Kyl: Afghanistan exit strategy 'the wrong way to go'
By David Sunday Nov 29, 2009 10:00amYou can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (801)
PLAYS: (877)
The second most powerful Republican in the Senate wants President Barack Obama to defer to the generals wishes in Afghanistan without announcing a strategy to end the war. Sen. Jon Kyl told Fox News' Chris Wallace that an exit strategy is "exactly the wrong way to go" Sunday. "[A]ll this talk about exit strategy is dangerous," said Kyl.
Login or Register to post comments.
is brought to you by: Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Mining, and the "Defense" Industry.
Jon Kyl cares fuck all about the people of Arizona.
"[A]ll this talk about exit strategy is dangerous"...
...to our war profits, said Kyl.
Blackwater and all their subsidiaries, they are nor part defense industry. Since all the elected are heavily invested in the stock, it turns out it is the back door means of stealing government, tax payer money.
Works like this, politians invest heavily in Blackwater, then they hire blackwater to fight the war and feed million and trillions of dollar contracts to Blackwater. Blackwater turns a tremendous profit, the stock rises and the pay heavy dividends to the stock holder who principly are our elected official. Sure does beat Bernie Maddoff's scheme because it is legal stealing.
Kyle thinks we should just put more people there to look after our interests! Bomb em back to the stone age. kill em all thats the republican way!
Sure...nice call chickenhawk. And the very first thing we need to do is enlist all of these chickenhawks' family members that are of military age and send them over in the fight! We can't cut and run remember!
Then we need to up a war tax on these top income earners to pay for their little fiasco of blood and guts. The poor and middle class are already struggling to pay their health care bills and make simple basic needs met. We'll just let the wealthy pay for this dance.
What a total crock of shit. Go repukes. This can be YOUR WAR...and you go ahead and decide when "the mission is accomplished". BUT, you dumb fucks can pay for this one with YOUR BLOOD and YOUR TREASURE.
FUCKING IDIOTS!! And PLEASE, don't use this "this is not a political issue". We just aren't that fucking stupid.
Translation: "My Halliburton and Xe stock will plummet in value."
Ummm...that's a concept that came from the Powell Doctrine, one of your guys, who based it on his experience in Vietnam and used the phraseology of the business world.
Republican Powell that worked for Bush? Is one of "our" guys?Republican Powell that worked for Bush? Is one of "our" guys? Or are you directing that at Kyl?
It doesn't really matter. Whatever approach Obama takes will be "exactly the wrong way to go" as far as Republicants are concerned.
And larger numbers of troops don't necessarily guarantee a better outcome, just more casualties on our side, due in part to the enemy's use of asymmetrical warfare.
to neocon strategy. when is Obama going to get the bushies out of the pentagon?
But more troops worked so well for the Soviets in Afghanistan.
they were addicted to fuel alcohol as well as opium when they got home.
Kyl = MORON...
How dare they discuss this when the right has not laid its best plans for advancement of the Socialist Corporations to be in place, or the Anti American Party to Hire Murder incorporated to be in place to keep this Profit Machine going.
Isn't it great how these morons on the right are so concerned with getting it WRONG.
I've had enough of the MSEM, promoting these Anti American scum bags War for profit is all they care about, it has NOTHING to do with a exit strategy. Nothing the right says has any validity, they blew the missing pilot in 1991, they misread the Dangers of Afghanistan to go to Iraq for OIL, they ALLOWED Osama bin Laden to escape and these CLOWNS want to chant keep America safe, what they should be saying is "Keep America Safe for a PROFIT"
it's always ok if you're a repuglyKKKan.
I think either way it will be bad.
It is such a clusterf**k over there it will suck trying to get out and maybe even worse staying in.
The R's are in a bad spot. They have to admit what a screw-up Bush-Cheney were in their starting up and mismanaging of the GWOT if they try to hang it on Obama so they are walking on eggshells so far. I expect the non-elected mouthpieces to really gin it up against Obama while rewriting history.
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
I seem to recall something Sun Tzu said about stretching supply lines by extended sieges, which he did not favor. But isn't what's true with a siege equally true with the war?
He's a Repuke, of course he'd say something completely asinine and counter productive.
Nice to know they haven't changed, if they aren't relegated further to the dustbin of history over the next couple elections then it's not them you have to worry about: it's your retarded neighbors.
under bush, right?
Instead of sending troops to fight in Afghanistan, wouldn't it make more sense to send the troops to Pakistan and India to aid in dismantling the nuclear bombs?
Afterall, that's what they're using to justify war in Afghanistan.
During which we can send special ops after OBL.
The only problem is like AQ's innumerable second-in-commands, they're probably all too capable of replacing him.
We also need to cut off his funding, and since it's personal wealth, we should look at freezing the funds of the entire Ben Laden family, and perhaps open an investigation of the Carlisle Group.
People may lose their wealth, but more lives will be saved.
Keep on "starving the beast" and grinding down the poor to wage useless warfare on civilian populations without declaring said war... keep on bankrupting the nation's coffers and morals and hiding the evidence that a bunch of perverts, wife-swappers, and corporate whoredog mafioso dicknose Biscuits Parading As Men (known in Pentagonese as: "B-PAM") keeps on mongering their stale fearshit and carving up territory like they carve up flesh or Thanksgiving ham...
... while in innumerable places across the land, small people make ornaments out of popsicle sticks, forgetting hunger and thirst for the moment, oblivious to the dementia of self-proclaimed overlords.
Youtube's been at it again
This time yanking 1938 Robin Hood clips
But there's one apropos.
Prince John asked all the gathered gentry at a banquet if any there object to the new taxes on their peasants. To a man that said, "Not I, your highness."
