A Strong Sense of Disappointment?

[FOTD]

An Open Letter To President Obama On Afghanistan

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea -- "Let's invade Afghanistan!" Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

There's a reason they don't call Afghanistan the "Garden State" (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan's nickname is the "Graveyard of Empires." If you don't believe it, give the British a call. I'd have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev's number though. It's + 41 22 789 1662. I'm sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you're about to commit.

With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the "war president." Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line -- and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn't have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you're doing it so you can "end the war") will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you've said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone -- and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout "tea bag!"

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?

Don't be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn't be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can't change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can't be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it's time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, "No, we don't need health care, we don't need jobs, we don't need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, 'cause we don't need them, either."

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam "might" be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish -- the full terror of which we scarcely know.

When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son.

We're counting on you.

Yours,
Michael Moore

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_373457.html

POTUS OBAMA IS DANCING IN QUICKSAND!

[Breadburner]

[Conan71]

Michael Moore needs to wipe the sand out of his p***y and get with reality.

[FOTD]

Whoa! War mongers unite!

Hey Breadburner, don't make me go fishing for those Bushevik photos holding hands and kissing Osama's family.

Get Out Now
The case for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

By G. PASCAL ZACHARY

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5006/get_out_now/

"A U.S. Marine from 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, RCT 2nd Battalion 8th Marines Echo Co. during a firefight on July 9, in Mian Poshteh, Afghanistan . (Photo by:Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

By ending the Afghan war, quickly and decisively, the president will match his rhetoric of home with reality. He will also save U.S. lives and create new openings for negotiation.

For all the talk of polarization and partisanship in U.S. politics, what's remarkable is the extent to which President Obama has continued policies and practices of his predecessor, George Bush, in domestic economics and military affairs.

Economically, Obama has continued the bailout of Wall Street, maintained Bush-era tax cuts, pursued "stimulus" through large deficit spending and re-appointed Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman who was a Bush favorite.

In defense, Obama has broken with Bush on a few critical matters, notably by canceling expensive weapons systems and dropping (in September) an aggressive plan to impose a "missile shield" in Eastern Europe that Russia intensely opposed. Yet Obama has carried over Bush's secretary of defense, Robert Gates; essentially stuck with Bush timetables on Iraq; and maintained historically record levels of Pentagon spending. The president has continued the war in Afghanistan, raising the number of American combat troops. In a speech on August 17, Obama even tried to construct a moral basis for the war, described it as "not a war of choice," but "a war of necessity." And as a necessary war, "a war worth fighting," Obama has declared that only through the democratization of Afghanistan can the terrorist threat to the United States—in the form of al Qaeda—be eliminated from the country.

Further escalation of the war in Afghanistan is no sure thing, however. Having voiced support for increasing combat troops earlier in his presidency, in September Obama seemed torn between three possibilities: escalation, muddling through with the current military footprint or shifting to a greatly "limited" combat mission that would concentrate on countering terrorists targeting the United States, rather than fighting the insurgent Taliban.

Obama's decision is complicated by his earlier decision to ask his top Afghan military commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to make the case for escalation. McChrystal is reportedly prepared to ask for an additional 40,000 U.S. troops—beyond the 68,000 American soldiers already approved to fight in Afghanistan.

While the question of whether or not the United States sends more troops to Afghanistan defines the current debate over the war, respected Democratic voices, such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Vice President Joseph Biden, are quietly stumping for a third way: limited war in Afghan, which would concentrate on countering terrorists and depend on a relatively small number of conventional combat troops. The "limited" advocates, who Obama seemingly ignored until recently, are offering the president a stark choice between escalating—and creating a new Vietnam-style quagmire—and a sharp reduction of ground troops, which would likely reduce both American deaths and the cost of the war. Supporters of this approach include conservative columnist George Will, who in a September column nicely summarized the "limited" war approach. "Forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy," Will wrote. "America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters."

A third way

That escalation in Afghanistan is no longer viewed as inevitable is welcome. Yet missing from the debate is any serious consideration of complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. No single voice in the foreign policy establishment supports the speedy exit of combat forces, though even McChrystal concedes that the United States might soon experience involuntary withdrawal—in total defeat. "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months)—while Afghan security capacity matures—risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," he wrote in his confidential assessment of the war, leaked to the Washington Post.

