of philosophical aversion to military concerns. And it is all very well to value diplomacy above force, and to focus on talking and working things out...but once the military has been committed, that focus can be a hindrance.

Worse, and a thing I don't understand why no one else has noticed, is that apparently a "new" model of warfare is being designed in the White House, against the advice of experts in the field and the military itself, by another man with no personal military experience, Vice President Biden and a coterie of supporters. Does this really not remind anyone of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle and their coterie of expert-contradicting designers of the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" and of their "new model" for warfare in Iraq and elsewhere? Why are the people who warned us that that wouldn't work now failing to do the same with this latest effort by another administration?

The President should make a decision. Either give the military what it's leaders say it needs to win, or pull it out and quit leaving it to the death of a thousand cuts. Or SOMEthing. Maybe there are other options of which I'm not aware, which the generals in theater see would help. But doing nothing while the military bleeds is no more praiseworthy in Obama than it was in Bush...

And meanwhile, we get tiffs with Fox News and campaign trips for Democratic legislators up for re-election instead of leadership.

My biggest criticism of Obama before the election was that he appeared to be a great politician but that he lacked executive leadership credentials of any sort. I think that's coming home to roost now. He's doing what he knows, obsessing on "collegial consultation and compromise negotiation" instead of making decisions as a chief executive needs to do.

[Hauptman]

If that's the case, then why is "Exit" one of the options which this administration is apparently considering in it's "long think"?

A nation goes to war, very often, for political reasons; hence the famous Clausewitz dictum. But once war has been undertaken, it should be prosecuted militarily, using military methods and strategies devised and instituted by military experts and officers. It should not be subjected to purely non-military restrictions. It is not a good tool for creating social institutions and erecting political structures. That is not what armies are designed to do. They are designed to defeat other armies, whether traditional or insurgent. And to insist that they wait for thus and such political conditions to mature while they are taking casualties from foes whose hands are not thus tied is a recipe for...well...Vietnam.

Not only does precisely this appear to be going on, assuming you are right and this isn't just about Obama playing Hamlet---you know, the play about "a man who just could not make up his mind"---but the way it is going is is being designed by a President with no military experience and a history of philosophical aversion to military concerns. And it is all very well to value diplomacy above force, and to focus on talking and working things out...but once the military has been committed, that focus can be a hindrance.

Worse, and a thing I don't understand why no one else has noticed, is that apparently a "new" model of warfare is being designed in the White House, against the advice of experts in the field and the military itself, by another man with no personal military experience, Vice President Biden and a coterie of supporters. Does this really not remind anyone of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle and their coterie of expert-contradicting designers of the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" and of their "new model" for warfare in Iraq and elsewhere? Why are the people who warned us that that wouldn't work now failing to do the same with this latest effort by another administration?

The President should make a decision. Either give the military what it's leaders say it needs to win, or pull it out and quit leaving it to the death of a thousand cuts. Or SOMEthing. Maybe there are other options of which I'm not aware, which the generals in theater see would help. But doing nothing while the military bleeds is no more praiseworthy in Obama than it was in Bush...

And meanwhile, we get tiffs with Fox News and campaign trips for Democratic legislators up for re-election instead of leadership.

My biggest criticism of Obama before the election was that he appeared to be a great politician but that he lacked executive leadership credentials of any sort. I think that's coming home to roost now. He's doing what he knows, obsessing on "collegial consultation and compromise negotiation" instead of making decisions as a chief executive needs to do.

I think it is disingenuous to expect Obama to come up with a solution on the spur of the moment when there are legitimate reasons for waiting for a proper assessment.

Listening to his commanders is fine if there is a strictly military solution to this conflict, but unfortunately there isn't, and you can't blame Obama for the situation as it stands. The only solution to this conflict requires both a military and political solution.

The two choices are to leave Afghanistan or put in the resources necessary for a complete military occupation.

If we exit now then Obama will be attacked for being a coward and our troops will have died for nothing because without a stable gov't then the Taliban will take over again and/or the country will descend into chaos.

If Obama escalates the conflict without the necessary Afghan political infrastructure to ensure a reasonable exit strategy then even more troops will die without accomplishing anything.

So waiting for a proper assessment of the current political situation in Afghanistan seems like a logical choice because merely escalating militarily makes no sense.

I'm open to other choices or reasoning, but so far I haven't heard anything other than Obama insults.

[Slim]

Jack and Squat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYnMYZDsrJM

[Slim]

Who says I'm holding Obama to a different standard? Because you say so?

