Blue Commonwealth Logo

Advanced Search
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Become a Supporter
Like Blue Commonwealth? Want to help keep it running?
Contribute Today, and help keep our blog ad free!




Blog Roll
7 West
Albo Must Go
Anonymous is a Woman
Anti-BVBL
Article XI
Assembly Access
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Blacknell
Blue Ridge Data
Blue Virginia
Blueweeds
Byrne-ing Up the Internet
Central VA Progressive
ChangeServant
Coarse Cracked Corn
CobaltVA
CvilleDave
The Daily Dogwood
Dem Bones
DemocracyUpsideDown
DemRulz
Equality Loudoun
Fairfax City Dems
WaPo - The Fix
Fred2Blue
Getting Around
Great Blue Heron
The Green Miles
Heartland of Va
Leesburg Tomorrow
Left of the Hill
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Ox Road South Blog
Penning Thoughts
Powhatan Democrats
Renaissance Ruminations
River City Rapids
Rule .303
RockDem
Shad Plank
Sisyphus
SlantBlog
Southeast Virginia
Star City Harbinger
Tokatakiya
Too Progressive
United States of Jamerica
VB Dems
VB Progressives
Virginia Dem
The Virginia Democrat
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Vivian Paige
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll
xcurmudgeon

When Will They Ever Learn?

by: KathyinBlacksburg

Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 20:02:28 PM EST


(I began this shortly before the President began to speak.  These are my thoughts and not those of other members of the editorial board.)

Dear President Obama:

Keith Olbermann last night spoke passionately against your Big Escalation, an escalation we cannot afford, cannot bear and ought not to undertake. It will not keep us any safer.  So, not one single life is worth it.  It is yours now, this awful and never ending war.

I resent that you are making it ours.  I will resent it every day this country's fiscal health is hammered and every day the Republican Noise Machine, along with the Blue Dogs, join to subvert the entire safety net--because you have done this.  You are spending health care reform right down the sewer.  Your are compromising everything that really makes this nation great. (And that's not war.)

In a few moments, you will begin speaking to the nation.  I will not be listening.  It has become clear you do not care what the majority of Americans think.  By the way, we, the majority, think it's wrong.  We think it's unsupportable.  We think it's unaffordable.  And we think it's a huge mistake from a security perspective.  

I will not listen tonight because you haven't listened to us, about much of anything.  And until or unless you do, I am tuning you out.  It pains me to say this because I have supported you, both in the primary, the general election and until now.  I have supported you even as you threw health care "reform" to the wind, only to be watered down and rendered useless, and as you waffled on many, many other issues.  

KathyinBlacksburg :: When Will They Ever Learn?
But what is worse, you listen to the same endless fantasies which purport that if you only commit this many more troops, things will be "better." It's the song of the military-industrial complex, which will never be satisfied unless there is war without end, more weapons to replace and more weapons systems to sell.

What is your definition of "better?"  Should more soldiers die?  Should tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of innocent civilians die?  Is a life less valuable because a drone kills it?  Should more doors be kicked in as people sleep?  Is this what we want?  This is what we buy into when we buy into war.  Will you say we must rebuild Afghanistan?  What about our own country, Mr. President?  

And why do you possibly think we will "win" in a country where no one else from outside ever has.  American "exceptionalism?"  We are only showing here that we are exceptionally stupid, as stupid as Dick Cheney, who talks emptily about "exceptionalism."  The man is an idiot, Mr. President.  Why do you listen to the likes of him, as you apparently have?  You are incredibly bright, Mr. President.  I thought you had learned the terrible lessons of history?  I really did.  And I wonder, do you get that our troops, by their mere presence, enhance the recruitment efforts of our enemies? What are you thinking? I now fear that, like your predecessor, you are lost.  This puzzles me because I still believe you are essentially a good person.

Did not the former administration leave to you a mess in every sphere?  Why are you now furthering almost all of their ruinous policies?  Meanwhile you leave us to fend for ourselves.  It is as if you ask us, the citizens, to push many rocks of Sisyphus up hill, all at the same time, all alone, while you continue down the same pathways the previous administration did. What has happened to you, Mr. President?

Health care reform, the terrible economic disaster (still unfolding and not fixed), the neglected environment, global warming, our food supply, education (my God, you gave us Arne Duncan!) are all in serious trouble.  A new round of foreclosures looms.  And without Congressional action we will default on our obligations.  Can you not see the Republicans are salivating for that to happen?  Some of them even want us to default, so they can drown needed government services and the entire safety net in the proverbial bathtub.  Our infrastructure is collapsing.  When will you ever learn?  

When will you learn that in this country the president calls the shots, not General McChrystal?  As Olbermann points out, this is the same General McChrystal who has some credibility problems in the Pat Tillman case. But now he gets to decide not only Afghanistan, but also what we can afford to do otherwise?  

I am beyond disillusioned, Mr. President.  And an activist becoming so disillusioned, says a lot.  Change we can believe in?  Not a chance. I've heard it argued that the White House is also purposefully distancing itself from and dissing your progressive base.  Good luck with that too. Why is it only Dems who throw their own "side of the aisle" under the bus?

 

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Grow up (0.00 / 0)
Read your third-to-last paragraph. There isn't a plate in the world big enough to have room for everything this President has been asked to deal with. And nowhere on that list did you include the pressing, immediate international relations issues that fell on his doorstep at Day One: repairing America's ability to influence the foreign policy of other nations; keeping Russia from invading the Ukraine; getting China to become a net-positive force in international affairs; and the list goes on and on.

Look, I would rather we didn't have to send any more troops into Afghanistan. But leaving it as an uncontested safe haven for Al Qaeda is absolutely unacceptable. You said you wrote this before the President's speech. Well, if you'd bothered to listen to the policy instead of wallow in your self-righteous "disillusion," you would've seen a President who understands the implications of what he's doing and isn't entering into this decision because of political pressures. This is this President's decision about how to best secure our nation and our world.

If you thought last year that voting for Obama was the same as voting for a George McGovern or a Ted Kennedy or any other politician at the cutting edge of liberal political philosophy, you weren't paying attention. He's a pragmatist, and best courses most often leans toward the center, not an ideological pole. Yea, we got handed a lemon, but we're doing what we can to get it moving again. Either get back here and push, or get the hell outta the way, but don't sit in the backseat and pout.

--


"I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." --RFK


Afghanistan is another quagmire (0.00 / 0)
A cold, pragmatic analysis on the situation of Afghanistan can tell you that it cannot be "won." The political dynamics that the U.S. and USSR created back in the late 70s and throughout the 80s  won't be undone with 30K 40k or 100K soldiers within a year or two.

Afghanistan had a chance, a golden chance, but like everything touched by the Bush administration, it was squandered away through corruption, brutality, and arrogance.

I recently read a post of an Afghani in a history forum. He said that the main reason why the US became unpopular there is for air bombings that kill civilians, yet the US keeps doing them and never apologizes for the deaths. This has driven a country with a long history of resistance against occupation to go back and do what they know best. And since the Taliban is the one group fighting the invaders, people who want to fight against American injustices such as the bombings will go with the Taliban.

And the Taliban will always come back there. There are enough off them, and there is enough of opium, and the opium prices are high enough to always, always rearm them, no matter how much we spend on it.

These dynamics help to topple down a financially weak Soviet Union 30 years ago. Are we, the U.S., in a financially weak moment as well, going to engage in the same kind of nonsense that helped finish the Soviet Union?

And final pragmatic analysis: we cannot afford it. If we can't afford to cure sick children, we certainly can't afford to wage war on the other side of the world.

What is the point of fighting the Taliban over there if there is no country left over here to protect?


[ Parent ]
Hugo, you said it better than I (0.00 / 0)
One statement you made stand out:

These dynamics help to topple down a financially weak Soviet Union 30 years ago. Are we, the U.S., in a financially weak moment as well, going to engage in the same kind of nonsense that helped finish the Soviet Union?

