home

What Some Folks With Blogs Think

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:00:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jeralyn has passed the TalkLeft torch to me on responding for National Journal's blogger poll.

Two questions were presented this week. The first:

Have events of recent weeks made you more encouraged or less encouraged about prospects for bipartisanship this year on major issues that Congress has yet to tackle, such as health care reform and energy legislation?

More . .

The second:

Do you support sending 30,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan?

You can see my and other bloggers' answers at the link.

I'll ask you folks the second question in an attached poll.

This is an Open Thread.

< Judge Holds Ted Stevens' Prosecutors in Contempt | Clinton Goes To China >

Poll

Do you support sending 30,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan?
♦ Yes 24%
♦ No 67%
♦ Other 8%

Votes: 70
Results | Other Polls

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Some Folks With Blogs Think | 73 comments (73 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Impossible Task (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:07:53 AM EST
    To occupy Afghanistan and keep it as an ally. There is no military solution there, imo. THe biggest problem is that too many civilians are getting killed and the population will turn against us.

    THe best chance of gaining strategic alliance with Afghanistan, imo, is to win hearts and minds with aggressive diplomacy, $$$, and including Russia, China and others who also want strategic alliance in the region.

    How can anyone answer the second (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:10:50 AM EST
    question unless they know WHY the troops are being sent?  Unlike Iraq, there has never been a real  policy articulated.

    Including "other" in this poll means nothing - anyone taking this question seriously would have to answer other and say they would need more information in order to answer.

    This morning I'm digesting and digesting (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:28:47 PM EST
    and it's a whole lot right now.  The Taliban is a problem, then they made themselves our problem too.  We aren't alone in this either, we have a terrorized populace trying to live in Afghanistan, we are there with NATO, we aren't the only nation who has to deal with the terrorism that the Taliban type of extremist gives roots to. I have my husband likely going. I have an administration in office and a party in power right now that best represents my needs and beliefs better than anything I've had in eight of the longest years I've ever lived AND MARYB is right.  Whatever was said during the campaigning, whatever was signaled or implied, if those over us want this then make the sale!  Make the sale, do not attempt to shove this down our broke a$$ throats like Dubya and Cheney and Rummy!  This is supposed to be a democracy.  Get everyone onboard!  The economy is tanking like a Six Flags rollercoaster.......this is not the same environment we all lived in even 6 months ago.  Make the Sale, get people behind this in a meaningful way or risk destroying even more confidence.  From the looks of the blogging poll the rightwing is very much behind this push and leftwing is not.  If Obama really wants a bipartisan moment in America then make the sale to your peeps man!

    Parent
    Congress may just be listening (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    to the U.S. public more closely than the executive branch.  Stimulus bill includes cap on CEO pay.  

    Parent
    OMG, and they got three Republican (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    Senators onboard for that?  See, I can love that.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:18:51 AM EST
    I think the objectives are clear and if you have followed the news coming out of Afgahnistan, you can clearly see why the new troops are needed.

    Parent
    You'll have to convince me of that. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    Not that I matter in this decision but I'll be interested to see how you think we can win that one. My nephew is headed there this summer and I'm not looking forward to it.

    Parent
    Awaiting the imminent (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:34:35 AM EST
    arrival of Military Tracy.

    Parent
    I am pretty sure she opposes (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:35:30 AM EST
    But do not quote me on that.

    Parent
    According to my nephew, a career Army man (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    with four tours in Iraq, the soldiers would rather go to Iraq than Afghanistan if given a choice. It was really hard to tell who the bad guys were in Iraq and even harder in Afghanistan. I'll be interested to read what you think.

    Parent
    I haven't ever opposed us (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    making the commitment to Afghanistan that we always needed to make.  I have commented in your writings to that several times.  If things stay on course I will have husband skin in this game too by fall.  I have to admit though at this moment I feel very uncertain about the caliber of folks in charge of this.  Obama is utterly clueless.  Gates is a secretive, manipulative, stabbing you softly in the back blankity blank.  Not the fine ingredients needed for a gourmet meal.  Junk food driven war.

    Parent
    What do you make of the (none / 0) (#60)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:35:45 PM EST
    Admin's hold-up on sending more troops while they mull over the situation?

    Parent
    Smart! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    Not going in guns blazing like some foola$$ idiot cowboy.  Actually asking what stablizes a civilization and then focusing on that as well as providing the security for the civilians that is needed when you have to deal with bloody murderers like the Taliban.

    Parent
    I don't think Obama can trust Gates (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    though.  Like the guy can charismatically carry the mission objectives forward.  Gates is a cold war disinformation flunky.  He's an idiot who thinks getting into pissing matches with NATO is important along with focusing on fighting "the drug trade".  Really, fecken idiot all the way around!

