The NYT Editorial Board
Posted on 08/12/2010 7:53:44 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
We believe that the United States has a powerful national interest in Afghanistan, in depriving Al Qaeda of a safe haven on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This country would also do enormous damage to its moral and strategic standing if it now simply abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban’s brutalities.
But like many Americans, we are increasingly confused and anxious about the strategy in Afghanistan and wonder whether, at this late date, there is a chance of even minimal success.
...
But reports from the ground have been so relentlessly grim — July’s death toll of 66 American troops was the highest since the war began — that Mr. Obama needs to do a better job right now of explaining the strategy and how he is measuring progress.
...
Since then, the administration has sent a host — a cacophony — of conflicting signals about the deadline, the strategy and its commitment to the war.
Americans need regular, straight talk from President Obama about what is happening in Afghanistan, for good and ill, and the plan going forward. More ambiguity will only add to the anxiety and confusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“More and more I am getting the feeling that Obama , for some reason , will not run in 2012.”
Oh he will run alright. And, depending on whether or not the GOP is delighted to have him for second term, by choosing yet another loser, and if they do so again, he will win again. But if the GOP chooses Palin, he will lose by an avalanche of astronomical proportion. ie, a landslide.
Regular straight talk....from Obama?
The NYT Editorial Board cannot be that freaking stupid. It's impossible. Or is it?
The NYT Editorial Board
Not gay enough.
The NY Times is simply agitating for Karzai’s ouster...because Karzai is the real deal instead of someone whom they can stage manage.
That’s their entire motivation for the editorial. 100%.
Yes, 100%.
Everything else in the editorial is designed to convey that singular objective into terms that the White House of 2010 understands.
“We just have to defeat the Taleeeeeban...”
Please! It’s Tah-leee-bahn. They’ll be SO upset if you don’t pronounce their name exactly the way they and the flap-eared socialist want us to.
That’s one heckuva cheap shot! To Curly, Moe and Larry, that is...
How about if we just use up all remaining ammo now against Tahleeebahn, everything the 250,000 troops have, shoot it out over the next week, then we all leave immediately, come home and declare victory. Anybody so much as take a donkey ride after, they get a cruise missile up the donkey.
We need these troops redeployed on the Mexico border.
I nominate this for the post of the month.
This is cover for some new White House announcement/strategy.
Obama out his guy in charge, then loses our fellow US citizens in combat at a rate three times that of GWB, but it’s GWB’s fault... NYT, the grey lady with alzheimers, forgettin the facts, but enjoying the song from the dead parrot.
A cacophony, indeed...
Is her *ss bigger than a breadbox?
Hey NYT! Good luck with that whole straight talk thing... let us know how that works out for ya...
Bawahahahahahahaha Like they would know straight talk!! Hahaha What a freaking laugh!
Its Fred again at the discombobulator... he has the spork weasel up too high... AGAIN!....
Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo within a year. Now he seems to have had an epiphany - hmmm, it isn't going to be easy to send these thugs to another country as we assumed and it certainly isn't going to be easy to have trials for them in the US. Result? Obama is proceeding with the same strategy that Bush undertook BECAUSE Bush's plan was the best way to proceed in a near impossible situation.
p.s. When will someone ask what is happening to that $237 million dollars that Obama put in his budget to purchase a little-used ILLINOIS prison for the purpose of moving Gitmo prisoners onto U.S. soil? Do we now own it and will we use it? Amazing how little coverage that got!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/obama_budget_to_include_237_mi.html
Good points all.
The huge national interest actually lies in the connection between the taliban/al qaeda and Pakistan. Pakistan is a nuclear nation, and it is unfathomable for the jihadists to gain entry into OR control of the Pakistani government.
I worry less about the taliban forcing burquas on afghanis. If they want serfdom, then let them have it.
And when they get to be a bothersome infestation, then come again and clean them out. Eventually, a government will arise that wants to stay in power and leave others alone.
But Pakistan’s nukes are a huge issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.