Columnist George Will is urging the United States to rapidly reverse the trajectory of its involvement in Afghanistan. He noted that the war “already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.” And as for the U.S. strategy to “clear, hold and build,” Will argued: “Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how.” Instead, Will argued: “America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
83 Comments
Interesting … the righties always accuse liberals of cutting and running.
It is too bad that Beorge Bush managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory after the initial fall of Kabul by basically pulling out and encouraging the Taliban/alQuada to regroup and rebuild. However, Will’s idae of abandoning Afghanistan and letting it be a safe haven for insurgents attacking Pakistan is idiotic.
Go for it Obama! By all means, keep pushing your agenda
Rasmussen:
-11 Today
Approve 45%
Disapprove 53%
Strongly Approve 30%
Strongly Disapprove 41%
Afghanistan is an empire killer. First the British got kicked out.
Then the Russians.
I guess we’re next.
You’d think someone would read their world history books.
Dennis
Does anyone think the Afghan Surge is working? Maybe more troops are needed. There isn’t enough American blood in the streets of Afghanistan yet.
Is the war lost already?
How did Obama define Victory in Afghanistan?
Where’s the Exit Strategy?
Jimbo,
First off, this thread is about Afghanistan, not Obama. Second, Obama’s numbers, by whatever poll are still a hell of a lot higher than your boy’s 26%. Go play somewhere else!
Oh Jed, that’s right. Our Commander in Chief has nothing to do with running the war in Afghanistan.
Right….
And “LBJ” O’BAMA was his name-o.
Since the “adults” are in charge, perhaps they should sit down with the terrorists and ask them nicely to stop being terrorist.
Yellowbelliedhawg – ponders….
You’d think someone would read their world history books.
Dennis
————————–
I hate to agree dawg.
It seems to me, the only wars ever “won” were by the complete and utter defeat of an enemy.
And until we are willing to do that…..
ANOTHER AMERICAN KILLED IN BLOODY AFGHAN WAR
August 31, 2009
——————————————————————————–
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
Spc. Abraham S. Wheeler III, 22, of Columbia, S.C., died Aug. 28 in Logar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.
Oh Whoever is the Commander in Chief, When Will You End This War and Bring Our Troops Home?
“He noted that the war “already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars,”
Most of that long involvement took place prior to January 20.
Nation building there will be long and difficult. It would have been MUCH easier if it had been started immediately after the fall of Kabul – as everyone who knew anything advised at the time.
TWO MORE AMERICANS SHOT TO DEATH IN AFGHANISTAN
August 31, 2009
——————————————————————————–
DoD Identifies Army Casualties
The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. They died Aug. 29 in Paktika province, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when they were shot by enemy forces Aug. 28 while conducting combat operations. Both soldiers were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Hunter Army Airfield, Ga.
Killed were:
Staff Sgt. Jason S. Dahlke, 29, of Orlando, Fla.; and
Pfc. Eric W. Hario, 19, of Monroe, Mich.
Oh Whoever is the Commander in Chief, When Will You End This War and Bring Our Troops Home?
Reagan cut and ran when he left Afgnaistan to the Taliban/alQuada – calling them “Freedon Fighters”. That led to 9/11. Now the righties want to repeat what Saint Ronnie did.
ANTI
Posted September 1, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink
Since the “adults” are in charge, perhaps they should sit down with the terrorists and ask them nicely to stop being terrorist.
——————————
And feed them cookies.
“ANTI
Posted September 1, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink
Since the “adults” are in charge, perhaps they should sit down with the terrorists and ask them nicely to stop being terrorist.”
That is exactly what Reagan did when he had the Taliban at the White House.
Those righties terrorist appeasers. More people died in that trailer massacre last week than was killed in Afghanistan the same period.
America just had the wrong guy at the top at the wrong time in ‘01.
You mambie pambies take comfort in your plastic and duct tape, we’ll do the hard work.
bth – That is exactly what Reagan did when he had the Taliban at the White House.
