Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (126055)	12/2/2009 11:50:02 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542147

John; He campaigned on increasing troop strength (implicit but barely so) in Afghanistan, and kept saying it during the early months. I'm not sure that was implicit if even barely so, but in any case 30,000 troops is not what he was implying. My memory is that he just said he would give Afghanistan the attention it needs - implying to me we would THINK about what we were doing there. steve

To: JohnM who wrote (126055)	12/2/2009 12:12:10 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542147

I think that's all one could say to defend the decision. I found myself wondering if the success of the surge in Iraq was a big influence on his decision even though the logistics and population make-up of the two countries are so different. As for being damaged politically, one thing is sure. Obama and by extension Democrats now own this war. Do you happen to catch Maxine Waters' testy rejection of his decision? It was on Fox, and she was adamantly opposed. The best part of the evening was watching folks on Fox who would have supported the surge had a Rep president done it, instead try to fault Obama's decision. Such weasels.