You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (22)

PLAYS: (45)

November 19, 2009 CNN
Predator Drone airstrikes have increased under President Obama

I'm totally against the Afghanistan war, as C&Lers know, and it was lost as soon as Bush and Cheney decided to attack Iraq. Any chance to stabilize that region was lost immediately thereafter. The world had rallied around Afghanistan in such a way that that country could have been reconstructed and repaired by now.

So President Obama finds himself in a bad situation caused by conservative beliefs and now there really is only one strategy left: When do we leave? That being said, Fred Thompson, in a hatchet-job fashion, says the Afghan war is lost too, because Obama just isn't into it. Wow, aren't Republicans into fighting endless wars for profits?

Fred Thompson must know that Bush abandoned Afghanistan and forged his move to attack and remove the Taliban as nothing more than a chess move to attack Iraq.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson today intensified his party's criticism of President Obama's long deliberation over policy in Afghanistan, announcing that Obama's delay signals that "the war has been lost" and that nothing the president now does will "make any difference."

"It really doesn't matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost," Thompson said on his radio show today. "I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what's necessary to win it. His heart's not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.

Americans turned against these two wars a long time ago and public opinion will only keep declining. Vermin like Thompson only look for opportunities to cut up the president as often as possible. And they are using this conflict like the blade. They are a sad movement.

Thompson has the nerve to suggest that a sitting President doesn't care what happens in a war that is taking place now. These conservatives have no shame and that's why conservatism is a sham.
Remember the Faux outrage over Harry Reid?

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) remark that the Iraq war is lost is “much more disgraceful” than Sen. Trent Lott’s (R-MS) 2002 claim that the country would be much better off if it had maintained racist segregation policies.

“What Harry Reid said is much more disgraceful than anything Trent Lott said, and I do think Democrats should ask Harry Reid to step down,” Kristol said.

Spencer Ackerman has done a yeoman's job digging into the details as to whether the 40-44,000 troop estimate by Gen. McChrystal is even realistic to consider, when one counts the number of troops still in Iraq and Gen. Odierno's glacially slow deployment out of that country, the number of troops who have just returned from Iraq or Afghanistan (or Kosovo or the Phillipines or Egypt or any number of other deployments), numbers of troops assigned in Germany and S. Korea, and the number of troops that are left available. It's a pretty close thing.

Obama would have something of a cushion, but not much, in the early months of 2010. An additional five brigades will finish their 12 months of so-called “dwell time” at home between deployments by April 2010, providing an additional 22,600 troops, but by that time, about 10,200 troops will be scheduled to leave Afghanistan, leaving available a net gain of 12,400. More brigades become available in the summer and fall, although others currently in Afghanistan will be ending their scheduled deployments then as well. Under current Pentagon policy, dwell time for the National Guard varies, but can be no shorter than two years, and so it is possible but not certain that two National Guard brigades composed of 6,800 National Guard soldiers might be available for deployment by March 2010 as well, beyond the 24,000 theoretically available now. Pentagon leaders had hoped to extend dwell time this year, but that was before McChrystal’s request for additional troops.

There will undoubtably be a Marine regiment or two included in the mix, but (for all the noise and thunder) the Marines are a small part of the overall "boots on the ground" needed by McChrystal's projection. You can't count on increases from NATO - the Brits may throw another 500 troops into the mix, Germany just announced that its troops would stay another year but didn't commit to increases, and Canada's counting on next year being its last. I sincerely doubt that the other countries are going to do anything different. And I am sure not going to count onany sudden near-term increase of professionalism or competency in the Afgan army.

So my question is this: Did McChrystal select, and the Joint Chiefs endorse, a 40-44,000 troop increase in Afghanistan because it was the right number, or because it was in fact the upper limit of available active duty troops (assuming that the White House will not ask Congress to authorize the call up of more Reserves and National Guard units)? The authorized increase in troops that Congress allowed a few years ago isn't going to kick in enough replacements to really count in any significant way. As I and others have noted, increasing the US troop strength to 102,000 or so still is going to be insufficient to be successful in securing Afghanistan in any time less than several years. If this is the upper limit, that there will be no other active troops available in brigade-size units, then we're really limiting our strategic options to "influence" anyone else in the world.

