Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

NYT on Afghanistan and ObamaFollow

#52 Dec 07 2009 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sweetums wrote:
This is why the youth are generally not Republican. Who wants to sound like you're a class out of D&D when you can be a terror-monster, armed with teeth made of sharp minarets?

Fixed and agreed with.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Dec 07 2009 at 1:59 PM Rating: Good
paulsol wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Majivo,

Quote:
If we (and other Western countries) hadn't been complicit in or condoning of the aforementioned rape, there wouldn't be any radical Muslim terrorists there at all.


Are you really saying that there weren't radical muslims before the US had a presence in the ME?


Don't you remember that meeting several decades ago where all the muslims sat down together and decided the only fair way to vent their hitherto directionless anger at the world was to focus it in one direction, and after three days of discussion, interupted only by epic hookah sessions and the occasional dancing girls, they, completely at random, assisted only by two Sufis, practiced in the art of divining wisdom from the entrails of a freshly slaughtered goat, decided that their needs for radical terrorist style acts of violence should be directed at the USA?

WTF do they teach you cnuts at school these days?


They were going to pick Britain, but the Irish warned them not to muscle in on their patch.
#54 Dec 07 2009 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Cause one of those would indicate that the goals are the most important, and the other would indicate that leaving is more important.

Can't they both be important? You know, bust your *** to achieve the goals because the time frame really does matter but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in the event of unforeseen circumstances?


Absolutely. Assuming "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" means to not just abandon everything when things don't work out exactly as you planned.

But then the question arises: Why have a timetable for leaving? I get setting timetables for objectives, but not for leaving. One assumes that you leave when you're done with the objectives. My issue is with the language being used here. It seems to place "going home" as a higher priority than "achieving our objectives" and IMO that's just plain backwards...


Quote:
Quote:
Which do you suppose the Democrats would pick?

Based on the last eight years, a faction would howl for immediate withdrawal and then roll over and give the President whatever he wanted to continue.


Yes. Probably. But that only highlights the deceptiveness of selling a plan on doing one thing, when you know you're actually going to do something different when the time comes. It leaves us with one of two possibilities:

1. The Dems really do plan to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and if the time comes and the objectives aren't met, they'll leave anyway.

2. They know they can't do this, but play on public support by saying it anyway.


I suppose there's a third option: They're honestly unable to see far enough ahead to realize that when the time comes, they'll have to make that choice and just kinda hope it doesn't matter.


So the Dems are either incompetent, lying, or working to fail in Afghanistan.



And let's not forget that for all the "but they wont actually do that!" talk, they certainly tried really hard to force troop withdrawal in Iraq. Can we agree that it would have been a disaster to have done that? Do we learn our lesson? I hope so...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Dec 07 2009 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But then the question arises: Why have a timetable for leaving?

Honestly, I don't think I can explain it clearer.

Quote:
It leaves us with one of two possibilities

Nah, but that's the third time in three or four posts that you've tried the same excluded middle trick so... whatever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56REDACTED, Posted: Dec 07 2009 at 2:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not upset Obama is sending more troops. I'm upset because he waited over 3 months to make a decision that could have been made in one week.
#57 Dec 07 2009 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm not upset Obama is sending more troops.
Oh, good. :D
#58 Dec 07 2009 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm not upset Obama is sending more troops. I'm upset because he waited over 3 months to make a decision that could have been made in one week.

So you're upset that he didn't callously throw American lives around as if they were play toys that he could just go out and buy more of when he runs out?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#59 Dec 07 2009 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm not upset Obama is sending more troops. I'm upset because he waited over 3 months to make a decision that could have been made in one week.

So you're upset that he didn't callously throw American lives around as if they were play toys that he could just go out and buy more of when he runs out?
Rush is, so so is he.
#60 Dec 07 2009 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Generals: We need more troops.
Obama: Why?
Generals: Because.
Obama: Because what?
Generals: Because we'll lose otherwise.
Obama: How will having more troops make us win?
Generals: It just will. Trust us.
Obama: Forgive me for not being a military person by profession. I am asking you to explain to me in excrutiating detail why I should provide you 30,000 more troops, and how this influx of troops is going to prevent us from losing.
Generals: (look nervously at each other, take three months to explain)
Obama: Ok. Now I understand. Make it so.

The decision could have taken as little as a week, but Obama wouldn't have known if it was the right one or not, and in the end, he's the one accountable for success or failure, not the generals.

Much like the economic stimulus package stuff, he forced his cabinet and experts to debate against each other, to defend their respective positions to him.