To be sure, the United States has already lost the war in meaningful ways. The month of October marks eight years of U.S. combat in Afghanistan. More than 800 American soldiers have died—and alarmingly more than one quarter of that total died in the past three months alone. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent since the war began. The Afghan government this summer presided over a fraudulent national election. Illegal opium production has exploded since 2001; for 2008, the United Nations valued Afghan drug exports at $3 billion. Polls show less than 40 percent of Americans favor the war in Afghanistan, the lowest level of support since the start of the war.

Calling for complete withdrawal, phased or immediate, remains a lonely position, endorsed by such independent foreign policy experts as Andrew J. Bacevich, of Boston University, and Robert Naiman, coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, an activist group. Democratic Party leaders, while fretting over parallels between an Afghan quagmire and the Vietnam War that doomed Lyndon Johnson's presidency in the '60s, are objecting to escalation. Sen. Carl Levin's (D-Mich.) opposition to sending more troops, while trying to put limits on U.S. costs in the war, still holds fast to the notion that Afghan institutions, including the army, can be sufficiently strengthened to hold off the Taliban. Even many progressive advocacy groups, such as MoveOn, haven't made rapid withdrawal form Afghanistan a high priority, perhaps fearing that by breaking with the president on war, they will weaken his ability to push through progressive domestic legislation like healthcare reform. But Code Pink, an influential peace group, has been calling on the president to "focus on negotiations and bringing our troops home."

Getting the mission right

Yet the case for withdrawing from Afghanistan makes tactical, strategic and moral sense, chiefly because legitimate U.S. security needs can be achieved more effectively through other means. As Bacevich has written, "In Afghanistan today, the United States and its allies are using the wrong means to vigorously pursue the wrong mission."

If there is a "right" mission in Afghanistan, it can only be to deny al-Qaeda and its friends the opportunity to attack Americans at home and abroad. After eight years in Afghanistan, U.S. troops (aided by much smaller forces from Britain, Germany, Canada, Italy and other "allied" countries) haven't accomplished this. Yet targeted attacks by U.S. and allied forces are killing terrorists, highlighting an alternative to ground troops and an Afghan quagmire.

In September, U.S. military forces in Somalia killed Saleh Nabhan, the man believed to be responsible for attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania. Predator drones, "robot" aircraft controlled from a distance by U.S. technicians, have killed al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

The use of assassination squads and remote-controlled killer planes present their own practical and moral problems. The wrong people can be killed, for instance. And such attacks require detailed knowledge of the movements of the targets. Some of the declared "enemies," meanwhile, such as Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban government shattered by U.S. air strikes beginning on Oct. 7, 2001, might be worth negotiating with instead of killing. Omar remains head of the insurgency, a popular hero and important to any negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. Withdrawal of U.S. troops would be linked to progress in peace negotiation—and an acceptance that the Taliban, in some form, will play some role, if not a decisive role, in a new Afghan government.

An end to war in Afghanistan—and increased stability as a consequence of peaceful co-existence with the Taliban—would benefit Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants are believed to be living in a remote city. Secular political forces in Pakistan, which possesses nuclear weapons, are battling to keep the country out of the hands of religious fundamentalists who already exert profound influence. Anti-American feeling is extraordinarily high in Pakistan; even secular elites blame Americans for inflaming and exaggerating their domestic problems. The U.S. government, which is currently debating how much to increase financial assistance to Pakistan, would provide more effective help without troops in Afghanistan.

A comprehensive strategy

Defenders of escalation say that Afghanistan needs to be reformed and that the aim of U.S. intervention is to create a democratic society, where Afghanis are safe and free. The premise of a democratic Afghanistan informs McChrystal's view of war aims; the commander's edifice of escalation depends, he writes (weirdly echoing Hegel), on identifying "the objective will of the [Afghan] people." In March, Obama gave powerful expression to this position when he announced his "comprehensive" strategy for Afghanistan. While his highest goal was to stop the use of the country as a terrorist staging ground, his next two were classic nation-building goals: to promote a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan and a national army that can ultimately take over "counter-insurgency" efforts from Americans.