This is probably a good indication of why the White House is really trying to understand what the options are and what the implications are. As Mark Grimsley notes, there is a general consensus that there is no need for a quick decision in a military sense, given that the situation is stable - AQ is contained, the Taliban aren't about to take Kabul, and our troops aren't on the edge of re-directing the Taliban's growth any time soon.

The real division of opinion is about whether completion of the strategic review is time urgent in a political sense.  Does the length of the review reflect deliberation or vacillation, strength or weakness?  Where people come down on this essentially reflects their opinion of Obama.

Which is why the Republicans are already set to take cheap shots at the White House no matter what the decision is, and despite any rationale for the final direction that President Obama identifies. I can understand Obama's focus on the economy and on health care - these domestic issues capture the attention of the public and he needs the political capital from the presidential election that is running out.  But now we're finally in that point in time where Obama will have to announce his final decision. There's a lot riding on this decision, and I hope that Obama has the sense to identify his exit strategy and timeframe as justification for that decision.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (40)

PLAYS: (129)

November 17, 2009 CNN

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (38)

PLAYS: (119)

November 16, 2009 C-SPAN

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1334)

PLAYS: (2284)

It didn't take Lou Dobbs long to appear on Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly was the joyful host. He initially tried to get Dobbs to slime over his departure, but Dobbs said that in all his years he was never told what to do or say and was never "talked to" about how he ran his show. As the interview wound down, Bill needed something a little juicy, so instead of asking Dobbs how he felt about Obama's policies so far, he phrased it as if President Obama will eat your babies, corrupt your spirit and lure you to sell your soul.

O'Reilly: Barack Obama, is he the devil?

Dobbs: He's not the devil, but he is certainly the man who is not making it easy to understand why he is making the public policy choices that he is. There has to be a better understanding from and can only from his expression to the American people, what is taking so long for his decision on Afghanistan. Why is it so necessary to turn 1/6th of the economy into the United States government, which has not showered itself with glory.

O'Reilly: So you don't think he's Satan, but you think he's mismanaging the country at this point.

Dobbs: I think, absolutely.

O'Reilly: OK, sorry I put words in your mouth.

Dobbs: No, I was excited. It was a pretty good choice.

Yeah, Bill. You only asked him if Obama was the Devil. What a jackass. And Dobbs just loved Obama being compared to Satan. Well, Dobbs should try and be the teabagger King. He'll fit right in. Maybe Tancredo can help on his campaign. he mimics every anti-Obama slur there is.

I think BillO is watching the CW's show "Supernatural". What a despicable way to ask Dobbs about Obama. Hey Lou, is President Bush the savior? Well, he sure is. If only those evil liberal devil worshipers would go away and let him blow up the entire Middle East, I believe the country would be better off, Bill.

Steve Benen:

I checked the byline a couple of times this morning, to make sure the column that was ostensibly written by David Broder wasn't, in fact, written by Charles Krauthammer. Regrettably, the so-called Dean of the D.C. Media Establishment actually wrote this.

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

"Whether or not it is right." The Commander in Chief, in other words, should put expediency over merit. Speed is preferable to accuracy. It's only the longest military conflict in American history, with the future of U.S. foreign policy on the line -- the president should worry less about due diligence and thoughtful analysis, and worry more about picking a course, even if it's wrong. Other than the loss of American servicemen and women, untold billions of dollars, and undermining U.S. interests in a critical region, what's the worst that can happen?

This says so much to me. The "dean" of Beltway journalism and conventional thinking perfectly encapsulates the Republican zeitgeist:

1. Criticize anything that Obama does. If he acts decisively, complain that he's reckless. If he acts thoughtfully, complain that he's "dithering". If he points out that he's inherited a big fat clusterf&ck, complain that he's pointing fingers. If he tries to move forward in even a slightly progressive way, complain that he's not bipartisan enough and that he should listen to Republicans. In short, make sure that no matter what, Obama is wrong.
2. There are no consequences to telling Obama he's wrong. So what if 45,000 people die because they don't have healthcare? So what if sending more troops is basically sending them to their deaths? So what if there is no stable government in Afghanistan? So what if we're spending millions of dollars every month and deficit spending is the cause du jour for those suddenly fiscally responsible Republicans?

If Obama acts quickly, and it's the wrong choice, will the decision to act fall back on Broder and the Republicans for the pressure they've placed on Obama? 'Course not. But you can bet your sweet bippy they'll only be too glad to pounce on him if there are more American deaths.