    Parent
    The hold-up may mean (none / 0) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:50:14 PM EST
    that the Admin is not trusting Gates, but doing its own checking.  Isn't Petraeus involved now in Afghan decisions? Thomas Hicks seemed to indicate on Charlie Rose last night that Petraeus will do some of what he did in Iraq -- take time to find out what and how the Afghans think as basis for making recommendations.  Have you seen the Hicks interview or anything else about his new book --
    The Gamble?  Thanks for your informed comments.

    Parent
    I haven't seen the Hicks interview (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    we've spent most of our time this past week discussing what we need to ready for this upcoming deployment.  I will take a look at it today and anything else I can find to better get a grasp of what is happening.  It was something that we noted yesterday though, that it is difficult to understand what is taking place right now.  Very unlike the Bush years when he was only too eager to announce to the rest of us peons and the world that he was going to kick some blah blah blah and he had full confidence in Brownie.  Petraeus does have a role in Afghanistan but can you imagine how tired the man must be?  I don't care how tough and smart you are, there is such a thing as exhaustion.  Doesn't he deserve someone who compliments the energy needed to accomplish this mission instead of some ghostish Sec of Def.  Am I the only one who experiences Gates as "ghostish".

    Parent
    No, you're not alone in this (none / 0) (#75)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    although I, for one, don't profess to have the knowledge you do as to Gates' shortcomings.  I do think, however, the delay in action can't hurt.  On the Charlie Rose program, Hicks talks about those who assisted Petraeus and their very interesting backgrounds.  At least one of them was adamantly opposed to the Iraq war at the outset, but decided that since the war had already been going on for years, and going badly, he wanted to help improve its direction (we broke it, we must fix it). I look forward to reading your reactions to the program. I only hope that if & when your family member(s) join others in Afghanistan, the policy, strategy and tactics then pursued have merit and don't put our troops at risk for things that are either meaningless or futile.

    Parent
    You mean news... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    ...like this

    When I read this, I see an awful lot of revenge and blood lust.  The Poles want revenge for the beheading of Piotr Stanczak.  The Pakistani's want revenge for Benazir Bhutto (among other things) and we want revenge for 9-11.

    The objective of eliminating the Taliban might be clear (and worthwhile), but its an ugly, confusing, bloody game to achieve that objective.

    Parent

    If the objectives are so clear (none / 0) (#19)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:30:51 AM EST
    then it should have been easy for the person asking the poll question to put additional words in the question.

    Do you support sending 30,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan?

    My answer is "Tell me why you are sending them and I'll tell you whether I support it."

    YOU are making your own assumptions and putting them into the question based on your reading of the news coming out of Afghanistan.  In other words ... you are answering "other".   Because the only way you can answer it "yes" is if you support sending in more troops no matter what the reason.

    Parent

    I am listening (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    to our President as well.

    I do think the reasons for this are clear and meritorious.

    As I said, this will be a major topic of discussion at this blog now that the stimulus bill has been passed.

    Parent

    I look forward to the discussion (none / 0) (#25)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:36:45 AM EST
    I am not per se against sending more troops to Afghanistan.

    I simply point out that this poll question did not tie the decision to anything.  And I don't answer poll questions "yes" or "no" when I'm not absolutely clear what is being asked and that my answer to the specific question is "yes" or "no".  

    And since you blog so much about polls, I thought this line of thought on answering polls would be self-evident to you.

    Parent

    Thomas Ricks' Gamble (none / 0) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    Last night I caught the end of Charlie Rose's interview of Thomas Hicks.  They were discussing Hicks' book, The Gamble on Iraq & Dave Petraeus, and how what worked in Iraq may be tried in Afghanistan.  According to Hicks, in Iraq, Petraeus & co. actually took surveys of detainees & used info as basis for what they did. Just thought Hicks' discussion might be interesting for the upcoming coverage here.

    Parent
    Petraeus' Surge, According to Ricks,... (none / 0) (#33)
    by santarita on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:17:17 AM EST
    was more of a surge of bribery $$$ going to Sunnis.  The same might work in Afghanistan with the bribery $$$ going to tribal warlords.  Maybe the money spent on the "War on Drugs" can be diverted to Afghan Poppy Eradication and replacement with other profitable cash crops.

    Parent
    I still don't understand why I need to (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    be worried about Afghan poppy production. I am more than willing to send education and the means of making changes as long as they keep effing Monsanto and Monsanto clones completely out of the picture.  I'm for doing something before fighting something and the farmers aren't the problem, the Taliban and their brand of Jihad is.

    Parent
    Timely AP article, including (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    the thoughts Mullen, head of Joint Chiefs of Staff:

    AP

    Oh, and by the way, from henceforth U.S. will stand back and let Afghan forces do the night raids on compounds we suspect harbor Taliban and/or aQ, with resulting anticipated decline of civilian collateral damage.  

    Parent

    That was an excellent read (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    Can you imagine Bush or Rumsfeld wanting to talk about how in some cases of going after A-Q, using Special Forces is probably not even your second best option?