————
Thats probably where Clinton learned it huh?
th
Posted September 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
Reagan cut and ran when he left Afgnaistan to the Taliban/alQuada – calling them “Freedon Fighters”. That led to 9/11. Now the righties want to repeat what Saint Ronnie did.
————————–
We didn’t have troops in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
But do prattle on with your distorted historical revision…
Phantom
Posted September 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm | Permalink
You mambie pambies take comfort in your plastic and duct tape, we’ll do the hard work.
—————————-
Who is “we”?
News out of the Ones hometown aint to pretty either……
1. 37 shot, 7 killed in weekend Chicago crime spree
Staff Reporter | Posted April 21, 2008 11:44 AM
2. Friday, January 09, 2009
CHICAGO – At least five people were shot Friday as spectators left a crowded basketball game at a high school on the city’s South Side, scattering panicked students.
3. July 29, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — A total of 15 people were shot in Chicago on the city’s South and West sides late Tuesday and early Wednesday.
4. August 16, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — A shooting in Chicago’s Uptown neighborhood injured three men Sunday.
5. 3 teens fatally shot on Chicago’s South Sideposted 02/20/09 7:38 pm
6. 5 Shot Dead at Suburban Chicago Store.
We should cut and run in Chicago.
Worst
President
Ever.
But they banned guns in Chicago, how can this happen?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/31/2048560.aspx
AUGUST DEADLIEST MONTH FOR U.S. MILITARY
From NBC’s Courtney Kube and Jim Miklaszewski
August has been the deadliest month for the U.S. military in the entire Afghanistan war.
As of this afternoon, 51 American servicemembers have been killed in Afghanistan this month. That breaks the previous record set only last month when 45 Americans were killed in July.
With four months to go, this is also already a record year for American casualties in Afghanistan — 182 U.S. servicemembers have been killed so far this year, compared to last year’s 155.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/01/2048849.aspx
OBAMA AGENDA: EYES ON AFGHANISTAN
The New York Times front-pages, “A new report by the top commander in Afghanistan detailing the deteriorating situation there confronts President Obama with the politically perilous decision of whether to deepen American involvement in the eight-year-old war amid shrinking public support at home. The classified assessment submitted Monday by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took over American and NATO forces in Afghanistan in June, did not request additional American troops, American officials said, but they added that it effectively laid the groundwork for such a request in coming weeks.”
This AP story could cause some heartburn for the administration. “U.S. military authorities in Afghanistan have terminated a contract with a company that was producing profiles of reporters seeking to cover a war that’s becoming increasingly unpopular with the American public… U.S. military officials have denied that the Rendon profiles were used to rate the coverage of individual reporters as positive, negative or neutral and that those scores influenced decisions on whether a journalist would be embedded with a military unit.” More: “The reporter profiles were background information on the journalist that would help commanders know more about reporters assigned to their units and what topics they’d likely ask about, they said.” But, “Stars and Stripes, a newspaper funded partly by the Defense Department, said the profiles had been used as recently as last year to keep reporters whose prior coverage had been negative from traveling with U.S. troops in Afghanistan. With public doubts about the war in Afghanistan growing, the implication was that the military was trying to reverse the trend by giving plum embed spots to reporters who have written favorably about the war.”
The Soviet Union put 200,000 troops with tanks and attack helicopters into Afghanistan, and it should have been easily enough to subdue that wrinkled half-*ss country. But somebody came along and showed them how to fight off an invasion by a major technological power (I forget who). So now, we’re up against a force that we taught how to fight such as ourselves, and we’re wondering why we’re in trouble there?
Unfortunately, we’ve managed to alienate huge segments of the area’s population over the last 60 years with our policies and CIA meddling, and we aren’t about to win them back overnight.
So what should we do? This is one of those wars we shouldn’t have gotten into in the first place, and we can’t win it and we can’t get out without disastrous results. We are up a certain creek and in dire need of a paddle which may not exist. The real solutions lie in not getting into anything we don’t know how to get out of (you’d think we’d learned that lesson a couple wars back- seems we didn’t)! Probably our best course of action now that we’re there is to remove ourselves and watch as the region sorts itself out. It won’t be pretty, and it’s probably dangerous, and we shouldn’t expect any of that instant gratification we’re so used to, but in the long run it stands the best chance of winning back some of the trust we squandered in the region over the years.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/01/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5279177.shtml
Politics Today: Tensions Rising Over Afghanistan
AFGHANISTAN: “The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama’s administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there,” reports McClatchy Newspapers’ Nancy A. Youssef.
