EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Losing Hill Liberals on War
As President Barack Obama reaffirms his Afghanistan policy, he’s also emboldening critics in Congress who think he should use a shakeup in commanding generals to change the course of what they believe is an intractable war.
The President is emboldening critics who think he could use a shakeup in commanding generals to change the war plan. (AP)
“I think he has to reassess the strategy,” Rep. Jackie Speier
(D-Calif.) said Thursday. “I can’t believe for a minute that he’s not
rethinking it.”
Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern fired off a letter Wednesday to
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asking her to hold off on a
war-funding bill until Congress can assess the full fallout of a
Rolling Stone article that concluded — without correction from the
White House — that the president and his commanders have been backing
off plans to withdraw starting in July 2011.
The bottom line: The president and congressional critics, long on a
collision course over the war in Afghanistan, are hurtling ever faster
toward each other since the ouster of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and
doves on Capitol Hill are feeling a little tougher right now.
The anti-war coalition continues to be a thorn in the side of
Democratic leaders, who are trying to find a way to move a war-funding
bill over liberal objections and past a Republican Party unified in its
opposition to using the must-pass $33 billion measure as a source of
domestic spending.
War critics say Obama is missing a golden opportunity to use the
McChrystal flap as an excuse to reshape his policy in Afghanistan.
Instead, he’s reaffirming a policy that was shaped in large measure by
McChrystal and using acclaimed Gen. David Petraeus to execute it,
leaving himself little room to cast blame should things go wrong.
“He’s doubling-down,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide.
It’s not clear how the funding fight, or the larger battle over conduct
of the Afghanistan war, will be resolved. But no one is backing down.
For 48 hours, Obama has been saying he’s not interested in a
recalibration of his policy, even gently mocking those who hope for a
quick exit next summer.
“We did not say, starting in July 2011, suddenly there will be no
troops from the United States or allied countries in Afghanistan,”
Obama said Thursday. “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights
and closing the door behind us.”
But the firing of McChrystal — and the choice of Petraeus — has cleared
the way for a fresh debate over the war. And while Petraeus should
cruise to confirmation, it’s clear that many Democrats may love the
general but are starting to hate the war.
“Until a full and complete explanation of these [McChrystal] comments
and views are presented to Congress, we believe that a vote of the
House of Representatives on the administration’s request for a
supplemental appropriation for the war in Afghanistan would be
inappropriate,” McGovern and 29 colleagues wrote to Pelosi.
Of the McChrystal-Petraeus trade, McGovern said, “Same menu, different waiter.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to be the peacemaker between the anti-war critics in her caucus and the president.
“The
president is the commander in chief, and we all stand by him in the
decision that he made in terms of who would be in command in
Afghanistan,” she said. “So we’ve trusted him before, we trust him now;
it’s just a question of where people stand on our involvement in
Afghanistan.”
Petraeus, who was on Capitol Hill on Thursday, will be back in front of
the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday for a hurriedly planned
confirmation hearing. The last time he met with the senators, he
fainted during a round of questioning from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.),
who has been among the lawmakers critical of the conduct of the war.
Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired Navy admiral who is the Democratic nominee
for Senate in Pennsylvania, said Obama needs to give Congress a better
sense of how he measures success in Afghanistan, so that lawmakers can
make informed decisions for their constituents.
“We haven’t gotten those metrics,” he said. “The strategy may be working. We just don’t have the metrics.”
Still, lawmakers hope there’s room to revisit the policy after Petraeus is confirmed.
“[Obama] would be imprudent not to have Gen. Petraeus report back to him based on what he finds on the ground,” Speier said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a conservative on the Armed Services
Committee, said after a Tuesday meeting with Petraeus that he is
confident a fresh pair of hands will reshape the policy.
“Anytime there is a change of command, there is an opportunity to
fine-tune the approaches and strategies being used on the ground,”
Inhofe said. “After meeting with him in my office this morning, I know
that is his plan going forward. If anyone can take control of the
effort in Afghanistan and see it through to a successful completion,
Gen. Petraeus is that person.”
