Afghan/Pakistan is the same theatre of operations, Iraq/Syria would be the same, certainly the Baathists that condoned the jihadist ratline back through Al Quaim, thought so. The abandonment of the Green Revolution, you condone now, infavor of the Stuixnet, now what is clear is the war against Israel, that is going full bore.
No, McCain and I assume Graham would likely have pursued much the same policy on interrogations as Obama, as they seemed to have swallowed the Levick group and DenBeaux's propaganda whole. Gitmo was a stupid promise, Bush shouldn't have let any of these folks go,
frankly that was appeasing an unappeasable faction. (re the Ghailani
trial, if the example wasn't clear enough)
Well you reminded me, of one of my qualms, Obama denounced Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, in earshot of the Citadel and other locations in Egypt
where they do torture. One of the more tragic examples in the Bush administration was the Aher case, where the Mukharabat floated the tip, in order to get at the brother of a Shams Islamiya (Syrian Brotherhood member)
He has been engaged in the 'fundamental transformation' in Holder's
'courageous dialogue on race' in everything except what is his constitutional duty, something the Economist doesn't understand either
We're going back to the point that Mullen, is the most conventional of thinkers in the Military ranks, Obama has shown he's not really engaged
in the Afghan question, the Woodward book also shows he was alerted
to the danger posed by AQAP, almost a year before Ft. Hood
He fired McKiernan, although he asked for roughly the same number of troops as McChrystal, then waited months before deciding to back the
surge, reluctantly. Yes, Biden was his tutor as to which questions to
ask Petraeus back in 2007, the man who thought that partition of Iraq
was a good idea, (note to self, partition is never a good idea). Of course, the hands off approach has encouraged the most intransigent
elements in the Sunni/Shia divide, The Likwan sent their best fighters
into the Flytrap, another unacknowledged benefit of the war
Mullen, never believed in the surge, along with Fallon, who was trying
to short circuit Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy until the Esquire
profile undid him, had he had his drothers, AQ would have an emirate
on the Euphrates now. We see n ow Obama was just stalling for time,
sacking McKiernan, who's primary failing was being too honest of what was required. In this he is much like Lyndon Johnson, in not believing
in the war, he was prosecuting
The enemy, Taliban, AQ, certainly knows there is one, they know there's a lot of nervous nellies even in the GOP, who are willing to bail
out, at the first sign of turbulence, ironically this may make more involvement rather than less, more likely
It really boils down to the fact, that his project is the 'fundamental transformation of America," and operations in Afghanistan, interfere
with that, he was ignorant about the Cold War, as his Sundial article
shows, and he hasn't learned anything new in the last 27 years. His coalition, is not antiwar, 'they are just on 'the other side'
These flashbacks to socialism, are skewing your perspective, Colin, Kerry, believed the war was essentially immoral, a crime, Krauthammer, Rubin and Wehner, understand it is necessary, the nonchalance that
the President shows in the conduct of the war, raises questions, although I do agree with you, it is poor sport to chicken out
Afghan/Pakistan is the same theatre of operations, Iraq/Syria would be the same, certainly the Baathists that condoned the jihadist ratline back through Al Quaim, thought so. The abandonment of the Green Revolution, you condone now, infavor of the Stuixnet, now what is clear is the war against Israel, that is going full bore.
No, McCain and I assume Graham would likely have pursued much the same policy on interrogations as Obama, as they seemed to have swallowed the Levick group and DenBeaux's propaganda whole. Gitmo was a stupid promise, Bush shouldn't have let any of these folks go,
frankly that was appeasing an unappeasable faction. (re the Ghailani
trial, if the example wasn't clear enough)
Well you reminded me, of one of my qualms, Obama denounced Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, in earshot of the Citadel and other locations in Egypt
where they do torture. One of the more tragic examples in the Bush administration was the Aher case, where the Mukharabat floated the tip, in order to get at the brother of a Shams Islamiya (Syrian Brotherhood member)
He has been engaged in the 'fundamental transformation' in Holder's
'courageous dialogue on race' in everything except what is his constitutional duty, something the Economist doesn't understand either
We're going back to the point that Mullen, is the most conventional of thinkers in the Military ranks, Obama has shown he's not really engaged
in the Afghan question, the Woodward book also shows he was alerted
to the danger posed by AQAP, almost a year before Ft. Hood
He fired McKiernan, although he asked for roughly the same number of troops as McChrystal, then waited months before deciding to back the
surge, reluctantly. Yes, Biden was his tutor as to which questions to
ask Petraeus back in 2007, the man who thought that partition of Iraq
was a good idea, (note to self, partition is never a good idea). Of course, the hands off approach has encouraged the most intransigent
elements in the Sunni/Shia divide, The Likwan sent their best fighters
into the Flytrap, another unacknowledged benefit of the war
Mullen, never believed in the surge, along with Fallon, who was trying
to short circuit Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy until the Esquire
profile undid him, had he had his drothers, AQ would have an emirate
on the Euphrates now. We see n ow Obama was just stalling for time,
sacking McKiernan, who's primary failing was being too honest of what was required. In this he is much like Lyndon Johnson, in not believing
in the war, he was prosecuting
That's a fairly large reason, Frog, I don't know the word in Pashto
The enemy, Taliban, AQ, certainly knows there is one, they know there's a lot of nervous nellies even in the GOP, who are willing to bail
out, at the first sign of turbulence, ironically this may make more involvement rather than less, more likely
It really boils down to the fact, that his project is the 'fundamental transformation of America," and operations in Afghanistan, interfere
with that, he was ignorant about the Cold War, as his Sundial article
shows, and he hasn't learned anything new in the last 27 years. His coalition, is not antiwar, 'they are just on 'the other side'
These flashbacks to socialism, are skewing your perspective, Colin, Kerry, believed the war was essentially immoral, a crime, Krauthammer, Rubin and Wehner, understand it is necessary, the nonchalance that
the President shows in the conduct of the war, raises questions, although I do agree with you, it is poor sport to chicken out