That is the essence of my concern.  No outside country has ever succeeded in Afghanistan.  More than one has been brought to its knees.  I hope that doesn't' include us. But we need to get our own house in order.

Our fiscal nightmare is only beginning, I am afraid.  Experts predict another mortgage crisis, and another financial crash as well.  Meanwhile, Wall St execs are still feeding, like pigs at the trough. Real regulatory reform is awaiting.  And we have the very people responsible for part of the crash still controlling the Treas, the Fed, and Council of Economic Advisers.  

I have a really sinking feeling about the course we are on.

I want to support Obama.  I really do.  I do not oppose him.  And I will defend him against the tea-baggers, right-wing talk, and FAUX News incendiaries.  But I do not support him on Afghanistan, the economic situation, or health care (any more).



"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010


[ Parent ]
Well maybe you should've had an open mind and watched (0.00 / 0)
I don't know the news in Blacksburg, I have just started reading the Richmond Times Dispatch so I can understand state politics better, but over here in Washington, you need 60 votes to do something. You can't just wave your wand and say make it so.  On top of that Senator McCain said the same old comment that have come to be known in Republican circles if we retreat, we'll be defeated. This was a thoughtful speech with clear objectives. He is not abandoning his base-the left, because we are pulling out in 2011,and yet it should be remembered the left and the right are small outposts of bases and Obama was also elected by the winning component of the middle/independent voters, of which I count myself of, who wants someone to govern. He still is trying to close Gitmo, he expressed those idealist views of what this country is about.  I also feel that Health-Care with a public option is a progressive issue. This is one of the few things I've allowed myself to get passionate in. I beleive he is still working on that, I just got an emall from the Democrats to help support the rapid response. Good things come to those who wait, patience is a virtue. Not even a year and your quitting, talk about the sunshine patriot.

On top of this is Rep. Obey's war tax proposal to help pay for the war. These things need to be stated. Please reconsider?  


The "leadership" (0.00 / 0)
in Congress, both in the House and the Senate, is saying "no !@#$%ing way; not in this economy!" to Obey's proposal. So the money will have to come out from somewhere else, and I'd be willing to bet that it won't be bankers' bonuses that bear the brunt of it.

Sigh... I wish things had been otherwise and Obama had had more choices. I suppose the July 2011 withdrawal timeline is a ray of sunshine; the first time anyone's ever mentioned such a crazy idea. But it's hard not to remember that, by then, the Afghanistan quagmire will have gone on for a decade; children will have been born and graduated from the middle school in that span. WWI lasted 4 yrs. WWII, 6...


[ Parent ]
What makes you think (0.00 / 0)
I did not read a transcript?  I did, btw.  But I am not interested in sitting through his speeches on TV at this point, though.  

Nor did I say I was quitting anything.  But I no longer have faith that he listens tot he American people.  He does not. The majority disagree with him on this.  

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010


[ Parent ]
because you stated you had written the peice and not watched (0.00 / 0)
Why would you read the transcript if it might interfere with this online editorial you post? I've been angry and paranoid, and when I'm in that state, I don't want anyone to puncture my thesis by saying this is how it really works or what's really going on.  You also stated that you do not own the war he owns and somehow it was thrust upon you. It was thrust upon me too on 9-11. Get over yourself. Further, not having faith in the president, the candidate you supported in the primaries and the general election and thus far-until now, that means you're quitting on the president, "no longer have faith",become disenchanted, disengaged, there's a Thesaurus full of different words you can use. You've quit the president, rather than adapt from campaign mode to governing mode. I have to agree with Roland here. McGovern ironically was defeated in a landslide by Nixon. Nixon, who had the support of the center.  

In a few moments, you will begin speaking to the nation.  I will not be listening.  It has become clear you do not care what the majority of Americans think.  By the way, we, the majority, think it's wrong.  We think it's unsupportable.  We think it's unaffordable.  And we think it's a huge mistake from a security perspective.  

I will not listen tonight because you haven't listened to us, about much of anything.  And until or unless you do, I am tuning you out.  It pains me to say this because I have supported you, both in the primary, the general election and until now.  I have supported you even as you threw health care "reform" to the wind, only to be watered down and rendered useless, and as you waffled on many, many other issues.