If he had made this kind of decision in only a week, then he'd be no better than Bush, running with his "gut" and blindly acquiescing to the demands of the military industrial complex.
#61 Dec 07 2009 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm not upset Obama is sending more troops. I'm upset because it's Obama and not McCain.


Fixed that for you, dear.
#62REDACTED, Posted: Dec 07 2009 at 2:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#63 Dec 07 2009 at 2:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Do you know what happens when the military doesn't get the support it needs when it needs it?
The same thing that's been happening to it for the last 8 years.
#64 Dec 07 2009 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Do you know what happens when the military doesn't get the support it needs when it needs it?
Sure I do. Canadian soldiers were dying in Afghanistan because the US never sent enough troops in so Bush could wage a second war in Iraq instead.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#65 Dec 07 2009 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
And in the end he came up with the exact same solution he derided W for not one year earlier.

Erm, no. Unless you mean that Bush wanted to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Again, Obama's stance has always been to increase troop levels into Afghanistan. Anyone who thought otherwise simply wasn't paying attention.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Dec 07 2009 at 2:58 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
This screams weak leadership.



I've not forgotten that you still havn't answered my question, or even tried to...Smiley: frown
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#67REDACTED, Posted: Dec 07 2009 at 3:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#68 Dec 07 2009 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
Canadian soldiers were dying in Afghanistan because the US never sent enough troops in so Bush could wage a second war in Iraq


So you think Obama waiting over 3 months before making a decision did cost the US more lifes because they didn't receive the support the generals asked for. That's all you had to say.

So you're not denying that by waging 2 wars at once, that Bush fucked over his allies? That's all you had to say.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#69REDACTED, Posted: Dec 07 2009 at 4:37 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#70 Dec 07 2009 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
So if the time expires and the goals aren't yet met, do we leave anyway, or find another way to achieve the goals?


What goals? You seem to think that we had "goals" in the first place other than to brutalize another country because our civilians are easily manipulated emotionally, and require an 8 year cuddle party to assure them that "terrorists" are bad. That same cuddle party lets us restore our intellectual impunity as regards the actions of that very brutalizing foreign policy.

Those objectives have long since been met. Unfortunately, people can't be allowed to know that those things are the causes of conflicts like these, because people love to be manipulated, but hate realizing that they are; it is therefore the case that we must retroactively deduce alternate objectives to secure before withdrawing from conflicts.

Quote:
Why have a timetable for leaving?


Not having one spits in the face of, rapes the mother of, pisses on the dessicated father's corpse of, and runs over the family dog of, and enslaves the children of, every soldier employed by our nation, for starters.

Edited, Dec 7th 2009 5:56pm by Pensive
#71 Dec 07 2009 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Ugly,

Quote:
So you're not denying that by waging 2 wars at once, that Bush @#%^ed over his allies? That's all you had to say.


Actually our allies f*cked us up by not committing themselves fully to the fight. Who knows where the US would be had they been given the full support of it's allies. You know the ones you, and every liberal, said we didn't have.

Our allies never wanted to invade Iraq. The global community was focused on Afghanistan and wondering what the hell Bush was up to with the Iraq invasion.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#72 Dec 07 2009 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
But Debalic, we didn't follow Bush like the good lap dogs we are, so it's all our fault.

Varrus is going to be really pissed when he finds out we pissed on the couch.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#73 Dec 07 2009 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,159 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Majivo,

Quote:
If we (and other Western countries) hadn't been complicit in or condoning of the aforementioned rape, there wouldn't be any radical Muslim terrorists there at all.


Are you really saying that there weren't radical muslims before the US had a presence in the ME?

No. What I'm saying is incredibly obvious to anyone who has studied more than the past twenty years of history, or even given a cursory glance over a Wikipedia page on this time period.
#74 Dec 07 2009 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Are you really saying that there weren't radical muslims before the US had a presence in the ME?


The "US" was involved in virtue of what it represents, toda and historically, before the US was even a country.

Edited, Dec 7th 2009 10:00pm by Pensive
#75 Dec 08 2009 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Are you really saying that there weren't radical muslims before the US had a presence in the ME?


Ones shooting at us?

Looks like a no.

Quote:
Actually our allies f*cked us up by not committing themselves fully to the fight. Who knows where the US would be had they been given the full support of it's allies. You know the ones you, and every liberal, said we didn't have.


So you're saying that because Bush wasn't articulate and convincing enough to earn more than a grudging support of a multinational coalition, American soldiers died? People don't give full support through hardliner force, something that could easily be found out by looking at virtually any period in history.