In the arena of democratization, the American effort was marred by last month's flawed elections, which saw President Hamid Karzai steal enough votes to claim victory (there's a recount now underway). The election fiasco pushed Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), an influential Democrat, to predict Afghanistan "will remain [a] tribal entity." Such a place would require a strong U.S. military presence to hold together and (perhaps) the emergence of a homegrown dictator ruling the country with a "strong hand."

Yet the very presence of American troops inflames ethnic differences.

Afghans view Americans as invaders and occupiers, and their very presence galvanizes opponents, creating more resistance. As Afghan army spokesman Zahir Azimi has said, "Where [American] forces are fighting, people think it is incumbent on them to resist the occupiers and infidels." The self-perpetuating nature of the conflict explains the profound pessimism expressed by some with deep experience in the region. British Gen. David Richards, who served in Afghanistan, said in August that stabilizing the country could take 40 years. While such predictions are dismissed as hysterical, they are simply the logical extension of Levin's insistence that the United States "increase and accelerate our efforts to support the Afghan security forces in their efforts to become self-sufficient in delivering security to their nation." These efforts at self-reliance inevitably involve a significant American presence on the ground, which in turn fuels the very cycle that Levin insists he wants to avoid: a costly quagmire.

The alternative to a McChrystal escalation or a Levin quagmire requires no leap into the unknown but rather recognition of limits of American power and the legacy of Afghan history. The script for withdrawal is essentially already written—in Iraq, of all places. For the sake of temporary peace, Iraq has essentially been partitioned into three "sub-countries," two of which are essentially ethnic enclaves. The same could be done in Afghanistan—though the number of sub-divisions could be larger, and acceptance of Taliban rule over some of them would be required. In this scenario, a phased pullout of U.S. forces could accompany the negotiated "government of national unity," which—like in Iraq—would preserve the "notional" nation of Afghanistan while effectively deconstructing the territory into more manageable pieces.

The United States once blithely dealt with the Taliban (Dick Cheney, after all, famously met with the Taliban prior to bin Laden's attacks). While retaining the right to attack al Qaeda on Afghan soil, the Obama administration could tolerate Taliban rule if the result of a stable Afghanistan was to free more resources and attention to Pakistan's urgent security issues. The embrace of realism could well co-evolve with the re-emergence of a moral center to American foreign policy.

Under this scenario, withdrawal of American troops would not mean the end of military actions on Afghan soil. As advocates of "limited" war argue, attacks could still be made from Predator drones based elsewhere. But air strikes and attacks by U.S. "special forces" on Afghan soil risk undermining any government of national unity and the pretense that the United States has halted its war on the Taliban.

For President Obama, the stakes are high. His young presidency is on the line. Perhaps because his secretary of defense, Gates, is a Republican, Obama has personalized the decision on Afghan strategy to a dangerous degree. Afghanistan is now Obama's war. By deciding to reduce, if not altogether remove, U.S. combat troops from the country, the president will take a step towards the moral high ground that he so often desperately seeks to inhabit.

Morality must return to the center of America's relations with the world. Afghanistan could become, as Obama likes to say, "a teaching moment," for this president and his wider constituency, the citizens of the planet. The Bush presidency damaged both the image of the United States as a role model for promoters of democratization around the world, and further entrenched a darker counter-view of America as a reactionary force in world affairs. The Obama presidency creates an opening to restore the brighter side. In continuing the war in Afghanistan, Obama risks destroying his chances to redeem the United States in the eyes of the world. By ending the Afghan war, quickly and decisively, the president will match his rhetoric of hope with reality. He will also save U.S. lives and create new openings for negotiation, diplomacy and regional solutions to problems in distant lands. "

[waterboy]

Yeh, I'm disappointed. But there is no acceptable solution. He's either a war president, or a cut 'n run president. If he stays in the middle and slowly retreats, he's the indecisive president. He gets no points from the loudmouths either way.