When they get to Robin, he says the Saxons won't stand for it.
Prince John asks if he thinks they're over-taxed.
Robin responds,"They're over-taxed, over-worked, and paid off with a club a whip or a noose."
The Abbott of the Black Cannons says, "You speak treason then?"
And Robin responds, "Fluently."
errol flynn?
Ja Wohl.
It was because of those clips that I ended up buying me a copy of the movie about a year ago.
Now I feel cheated.
And no new audience will know what a good movie it is to create a demand for it.
Although I also like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltps17if3t8
and then you will hear the Republicans talking about getting out of Aghanistan. That's how patriotic they are!
He says that it's wrong to insist on an exit strategy; and that we have to stay until the mission is accomplished. WTF do you think "staying until the mission is accomplished" is? It's an EXIT STRATEGY. A overly vague, lame, ill-conceived strategy; but a strategy nonetheless.
As a GOP zombie, he doesn't realize that an exit strategy is simply a detailed definition of what the "mission" is, and how to tell when it is "accomplished". He also doesn't realize that we *should* be telling the Afghan people that we aren't going to be there for the long term. We'll support them for the long term, but not with our troops on *their* soil.
BTW, if you really want to get more NATO troops to help out, it would be better not to question the ability of those troops up front. When Bayh says out loud on TV that "they're probably not as good and effective as US troops", it makes it less likely that they want to help the US out. They're every bit as good and effective as US troops, and they've been shouldering much of the load for quite some time now.
Finally, is Kyl really that stupid that he thinks you can even deliver a "knock-out blow" to an insurgency by throwing more troops at them? He implies that Vietnam would have turned out differently if rather that a phased increase in troop levels, we went "all in" early on. If the GOP and conservatives think that this is the important lesson to be learned from Vietnam, it at least explains why they've be wrong on almost every important national security issue over the last 2 decades.
I think you nailed it:
"It's an EXIT STRATEGY. A overly vague, lame, ill-conceived strategy; but a strategy nonetheless."
He's conflating exit strategy with timetable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5fjAjg6MK0
There are two ways this could have played out.
1."All this talk about exit strategy is dangerous," said Kyl.
2."Not having an exit strategy is dangerous", said Kyl.
Send our troops to die over there so they won't die due to lack of health insurance here. I think we're going to need some troops at home to protect the public from the ever increasing number of right wing gun fanatics that Beck ,O'Reilly, and Bachmann keep trying to push over the edge.
Exit strategies are for suckers - who needs to plan anything at all - try it in real life and see what happens. Don't fill your car up with gas and hope there is a gas station when you hit empty. Don't take any money to a restaurant and hope someone picks up the tab - that's the way to do it..
no thanks, kyl, i prefer a representative democracy. hey, kyl, if you prefer a military dictatorship maybe move to honduras? please move to honduras...
to kyl's investments, that is
this fuck is too corrupt even for the US senate
Bush ignored Afghanistan When he illegally invaded Iraq to go after "The guy who tried to kill my dad".
Then, they outed a covert CIA agent.
Then, Boosh cut the VA spending. After, he starts a war that the returning troops will need every bit of help that we can give them.
So, what does he do? Reams them.
How in good conscience can anyone think that the GOP have the scruples to be judgmental on anything now is beyond me.
There has to be a monumental double standard to even think that anything they say about anything relating to National Security has any credence.
What more do these GOPers need to see?
don't answer that.
In my mind, these people committed treason. Violated the Constitution. And misled the American people into an unjust war that has cost the lives of American military personnel.
And caused great suffering for American families.
Then , there's the economy.
Actually it was the republican controlled Congress that tried to cut VA spending, but weren't successful.
That may've been the other thing to hurt mcgramps, besides palin, was he was talking about limiting VA coverage to wartime injuries only, and got a lot of vets pissed at him.
I was under the impression that Boosh signed off on the VA budget cuts.
They could be two separate bills.
Apparently it's a lower pace of increase in funding:
http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html
Because he reduced the budget for the VA.
I'm pretty sure about this Y.
You clipped me off, but I was going to say by stories I've seen of Moyer's Journal, the red-tape may be increasing for being officially filed as having wartime related injuries and PTSD at the VA delaying care.
And the fact check article was about claims during the election of 2004, but since then I'd have to do further research.
Any shortage from the original spending would be considered a budget cut. If it (funds) were designated, then reduced, I would call that a budget cut.
But my overlying point is, he started these fuckin wars, then, after sending our military out to fight them, he reduces the funding. At a time when it should have been increased due to the types of traumatic injuries they were sustaining.
That's just fooked up.
But according to the FactCheck.Org, it was the former version. It's like more real dollars spent, but at a smaller percentage of the economy.
However, armored material and later medical care aren't as sexy to immature little boys than things that go BOOM.
And of course we were transitioning off of what was essentially peacetime spending under President Clinton to the wartime underspending of boosh.
We're both right.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Bravest+wom...
Malalai Joya is a courageous and knowledgeable young woman. Senator Kyl and the other warmongers could learn a lot from her.
It's time to bring our soldiers home.
What is the objective in Afghanistan? It has been so long, I cannot remember what the original objectives set by the Bush Admin were.
he'd be aware that having an exit strategy is a standard military procedure. And that without one things tend to be FUBAR.
Why does Kyl hate our military so much?
Dose this douchebag have sons he's going to send or is that just for people who can't find a job? No, Senator, we're not paying for some open ended war so that contractors in your state and others can make a living. DICK!
Of which Kyl is a prime example--spent the mid-'60s burnishing his law bonefides.
I am sick of these hypocrites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imjnDCQZ438
Login or Register to post comments.