Obama and war critics do agree on one key aspect: They agree that the general is not as important as the policy.
“We’ll see how it works out,” said Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), an
outspoken opponent of the war. “It’s too early to say. But policy is
more important than personnel. Clearly, someone has to be in charge
over there.”
While most lawmakers are supportive of the Petraeus pick, some say no one — not even Ulysses S. Grant — could win the war.
“That McChrystal thing is just a symptom of what we won’t face up to,
which is that it’s a totally failed policy,” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
told POLITICO. “If we were on the verge of a great success, do you
think we’d fire the general? So it was an absolute confirmation of the
failed policy, and yet the policy doesn’t change. They should have
changed the policy and kept the general.
“Maybe that would have been better,” Paul said, before going on to say
that it is the policymakers — not the military brass — who are to blame.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
36 Comments so far
Show AllEndless Bummers by Jon Stewart last night. Shows out hypocrisy in what we consider "important" in America, and then there is the segment about General Betray Us and Obama and his endless BS.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-24-2010/endless-bummers
These congressmen and women should have been concerned back in 2009 when Obama was threatening to withhold campaign money from freshmen in Congress if they didn't vote to increase war funding.
whether it's the war, the environment or health care etc Obomba ONLY threatens progressives......calling us "retards"
and then jumps in the sack w/ the righwingnuts and the bluedogs......
that's pretty much all that needs to be said......
you need an ivy league education to be able to justify throwing your entire traditional base under the bus.....and still think they'll be there for you in the next election......
i personally know well over 20 people that now say their vote for obama was a waste and they WILL NOT vote for him again......
i just look at them and say "Are you truly surprised?"
and the youth vote that hardly ever votes but was fooled by obama as being different will go back to their video games and say who cares?
they're saying - we won't get fooled again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE&feature=related
Thanks I needed that, Chief.
If Obama was playing Blackjack in a casino, his move on Afghanistan would be like spitting 2's and doubling down, with the dealer showing a ten.
Obama hubris shows him to be a fool and clueless.
Good Grief.
What hubris? He is personally doing quite well, thank you. He's not clueless, therefore it's not him who's the fool.
Alan Grayson, an alleged critic of the occupation, wants to see how things work out because "it's too early to say." No, congressman, it is not too early to say because the policy in Afghanistan has been a complete failure and Obama has been proven to be just as much of a warmonger as George W. Bush.
Once again, "anti-war" critics in Congress are said to be not "backing down". Not until, that is, it comes time to vote on the measure ....
The Dems will hold their fingers out to test the winds of their constituents. If they truly believe they will lose an election by voting "Yes", they will ask permission of the Dem leaders to vote "No". If the Dem leaders know they can pass the bill without those votes, they will say "OK". If they need the votes, they will put the screws on them to vote "Yes", with promises of big help in their campaigns. That's how it works in parties. The healthcare bill was a pretty good demonstration of that, with Kucinich being the object lesson ..
It will be interesting to see what would happen if enough members felt they really needed to vote "No" to save their seats. Would they defy the party leaders or take it on the chin for the party? Now that the primaries are pretty much over, the Dem leadership won't have quite so much leverage, as their choice would be to support the "No" Dem or risk losing the seat to a Rep. My, my, one of the war parties might have to make a choice between war and party .....
Not to worry, though, I don't think there is enough anti-war sentiment in the country to give enough reps cause to fear the loss of their seats with a "yes" vote.
Vote against the Empire and ANY candidates who support it.
“He’s doubling-down,”
- he's tripling-down. He doubled-down when he continued this mess right after the elections.
Agreed.
"Obama Losing Hill Liberals on War." I know he has lost the independents that put him in office. Another disappointment in a long line of disappointments.
At this point the charades are so ridiculous, phony and absurd it is difficult to take seriously.
The problem is that mass state terror, imperialism, military occupation, abuse of power, war crimes and kleptocracy are deadly serious.
The Emperor et al continue to drive us off a cliff and squander trillions while refusing to help states and municipalities.