You may not agree with the premise, but it at least makes sense, and all the crap here about Obama's ego, laziness, and political agenda is typically partisan and false.

Why, because you say so?

[Hauptman]

Why, because you say so?

It's called a logical argument, Slim. Feel free to try it yourself sometime.

[Bayou Bum]

Who says I'm holding Obama to a different standard? Because you say so?

Your own posts.

In case you've forgotten, Obama has only been president for 9 months, did you expect him to "win" the war overnight? His commanders asked for more troops and he gave it to them. Now they're asking for even more troops, and he's actually taking the time to make the right decision because let's face it; whichever choice he makes he will be slammed by people like you.

I didn't expect Obama to win the war overnight but I do expect him to make it the priority he said he would. And I am not "slamming" him for the choice he is making, but for not doing anything. Personally, I think he should send in more troops. Withdrawing would only increase terrorist attacks in the future. We are at war and should send in whatever force necessary to win. If he is unwilling to do that, then he should bring our troops home and suffer whatever consequence in the future.

I would love to hear what YOU think Obama should do. Do you have the balls to state an opinion before Obama gives it to you? Be careful, you have a 50-50 chance of disagreeing with your idol!

If the goal was to just go in and kill the terrorists then it has been a dismal failure especially since it's been 8 years now, so your theory there must be wrong.

It has been a failure so far, because we haven't committed the resources necessary to accomplish the goal. So how does that make my theory wrong?

It makes perfect sense to hold off on committing more troops until we see where the political situation is heading.

Not if you want to win the war. I'll bet you wouldn't feel that way if it was your ass getting shot at over there!

[keith]

Since you insist on bringing up the tu quoque "previous administration", lets wonder together how such comments from it would have been greeted. There would have been no defense on the grounds of "Oh, it's just talk, there's no action behind it", would there? No, it would have been around-the-clock shrilling about how it intended to destroy the First Amendment and how this was the next step in its ongoing campaign to grind civil rights under its jackbooted heel.

Would there really? I can't recall any around the clock shrilling when prior administrations played outlet favouritism. The left moans about Fox and the right moans about everyone else, c'est la vie.

If the allegations become more serious than that well it becomes an issue, but really I thought you hadn't been gullible enough to believe that 'hope & change' was much different from 'compassionate conservatism'.

My question is: Why is there even a lukewarm defense of this sort of thing? Is it just because Obama can do no wrong?

.... but what of sort of thing? Sorry I find the complaint pretty amusing, it's politics & media. Sometimes it's hard to tell who's the whore.

No. I mean "something" about the military situation. The part that concerns us most urgently. The part that involves Americans dying while Nero fiddles...

See Hauptman's observations that this is not just a military issue. Unless you reckon scorched earth is the way to go?

Why exactly does this concern you less than a non-mortal question like which crook will be President of Afghanistan? That's something which is decidedly less urgent IMO than the matter of whether or not there is even going to BE a President of Afghanistan, or a mullah instead...

At some point you want to have less than several hundred thousand foreign troops on the ground in Afghanistan. So forcing Karzai to realise he cannot assume unconditional support is important. Not least since it suggests to other parties that the American/NATO forces may be an honest broker in any final settlement.

I'll agree Obama has take way to long to work out what his policy is - information constipation coupled with the knowledge that whatever he does the final result is dependent on factors he cannot control I'd suspect. On the plus side he did at least way back when realise that more troops were needed, so I'll be cautiously optimistic that he'll make the least bad call.

Anyway, I'm done with this since I have little time for pointless insinuations that I'm happy to see soldiers (american or other NATO forces) get killed.

[Hauptman]

"Your own posts."

My own posts? I call BS... again.... show me some quotes.


"I didn't expect Obama to win the war overnight but I do expect him to make it the priority he said he would. And I am not "slamming" him for the choice he is making, but for not doing anything. Personally, I think he should send in more troops. Withdrawing would only increase terrorist attacks in the future. We are at war and should send in whatever force necessary to win. If he is unwilling to do that, then he should bring our troops home and suffer whatever consequence in the future."

You still don't get it, you still haven't defined, "win". I have, and I will say it again, nobody wins if there is no stable gov't in Afghanistan. Until we know what that situation is you CAN'T make an informed decision.

"I would love to hear what YOU think Obama should do. Do you have the balls to state an opinion before Obama gives it to you? Be careful, you have a 50-50 chance of disagreeing with your idol!"

See above. If I HAD to make a decision now I would say that we pull out. One more time, without a stable gov't there nobody wins.