(Echos of LBJ and Vietnam)
“The appraisal comes amid declining U.S. public support for the war and growing tension between U.S. commanders in need of resources and a White House wary of committing to fresh troops,” adds the Washington Post’s Ann Scott Tyson.
“It echoes recent gloomy statements by top military officials such as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the conflict is ‘deteriorating’ and that the Taliban is far more sophisticated than it was just a few years ago. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Monday called Afghanistan “a mixed picture” and said “a very tough fight” lies ahead.”
Meantime, Politico’s Mike Allen reports that the White House is worried about the backlash from liberals over Afghanistan.
“White House officials are increasingly worried liberal, anti-war Democrats will demand a premature end to the Afghanistan war before President Barack Obama can show signs of progress in the eight-year conflict, according to senior administration sources….
“The result: some think Afghanistan – not health care – will be the issue that defines the early years of the Obama administration.”
A new CBS News poll out today shows Americans’ support for the war in Afghanistan eroding.
Obama to send 48,000 more troops to join the 68,000 in the Afghan Bloodbath?
Like Obama quadrupled the Debt, will HE now quadruple American deaths in Afghanistan?
WPE
but in the long run it stands the best chance of winning back some of the trust we squandered in the region over the years.
The trust is what we have lost and why we are still there. The Afghanis don’t trust us to stick it out and truly help them regain the country. The Taliban hangs in the wings and waits for our pull out.
If we were full force from day one we would have probably been able to stabilize the government and strengthen the communities against the Taliban. As it has played out, we have no credit there. The Afghanis are just as afraid of being left out to dry (as we did in the 80’s) as they are of the Taliban.
Problem is, the Taliban aren’t going anywhere. They’ll be there when we’re gone. They know it and the Afghanis know it. They win.
Actually it was the mujahadeen precursors to the Taliban:
“during the Reagan administration, in which it became a centerpiece of the so-called Reagan Doctrine under which the U.S. provided support to anti-communist resistance movements in Afghanistan”
Unfortunately, after the Soviets left:
“Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there”
Thus the Reagan-backed mujahadeen cemented their control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Foreign_involvement_and_aid_to_the_mujahideen
We can’t let those 670 patriots that died in Afghanistan avenging the 9-11 attack have died in vain. Obama needs to come out and talk about all their parents telling him the same.
Along with a roll call this 9-11 commenorating the twin tower victims.
commemorating
If we can sacrifice 4000 for saddam, we damn sure can sacrifice another 4000 for national security.
Sol,
If you’ll remember, we never went into Afghanistan with the idea of nation-building- we were after Bin Ladin. When he proved too elusive, Bush changed the mission.
And if we were full-force going in, there wouldn’t have been troops available for Iraq, which had been on Bush’s agenda since day one.
Damn, you’re going to make me break out in my song, “I’m proud to be an American….”
Cut and run in Afghanistan?
====================================
Basically.
Obama has already stated that he doesn’t believe in victory in Afghanistan.
What a puss.
Phantom
Posted September 1, 2009 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
If we can sacrifice 4000 for saddam, we damn sure can sacrifice another 4000 for national security.
–
Are you volunteering? If not, you’re pretty free with other people’s lives.
Dennis
Phant,
Maybe you got it wrong from the beginning- Afghanistan didn’t attack the World Trade Center; it was a private enterprise operation that paid Afghanistan to base itself there. If you are serious about avenging 9/11, maybe you should consider asking that we go after Bin Laden. And consider making that a police and diplomatic effort- the military doesn’t do cop well.
“If we can sacrifice 4000 for saddam, we damn sure can sacrifice another 4000 for national security.”
Did you sacrifice anyone Phantom?