In many places around the country more teachers are being laid off, schools closing, police officers and firefighters laid off, libraries are being cut back or closed, road maintenance cut, parks and recs cut:
In short the entire civil infrastructure is being dismantled. The USA is canibalizing itself while at the same time maintaining the Empire Inc. History clearly shows what happens to a great power at this stage and it is almost inevitable.
The people responisible are like the barbarians of old: the Vandals and Goths who sacked Rome and destroyed and stole everything - eventually leaving Rome in the Dark Ages with cattle and chickens roaming the almost deserted streets.
The citizens endured a drastic cut in quality of life, life expectancies, health, safety and security.
It might sound melodramatic, but it sure seems like we are entereing a neo-Fuedal age, complete with private prisons, private security and military forces, private health care etc. The financial trolls collecting their tolls are the new masters.
Obama may go down in history as being even dumber than GW. The troops are glad McCrystal is out because he put restrictions on their ability to kill civilians. Now, Petraeus will remove those restrictions and this war will get bloodier. Obama is a war criminal anad possibly the biggest hypocrite on the face of hte planet. And for you Hillary backers who are itching to say "I told you so"--keep in mind that if she were president, we'd have already bombed Iran several times, given Israel the green light to bomb Lebanon and Gaza again, and probably invaded several Latin American countries. She is a warmonger with no regrets. The entire Democratic party--with the possible exception of Kucinich--must be kicked out of Washington. ASAP.
Agreed, except to reserve the right to add a few names to Kucinich's after reflection.
Obama is in no way dumb. He beat back the Clinton Machine and the Republicans.
He's not the dumb one, he knows exactly what he's doing.
And your Kucinich exception is laughable.
President Obama has little to fear from "Hill Liberals" who will always be outvoted by the overwhelming coterie of Republicans and war-Democrats. A more dangerous Achilles-heel for him are some of the commanding officers of the British, Canadian, Dutch, and Australian contingents in Afghanistan which Mr. Obama cannot silence like he can his so-called "war-team". Foremost among these is the Australian Kilcullen who was an outspoken critic of McChrystal's "COIN-operated strategy". If Obama and Petraeus are not careful then the "coalition of the Afghan willing" may well quickly devolve into the "coalition of the quitting" which happened to President Bush in Iraq. The Dutch already have one foot outside the door.
The change-of-generals in the garden of the Whitewashing House would have been a farce had it not been for the fact that the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan is murderous. Nevertheless I noticed something that struck me as funny namely the infinitely sour face of Vice President Biden throughout Obama's Bush-inspired speech. After the elections of 2008 Joe could entertain some hope of becoming the next president. That hope has evaporated in Afghanistan and he knows it.
I haven't read anything about this, either.
Thanks for bringing this news to my attention. And, thanks for the link.
Simply put, Obama is one of the Great Political Idiots in the history of post-WWII America. Hey, Barack . . . All The Way With LBJ, right down the toilet.
“After meeting with (Petraeus) in my office this morning, I know that is his plan going forward. If anyone can take control of the effort in Afghanistan and see it through to a successful completion, Gen. Petraeus is that person.”
What a bunch of howling, effing idiots!
Any chance that he knows EXACTLY what he's doing? And doing it to support the Military Industrial Complex and Israel?
Because if that's the case, then the idiot is...
It's not just liberals on the "Hill" he is losing, it's the people that moved heaven and earth to get him elected in spite a broken election system and legalized bribery (campaign contributions).
They are really, really angry.
It's not just the war. It's healthcare, it's financial reform, it's the environment, it's impingining on civil rights, it's targeted assassinations of American citizens, it's drones on the Mexican border, etc. etc.
It's not just inexperience, his love affair with Bush holdovers and his lack of judgment. He's every bit as arrogant and stupidly stubborn as Bush.
Cadawa believes that the people who helped Obama become elected have now become so disenchanted with him that they hae now become "really, really angry." Unfortunately all that alleged anger has not exactly manifested itself in seeing massive protests across the country and especially in Washington D.C. which could rival those protests that were seen during the Vietnam conflict when hundreds of thousands of people marched upon Washington to voice their concerns against another Democratic war hawk named Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Bingo.