Also, in all these polls of what the majority think,I have never been asked. Further,MSNBC gets some of the lowest ratings, so the majority of Americans watching Keith Olberman, somehow I think the majority of Americans watches Jon Stewart,Steve Colbert,Seth Myers, and maybe Brian Williams and Charles Gibson, and yes some Americans watch FOX.


[ Parent ]
Did you watch the campaign? (0.00 / 0)
He said he was going to do this over, and over, and over again.  He made a promise, he's keeping his promise.

Well, yes... (0.00 / 0)
Refocusing on Afghanistan while simultaneously w/drawing from Iraq is what he promised.  But he keeps stalling on Iraq. And last night he didn't actually promise to w/d troops from Afghanistan in 18 months, only to begin to w/draw the escalated troops.  Big difference.

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

[ Parent ]
He's not stalling on Iraq... (0.00 / 0)
He has said that the troops will move out of Iraq in 2010 - a deadline he set pretty firmly earlier this year and he has not wavered from that.  Just because they're not coming home right now doesn't mean that he's not making it happen.

I'm not a big fan of sending more troops to Afghanistan either, particularly with our financial situation here at home, but with the destabilization of Pakistan and the increased influence of the Taliban I can see the argument in favor of this move.  

I'll be working to make sure that our troops start coming home in those 18 months and using the power of my purse to support humanitarian efforts in the region.


[ Parent ]
The problem is we keep hearing the same story... (0.00 / 0)
Here's what Will Pitt had to say:

http://journals.democraticunde...

We have been here before.  Yeh we trust Obama over GWB, but he (Obama) is likely to have some "unforeseen" thing come up and alter all of the supposed withdrawal plan, which he did promise to do.  Though we often think we can, we cannot control all the variables.

I seriously doubt that we will gain anything by sending more troops.  

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010


[ Parent ]
Of course... (0.00 / 0)
We can't control the variables, but thus far Obama's given no indication that he's changed his plans for Iraq.  

I don't know whether we'll gain anything by sending more troops to Afghanistan, nor do I feel confident that the Afghan people will gain anything by it.  But I AM concerned enough about Pakistan and the resurgence of the Taliban to give it a chance.


[ Parent ]
Actually, (0.00 / 0)
this is not what he said he would do.  He did say we must focus on Afghanistan, to apprehend OBL.  He said we should bring the troops home from Iraq.  Now, without significant down-drawing in Iraq, and a build-up in Afghanistan, his rough time-frames are meaningless.  If he should lose in 2012, there is a near-zero probability that the Repugs would end either war.

He also made a huge mistake not replacing McChrystal when McChrystal began speaking publicly in contradiction of Obama.  Instead, he gave McC everything he wanted.


"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010


Stupidity and liberal disillusionment with Obama (0.00 / 0)
I can't begin to say how badly this piece is disconnected with reality on several fundamental levels.
First off, lets not even start out with your rant about Afghanistan, but move on to the idea that the current bills going through the Congress are "useless."  Last time I checked, the bills will extend coverage, even in a watered down version, to 30 million new Americans, outlaw rescission policies (which were almost used by my health care company to terminate my policy), and lower premiums for most Americans while reducing the deficit! This isn't even including any sort of public option in a bill, which indeed is significantly watered down at this point.  I'd suggest that you take a step back from the far left idea that no public option=no worthwhile reform idea and acknowledge the strengths of the bills.
Going back to Afghanistan, I'd like to think that at the bare minimum, most reasonable observers would at least be interested in hearing President Obama's justifications for his strategy, even if you believe they are incorrect. For you to openly admit that you aren't even going to pay attention to his speech, yet at the same time say you are disillusioned with him, is beyond hypocritical and simply re-enforcing your beliefs, rather than at least attempting (however halfheartedly) to expand and broaden them.
Additionally, you talked about how Obama had apparently listened to Dick Cheney. However, if you had actually listened to the speech (which might have been helpful before you started this screed), you might have heard that he explicitly rejected the criticisms that Cheney leveled his way, especially regarding further escalation of the troops and defending the timeline he took with the decision.
But I think my problems with this piece stem more from the lack of any connection with reality this seems to contain. Yes, Obama promised a ton of things during the campaign, some of them big, bold, and liberal, and others not as much. However, simply put, its much easier to make promises than have to deal with getting 60 votes on the Senate floor for every major initiative you want passed.  I also think that this is overlooking the 80% of what he's done so far that most people like (such as the stimulus, increased tobacco regulations, a record expansion of SCHIP, open governance reforms, and more) instead of the 20% that you don't want.  
I guess I spent plenty of words to get to these two last ones at the bottom though: Chill Out.