Why do you hate American servicemen :(
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#76 Dec 08 2009 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And of course, when your goals are done, you get to go home.

Erm, yeah. And one of those goals is "Have the country ready to get out without it falling apart". Hence the whole "exit strategy" thing.

Quote:
Those pushing for a time based exit strategy don't really care if the objectives are achieved by that time or not.

Huh. Well, thanks for answering for me but you're wrong.


I'm going to link againg to Jim Wright and his Stonekettle Station Blog Poss on Dec 2nd and Dec 4th

It's really worth the time to read through all the comments, since he has a lot of followers that are or have served in the Militarty or know there history of Wars far better then the advantage layman.

He answers Gbaji's questions far better then most posters on this board can and even our former Intell fokes may not be up to his level. Jim used to report to the NSC, though I have little hope the Bush White house listen to his reports.

gbaji wrote:
Ok. So if the time expires and the goals aren't yet met, do we leave anyway, or find another way to achieve the goals?

Cause one of those would indicate that the goals are the most important, and the other would indicate that leaving is more important. Which do you suppose the Democrats would pick?


Sorry for the Long post, but for those that don't want to read links to blogs, here are some of the comments were Jim answers posters with guestions like Gbaji. Bolding is for thoughts I agree with.

Quote:
But what is the end state of this war on terrorism? What is the end state of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan? Neither Bush nor any of his band of cronies ever bothered to define that condition. They took us into a war without end, like the perpetual state of conflict in Orwell’s 1984. There is no victory, worse, there can be no victory as we traditionally define it. There will be no Emperor of Terrorism or Pirate King to bow over his sword and command the surrender his forces on the deck of a US Battlewagon. There will be no dictator to commit suicide in his bunker or mountain cave as our tanks roll victorious through the shattered streets his capital and whose second in command will surrender the rag-tag teenaged remnants of his once mighty forces.

We can kill bin Laden, but terrorism will not end.

We could kill every last member of Al Qaeda, but terrorism will not end.

We could burn Afghanistan down to the bedrock and salt the ashes – and it will not end.

So, what then is victory?

Victory in this case must be a functioning government with power to control and police its territory – whether or not that is a democracy is irrelevant.

Victory in this case must be those things that we can realistically accomplish. To paraphrase the Alcoholics Anonymous prayer of serenity, Lord, give us the serenity accept the things we cannot change and the courage to change the things we can – and the wisdom to know the difference. We must do what we can to assure our own security, to help those whose countries we’ve torn asunder, and bring an end to this conflict – it is our moral duty to do so as Americans. But we must also understand that we cannot fix the world, we have neither the right nor the ability nor the resources to remake the world in our own image, we cannot impose freedom and democracy by fiat, and we cannot wipe out terrorism once and for all. We will never be completely safe, ever.

Terrorists are like cockroaches. You can’t kill them all. You can’t eradicate them completely. Wipe them out, and they will seemly spontaneously generate from thin air to scuttle about in the dark and feast on the crumbs of the world. The best you can do is to control their population, get it down to manageable levels. When you have an explosion of roaches you call in an exterminator, he fumigates the house and kills the pests where they live. Then he leaves. And you then keep your house clean, you bleach the floors, you take out the trash, you put out traps, and you stomp on the @#%^ers whenever you see them. You don’t demand that the exterminator to move in with you. The exterminator doesn’t hang around, day after day, for years on end until he’s killed every last bug and made certain that no bug will ever again set filthy appendage on your property.

But he also doesn’t just bail out on you either, not if he’s an ethical businessman and a man of his word. He doesn’t leave you holding the bag - blowing up your house in the process and leaving his poison and equipment laying about and the roach population undiminished and scurrying towards the surrounding neighborhood houses.

And so it is with Afghanistan.

There must be an end state. There must come a time when we, as the exterminator, turn the task of vermin management over to the homeowners. Now, later, an end state must be set – but we also have a responsibility to put the property back in some semblance of order, and to give the property owner an estimate of when we’ll be done with the job we were hired to do.

Setting this date has risks. It assumes that we will get the cockroach population down to manageable size by the time we leave and that the homeowner will be able to assume responsibility for keeping his own house in order without our constant help. There is always this risk. Always. Whether it happens now, or later. Delaying changes that not at all, it only changes the degree of risk – but that state will never be zero.