I am more liberal than most and probably as angry as any, but we must consider what might have been. He must deal with a congress and a judicial system dominated by multimillionaires and still on the take. He does not have the support in congress to do what I want and he knows that. I guess, in fact, he has done pretty well in spite of all the e-mails that I have sent expressing my disgust with some of his actions and inactions, especially in health care. I do think, however, that he could do much more if he cleaned house and got rid of the Clinton and Bush holdovers...especially Ram Emanuel.
Cry me a river. He is actively and continually selling us to the rich.
"Deal with" should not mean "sell to," but confront.
Were 0 compromising with or fighting against such forces, one might applaud, even were he fighting in vain, even if the compromises were deep and costly.
He has done neither.
Try going through 0's actions and policies and thinking of what you would think of a Republican who did them or held them, who rushed through mountain top removal and Gulf oil drilling permits, who bailed out banking chums, who expanded torture and black ops and foreign bases and military spending and a fistful of wars and ---
go through it point by point. 0bama does not act as a liberal or left or progressive, nor as a centrist or moderate. He acts as a rightist, statist, corporatist, imperialist thug white-gloved in polite language.
I sent some of what little money I have to your campaign. I believed you. I believed IN you.
I used to call the typical Republican white trash. I don't believe in racial slurs in referring to people of color.
What do I call you?
Beige Bush.
For starters, Obama should sign an Executive Order saying that anyone who uses the phrase "double down" will be taken out and shot.
FREE AMERICA
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
I am one who was taken in by Obama, but McCain and Palin made it easy for me to vote for Obama.
Those contributors above who swear not to vote for Obama again or will join a separate party had better be mighty sure of what they are doing, because even Obama, with all his neglect of campaign promises and display of incompetency eaused by lack of years of preparation, is a better choice than, say, Ms Palin and the declining Sen. McClain.
We need new blood, yes, and I hope it comes with new wisdom in the next nomination phase, with media influence stifled severely from its past from practically eliminating any other Democratic prospect by the simple move of ignoring him.
BS - it was clear that Obama was going to win, so you could have voted for Nader or McKinney.
You are an Obamabot.
How does that saying go? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different outcome? Well, Obama -- our "commander-in-chief -- is insane. This war is Vietnam redoux. Pelosi: the "people" want out of this war, and no amount of patriotic prattle will ever make wrong right, or convince us that we have to kill every Afghan citizen to be safe. This country is a disgrace, a fool's paradise of ignorant, scarred, entitled fools. British colonialism lasted for 300 years--I wonder how people with consciences lived through those years of slaughter? Americans have a high tolerance for the deaths of others. That's how low its level of "christianity" has dropped.
his dreaded middle name is H...H.......H............Hoover!
Cheers for those fighting to ward off the supplemental war funding bill until there is some accountable and measurable statement on Afghanistan policy objectives and to determine whether the policy is working or not.
Representatives McGovern (D-Mass), Speier (D-Calf), Sestak (D-Pa) and Obey (D-Wis) are on the right track. Don't spend until the policy is clear on timelines for withdrawal.
McCain, Lieberman and Graham will try to force wiggle room from Petraeus beyond the 2011 withdrawal date. The House members are right to withold votes unitl there is clarity.
Meanwhile it's time to advocate for Obey's proposal of a war surtax on the wealthy to help finance the war. Wars require sacrifice. There is no draft. At least the wealthiest should have to be made to show their patriotism.
David Cohen
Washington, DC
The anti-war movement must reorganize itself and put the pressure on Congress as well as the president. Sitting in hiding hoping and wishing for change, won't get it done!
Of course Obama is not for pulling out. He never was. Now with the untapped wealth in the cobalt, copper, gold and lithium the U.S. will never leave Afghanistan!
To those who espouse not to drop the democrats or Obama, I would strongly urge for YOU to consider your position! Voting in this country has become an obsolete and almost futile act of very passive and complacent people. One's chanes at the casino are just about as good as our chance in putting in REAL progressive leadership!
I reiterate my position; in 2012 I will not waste my breath on either Obama or his DP!