[...] Energy Agency, and the man of the moment, cannot be that man. He did all he could to facilitate Iran’s drive towards nuclear weapons. He is a puppet of the Muslim [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wow Rob.

I guess in your logic the 2008 was the only year anyone ever has in their minds when thinking about the Afghan war. (Which is when the “plan” w/ Gates involved) started coming about.

If you would remember, I also said that after the surge in Iraq, and the surge by the Pakis, that the increases started, now didn’t I? I even provided a handy chart so that you could keep up and play along.

Troops were NOT needed when the fighting was NOT heavy. Take 2004. (see chart)
After ignoring Afghanistan, the left suddedly wanted to fight! The meme started that Iraq was “bad” to try to win an election. It didn’t work, yet no matter how relatively “calm” Afghan was (see chart) they were a-clamorin from then on.

But only until the left won the presidency. Now the wanna quit again. Ask Michael Moore.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Hard Right –

Let me get your story straight:

The left was asking for more troops in Afghanistan, but you say they weren’t needed.

Gates in June 2008 says that the Taliban has regrouped and is more powerful than before.

PatVann says the Taliban only got “motivated” in November 2008 when Obama got elected.

But PatVann also says that Bush “had a plan” to send in 50,000 men, but Obama delayed.

PatVann has not explained why Bush had a plan to add 50,000 men if they were not actually needed, as you claim.

You and PatVann need to coordinate and settle on which lies the wingnuts are going to push.

You saying more troops were not needed undercuts his claim that Bush had a plan to send 50,000 men . . . you know, the ones that “weren’t needed” when “the left” was demanding them. Likewise, you claiming the men “weren’t needed” is exactly 180 degrees contrary to Gates statements in June 2008 (when Obama was fighting Hillary) that the Taliban was resurgent.

So you guys consolidate you meme and get back with us when you are not spouting internally inconsistent nonsense about how the failures in Afghanistan are all Obama and “the left’s” fault.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Patvann –

The article I posted earlier, quoting Bob Gates in June 2008 talking about the resurgent Taliban, cuts the nads off any argument that the Taliban “got motivated” in November 2008 as you claim. Your statement is just more wingnut nonsense that is belied by the documented historic statements of the Bush administration Pentagon.

Another thing — you claim Bush “had a plan” to add 50,000 troops, huh? Kindly provide a link to that plan. Because if he had the “plan”, why didn’t he do it himself? He had seven friggin years to implement it!

And here, Patvann, is where I expose you for the fool that you are. At 4:12 yesterday afternoon, you wrote the following as the excuse for Bush not sending the 50,000 troops that Obama is now sending:

“Besides, why the hell would you escalate and drop in 50,000 more men when there was very little fighting going on? What were they going to be doing?”

Later, you claimed the new fighting was due to Obama being elected . . . but the Gates quote in June 2008 proved that was a lie. But now you claim Bush had a “plan” to send in 50,000 troops, but Obama didn’t follow it, huh? OK, I’ll bite . . .

Why would Bush have had a plan to send in 50,000 troops (and about double our commitment) if, as you said earlier, there was “very little fighting going on”?

You, like most fabulists (including my ex-wife), can’t keep your lies straight. You are officially busted! First you claim there was no need for 50,000 troops, then you said the need arose when Obama was elected, now you say Bush had planned 50,000 all along. So which two lie combination of those three lies are you going to go with?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

brainded-rob, you are a leftist troll.

A few facts for you. The left screamed about how we acted alone in Iraq (we didn’t) and how NATO should be involved. Well, we had that in Afghanistan and it made things worse when our so-called-allies refused to fight. As has been pointed out to you, when the terrorists lost in Iraq they went to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Also as previously stated the left was screaming for more troops in Afghanistan for years-even tho they weren’t needed. Now that they are getting them are screaming that it’s the wrong thing to do. The truth is the left wants this country to lose because they hate it. They tried to make us lose in Iraq and are now trying to do the same in Afghanistan.
While obama sending 30k more troops is good, it still isn’t enough. I don’t expect someone as mentally ill as yourself to understand this, so this post is to dispell your demented views.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

NATO was slated to add 10-20,000 in 2008 per agreements made on 07. They stiffed Bush, because of the same reason you don’t bother looking into the past details of the Afghan theatre, and why you are suddenly so pro-war.
Say it with me now: BEE DEE ESS

It was also a NATO commander in charge of theater-ops during that time. Try to remember who’s involved in the fighting, and the fact that chain-of command rotates.

The plan Bush handed Obama was for 50,000. He pussed out and sent 20. Now he’s sending the other 30 6 months later than originaly scheduled. 2 divisions of Marines have been ready to go for over a year. Only one will go starting next month.

Yes I know which one.

And once again, you childishly put words into my mouth. I never said they were motivated “now.” They got motivated in November of 08. Around the first week.

Really man, that ploy make you look so…small.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ PatVann –

If the “bad-guys got motivated” now, then why did Bush’s Sec. of Defense talk about them surging in 2008, BEFORE Obama was even out of the Dem primaries? And we have 68,000 troops there now after Obama already sent 14,000 earlier this year. But the generals asked for another 30 to 40,000. Are you telling me that we “all of a sudden” needed to increase our deployment from 54,000 to more than 100,000? You actually believe that this needs just arose this year? You are beyond dumb . . . .

Like or Dislike: 0  0

US deaths in Afghanistan by year:

01-12
02-49
03-48
04-52
05-99
06-98
(Pakistan starts fighting in Waziristan the first time)
07-117
(Iraq surge period)
08-155
(Al Q in Iraq defeated, 2nd Paki offense)
09-299-(so far)

Looks to me like the bad-guys got motivated when they found out a wussy was now the CiC of American forces.

And I said: “very little fighting going on”. I did not say “no fighting to be done”. Try to keep quotes correct, without adding your own projection, or ya look like a troll.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ PatVann –

This slays me!

“Besides, why the hell would you escalate and drop in 50,000 more men when there was very little fighting going on?”

Are you actually claiming that there was “no fighting” to be done during the last eight years when, according to the Pentagon, the Taliban re-manned and re-armed?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/27/afghan.fighting/index.html

Quote:

“The Taliban is likely to maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008,” the report said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that one of the reasons for the increase was that more people are “coming across the border from the frontier area [of Pakistan].”

Gates said he hoped a newly announced Pakistani effort to clamp down on Islamic militants in the country’s northwestern tribal districts would improve the situation in Afghanistan.

“The ability of the Taliban and other insurgents to cross that border and not being under any pressure from the Pakistani side of the border is clearly a concern,” Gates said.

One of the weapons of choice for militants in Afghanistan is the roadside bomb.

Pentagon figures detailing the number of roadside bombs detonated and found in Afghanistan illustrate the level of insurgent activity.

In 2007, 876 roadside bombs blew up, and 439 were found. This year, 431 have blown up, with 354 found

* * * * *

Back then, when this was happening, we had only 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. It obviously wasn’t enough. Bush put a few more in, then Obama put some more in this year, now he is set to put another 30,000 plus in . . . so he will be putting more men in Afghanistan in his first year in office than Bush had sevey years into the war. Yet you think there was “little fighting going on” as the Taliban regrouped under Bush’s shoddy watch?

I have a question, PatVann — W.t.f. have you been smoking?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Patvann –

*Yawn* . . . the magna cum laude grad of Harvard Law and former constitutional law professor at a top five law school said “57 states” instead of “47″ . . . and he said it more than a year ago, BEFORE winning the election by close to 10 million votes, the widest margin ever. “57 states” . . . that’s the best you got? I think I found some village’s missing idiot . . . .

Like or Dislike: 0  0