Obama visits Karzai

[RunInRed 16,498]

KABUL, Afghanistan — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says the situation in Afghanistan "precarious" and "urgent."

In an interview broadcast Sunday during his first trip to Afghanistan, Obama said the U.S. needs to start planning now to send in more troops. He has called for an additional one to two brigades _ or about 7,000 troops _ to be sent to Afghanistan to help counter a resurgent Taliban and quell rising violence.

Obama told CBS News that Afghanistan has to be the central focus in the fight against terrorists.

He said the Bush administration allowed itself to be distracted by a "war of choice" but now is the time to correct the mistake.

Obama also sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and pledged continued aid to the country.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) _ Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged steadfast aid to Afghanistan in talks with its Western-backed leader Sunday and vowed to pursue the war on terror "with vigor" if he is elected, an Afghan official said.

On the second day of an international tour designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials, Obama and other U.S. senators held two hours of talks with President Hamid Karzai at his palace in the Afghan capital.

Obama has chided Karzai for not doing more to build confidence in the Afghan government, whose grip remains weak after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Mark Stroh said the senators had discussed issues including the painstaking rebuilding of the country's government and economy, the security situation and corruption with Karzai.

The Afghan presidency said Obama's message was positive.

"Sen. Obama conveyed ... that he is committed to supporting Afghanistan and to continue the war against terrorism with vigor," said Humayun Hamidzada, Karzai's spokesman.

Both Democrats and Republicans "are friends of Afghanistan and no matter who wins the U.S. elections, Afghanistan will have a very strong partner in the United States," Hamidzada said.

Obama has made Afghanistan a centerpiece of his proposed strategy for dealing with terrorism threats.

The Illinois senator has said the war in Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants are resurgent, deserves more troops and more attention as opposed to the conflict in Iraq.

While officially part of a congressional delegation on a fact-finding tour also expected to take him to Iraq, Obama traveled in Afghanistan amid the security accorded a likely Democratic nominee for president rather than a senator from Illinois.

Media access to Obama was limited, and his itinerary in the war zones was closely guarded. Traveling with him were Sens. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

Obama made no public comment after the meeting with Karzai, which included a traditional lunch of mutton, chicken and rice washed down with a yogurt drink.

Earlier in the day, he praised U.S. troops during breakfast with soldiers at Camp Eggers, a heavily fortified military base in the city.

"To see young people like this who are doing such excellent work, with so much dedication ... it makes you feel good about the country," Obama said.

"I want to make sure that everybody back home understands how much pride people take in their work here and how much sacrifice people are making. It is outstanding," he said in footage filmed by the military and obtained by The Associated Press.

On Saturday, the delegation received briefings from U.S. commanders and a former Afghan warlord who is now the governor of Nangarhar, a province in eastern Afghanistan where militant attacks are spiraling.

Obama's first overseas tour since securing the Democratic nomination _ he is scheduled to travel to Europe through next week _ could be key to honing his foreign policy strategy with less than four months before the Nov. 4 election. His rival for the presidency, Republican Sen. John McCain, has criticized Obama for not spending more time in the region.

Obama advocates ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq by withdrawing troops at the rate of one to two brigades a month while increasing the military commitment to Afghanistan. Obama has proposed sending two more combat brigades _ about 7,000 troops _ to Afghanistan. McCain also is advocating sending more forces to the war-battered country.

U.S. military officials say the number of attacks in eastern Afghanistan, where most of the U.S. forces in the country operate, has increased by 40 percent so far this year compared to the same period last year.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press on Saturday that after intense U.S. assaults there, al-Qaida may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan, where American casualties are recently running higher than in Iraq.

Obama also has expressed weariness with efforts by Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan, to go after militants in its territory. That frustration may strike a chord with Karzai, who has accused Pakistan's intelligence service of supporting the Taliban insurgency _ a claim that Pakistan denies.

But Obama also has chided Karzai and his government, saying it had "not gotten out of the bunker" and helped to organize the country or its political and security institutions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/20/o...p_n_113880.html

[tiger88 934]

Thats what he says today but if the wind changes direction so could his "promises".

[Tiger Al 0]

Thats what he says today but if the wind changes direction so could his "promises".

When has Obama said anything different about Afghanistan?

[tiger88 934]

Thats what he says today but if the wind changes direction so could his "promises".

When has Obama said anything different about Afghanistan?

I didn't say he had changed positions on Afghanistan. You jumped to that conclusion. My comment was actually directed more towards his comment on being committed to fight the war on terror and that could change at any moment like so many of his "plans and promises" have. He is such a panderer for and votes you can't believe a word he says.

If he is elected who will we get? The obama that ran against hillary and had to out liberal her to win or the obama that will pretend to be more middle of the road to try and pull middle american votes? My guess is you will get the socialist leaning obama.