    Parent
    Not sure how Afghan military (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    would be better able to determine who truly is Taliban or aQ though.  

    Parent
    It is their country (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 01:40:48 PM EST
    I can't see how they can't make the best educated decisions there.  As for fewer civilian casualties, I think that would involve the conscience factor and no disrespect to special forces but strong consciences don't fit well in their profile outside of attachment to each other.

    Parent
    From what I heard last night (none / 0) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:35:15 AM EST
    $ certainly was certainly part of what was done -- but I think there were many components. What I took away was Petraeus' idea of actually talking to a broad spectrum of Iraqis to gather info as the basis for more effective action. I was, like many here, opposed to the Iraq war from the getgo. That said, it happened, & I'd like to know more.
    BTW, Hicks admitted that situation in Iraq is not set in stone.  

    Parent
    I Believe ti was Ricks Who Said... (none / 0) (#42)
    by santarita on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 11:48:04 AM EST
    that the worst in Iraq is yet to come.

    Parent
    Oh dear! (none / 0) (#45)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    What the comment related to pending U.S. pullout or draw down?

    Parent
    As to answering the bipartisanship (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:48:18 AM EST
    question, if I hadn't been reading you I would have been discouraged that our new President was not only unable to attain even a fraction of a dream he had, but that the Republicans are enjoying it so much.  I never did understand though how bipartisanship was going to be helpful in dealing with the issues that matter to me.

    Now, onto Afghanistan, I have such mixed feelings answering the question yes or no and can't for the life of me justify it after the last week we have had in this house. We walked over five miles together yesterday discussing the fact that DOD is bringing down heavy and extreme pressure for as many soldiers to be ready to deploy and commit to deploying as possible, and how the family is going to navigate this.  I can't do Iraq again and at the level that my husband is at and where he is at right now not being attached to a deployable unit, he is in a position to choose deploying to Afghanistan and DOD to say alrighty then.  Sometimes they decide to slot soldiers in elsewhere where they are needed at the last minute, but currently it is looking like one member of the household is Afghanistan bound.  In the pit of my stomach though the aching I feel is the Gates factor. Gates was never the best man for Obama's jobs.  I'm going to be very unpatriotic and say that I hope that I don't end up losing my beloved on the road to discovering that Gates needs to go.

    Terrible. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:13:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Election Board Ruling (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:48:38 AM EST
    Looking very bad for Coleman.  

    I know this isn't scientific, but it still gives (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:52:51 AM EST
    me hope. The online edition of my newspaper has an article about the stimulus bill. The comments in newspapers seem to attract the worst of the wingers. I am shocked that about three of every four comments to this article is supportive of Obama and calling out the deficit fear mongers for their hypocrisy. This is a huge change from what I normally see there.

    Maybe all these local people losing their jobs is making people pay attention now.

    Ah....David Plouffe (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    Got himself a little embarrassed this week.....

    LINK

    For two years, he was the brains behind the Obama political juggernaut, quietly engineering what he recently boasted was perhaps the biggest political upset in history.

    But in the weeks since he's come out from behind the curtain to tell how he pulled it off, David Plouffe has found it's not always easy to be the man in the spotlight.

    Just Thursday, Plouffe drew fire from reporters over his insistence that a speech at a Georgetown University symposium be kept off the record.

    The flap came on the heels of a Monday speech that caused potentially more serious headaches for Team Obama -- not because the speech was closed to the press, which it was, but because of where it was given: Azerbaijan.

    A group with close ties to the oil-rich Caspian Sea nation, which has been criticized for human rights abuses and authoritarian leanings, paid Plouffe $50,000 to speak and also arranged for him to meet with top government officials.

    That rankled stateside backers of Armenia, who emerged as an influential pro-Obama political bloc, and set off a war of words between them and their bitter rivals in the Azerbaijani-American community.
    Nobody ever wins wars in Afghanistan. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by tigercourse on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    I doubt 30,000 extra troops is enough to do diddly squat.

    Michael Steele was wrong (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    See, government creating 30,000 new jobs, just like that!

    An my (none / 0) (#3)
    by SOS on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:22:51 AM EST
    oh my don't we look good!

    Parent
    I suppose I could have asked the first (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:07:19 AM EST
    question but the answer seems obvious to me and we have discussed it so much here that I thought the second question, on an issue I will be ramping up discussion of here in the next weeks, was the more interesting.

    Good. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:01:34 AM EST


    Parent
    Or maybe not so good. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    Note to self:  read first, then comment.

    Parent
    We been (none / 0) (#4)
    by SOS on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    _ _ _ _ _ ed

    Can we invade Pakistan at the same time? (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:38:21 AM EST
    (Even if we could, it's not clear to me how we could stabilize the situation).

    The idea is not to stabilize (none / 0) (#7)
    by