Tell you what, Broder, if you're so eager to see some action in Afghanistan, let's see you do one of your patented "folksy" reports from a coffee shop in Kandahar or Kabul. Otherwise, STFU and let the people in charge actually make a reasoned and thoughtful decision, since it affects so much in American blood and treasure.

We've had eight years of quick rather than right decisions. It's time for the grownups to be in charge now.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1004)

PLAYS: (3070)

From CNN's State of the Union, David Axelrod responds to Mitt Romney's carping that the President is taking too long to make a decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. Axelrod should have told King to ask Mittens when those 'brave sons' of his were going to sign up to go over there the next time he interviews him since he's so terribly concerned about sending more troops.

KING: As you know, conservatives have been critical of the president's policy review, saying, ‘why is it taking so long?’. The former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney gave a speech this week in which he said, not only why is it taking so long for the president to decide, but he also said why is David Axelrod, his top political advisor involved in these deliberations? Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: I find it incomprehensible and inexcusable that this president invites David Axelrod into national security meetings. Polls and politics have no place at that table. [...] He is the commander-in-chief. What has he been doing? Do you realize he carried out more than 30 campaign visits in this last season, for various Democrats? While he can't make up his mind on Afghanistan, or have enough time to meet with generals. He is out there campaigning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Let's take them in order. Why is David Axelrod deserve a seat at that table? And why is it taking so long?

AXELROD: Well, first of all, let's be clear. David Axelrod does not have a seat at that table. I have observed these discussions because, as I am today, I have to help communicate the message of the administration. And so it is helpful for me to hear. I have not said a word in any of those meetings.

Now let's take the second part. Governor Romney has to choose one argument or another. Either he has to say he is not paying attention or he has to say he is taking too long because he has been involved in a rigorous review. The president has had hours and hours and hours of meetings with his military commanders, with his national security team, to run through every aspect of this, in order to get it right.

And we've seen in the past what happens when we don't do that; when we don't do the necessary preparations. And he is determined to get Afghanistan right. It is something that Secretary Gates supports. It is something that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports; General McChrystal has been supportive of this process.

You know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails. But I think the American people are being well served by a process that is assiduous and in which every aspect of this is considered. Because, after all, lives of American servicemen are involved here. An enormous investment on the part of the American people, we ought to get it right.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (685)

PLAYS: (244)

This Week with George Stephanopoulos marks the passings of John O'Connor III, former ambassador James Lilley, former New Mexico Governor Bruce King and photographer Evelyn Hofer. In addition, the Pentagon released the names of 7 servicemembers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Army SPC Tony Carrasco Jr, 25, of Berino, NM
Army SPC Aaron S Aamot, 22, of Custer, WA
Army SPC Gary L Gooch Jr, 22, of Ocala, FL
Marine Sgt Charles I Cartwright, 26, of Union Bridge, MD
Army CWO Mathew C Heffelfinger, 29, of Kimberly, ID
Army CWO Earl R Scott III, 24, of Jacksonville, FL
Marine LCpl Justin J Swanson, 21, of Anaheim, CA

According to iCasualties, this brings the total number of allied servicemembers killed in Iraq to 4,680; in Afghanistan, 1,518. During this same week, Iraq Body Count adds another 54 Iraqi civilians killed.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1035)

PLAYS: (1096)

November 16, 2009 CNN

Romney: The president's inattention and dereliction have reminded me of the Northwest Airline pilots who became so distracted with things of little importance that they lost their way, which is exactly what this president has done in Afghanistan. In this case with greater consequence.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (787)

PLAYS: (1034)

Oh isn't this lovely? More Villager group think from the cast of Morning Joe. After Scarborough doing his some water-carrying for Dick Cheney and ranting about Obama delaying his decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, Scarborough and Mark Halperin both agree on one thing. Obama just needs to kiss more Republican ass to be taken seriously—because we know in the world of the Scarborough’s and Halperin’s out there, only Republicans have any credibility on national security.

Halperin: Imagine two scenarios—he announces it standing there by himself, or with Democrats (gasp!) when he makes this decision, or imagine him standing there with John McCain, or other prominent Republicans on national security. It paints such a different picture if he’s with the Republicans.