Again (0.00 / 0)
what makes you think that I didn't READ the speech.  I did not want to listen to it or watch it, a symbolic act because he is not listening to the majority of Americans.  It is not some liberal fringe, but the majority.

But even if it were, your contempt runneth over and is inappropriate.  I disagree with Obama.  

I significantly disagree with him.  But I respect him as a person and our president.  I don't need chilling out.  I am not even angry.  I just give up expecting anything.  Disillusionment is its own chill-out.

As for your claims about the hc bill, I'd suggest you start reading it.  

There's no anti-trust protection.  Companies have to accept everyone, but can screw to the wall (by price) the sick and the old. I haven't found any provision to prevent cancellation of policies at the insurance company's will.  There may be that, but I haven't found it yet.

There is no real public option.  Coops w/ op tout is not a public option. Thus thee is no mechanism to keep price down.  Orsag may say that this bill will do that, but there is no mechanism for doing so.

It is not a "cadillac" plan just because it includes dental and vision, but inclusive plans will get taxed anyway.  This is despite the fact that dental and medical health are inextricably linked.

But most of all, the bill is a giveaway to insurance companies, not much of a reform of the manner health insurance is delivered.

It would be nice if plans were prevented from routinely throwing out 20-30 percent of all claims for no cause.  When people are sick they do not deserve this kind of abuse.  That the companies can still get away with that means we will continue spending useless time on the phone trying to get legitimate bills paid.

Covering the uninsured is only part of what needs to be done.  If the uninsured have to do constant battle with their insurers to actually get coverage, what is the good of it?


"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010


[ Parent ]
Broader Perspective (0.00 / 0)
While many of us were adamantly opposed to the U.S. going into Iraq using lies as justification, many of us also felt that the war we should have been focusing on was the one in Afghanistan.

Failed states like Afghanistan was/is also harbor the worst of the human race (Another example? Somalia). President Obama made it clear when he ran for office that he would  end the Iraqi War and would focus on Afghanistan. I don't think anyone should be surprised by this war strategy.

I, for one, am quite happy that the president seems to be following the lesson that Gen. Colin Powell said we should have learned from Vietnam:

When a decision is made to enter a war, we also should have a clear strategy for what we want to achieve and an exit strategy.

This president has done just that. Please, let's give this man a chance. To use a metaphor that has become a cliche, the "ship of state" cannot be turned quickly. President Obama inherited a terrible mess. He has to face media that is dedicated to stirring up conflict and is skewed to conservatism. He has to contend with the left of his own party that demands that he follow their dictates in both domestic and foreign policy, and do it yesterday.

Kathy, I have to differ here. If for no reason other than to protect the soldiers already on the ground in Afghanistan, I support this policy. Plus, the last thing we should do is give al Qaida and bin Laden another "victory" over a super-power. That would create a terrorist monster the world would soon regret.


The soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan want more troops.. (0.00 / 0)
Bush ingnored the country and got us hung up on Iraq. Obama is trying to reverse this. If we had actually tried to get Osama in 2001 we wouldn't be in this mess.
I don't like war but I think what Obama is doing is the best way.
And you see whatever he does the rethugs hate it.
At least he has a plan, he has thought it through and I respect him for that.
I am a progressive too but I don't expect the president to listen to me on every issue.
I don't get the feeling of "my way or the highway".
I support President Obama on this.

soldiers do not run military policy (0.00 / 0)
and our original objective in Afghanistan was not the Taliban, but rather Al Qaeda.  With a couple of thousand elite forces we could have totally destroyed them.  