Real nice of you to pledge “we” sacrifice 4,000 more American men and women in Afghanistan.
You are sick buddy. Real sick.
This is the kind of cooperation that has been sorely lacking during the shrub fiasco:
”
Americas
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Middle East
South Asia
UK
Business
Health
Science & Environment
Technology
Entertainment
Also in the news
—————–
Video and Audio
—————–
Advertisement
Programmes
Have Your Say
In Pictures
Country Profiles
Special Reports
Related BBC sites
Sport
Weather
On This Day
Editors’ Blog
BBC World Service
Languages
Urdu
Hindi
Bengali
Pashto
Nepali
Tamil
Sinhala
More
Page last updated at 15:27 GMT, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 16:27 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
‘Militants surrender’ in Pakistan
Troops say they are control in Swat
More than 100 suspected militants have surrendered to security forces in Pakistan’s Swat valley, the army says.
An army spokesman said that 105 Taliban fighters gave themselves up to the local administration in the Kabal area near Mingora, Swat’s main town.
Lt Col Akhtar Abbas said that in total 165 suspected militants, including many wanted figures, had now laid down arms.
Meanwhile, officials and the army say troops have killed dozens of insurgents in clashes across north-west Pakistan.
The army said that 15 militants had been killed in clashes in the Swat valley, taking the death toll there over the past few days to at least 45.
Phantom, who’s son or daughter should be killed in Afghanistan next to reach your 4,000?
Throughout history, Afghanistan has been a graveyard for invading foriegn armies.
Bush just knew it would be different this time.
“I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out Al Qaeda once and for all. And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda.”— “60 Minutes” interview, November 2008″
- Obama
Freedom isn’t free.
So is Obama going to mislead us too? Is he going to abandon Afghanistan?
I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11. The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war. Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.
BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jun. 18, 2008
Just what the he11 has Obama done in eight months in office in Afghanistan?
Like the song says – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!
Or is Obama going to copy the George Bush policy and create a surge in Afghanistan. So more of our troops are killed for nothing.
Phantom,
Do learn how to cut and paste.
Just what the he11 has Obama done in eight months in office in Afghanistan?
====================================
He said victory was not the goal in Afghanistan.
So, I guess he is just sending our troops to die for nothing.
I’m sure Obama’s thoughts on victory were a real morale booster for the troops….Idiot.
Obama will not only ’stay the course’, he’ll first correct the course, something the chimp-in-chief wasn’t capable of, or just plain didn’t give a rat’s ass, long as he could move over to Iraq, where the light was better, and better targets were to be had.
I say cut and run. Enough already. Obama doesn’t have the heart and his party doesn’t have the well power to fight and win. We proved our point regarding 9-11. If they want to risk attacking us again and loose their country. But Afghanistan is NOT Iraq. It is tribal, remote, and have centuries of living under the rule of tribal leaders. Even today, Tribal leaders filled out many of the ballots for their people (only 10% can even read). This is a nation that preferred the religious and dictatoral leadership of the Taliban – to chaos. We are not going to change that. Obama “change” isn’t coming to Afghanistan. They respect us more if we just left. The people KNOW the Taliban will be there whenever we eventually leave.
” “Last week I spoke to a couple of Army Rangers who had just engaged the enemy,” Mullen said. “They said it was like fighting the Marines. The Taliban were well trained, better organized, much tougher fighters than they’d been in the past.”
Time Magazine, Sep 7, 2009
http://alaiwah.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/taliban-fight-like-the-marines/
He11 yes!
Pull all the troops back to the beer gardens in Germany then randomly nuke two or three of them pesky ’stan’ countries. The rest will then fall into line.
ANTI
Posted September 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
Just what the he11 has Obama done in eight months in office in Afghanistan?
====================================
He said victory was not the goal in Afghanistan.
So, I guess he is just sending our troops to die for nothing.
_____________________________
Anti, That’s NOT what Obama said.
Try this:
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but “victory” in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
“We’re not dealing with nation states at this point. We’re concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s allies,” he said. “So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can’t attack the United States.”
________________________
You lose the point when you twist a statement out of context.