"It has been a failure so far, because we haven't committed the resources necessary to accomplish the goal. So how does that make my theory wrong?"

It has been a failure because it is a flawed goal. You CAN'T kill all the terrorists. They are constantly recruiting all over the world in a thousand little groups. You can't win a "war on terror" because there is no definable goal. There will always be terrorists unless you have a stable gov't, rule of law, and a more economically advanced and educated society. And even then you'll still have the random wacko that will pop up like Ted Kaczynski or a Timothy McVeigh. You can't bomb them out of existence.


"Not if you want to win the war. I'll bet you wouldn't feel that way if it was your ass getting shot at over there!"

And if your ass was getting drafted you wouldn't be so eager to escalate either. I've been against these invasions all along.

[I_luv_saber]

Actually yes you are. After all if the claim is that the Obama administration can not in any way, ever, act like any previous administration then it's silliness.

Ah, but that's not what I said. I wasn't taking issue with him repeating mistakes (although I think it's certainly fair enough to point them out when they occur, and indeed this should be done), I was taking issue with the cop out argument of "Bush did it too" rather than giving a reason for positive or negative feedback based on it's own merits. Rather than defenders throwing their hands up and saying "Hey, Bush did it too" I'd rather hear something more like "Look, we made a mistake" or "In this case I think it was a good decision and here's why". The latter two are logical, reasonable defenses (whether or not they are agreed with and whether or not it's hypocritical). The former is just a cop out and is lazy.

Politicians are elected with legislative agendas, they do stuff to get those through. Sure you expect them to do it legally but beyond that .

Sure. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out when one has shifted to a position he once crusaded against, or when one flat out lies. My position on this is not unique to Obama. Am I surprised and is it unique? Of course not. Does that give him a free pass? Absolutely not. I'll call it on him just as well as I called it on the previous administration.

Would the stuff that the Obama administration does be different if FoxNews was running some sort of serious discussion of the issues around health care? I suspect it would be. Although I'd agree that the silliest election claim was a new dawning of non-partisan politics. After all it kind of depends on the other guys .

Sure it does, but I think it's the effort that counts. I will say that I was very disappointed at the start of his Presidency with his seeming lack of effort - but as of late he seems to have at least tried to extend the olive branch (somewhat - for a politician ). If he's given an honest effort to it, I won't knock him for it (I think he should be knocked for other things, but on this... I think we'll have to wait and see).

EDIT: Also note that I think Obama's comments regarding FOX have been blown way out of proportion and I really don't think it's a big deal. My issue is only with the cop out.

[tchwojko]

2) They are frittering away their time and attention

They're theoretically spending less time by ignoring one media outlet, no?

[I_luv_saber]

2) They are frittering away their time and attention

I still don't understand - what, can the Administration not walk and chew gum at the same time?

[lindajdunn]

This is why I was so concerned about his lack of executive experience in any capacity back before the election...

I had that same concern but the alternative was someone who (if my memory is correct) voted for four of the last two wars. He also -- like Bush -- was a fighter pilot and the same personality traits that make a good fighter pilot tend not to translate well into logistics and long-term planning.

I note that Elizabeth I was quite successful in war primarily through the tactic of stalling. Unfortuantely, Obama is already married and we can not use Elizabeth I's method of pretending to entertain a marriage proposal from another country's ruler. I suspect offering either or both of the Obama daughters as potential mates would not go over well and esp. so since we'd be negotiating with countries where child brides and multiple wives are acceptable practices. Then again, maybe he HAS already negotiated a marriage treaty with Afghantain's leader and that's why he's agreeing to another election. The fix is in. If Michelle and the girls fly over for a state visit, we'll know he's just looking over the potential bride.

For the humor impaired: yes, the last paragraph is satire. I've been cramming for an exam and if a vampire bit me, he'd be up all day. LOTS of caffeine in my system.

[I_luv_saber]

For the humor impaired: yes, the last paragraph is satire. I've been cramming for an exam and if a vampire bit me, he'd be up all day. LOTS of caffeine in my system.

Party like a Rockstar.

EDIT: I can sympathize. Working night shift, one is kept alive by a mixture of caffeine and insanity.

[jeff]

For the humor impaired: yes, the last paragraph is satire. I've been cramming for an exam and if a vampire bit me, he'd be up all day. LOTS of caffeine in my system.

Thank you, Linda. IMO, the best political satire post on this board in quite a long time - definitely the most imaginative! (that and the Mooselim picture) Caffeine and insanity - it's the Right Stuff!