I been WAITING FOR YOU!!!!
Of course, it's on the FRONT PAGE because there is an AGENDA to push, namely, WE NEED TO STAY in Afghanistan!
And CUI BONO, hmmm?
"Obama, McCain split over Afghan strategy; Debate shifting troops from Iraq" by Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | July 6, 2008
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama and John McCain are proposing sharply different strategies to seize the initiative from a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, positions that underscore the two leading presidential candidates' competing visions of how to wage the war on terrorism.
Yeah, right, like there is a difference between the War Parties to agendas (the key word, readers: war)!
No longer falling for the fooleys, MSM!
In recent weeks, the violence in Afghanistan has eclipsed the war in Iraq, with record numbers of US casualties and a daring prison break that freed hundreds of captured insurgents. At the same time, a series of new assessments from top US military leaders have concluded that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are as strong as they have been since the United States invaded Afghanistan following the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Yeah, work all that "Al-CIA-Duh," 9/11 crap in, MSM, like a good propagandists!
NO LONGER FOOLEYED, shit fucks!!!!
That has returned Afghanistan to the center of the presidential campaign.
Oh my God!!! It has RETURNED because YOU MSM AGENDA-DRIVERS are PUTTING IT ON the FRONT PAGE!!
You sure seemed to have ignored the rising deaths and worsening situation enough, though! Do I have your permission to puke, readers?
If elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help undermanned US forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
"It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," Obama said in a speech last week. "It is time to go after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists."
The Illinois senator, whose opposition to the Iraq war is a campaign centerpiece, has concluded that the US presence there has fanned Islamic terrorism and diverted scarce military resources from taking on new terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda operatives trained for the Sept 11, 2001, attacks.
There they go with 9/11, and sorry, kiddies, but Obama ain't no "change you can believe in!"
Did you just feel a draft, kiddies?
Obama believes that the United States has relied too heavily on forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a Europe-based military alliance which has little experience in guerrilla warfare.
"Afghanistan should have been our fight," said retired Air Force General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, national cochairman of Obama's campaign. McPeak blamed the Iraq war, where the United States has about 140,000 troops, for diverting the Pentagon's focus on Afghanistan, where only 32,000 American troops are stationed.
However, McCain, a former fighter pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, says Iraq, not Afghanistan, is the "central front" in the war on terrorism. He believes that NATO and Pakistan must do more in Afghanistan until the United States can draw down its commitment in Iraq - a position which tracks Bush administration strategy.
The Arizona senator and his foreign policy team warn that pulling US forces from Iraq would embolden Islamic extremists around the world and strengthen Al Qaeda as a national security threat.
"To somehow think that it's an either/or situation - either Afghanistan or Iraq - is a fundamental misreading of the situation in the Middle East," McCain said on June 30. "What happens in Iraq matters in Afghanistan. It matters in Iran. It matters in all the countries in the region."
"If we had pursued the policies vociferously advocated by Senator Obama, we would have risked a wider war."
I'm tired of all the bullshit, readers, aren't you?
Randy Scheunemann, a McCain senior foreign policy adviser, said Obama wants to "surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq to fight them in Afghanistan," a position that "belies a lack of a strategic understanding of the enemy we face."
The gulf between Obama and McCain over Afghanistan and national security, "reflects two different theories about the war on terrorism," said Edward Luttwak, a former Pentagon strategist and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"Theory number one, which is the Obama theory, is that terrorism is caused by grievances and that the solution is to deal with those grievances," such as ending the American occupation of Iraq, Luttwak said.
"The second theory - McCain's - is that Islamic violence is about a fight over resources, morale and leadership," he added. "It holds that if you lose in Iraq it will be a tremendous boost for the extremists and you will bring the neighboring countries under the sway of Islamists."
But there is little question that the next president will have to deal with a growing crisis in Afghanistan.
Operating from a virtual haven in Pakistan's lawless western frontier - and fueled by a burgeoning heroin trade - the Taliban has launched suicide bombings and quick-strike raids against US and NATO forces, while its leaders seize authority over rural populations across several provinces in southern and eastern Afghanistan. That has further weakened the Afghan government's control over the country and imperiled reconstruction efforts.
Fueling the presidential debate, the nation's top military officer acknowledged last week that US commanders need more troops in Afghanistan but there are none to spare.
"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq," Admiral Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon last week. Mullen said the Afghanistan campaign has been running short of troops since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign," he said, "which by definition means we need more forces there."
Mullen's remarks were the most pointed yet from a military leader on the impact the Iraq war has had on Afghanistan, and Obama's advisers said Mullin essentially confirmed Obama's position.
"Iraq has distracted us from Al Qaeda," Susan Rice, former assistant secretary of defense under President Clinton and a top Obama adviser, said in a conference call with reporters on Thursday. "Because of Iraq we have fewer troops in Afghanistan, we have fewer intelligence assets, we have less of a diplomatic focus."
But McCain's advisers say that if he becomes president he would build on President Bush's decision to rely on NATO forces - which now have about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan - and would prod Pakistan to take on Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters camped inside its borders.
"There is no easy answer, but clearly Pakistan needs to do more to crack down there," said Scheunemann.
At the same time, McCain believes the Afghan government and its military commanders must expand its forces, and better coordinate the combat and civil reconstruction efforts now underway. Scheunemann said McCain also believes that the United States to should help train a larger Afghan National Army.
"We need to coordinate civil sides of the effort, which is critical in any counter insurgency effort," Scheunemann said.
Nevertheless, Obama's position, not McCain's, could gain traction if the violence in Afghanistan increases, said David Gergen, a former White House aide to four presidents who now teaches at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
"The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan helps Obama," Gergen said in an interview. "It provides him with useful arguments."
--MORE--"
And because the American public is SICK of these DAMN WARS and DAMN LIES!!
Of course, Obama has to BLOW THAT, too!!
Yeah, "change we can believe in," right.
I'm sorry, young folks. Sorry you've been lied to again!
"Obama: Media response to Iraq remarks overblown"
"Barack Obama said Saturday that he was surprised at how the media has "finely calibrated" his recent words on Iraq, and denied that he intends to anything but end the war if he is elected.
"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," the expected Democratic presidential nominee told reporters flying with him to Missouri from Montana. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."
On Thursday in North Dakota, Obama said that "I'll ... continue to refine my policy" on Iraq after an upcoming trip there. With a promise to end the war the central premise of his candidacy, the Obama campaign has struggled over the past two days to push back against Republicans and others who say his recent statement could be a softening.
In two news conferences on Thursday, Obama said any refinement of his position on Iraq wouldn't be related to his promise to remove combat forces within 16 months of taking office, but rather to the number of troops needed to train Iraqis and fight al-Qaida. But he also acknowledged that the 16-month timeline could indeed slip if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability.
"What's important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics," he told reporters. "The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions. I am not somebody — unlike George Bush — who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."
Noting that "we want to build on" the lessening of violence in Iraq, he added: "It doesn't change my strategic view that we have to bring our occupation to a close."
He said he didn't misspeak in his comments earlier in the week and suggested the media and critics read unintended significance into the remarks.
"I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," Obama said. "I wasn't saying anything that I hadn't said before."
Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility."
So the GREAT HOPE is NO HOPE at all!!!
So where is Bob Barr on my ballot?