“Freedom isn’t free.”
Well then Phantom why don’t you haul your but t down to the recruiting office and get your tender behind over to Afghanistan – so you can be one of the 4,000 you feel should fight and die there.
Better you who believe in it – than the son or daughter of one of us.
Anti, That’s NOT what Obama said.
Try this:
===========================
Sounds pretty damned wishy washy to me.
but “victory” in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal
====================================
What did I miss?
“Pull all the troops back to the beer gardens in Germany”
Screw Germany. Bring all our boys home. Defend America. Start with the Mexican border for real training.
Leave Okinawa (where the 3rd Marine Division is being transferred to Guam btw), leave Japan, leave all these countries. They have MORE MONEY than us. Their currency is worth more or about as much as ours.
Let these countries fend for themselves. We can be “READY” to redeploy. But bring them all home now.
minutelady
Posted September 1, 2009 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
He11 yes!
Pull all the troops back to the beer gardens in Germany then randomly nuke two or three of them pesky ’stan’ countries. The rest will then fall into line.
__________________
Careful, minutelady. I’ve been skewered a couple of times for suggesting such a thing.
I believe that the judicous use of a few tactical nukes is a right-on idea. Put out a statement saying that another Islamic attack on the US will result in launching a nuke at Medina. A second attack will trigger a full-scale nuclear attack on Mecca.
ANTI
Posted September 1, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
but “victory” in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal
====================================
What did I miss?
__________________________
Never mind…..
““victory” in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal”
Excellent point Anti….
If there is no clear military objective – bring our troops home and deploy Obama’s Home Guard or if they really want to screw with the Taliban – send in ACORN!!!!
Afghanistan is an empire killer. First the British got kicked out.
Then the Russians.
I guess we’re next.
You’d think someone would read their world history books.
Dennis
from article. ““America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.””
YellowDogLiberal, agree with you there.
From the George Will quote above. I suggested we do this 7 years ago. We’re not fighting a war with a front line, there’s no point in putting battalions of soldiers in unnecessary danger. There’s not much to be accomplished in fighting flies with a shotgun.
I believe that the judicous use of a few tactical nukes is a right-on idea. Put out a statement saying that another Islamic attack on the US will result in launching a nuke at Medina. A second attack will trigger a full-scale nuclear attack on Mecca.
==============================
Exactly.
Beating around the bush for nearly a decade just doesn’t say “We mean business”, like turning their world into hell on earth in a matter of minutes.
Don’t fuq with us.
” judicous use of a few tactical nukes is a right-on idea”
Darn XXX, you’ve been rejuvenated! Careful now. Count to ten. Don’t be too quick to turn that key.
Here’s real radical: I don’t give a rats as s if Iran gets nukes. It’s not worth going to war over particularly when the rest of the world are weenies about it and are not challenging Iran.
If Iran uses a nuke – well God rest their souls. XXX will turn the key. And I mean alll the keys.
Never mind…..
=====================
LOL.
“America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.”””
You guys are dreaming. He11, we can’t even protect our own southern border from a few pregnant mexicans.
You think you can patrol half a world away a land locked nation? With no money – only more US debt.
And what is the gain? Can anyone PLEASE tell me?
WHAT IS THE PROFIT??????
Our enemies view us as a Great Dane. Yeah we are huge, but not really that mean when provoked.
We need to change that appearance.
We’ve had our eye for an eye. Bring the troops home NOW.
Obama has NO realistic GOALS. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
Did we learn from Vietnam? Don’t go off hald cocked if you aren’t going to go all the way.
Bring the boys home NOW.
half cocked, or maybe half crocked. ;-)
Famous military quotes:
“They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist….”
- Major-General John Sedgwick, 9 may 1864.
Killed by a sniper during the battle of Spotsylvania.
American_Way
Posted September 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
” judicous use of a few tactical nukes is a right-on idea”
Darn XXX, you’ve been rejuvenated! Careful now. Count to ten. Don’t be too quick to turn that key.
Here’s real radical: I don’t give a rats as s if Iran gets nukes. It’s not worth going to war over particularly when the rest of the world are weenies about it and are not challenging Iran.