Establishing a date gives us, and the Afghans, a target to aim at. A goal. Without such a goal, you have no metric to measure against to determine progress. Without a goal, you go through the motions simply to go through the motions. We don’t fight just to fight, we didn’t invade just to invade, we didn’t send our sons and daughters to die just to watch them die – we have to have a goal, an objective. Setting a date gives us a metric to hang the rest of our exit strategy on.

Listen, when we invaded the beach at Normandy, General Eisenhower didn’t say, “Well, it’ll take however long it takes to secure that beachhead, could be years, could be decades. Hell if we establish a date, the ****’s will just wait us out!” No, the Allied commanders established very specific timeframes for each phase of the operation and for good reason – it gave their commanders specific goals and objectives to aim for, to build the rest of the plan around.

Establishing that date tells us what to plan for, it allows Congress to budget for the mission, it tells the military what to budget for and where to place assets and whether or not to commit assets held in reserve.

Establishing a date makes the public part of the process and tells them how much longer they’ll have to commit their children and tax dollars to this fight. It’s one thing to tell the public, stiff upper lip eighteen months and we can begin to bring our people home, it’s another thing entirely to keep saying, well we just don’t know could be a year could be ten years. You want the public’s support you better be a tad more specific. Don’t think specific goals and dates are important to public opinion? Don’t think that specific dates are important to world opinion? Don’t think those dates are important to the military and morale and public support? Then you don’t understand either people or politics. The day after the establishment of that goal by President Obama, our allies committed an additional 7,000 troops to fight alongside us – bringing the surge to nearly 40,000. Those conservatives who condemned Obama for touring Europe and Asia and apologizing for our previous behavior and for acting like an ally and friend instead of an arrogant jackass – this is the result, willing support, 7000 more troops, from our allies to help protect your sons and daughters. In some cases those commitments are nearly the sum total of that ally’s reserve. That’s right. You damn well ought to get down on your knees and give thanks that you have leader willing to mend fences and build bridges and do what it takes to get that support – because that support will directly and measurably increase the safety of your sons and daughters in uniform and help to ensure their success – and thereby significantly improve their odds of coming home outside of an aluminum box. Obama bowed low, he shook hands, he apologized, and he asked for help instead of demanding it and he just damn well may have saved your kid’s life in the process – ask yourself if Donald Rumsfeld would have done that when he wasn’t even willing to send your kids to war with a bulletproof vest or armored vehicles. Ask yourself if George W. Bush would have done that? Or Sarah Palin? What are you kids worth to them? Not a hell of a lot, not enough to swallow their pride anyway. For those of you who condemn the President for apologizing to the world, I’ll tell you what Rumsfeld told us, suck it up, Soldier.

Establishing that date tells the Muslim world that we are not the crusading imperialist power they’ve been led to believe we are. Establishing a date directly refutes the claims made by the insurgents, by bin Ladin, and by fear mongers like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who recruit their cannon fodder and local support by pointing to our continuing presence and failure to set a date for withdrawal as evidence of our colonial designs on the Middle East.

Establishing a date does nothing to give away our intentions or hide our withdrawal. What? Did you think that when it comes time to pull out we were just going to sneak off suddenly in the middle of the night? Surprise! The insurgents rush in, ready for battle, Allah Ahkb… what the hell? They’re gone! Goddamnit! They tricked us! Pulling two hundred thousand troops and that many again contractors and their equipment out of Afghanistan is going to be a long drawn out process. There isn’t going to be anything secret about it. Hell, even if you wanted to keep it a secret you couldn’t – Congress couldn’t keep it a secret if their lives instead of our kids lives depended on it, and they’re the ones that are going to have to pay for it. Trust me here, there is no way whatsoever to hide when we’re pulling out, there will be hundreds of plane flights, hundreds of transport ships, we’ll be shutting down bases and moving millions of tons of equipment. The insurgents will know long before we go – and to pretend that the situation is anything other than this is just hyperbolic bullsh*t. That’s the kind of mental ************ that Rumsfeld and his bosses used to get us into this mess.

And yes, establishing a date now tells the Taliban and Al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgents that we will be leaving for certain. Conservatives say this will cause the insurgents to lie low, bid their time, and wait us out.

Could be they are right.

I sure hope so.

See, it is a measure of their lack of understanding of history and military strategy that makes these bloviating idiots think that this is somehow a bad thing.

By all means, let the insurgency go to ground for the next eighteen months.

By all means.

First, that will make those that don’t go to ground all the more obvious and easy to hunt down and kill. There are old terrorists, and bold terrorists, but there are damned few old, bold terrorists.