Another guess is that his idea of doing everything possible to fight the war on terror and the average americans will differ greatly. He knows he has to talk tough in this area to get elected and as he has already shown, he will say whatever he thinks is necessary to pull votes and turn on a dime the next day if he thinks it will help him get elected. He is worse than your average politician and far from the "change" (*snicker*) he claimed to be to get his bus rolling.

[autigeremt 6,719]

How are we going to fight a war when Obama has proposed major cutbacks in defense spending? Hmmmmmmmmm....I guess he will go over there, give them a couple of speeches, and call it a done deal.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Thats what he says today but if the wind changes direction so could his "promises".

When has Obama said anything different about Afghanistan?

I didn't say he had changed positions on Afghanistan. You jumped to that conclusion. My comment was actually directed more towards his comment on being committed to fight the war on terror and that could change at any moment like so many of his "plans and promises" have. He is such a panderer for and votes you can't believe a word he says.

If he is elected who will we get? The obama that ran against hillary and had to out liberal her to win or the obama that will pretend to be more middle of the road to try and pull middle american votes? My guess is you will get the socialist leaning obama.

Another guess is that his idea of doing everything possible to fight the war on terror and the average americans will differ greatly. He knows he has to talk tough in this area to get elected and as he has already shown, he will say whatever he thinks is necessary to pull votes and turn on a dime the next day if he thinks it will help him get elected. He is worse than your average politician and far from the "change" (*snicker*) he claimed to be to get his bus rolling.

Your right Tiger88 Obama thinks we ought to let terrorist run around the world free to do whatever they like

[Tiger Al 0]

How are we going to fight a war when Obama has proposed major cutbacks in defense spending? Hmmmmmmmmm....I guess he will go over there, give them a couple of speeches, and call it a done deal.

Got a link to those "proposed major cutbacks in defense spending?"

[Tiger Al 0]

Are you having trouble finding that link?

[GoAU 1,603]

I'm glad he recognizes (or at least pretends to) the necessity to be in Afganistan. Hopefully he'll figure out that if we pull out of Iraq too soon that will create a power vacuum that will be filled with Islamic radicals - just like what happened in Afganistan to begin with. Remember how we helped the Afgans kick out the Russians, and then left them to their own accords rather than helping them rebuild their nation - same story in Iraq if we're not careful.

[autigeremt 6,719]

Are you having trouble finding that link?

Out of the mouths of babes....

#2

Spin as you may. Ask, you shall have.

[tiger88 934]

Thats what he says today but if the wind changes direction so could his "promises".

When has Obama said anything different about Afghanistan?

I didn't say he had changed positions on Afghanistan. You jumped to that conclusion. My comment was actually directed more towards his comment on being committed to fight the war on terror and that could change at any moment like so many of his "plans and promises" have. He is such a panderer for and votes you can't believe a word he says.

If he is elected who will we get? The obama that ran against hillary and had to out liberal her to win or the obama that will pretend to be more middle of the road to try and pull middle american votes? My guess is you will get the socialist leaning obama.

Another guess is that his idea of doing everything possible to fight the war on terror and the average americans will differ greatly. He knows he has to talk tough in this area to get elected and as he has already shown, he will say whatever he thinks is necessary to pull votes and turn on a dime the next day if he thinks it will help him get elected. He is worse than your average politician and far from the "change" (*snicker*) he claimed to be to get his bus rolling.

Your right Tiger88 Obama thinks we ought to let terrorist run around the world free to do whatever they like

Please step away from the crack pipe junior. I say junior because to assume you are a mature adult would defy logic. An adult? perhaps.

[Tiger Al 0]

Are you having trouble finding that link?

Out of the mouths of babes....

#2

Spin as you may. Ask, you shall have.

No spin is necessary because nowhere in the two links you provided did he even hint at "proposed major cutbacks in defense spending" that would even come close to hindering our ability to fight a war unless we've been fighting a war exclusively with nuclear weapons for the last five years.

[autigeremt 6,719]

I guess you can't listen to the rhetoric there, now can you.

Here's another one if you so ask, Mr. Al.

Obama campaign ad promises deep cuts in defense spending

Several | Various

Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:01:43 War Eagle! by Eye On The Left

This is a matter of national security which should concern every normal American.

These are Barack Obama's own statements below:

"First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

HE WILL SLOW OUR FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS..... I guess that equals an increase in spending.

HE WILL CUT SPENDING on missle defense. I guess that's another increase in defense spending, even though it means something else?

HE WILL SET A NEW GOAL....of a world without Nuclear Weapons.....

Last I checked Russia is one of MANY nations who have nuclear weapons. What about the other ones?????? Just Russia?

Sorry.....the spin stops here. He WILL cut defense spending and use it on domestic, socialist programs. Read it without your BLUE colored glasses.

[Tigermike 3,065]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

Does that mean he is now against earmarks?