As of yet, I've heard no real good solution to protect our interests there or our effort at controlling terrorism. At least this decision is based on thoughtful analysis and strategy.

[Conan71]

Funny to hear some of the President Bush bashers circling the wagons around President Obama for making the same decistions which ultimately needed to be made regardless of who would have become the next President while the usual ignoramouses who have no clue about national defense continue to smile all over our military.

What precisely is Michael Moron's education and experience in foreign policy and national security that makes him such an expert on what we need to do with our troops?  These "young disillusioned cynics" Moron refers to have even less of a clue about national security.

You guys can follow the rantings of a sensationalistic Hollywood profiteer all you want.  I think I'll stick to real logic, not some moron's imagination.

[RecycleMichael]

I am no fan of Michael Moore, but I think he has a right as a citizen to write an open letter to the President and share his views. Saying he is not an expert on military affairs thus shoildn't speak is an unfair remark. I don't any of us has such military credentials, yet we are being asked to pay for a war that is costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. To feel strongly and not speak up would be worse.

I want our troops out of that part of the world as soon as possible. If sending more troops now gets the rest of them home sooner, do it. I will not vote for Obama again if we don't get out of Iraq and Afghanistan before the next campaign cycle starts.

[sgrizzle]

I will not vote for Obama again if we don't get out of Iraq and Afghanistan before the next campaign cycle starts.

Is it too early to start betting?

[FOTD]

Funny to hear some of the President Bush bashers circling the wagons around President Obama for making the same decistions which ultimately needed to be made regardless of who would have become the next President while the usual ignoramouses who have no clue about national defense continue to smile all over our military.

What precisely is Michael Moron's education and experience in foreign policy and national security that makes him such an expert on what we need to do with our troops?  These "young disillusioned cynics" Moron refers to have even less of a clue about national security.

You guys can follow the rantings of a sensationalistic Hollywood profiteer all you want.  I think I'll stick to real logic, not some moron's imagination.

Thank you Conan. This demon will wait until BO rationalizes why we are escalating and how much sacrifice we each must make. Let's hope Moore is wrong on this one....

Something tells me it's bigger than just Pakistan security and Osama (who is dead already IMO). Something like maintaining control over all right aways for oil and gas from the Middle East to Asia. And keep in mind those of us who went with candidate Obama knew he was not agreeable to cut and run. He can put a nail in the Republican coffin
by keeping his word. We will look back from his State of The Union in January and realize how much he accomplished in his first year and how chaos and fear are wanning in America.

With all the sabre rattling Amedijahn is doing, the devil senses Israel's quiet mode will soon be unleashed for a pin point strike on every military installment in Iran. Could come soon. This may all be connected...
Then again, it could all be for the ope...It is a joke when they are talking about counter-narcotics efforts while everyone knows that the production level goes up every year. http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/americans-are-deeply-involved-afghan-drug-trade Americans Are Deeply Involved In Afghan Drug Trade

By the way Conan, what do you think? Or are you just trying to prop up Cheney's gang (you know, the one's who had Osama and let him go)?

[Conan71]

Thank you Conan. This demon will wait until BO rationalizes why we are escalating and how much sacrifice we each must make. Let's hope Moore is wrong on this one....

Something tells me it's bigger than just Pakistan security and Osama (who is dead already IMO). Something like maintaining control over all right aways for oil and gas from the Middle East to Asia. And keep in mind those of us who went with candidate Obama knew he was not agreeable to cut and run. He can put a nail in the Republican coffin
by keeping his word. We will look back from his State of The Union in January and realize how much he accomplished in his first year and how chaos and fear are wanning in America.

With all the sabre rattling Amedijahn is doing, the devil senses Israel's quiet mode will soon be unleashed for a pin point strike on every military installment in Iran. Could come soon. This may all be connected...
Then again, it could all be for the ope...It is a joke when they are talking about counter-narcotics efforts while everyone knows that the production level goes up every year. http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/americans-are-deeply-involved-afghan-drug-trade Americans Are Deeply Involved In Afghan Drug Trade

By the way Conan, what do you think? Or are you just trying to prop up Cheney's gang (you know, the one's who had Osama and let him go)?