Yeah, that’s just what he need Halperin. Obama and Mr. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran standing hand in hand announcing his Afghanistan policy. News flash to Halperin—McCain lost the election. And Obama needs to be listening to his base, not McCain.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (272)

Following the news that President Obama has rejected all four of the proposed policies on Afghanistan from his military consultants, Seymour Hersh joined Rachel to discuss his latest article at The New Yorker, Defending the Arsenal.

MADDOW: Tonight's breaking news, "The Associated Press" reporting that President Obama has rejected all of the options given to him on the way forward in the war in Afghanistan. Any decision he makes about Afghanistan will, of course, have to take into account our friend-nemy across the border in Pakistan. And as Seymour Hersh details in this week's "New Yorker" magazine, U.S. dealings with Pakistan specifically on issues of fighting the Taliban and keeping that country's nuclear arsenal out of the hands of militants, they're going from complicated to full-on Gordian Knot territory.

Joining us now is Seymour Hersh, staff writer for "The New Yorker" magazine.

Mr. Hersh, thanks very much for coming on the show tonight.

SEYMOUR HERSH, THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE: Sure.

MADDOW: Before we talk Pakistan, I do need to ask your reaction to this breaking news from "The Washington Post" and "The A.P." tonight that the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, now says, "Don't send more troops because of Afghan corruption," and the president, tonight, reportedly rejecting all of the options that have presented to him for sending more troops.

HERSH: Look. It could be huge. Of course, it's very early, but it could be huge, simply that the president is finally saying, "I'm taking control."

The one thing that mystified a lot of people, a lot of my friends on the inside was this decision to let General McChrystal write a report. We always compare Mr. Obama that to President Lincoln. But Lincoln did not let George McClellan write a report on how to win a war against the South.

There's no general in history that will write come back, given that assignment and say we can't win. This is basically a war at best that's going to be a stalemate-a 10-year stalemate, you know, x thousands and x the money, et cetera.

And so, Obama is just putting his foot down, and that's great. He's saying-he's making a political gamble in a sense. I-it's a little too early to say, but he's-he's grabbing it. He's grabbing it, and he hasn't been grabbing it until now.

Continue reading »

If this is real resistance, and not a choreographed dance to make himself look "strong," we might possibly (it's a long shot, I know) avoid sinking deeper into this Afghanistan quagmire:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.

Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 22

PLAYS: 28

afghanistan

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1507)

PLAYS: (281)

This Week with George Stephanopoulos marks the passings of journalist John Mashek and the Ft. Hood shooting victims.

Civilian Michael Grant Cahill, 62, of Cameron
Major L. Eduardo Caraveo, 52, of Woodbridge, Va.
Staff Sgt. Justin M. DeCrow, 32, of Plymouth, Ind.
Capt. John P. Gaffaney, 54, of San Diego, Calif.
Spc. Frederick Greene, 29, of Mountain City, Tenn.
Spc. Jason Dean Hunt, 22, of Tillman, Okla.
Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29, of Kiel, Wis.
Pfc. Aaron Thomas Nemelka, 19, of West Jordan, Utah
Pfc. Michael Pearson, 22, of Bolingbrook, Ill.
Capt. Russell Seager, 41, of Racine, Wis.
Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, of Chicago. She was pregnant.
Lt. Col. Juanita Warman, 55, of Havre de Grace, Md.
Spc. Kham Xiong, 23, of St. Paul, Minn.

In addition, the Pentagon has released the names of 9 servicemembers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army SPC Joseph L Gallegos, 39, of Questa, NM
Army PFC Brian R Bates, Jr 20, of Gretna, LA
Army SPC Adrian L Avila, 19, of Opelika, AL
Army PFC Lukas C Hopper, 20, of Merced, CA
Army SPC Christopher M Cooper, 28, of Oceanside, CA
Army SPC Jonathon M Sylvestre, 21, of Colorado Springs, CO
Marine Sgt Cesar B Ruiz, 26, of San Antonio, TX
Army SSG Amy C Tirador, 29, of Albany, NY
Army SPC Julian L Berisford, 25, of Benwood, WV

According to iCasualties, this brings the total number of allied servicemembers killed in Iraq to 4,677, in Afghanistan, 1,513. During this same period, Iraq Body Count lists 56 Iraq civilians killed. For the month of October, 438 civilians were killed in Iraq.