[Tiger Al 0]

I guess you can't listen to the rhetoric there, now can you.

Here's another one if you so ask, Mr. Al.

Obama campaign ad promises deep cuts in defense spending

Several | Various

Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:01:43 War Eagle! by Eye On The Left

This is a matter of national security which should concern every normal American.

These are Barack Obama's own statements below:

"First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

HE WILL SLOW OUR FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS..... I guess that equals an increase in spending.

HE WILL CUT SPENDING on missle defense. I guess that's another increase in defense spending, even though it means something else?

HE WILL SET A NEW GOAL....of a world without Nuclear Weapons.....

Last I checked Russia is one of MANY nations who have nuclear weapons. What about the other ones?????? Just Russia?

Sorry.....the spin stops here. He WILL cut defense spending and use it on domestic, socialist programs. Read it without your BLUE colored glasses.

This is simply the transcript from the first link. Your interpretations of his remarks are woefully different from what he actually said. He didn't say he'd cut spending on missile defense, he said he cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. Are you saying that you support spending good money after bad on systems that consistently haven't worked instead of spending it on those that do?

He said he'd slow development of Future Combat Systems. Guess what? The Pentagon already recommended doing this in 2005. It's called prioritizing. Remember, republicans wanted to conduct two wars while at the same time enacting massive tax cuts. Twice. Again, it's called prioritizing. That's something John McCain used to understand until he decided to run for president again.

Why is a world without nuclear weapons bad? I don't really see how this represents "massive cuts in military spending" that would render us unable to fight a war. Do you have any idea how many nuclear warheads we possess right now? Almost 10,000. If we didn't buy another one, please tell me how we'd be unable to fight a war.

As per your usual, you make broad, baseless statements that have no grounding in fact and you offer nothing to support them.

[autigeremt 6,719]

As usual, you can't see the forest for the trees.

#1. I made reference to the Nuclear issue as to why he named only Russia (who by the way is headed back to a socialist state, and feeds our enemies) when there are other nations that have weapons. What about them.

#2. Where have you been the last half century? The left will always trade military might for social programs. They have a long history of doing just that.

#3. You love to spit on me every chance you get, yet you never actually shed light on the topic. There's not enough space on this site to list every democratic attempt to cut the legs off the military in exchange for social handouts.

The democrats in congress have already made mention of cutting defense to support social programs.

The Hill

I guess you missed that one as well. And you know damned well if Obama wins the White House, the same mantra that the democrats have used for decades will start to erode the military as Clinton, Carter, and others have done in the past. Of course, you will ignore those FACTS and call me something to feel better about yourself.

[autigeremt 6,719]

For the record, John McCain has long been an advocate of gfetting rid of wasteful spending at the Pentagon, but not in areas of military research and advanced technology.

Just to provide you with something to chew on...

By Andrea Shalal-Esa - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama both emphasize the need to curb Pentagon costs and focus on weapons relevant to today's wars, but canceling big programs will be difficult no matter who is elected president.

Conventional wisdom holds that Democrats tend to scale back defense spending, but McCain, a leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has a long history of criticizing waste in Defense Department programs.

I guess Obama can learn something from the experienced one after all.

[Tiger Al 0]

As usual, you can't see the forest for the trees.

#1. I made reference to the Nuclear issue as to why he named only Russia (who by the way is headed back to a socialist state, and feeds our enemies) when there are other nations that have weapons. What about them.

Yet, you fail to explain how this is a "proposed massive cut" in military spending.

#2. Where have you been the last half century? The left will always trade military might for social programs. They have a long history of doing just that.

The last president to cut welfare spending was...Clinton. Bush and the republicans have had seven years of almost total control of the government and have done nothing.

#3. You love to spit on me every chance you get, yet you never actually shed light on the topic. There's not enough space on this site to list every democratic attempt to cut the legs off the military in exchange for social handouts.

Again, you have a habit for tossing out unsubstantiated BS. You seem to be the greatest offender on this site.

The democrats in congress have already made mention of cutting defense to support social programs.

The Hill

I guess you missed that one as well. And you know damned well if Obama wins the White House, the same mantra that the democrats have used for decades will start to erode the military as Clinton, Carter, and others have done in the past. Of course, you will ignore those FACTS and call me something to feel better about yourself.

Bait and switch. Now it's Democrats. Using your logic, McCain will be proposing massive cuts in military spending:

The groups have also called on presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) to support the cuts. There is less pressure on McCain, however, because fellow Republicans have kept quiet on the issue. McCain also expects little support from black voters.

But McCain could feel some discomfort because his campaign views Hispanics as a crucial voting bloc. His support for shifting emphasis from defense to social programs could help him appeal to that group.

BTW, our current military budget is almost eight times more than China's.

[autigeremt 6,719]

I could care less about China's budget......and how do you know if China is telling the truth? They aren't exactly OPEN to the world on all fronts.