If Iran uses a nuke – well God rest their souls. XXX will turn the key. And I mean alll the keys.
______________________________
Now see AmWay, we DO AGREE on the fun stuff.
And I’m not kidding. I see no use in having nukes if we’re scared to use them. The world would have a sh*t fit. Tough tookies.
Just heard the poll 70 % repubs support the afghan war, must be the 30% bushies that have turned tail, and cut and ran.
#
ANTI
Posted September 1, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
Our enemies view us as a Great Dane. Yeah we are huge, but not really that mean when provoked.
We need to change that appearance.
Well ANTI, we used to have the American PitBull Terrier as America’s image. Back in WWI and WWII But Americans have turned neurotic over the past few decades.
The PitBull is no longer a symbol, of Americas Courage and Heart. But a symbol of fear.
In a sense, if soldiers were to be compared to any breed of dog, A Pit Bull would be the most fitting. Tenacious, courageous, loyal, with a lot of heart.
But now, Pit Bulls and soldiers are just vicious and monstrous killing machines.
They are just really good at doing what they are trained to do. It’s in nobodies nature to be violent, it’s a learned trait.
” It’s in nobodies nature to be violent, it’s a learned trait.”
I’ve met some crazy mfckers. I’m sure their mommies didn’t turn em that way before I met em.
Ant,
“Yeah we are huge, but not really that mean when provoked.”
Tell it to the half a million or so dead Iraqis.
Jed,
I don’t speak dead Iraqi.
Barnie,
“There’s not much to be accomplished in fighting flies with a shotgun.”
I don’t know, it seems to provide a lot of work for drywall hangers like Halliburton, which may have been the idea all along.
Ant,
“I don’t speak dead Iraqi.”
You don’t seem to speak dead American either.
You don’t seem to speak dead American either.
========================================
Do you?
Well, XXX,
We pretty much agree. Except I don’t think we have to be that ‘judicious’.
They don’t seem to be to ‘judicious’ when they put their bombs on planes and school buses.
Ahhhh, so many funds are difficult to manage, but this makes it much easier to hide Government money and steal from all of the pools:
Part of the challenge in combating fund growth is the daunting task of monitoring 1,658 distinct funds, many created by the same legislators who are overwhelmed by the complexity of government finances.
Examining such a large number of funds is an inhibition to transparency according to Ken Schermann of the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the source of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) used by state and local governments. “One of the principles of GAAP is using the minimum number of funds consistent with effective management. That way it’s more transparent, easier to read. It’s easier to digest five funds than 55 funds.”
Recommendations
In 1802 Thomas Jefferson wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin recommending he simplify the system of government finance to improve understanding and ensure citizen control of government.
“I think it an object of great importance to be kept in view and to be undertaken at a fit season, to simplify our system of finance and bring it within the comprehension of every member of Congress. … [W]e might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.”
Anderson’s report recommends that, “legislators need to start examining these unencumbered fund balances and returning excess balances to the citizens or insist that they are spent on the programs they were allocated to.
However, ultimately the citizens of the state need to be more proactive in their own investigations of these fund balances and demanding that their government leaders explain the need to remove this money from their citizens’ pockets.”
Yoder says, “We are constantly reviewing as much information regarding these balances as we can but certainly we need to do a better job and know more about balances and if they’ve met their purpose.”
In March 2009 GASB published a new standard for local and state government accounting. According to Schermann it will clarify fund balance reporting. “It’s a better way to help find the treasure. It will give taxpayers better information about government. The numbers on the face of the sheet is only part of the story because government will also be required to describe in the notes of the financial statement the process as well as the amount and purpose, who’s responsible, the authority, how it came to be.”
The new standard will be part of GAAP for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2010, but governments are not required to follow it.
Where’s the accountability for Stimulus Spending of Billions of Dollars!
Ant,
“Do you?”
It’s kind of necessary when you design displays and orders of service for funerals of friends who came home in body bags.
One thing to keep in mind- A war in Afghanistan was what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Will we be luckier?