While Afghanistan is very different than both Iraq and Vietnam, there are real problems in attempting to "defeat" the Taliban

1.  supply routes are exeedingly difficult.  This makes it very difficult to sustain a large force

2.  Taliban HAS outside support, certainly from the Pakistani ISI which helped create them, and which is still not about to let them be destroyed

3.  terrain prevents our using armor.  Our using air power, manned or unmanned, tends to lead to increased civilian casualties, which alienates the very people we propose to "help" and thus helps the Taliban continue to recruit

4.  the corruption of the Karzai regime - including the role his brother is playing both in the drug trade and in getting the Taliban financial and military support - mkaes it impossible to believe it will ever be an effective national government.  1.3 million invented ballots should be all you need to know.  The only good thing about Karzai is that he is not as brutal as some of the war lords who sometimes support him and sometimes oppose him.

5.  Afghanistan is NOT a nation in any sense of the word, and never has been.  It is highly unlikely given the ethnic divides and the tribal nature of the society that we could in a relatively short time (anything less than one decade is short) make a significant change in that reality.

6.  We risk destabilizing Pakistan by continued relatively large scale military operations any place near the border.

7. We are breaking our military with extended and repeated deployments.

8. We cannot afford it.  $1 billion per additional soldier per year.  All of which so far is being borrowed.  At a cost greater than that of interest on the national debt - the opportunity cost of what we are not addressing at home.

I would have little objection to having 10,000 trainers, having 10,000 special forces (US and allied), and putting the burden on the Afghanis.  I have real concerns about what we are doing.  Realistically, given the population of Afghanistan, even the raised level of US and allied forces is way insufficient by doctrine to deal with the kind of insurgency represented by the Taliban.  We only get the necessary ration if we presume effective Afghan forces.  Yet the Afghan military boast a desertion rate of about 1/4.  And many of those go WITH THEIR WEAPONS over to the Taliban.

This is my world and welcome to it


[ Parent ]
Over at Huffington Post (0.00 / 0)
you can read what's been known by at least since the day after the speech. Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates have very different takes than most who listened in anticipation that night.  Indeed many could be argued to have heard what they wanted to hear and perhaps not parsed the language at all. If you parsed the language, then there was an eery similarity to what we've all heard before.  

Here's the link.


ROBERT GATES: We're not talking about an abrupt withdrawal. We're talking about something that will take place over a period of time.... Our military thinks we have a real opportunity to do that. And it's not just in the next 18 months. Because we will have a significant -- we will have 100,000 forces -- troops there. And they are not leaving-- in July of 2011. Some handful or some small number or whatever the conditions permit, we'll begin to withdraw at that time.

"Some handful or small number or whatever the conditions permit, we will begin..."

Hillary was more equivocal:


"we can begin a transition. A transition to hand off -- responsibility to the Afghan forces. "

The beginning of a transition to hand off responsibility to the Afghan forces...

Everyone here including me wants the President to succeed.  But I still believe it is our patriotic duty to speak out when we firmly believe our leader is making a mistake.  Everyone here including me admires and likes the President. I have said before I loved having him as our president.  In many ways I still do.

It is not our job to circle the wagons and shut down any  open discussion of this amid demands for everyone to fall into lockstep.

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010


Even Obama friend and (0.00 / 0)
Senator from IL, Dem Leader Dick Durbin says his support is not guaranteed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010


Recent Comments

Recent Diaries
Lemmings and Sheep
by: Teddy Goodson - Mar 09
1 Comments
Health Care and Abortion
by: SumofChange - Mar 06
1 Comments
Reflection
by: teacherken - Mar 06
2 Comments

Blue Commonwealth is a community forum for the discussion of political issues of interest to Virginians.
The opinions expressed by users of this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Blue Commonwealth or its editors.
Powered by: SoapBlox