Honestly, I'm of the belief that we have created enough chaos in the Taliban and Al Qaeda networks by taking this to their front door that it's no coincidence there have been no more attacks on American soil and not many significant attacks outside the Middle East. 

It's a slow, frustrating pace and I hate to see more troops going over, but there are people far better versed on foreign policy than myself who determine these needs.  We'd like to think we are privvy to all intel matters, but I doubt 10% really makes it to the press for obvious reasons and it probably should stay that way.

Keep in mind, this is an all-volunteer military we are sending over.  Not a single one of these men and women doubted when they signed on or re-enlisted that they could be sent over, yet more keep signing up every day.

My administrative assistant's nephew just re-deployed about 2 months ago after previous tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.  She's really worried about him coming back this time.  The conditions are awful- no running water, colder than hell, opportunity to bathe maybe once a week if you are lucky, eating MRE's, crapping in a foil pouch.  This isn't Disneyland, that's for sure, yet there are thousands upon thousands of Americans who have found this a fight worth fighting, at their own volition.

[FOTD]

Honestly, I'm of the belief that we have created enough chaos in the Taliban and Al Qaeda networks by taking this to their front door that it's no coincidence there have been no more attacks on American soil and not many significant attacks outside the Middle East. 

It's a slow, frustrating pace and I hate to see more troops going over, but there are people far better versed on foreign policy than myself who determine these needs.  We'd like to think we are privvy to all intel matters, but I doubt 10% really makes it to the press for obvious reasons and it probably should stay that way.

Keep in mind, this is an all-volunteer military we are sending over.  Not a single one of these men and women doubted when they signed on or re-enlisted that they could be sent over, yet more keep signing up every day.

My administrative assistant's nephew just re-deployed about 2 months ago after previous tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.  She's really worried about him coming back this time.  The conditions are awful- no running water, colder than hell, opportunity to bathe maybe once a week if you are lucky, eating MRE's, crapping in a foil pouch.  This isn't Disneyland, that's for sure, yet there are thousands upon thousands of Americans who have found this a fight worth fighting, at their own volition.

Curious. Administrative assistant? (Belushi coughing: "blow job")...

You're wrong about the signing up with no idea....this has been going on for 7+ years...can you say 12 year olds can't comprehend (outside of Oklahoma)?

Conan, never knew you were a sheep in the MIC herd.

[Conan71]

I think you mis-read:

"Not a single one of these men and women doubted when they signed on or re-enlisted that they could be sent over, yet more keep signing up every day."

They are all quite well-aware they can be sent to a war zone these days.  Anyone who signs up in peace time does so realizing that things could heat up anywhere in the world while they are active or reserve.

MIC crowd? Que?

[Hoss]

I think you mis-read:

"Not a single one of these men and women doubted when they signed on or re-enlisted that they could be sent over, yet more keep signing up every day."

They are all quite well-aware they can be sent to a war zone these days.  Anyone who signs up in peace time does so realizing that things could heat up anywhere in the world while they are active or reserve.

MIC crowd? Que?

I believe that stands for Military Industrial Complex

[FOTD]

Sorry Conan. Misread. But really, what's MIC?

Anywaze, dig this:A politican speaks the truth....

Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/rep-hinchey-bush-purposely-let-bin-laden-escape-to-justify-iraq-war.php?ref=fpb

Only an Administration and a Congress that needs to be replaced would not have prosecuted Bush and Cheney et al for war crimes and crimes against humanity....If it was 1945 we would have hung all the sonsabitch-bastards!!!!!!!Like having Hitler in our sights only to be called off by some anti-Semite.

What's the real mission, BO?

Stay tuned.

[rwarn17588]

I must be a different cat. I never had a problem with starting a war in Afghanistan, because that's where bin Laden and his al-Qaida lackeys who started 9/11 were, and I still don't have a problem with it.

As for Iraq, which had zero linkage to al-Qaida and bin Laden, that's another story. That was a gigantic waste of time, money and blood.

The Afghan war will have to end at some point because no country can financially afford an endless war, but that's another issue.