As for the rest of this it's useless to say anything or provide anything for you, Al. You will sit there and ask for link after link, reply after reply, then you will spin everything and try your damned best to cloud the topic, just at you did with the Russia example, after I CLEARLY explained the basis for Obama's exclusion of other nations on the nuclear front. It wasn't about spending, but I guess you can add that if he cuts missle defense spending, then yes...........he's making it easier for nations like Russia to hit their intended targets. Or anyone for that matter.

Enjoy your evening. War Eagle, and God Bless.

[Tiger Al 0]

I could care less about China's budget......and how do you know if China is telling the truth? They aren't exactly OPEN to the world on all fronts.

As for the rest of this it's useless to say anything or provide anything for you, Al. You will sit there and ask for link after link, reply after reply, then you will spin everything and try your damned best to cloud the topic, just at you did with the Russia example, after I CLEARLY explained the basis for Obama's exclusion of other nations on the nuclear front. It wasn't about spending, but I guess you can add that if he cuts missle defense spending, then yes...........he's making it easier for nations like Russia to hit their intended targets. Or anyone for that matter.

Enjoy your evening. War Eagle, and God Bless.

You made a statement:

How are we going to fight a war when Obama has proposed major cutbacks in defense spending?

You were asked to provide a link to support that statement. Instead, you provide two youtube links and one partial transcript that has Obama making mention of reducing spending in poor performing areas to provide veterans assistance. He suggests slowing down a program that the Pentagon itself recommended slowing down in 2005. You throw in some crap about Russia that, by your own subsequent admission, has nothing to do with "proposed major cutbacks." None of the information you provided remotely came close to your "proposed major cutbacks" assertion.

I don't really care if you like or support Obama as I'm sure you don't care whether I like or support McCain. All I ask is that you make an attempt at honesty.

[autigeremt 6,719]

Ok. I guess history and recent remarks mean nothing to you. I guess you need it spelled out to you, letter by letter.

I'm done with this. Enjoy, Al. We do not agree............end of story.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ok. I guess history and recent remarks mean nothing to you. I guess you need it spelled out to you, letter by letter.

I'm done with this. Enjoy, Al. We do not agree............end of story.

You haven't provided any history or recent remarks that support your statement. You claim we may not be able to fight a war due to the major military cuts looming on the horizon if Obama is elected. Your "proof" of this is some offhand suggestion that he made saying he may cut funding to some programs that have failed to bear their promised fruit or have outlived their usefulness. That seems responsible to me. You seem to see that as proof-positive that Obama is going to dismantle the military to the point that we are left unable to fight a war. I think that's a ridiculous conclusion as I've seen no evidence to support it.

[autigeremt 6,719]

Now you are putting words in my mouth, and I detest it.

HISTORY is in the democratic style of take from defense, as stated in one of the articles, and put it towards social programs. That's what they do! They have for years, when in power.

Forget it, Al. I'm done with this. You may tell whatever truth you want, in your eyes. It's pretty simple where we each stand on these issues.

[Tiger Al 0]

Now you are putting words in my mouth, and I detest it.

HISTORY is in the democratic style of take from defense, as stated in one of the articles, and put it towards social programs. That's what they do! They have for years, when in power.

Forget it, Al. I'm done with this. You may tell whatever truth you want, in your eyes. It's pretty simple where we each stand on these issues.

What words were put in your mouth?

Your original assertion has now evolved from, "How are we going to fight a war when Obama has proposed major cutbacks in defense spending?" to a vague declaration of a "democratic style." Yet, still no proposals.

I'm sorry, I took you at your word that when you said Obama had made a proposal, you meant he'd actually proposed major cuts in military spending that would render us unable to fight a war. You've clearly taken what he said and assigned your own meaning to it despite any facts to support it.

This isn't a case where reasonable people can simply disagree. You've created a strawman based on exaggerations and that is, again, dishonest. Hate Obama if you want, but, at least hate him for the right reasons.

[autigeremt 6,719]

Ok, Al. Maybe I drifted off point a bit by not clarifying the issue to it's fullest. I see your point, and I'm human, so it's very possible for me to get caught up in the rhetoric. I will be the first to aknowledge my own shortfalls...... As the Creed says: I believe in my Country, because it is a land of freedom and because it is my own home, and that I can best serve that country by "doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my God."

My beef, overall, is that democrats will sacrifice advancing defense initiatives by cutting back or phasing out programs like missle defense, advanced combat technologies, etc. to fund programs here at home with the same issues that the pentagon has been, in some cases, acurately accused of.

I actually give Obama some credit for wanting to add troop levels to the Army and Marine Corps, but we need more than that. We still have major threats out there besides terrorism. Russia can't be trusted, China is a rising power....... the threats are real, and we must not sacrifice the military over social programs.