Second, it lets us concentrate our forces on those aforementioned bold terrorists. The ones that don’t have the sense to get in out of the sh*tstorm that’s coming when those 40,000 troops arrive in country are doomed. We should have little trouble mopping them up in short order – thanks to their more cautious brethren giving us the breathing space.

Third, those that go to ground give up the tactical advantage. Understand something here, the insurgents cannot stand against us in a conventional fight. They only persevere where our control is slight and they have refuge they can retreat to, places to train and breed and rest and plot and plan and rearm and reequip – just like cockroaches scattering under the furniture when the lights come on. Without a safe haven on the Pakistan/Afghanistan boarder, without safe haven in the cities – something the surge will deny them – they have only two options, hide or be destroyed. Some will attempt to fight, like cockroaches that stay out in the light too long, and as I said above they’ll be destroyed in short order. Most will choose to hide, to wait us out – exactly as the critics predict. But what those critics are missing is this: for eighteen months those that hide deed us the high ground.

That’s eighteen months to build schools and bridges and government and security and win over the population and establish peace. It gives us eighteen months without these cockroaches spreading their filth and disease and misery – and those that do, well they’ll get hunted down and killed like a game of whack-a-mole. In eighteen months, done right, the population will be settling into peace, into the normalcy they haven’t had in decades, into stability. In eighteen months, children will be going to school and many new ones will be born (nothing like a sudden cessation of hostilities to inspire a baby boom), crops will be planted, products will appear on shelves in the stores, broken windows fixed, bullet holes patched, electricity and water and sewage flowing. Mail delivered. Jobs in reconstruction. Again, if done right, if the insurgents go to ground for the next eighteen months, they will give the population a year and half of breathing room – imagine then, how hard it will be to convince Afghans that they should give that up and return to the desolation of war. The Americans are leaving, what then is their motivation? Why join the insurgents? Why give them haven?

In eighteen months, done right, the insurgents will emerge from their holes to discover that they quit the battle – and thereby lost the war.


In eighteen months we will have cut down the roach population, with the unwitting cooperation of the roaches themselves, to a level the homeowners can manage themselves. And then we can finally extricate ourselves from this conflict.

And that, my friends, is why establishing a public date for the end of this conflict is so damned important.

The critics have it right, they just don’t understand strategic opportunity when they see it.

Now, if only Rumsfeld will crawl back into his hole for the next year…
Posted by Jim Wright at 6:29 PM
Labels: things about politics, Things about Terrorism





[quote]As to a secure and functioning afghanistan, yes the Afghans must eventually build their own nation but they cannot do it if abandonned in the rubble of nearly 100 years of war and inavsion. How do you expect these people to build a stable functioningnation without education, without support, without funds, without infrastructure, without allies, without security?


timb111 said...

Well, he actually didn't plan an end. He planned the beginning of the end. This from Republican David Frum's column in the Globe and Mail:

In a blogpost last night, I criticized the president for setting a time limit. In the morning, I realized that I made the mistake against which I always warn others: Never listen to an Obama speech until after you have read it first. The man never quite says what you think you just heard. He did not say that the troops would come home after 18 months. He said:

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

BEGIN to come home. They will COMPLETE their return home, presumably, either when the job is done – or the war is deemed futile.

He goes on to explain why republicans should support Obama in this.
December 2, 2009 10:54 AM
Jim Wright said...

Timb111. Absolutely agreed. The plan Obama outlined does give an end condition, not a date - and it's not in 18 months, that is only the place in the tunnel where we begin to see the light of day. And I have heard a number of Republicans say exactly that this morning and agree with the President. Agree. Actually agree in most part. The mere fact that prominent Republicans are agreeing with the President (even if they offer criticism of portions of his plan such as the timeline) is amazing. Consider the vehement opposition to anything Obama proposes in other areas such as healthcare - he has crossed the aisle successfully on this, where it matters. Anybody who thinks he is not a real leader is just being deliberately obtuse or is blinded by partisan and/or racial hatred.

Frum's advice to always read Obama's words carefully, instead of just listening to them, before commenting is a damn good suggestion. As I said in the previous comment, the man is a master of communications, I see many layers within his words and many specific messages targeted to specific audiences. It's brilliant, in my not so humble IW opinion. And it's damned nice to finally have somebody in the White House with a brain.


edited to fix links

Edited, Dec 8th 2009 12:22pm by ElneClare

Edited, Dec 8th 2009 12:23pm by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 163 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (163)