Obama's speech on the Afghanistan War: Draining a Political Mess of His Own Making

[tekisui]

Source: LA Times

Here's some important new information that President Obama should certainly leave out of his big Afghanistan speech Wednesday evening:

Only 12% of people in our most important regional ally, Pakistan, now have a positive view of the United States. And only 8% express confidence in the American leader to do the right thing, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.

This could have something to do with deadly U.S. drone raids on Pakistan and the assassination of Osama bin Laden there in a commando incursion; a whopping 14% of Pakistanis think the latter was a good thing.

Obama's speech from the White House this evening will be his third major address on Afghanistan, now the nation's longest war ever. The first two -- on March 27, 2009, and Dec. 1, 2009 -- involved Obama ordering the sorts of American troop surges into combat that the Democrat used to say would make things worse when his predecessor ordered one into Iraq. (Scroll down for links to the full texts of those two speeches.)

more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/obama-afghanistan-speech-troop-drawdown-pakistan.html

[liberal N proud]

1. His Own Making? - He inherited Afghanistan

:nuke:

[tekisui]

3. He tripled down on it. Called it the right war and one of necessity.

He also supported it in the Senate.

[democrat_patriot]

6. It is the right war. Iraq was the wrong one.

He got Bin Laden - the Taliban is weakened. But it isn't "his war". It's "our war".

Start the drawdown.

[frylock]

10. maybe it's your war, but i've been against this clusterfuck from jump

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[ProSense]

4. Says

Laura Bush's former press secretary.

What a joke.

[tekisui]

5. Care to address the points made or just try to be dismissive?

[ProSense]

9. The piece is about the President's

Afghanistan speech.

Two recent Pew polls:

U.S. Image in Pakistan Falls No Further Following bin Laden Killing


Record Number Favors Removing U.S. Troops from Afghanistan





Americans increasingly want out of Afghanistan, but they acknowledge this was the war to focus on, not Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

The question is why is Malcolm using a poll about Pakistani sentiment after bin Laden's killing to slam Obama on the war Bush screwed up?

Answer: Because he is a RW asshole.

"Care to address the points made or just try to be dismissive?"

Becuse it's RW spin from a known Republican hack.

[emulatorloo]

11. It is not the first time Andrew Malcolm has been deceptive.

If a writer has been deceptive, he is not to be trusted as a source.


NOT EVEN CLOSE. . . .Steve Benen, March 2009
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017224.php

NOT EVEN CLOSE.... The LA Times' Andrew Malcolm played a little fast and loose yesterday, commenting on President Obama's directive on Bush's signing statements. (thanks to reader J.R. for the heads-up)

Malcolm writes:

"Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush. But No. 42 is a Democrat and his wife currently works for Obama. So No. 44 is on a big tear right now to distance himself instead from No. 43, the Republican, who's back in Texas and doesn't care but just hearing his name trashed makes Democrats feel good. <...>

Obama doesn't say he won't ever use signing documents. He just says he'll work with Congress about them. Which means he will, of course, sign some, but right now he wants today's news coverage to be on more change to sort-of believe in."

No, this wasn't written by the Republican National Committee to be read on-air by Fox News personalities; it just seems like it.

Did Clinton use signing statements "way more than George W. Bush"? It's a highly misleading claim, based on a count of the individual documents, instead of the number of provisions to which the signing statements have been applied. In reality, Bush "broke all records" while abusing this presidential tool, "using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined."

To hear Malcolm tell it, President Obama is just playing a silly partisan game, "trashing" Bush when Clinton was worse, just to make Democrats "feel good." This is lazy, partisan, and disingenuous analysis.

<MORE AT LINK>

[BeyondGeography]

7. Classic RW talking points

The author would have you limit all discussion of Iraq to the surge. Goes downhill from there.

[Enrique]

8. actually unpopularity among Pakistanis might be good for Obama politically

Pakistanis are the "other", they are the ones living in that godforsaken country where all those terrorists are. Same with Yemenis. If "those people" don't like what we're doing, then maybe we're on the right track. :sarcasm: