Jay Bookman

By Davo

February 10, 2009 12:01 PM | Link to this

Meanwhile, back if Afghanistan where all this started, U.S. inventionist policies continue unabated and no different than the past 6 years.

Yet another hole to throw our troops and money into.

By Mike

February 10, 2009 12:10 PM | Link to this

Jay, you have spoken about your support for the airstrikes in question. Were you wrong in your support? Is Obama wrong for contininuing them?

What’s the difference. You are going to blame Bush for all of the problems in Afghanistan anyway so what’s the point.

AmVet - Is Jay a chickenhawk for waning to send 130,000 troops to Afghanistan?

By RW-(the original)

February 10, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this

Jay B.,

Being the great military planner you aspire to be please tell us where and how you would deploy 130,000 extra troops in Afghanistan and what their strategy would be.

Besides being killed by the tens of thousands in the Hindu Kush. I don’t really like that plan and I suspect you wouldn’t either.

Meanwhile while you and your pollsters would have been railing about the Afghanistan quagmire, Iraq would still be led by Saddam Hussein and would no longer have any sanctions against them. Not to mention that Richard Clarke’s warning about al Qaeda boogieing to Baghdad would be a reality.

By CommunistAJC

February 10, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this

Sgt. Bilko Bookman, One, you’ve never served in the military. Two, you don’t know anything about war. Three, you don’t know anything about research. Let’s leave the military planning to people who ACTUALLY have experience IN the military.

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 10, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this

“Is Obama wrong for contininuing them?”

Mike @ 12.10, you didn’t ask me, but he’ll be wrong if he doesn’t present a clear cut mission for our troops, and soon. So far he hasn’t.

My understanding, too, is that Pakistan doesn’t have much sympathy for our gripes about their harboring of terrorists, since they think we created that monster in the first place. And I was disappointed in Obama’s presser yesterday not acknowledging this, falling back instead on the usual, i.e., we must simply “deliver a message to Pakistan that they are endangered as much as we are by the continuation of those operations and that we’ve got to work in a regional fashion to root out those safe havens.”

So where’s the mission, Barack? I know you’ve only been in office three weeks (starting tomorrow, actually) and it takes a bit of time to formulate official policy, but still…

By getalife

February 10, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this

Had them on the run and cut and ran to Iraq.

Those with ODS will never admit these facts ot take any blame.

Just not adult enough.

By RW-(the original)

February 10, 2009 12:35 PM | Link to this

{{{{{So where’s the mission, Barack? I know you’ve only been in office three weeks (starting tomorrow, actually) and it takes a bit of time to formulate official policy, but still}}}}}

ragger,

Are you claiming that Obama completely frittered away the two and a half month transition?

By AJC/DNC Management

February 10, 2009 12:35 PM | Link to this

Stabbing the troops in the back, again-

{{{{More blame U.S. and coalition forces for poor targeting than blame the Taliban for keeping assets among civilians (41 percent to 28 percent); 27 percent said both sides shared the blame.}}}}

Yes, Bookman, our soldiers are wanton killers of women and children, throat cutters with no regard for human life, blood thirsty murderers in a perpetual search for new victims.

And I’ll bet they are thankful for your “support.”

By Mike

February 10, 2009 12:37 PM | Link to this

Whatever happened to “you can’t impose democracy at the point of a gun” or “military solutions only create more enemies”?

Also, if Jay is such a fan of the war and such an internationalist, why isn’t he calling on our “allies” to send troops to Afghanistan instead of just attacking Bush?

By Mike

February 10, 2009 12:40 PM | Link to this

getalife -

Who here is criticizing Obama other than DB (and he is no Obama basher).

You need to be able to differentiate between criticizing Bookman and criticizing Obama. It’s not the same thing.

Stop with the silly and minsguided partisan knee-jerk responses.

By getalife

February 10, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this

Mike,

I have yet to get one commenter to admit their party is to blame about anything on RW blogs.

It like arguing with children claiming it is not their fault.

Grow up wingnuts.

By Paul

February 10, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this

CommunistAJC

[[Let’s leave the military planning to people who ACTUALLY have experience IN the military.]]

You mean… like the people who bought us Iraq?

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 10, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this

RW, two things:

1 - It’s my understanding that a President-Elect does not have access to such things as (say) calling the joint chiefs together to plan military strategy. Thus it would be a little disingenuous to say that the interregnum was “frittered away.”

2 - I am fairly sure I asked nicely for you to drop the old-screen-name usage business. Did you want the request hand delivered along with a dozen roses? Because I’d only budgeted a dozen for my better half, and a dozen for the First Lady, this month…

By scrappy

February 10, 2009 1:05 PM | Link to this

Do you guys even read what Bookman writes? Or, do you just have these blanket responses built up that no matter the topic = Bookman and Obama are communists that are against our troops and our nation, Bush was the greatest, and anyone that disagrees is an idiot.

By Patriots Act

February 10, 2009 1:08 PM | Link to this

Woulda been a great article, Bookman, in 2003. B-

The great question before us now, is what we do with a war of convenience and another war of necessity, when to reinforce one would necessarily compromise the other.

Blackwater’s been banned in iraq.. Why dont you find out what those terms were? why dont you look up something not already in the news lexicon? We get it. Osama got away at tora bora. Isn’t it a drag.

moron.

By CommunistAJC

February 10, 2009 1:08 PM | Link to this

Paul, Iraq is won and done. Why else would NO ONE be talking about it except pathetic loser protesters? Last time I checked it was people like David Patreus who were the experts. Not Jay Bookman.

By Mike

February 10, 2009 1:10 PM | Link to this

getalife -

What, you mean grow up and call people names like you?

We know that you and Bookman are solely focused on partisan finger-pointing. So what?

By Midori

February 10, 2009 1:19 PM | Link to this

Iraq is “won”?? Iraq is “done”??

Huh?

When did that happen?

Or is history being rewritten.

yet again?

By RW-(the original)

February 10, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this

ragger,

There’s a poster here that goes by AJC/DNC-Management that posted years ago as Andy and hasn’t posted by that name in several years. What do you refer to him as?

Not having the authority to usurp the power of the President during the transition doesn’t mean you didn’t have access to all the information you needed to formulate strategy and President Bush provided the most generous transition plan in history to make things go smoothly for President Obama. Too bad PresBO hasn’t the class in his whole being that President Bush has in his pinkie.

By rcs

February 10, 2009 1:22 PM | Link to this

While Bookman is stuck in the past, did anyone happen to see Geithner speak about the bank rescue plan?

By getalife

February 10, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

Mike,

I am Independent and bash the dems all the time.

Try to keep up or keep it shut.

Iran won the Iraq war commie.

By Bosch

February 10, 2009 1:25 PM | Link to this

OMG, we won the war in Iraq!

That’s great!!!!

Dammit AJC!!! Where’s this story???

By Bosch

February 10, 2009 1:28 PM | Link to this

RW,

Class? Oh, I know. I saw that shout out from Andrew Card talking about how disrespectful Obama was because he didn’t wear a jacket. A jacket.

Bush didn’t respect the office because he was just simply a moron and couldn’t govern his way out of a paper bag.

By Midori

February 10, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this

RW,

Has Andy “asked” people to refer to him in any other way?

You people act as if you have the right to ignore other’s wishes when it comes to calling people out of their names.

I’ve personally seen DB make the request of you. Several times. And not once did he get nasty with you either.

Bush has class?

“Class”? Mr. Spitting when he’s talking? Mr. Walking around with his fly undone? Mr. Eating with his mouth wide open in full camera view. Want pictures?

You call that “class”?

But then, you feel as if it’s your right to call people out of their names, regardless of that persons wishes. I can understand your confusion.

Class. yeah right.

The only class Bush knows about is his “base” - the uppper class.

One could say Bush has “taste”. And all of it is in his mouth.

By Paul

February 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Link to this

CommunistAJC

My tongue-in-cheek response had a serious bent to it; namely, on the ‘classic’ task of ‘defeat Saddam Hussein’s military’ they did pretty well. They did get frustrated with SecDef Rumsfeld - Centcom commander General Franks’s initial plans were pretty much rehashed Desert Storm and Rumsfeld pressed hard for a lighter force. Likewise, in Afg, Franks didn’t show much ‘out of the box’ thinking - and the JCS, with the AF Chairman didn’t, either.

The Army Chief of Staff, when pressed, spoke of hundreds of thousands of soldiers needed for post-Saddam stabilization. But Centcom didn’t plan for it and the JCS (of which General Shinseki was a part) didn’t press the issue. Remember those videos of the looting in Baghdad? All the troops standing by watching it happen? They didn’t plan for it and they were slow to react. They flat-out did not plan for much of anything past “we defeated Saddam” and they were exceedingly slow to the insurgency.

Initially, whenever such eventualities were brought up, the questioner would be dismissed with a line such as “we don’t do nation building.”

Yes, Gen Petraeus did rise to the top. But it was a slow, arduous process and he met stiff resistance from Army traditionalists along the way. Meanwhile, his predecessors, showing a remarkable lack of innovation and adaptability, rotated out of theater and received promotions

It is not unusual for large bureaucracies to be slow to adapt. But the consequences in the military do not mean an unprofitable quarterly report.

What does this mean for Afg? Given Gen Petraeus is in charge, I have my fingers crossed (one can make a good case if he were not given charge in Iraq that Sen Reid would have ben correct - it would have been lost). But he did turn it around.

So if he deemphasizes the Kabul government, does not press for full backing of Karzai, wheels and deals with local warlords and Taliban leaders (many on the Left here loudly criticized “Bush” for “paying off insurgents - maybe they’ll reconsider now that Pres Obama’s the president. But hey, it worked) and manages to keep some barriers up between the local strongmen and their one-caliphate crazed brethren in Pakistan, well, maybe we can clear out of there, too.

By RW-(the original)

February 10, 2009 1:33 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Every time President Obama gets in front of an audience or a camera he claims the people voted for a change in tone and to end the politics of division. For the next five minutes he bashes President Bush.

Get back to me the next you see or hear President Bush bashing President Obama.

By TN Gelding

February 10, 2009 1:36 PM | Link to this

We need to get UBL and get out!

Won and done in Iraq? Tell that to the families and friends of the 4 servicemen killed yesterday and the millions of displaced Iraqis. Hundreds of thousands of them have been truly liberated tho, for all eternity.

By Paul

February 10, 2009 1:36 PM | Link to this

Midori 1:29

let it go…. let it go…. let it go…. let it go……

Close your eyes…. think of the White House Chief of Staff… repeat…

rahmmmmm…. rahmmmmmm… rahmmmmm)

A Hindu chant with a Hebrew name.

Neat, huh?

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 10, 2009 1:37 PM | Link to this

RW @ 1.21 - “There’s a poster here that goes by AJC/DNC-Management that posted years ago as Andy and hasn’t posted by that name in several years. What do you refer to him as?”

Fair question. I thought it was a neutral greeting, since I’d seen people from different sides of the political aisle address him that way. (I didn’t know he used to post under that name; I thought it was his real name.)

He’s never asked me to do otherwise.

Later, all.

By RW-(the original)

February 10, 2009 1:50 PM | Link to this

DB ragger,

Let’s equate your name to the flag flap from a few years back. Much like the Georgia flag that had the offensive Confederate symbolism you had an offensive name, but since hillbilly ragger was also a world renowned blogger with his very own crappy little blog and even a reader or two, people just kept it around.

Then came your desire for a name change, but all you’ve done is taken your name to the equivalent of that horrendous Denny’s place mat flag that nobody liked.

One more change is in order for you to gain acceptance.

By tcoach

February 10, 2009 1:57 PM | Link to this

I’m not a blog expert by any means so maybe someone can help me.

Why is it wrong to call someone by a name they created for themselves, even if they asked you to stop calling them by that particular name. It would be like Prince being upset that someone called him Prince, or if someone tried to call him that symbol now.

Why is there a need to change one’s name?

Did the old name do something to embarrass you.

On the other hand there is the human decency that says if a person ask you to not do something nicely, especially if it will not impact your life negatively in any way, then one should always respect their wishes.

But it is in blog land and as I am finding out there are different rules here, especially this blog.

Hope I did not offend anyone I was honestly confused and hoped to get answers. However as the nature of this blog has shown someone somewhere on here will be offended. My bet is the one who takes themselves WAY too seriously, and has a lofty perception of themselves.

By AmVet

February 10, 2009 2:00 PM | Link to this

Jay,

The information you provide is excellent.

But we are going to fail in Afghanistan for the same reason we have failed in Iraq.

The neo-cons have always seen the “solution” as 80% up to the US military and 20% up to the inhabitants of said countries taking the fight to the thugs themselves.

Instead of the other way around.

It is an irrefutable fact, that the vast percentage of the inhabitants of those countries want us the f&ck out. And the chickenhawks and chest-pounders act as if that is irrelevant.

So IMHO losing even one more American life for them is unconscionable.

Lets face it. The reason we are there has nothing to do with “freeing millions” like the gullible here parrot from time to time. It has everything to do with ensuring Haliburton and BlackWater (among many others) keep making BIG money to pay for political campaigns and ostensibly to look after our “national interests”.

Petrochemicals.

The Iraqi and Afghan people have not and almost assuredly NEVER will mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors to becoming free and independent states.

Ergo, we’re just playing a Mexican standoff with these people who are not remotely interested in emulating Western values or governments. Or appreciate the enormous cost and suffering by the United States.

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike.

To me it is amazing that you never grasped this concept, as it has been around since Viet Nam.

Obviously, it is not just merely supporting BushCo’s inane and bungled wars without fighting in them that earns one the chickenhawk label. Nor is it just actively avoiding military service when of draft age. But along with those, it is the gutless belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness.

The neo-con heroes fit into this definition almost without exception - Georgie, Dickie, Scumsfeld, Suxtobeus, and virtually every single oracle and right wing darling from Pretty Boy to Mann to O’Lielly. As do most of the deluded Reich-wingers here like Dusty and Duhng.

And yes, a fair, but vastly fewer number of Democrats fit that description as well.

So go ahead and demand of Mr. Bookman, if he’s one.

But perhaps you need to ask yourself, do you fit that definition?

By rcs

February 10, 2009 2:03 PM | Link to this

Meanwhile, back to current events,

Senate OKs ‘Spendulus’ Bill

$838B plan passes 61-37, goes to House-Senate conference to work out differences

By demwit

February 10, 2009 2:04 PM | Link to this

Bring the troops home now!!

By demwit

February 10, 2009 2:14 PM | Link to this

It took Bush 8 years to increase the debt ration by 10%. 57%->68%

Look! Obama can do what Bush did with one stroke of the pen. 68%->78%

I love Obama.., he can do no wrong.

By Bosch

February 10, 2009 2:20 PM | Link to this

RW,

At least Obama can speak in coherent sentences, and also has enough sense not to try and give Angela Merkel a shoulder rub - those East German women are tough - he’s lucky he came away from that with both hands!

By mm

February 10, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this

RW,

Are you just an extremely partisan hack or are you a pathological liar?

Every single time Bush got in front of a camera Bush would blame the Dems for doing this, or not doing that, or just blame the Clinton admin.

Get a grip man.

The rantings of you, Commie, and KKK Management are enough to steer any voter with common sense over to the Dems.

By Paul

February 10, 2009 2:24 PM | Link to this

demwit

Would you allow there’s a teensy tiny little difference between starting your term with a budget surplus and, at best, a mild recession on the horizon…

and…

starting your term with years of accumulated debt, multihundredbillion dollar yearly deficits as the norm and a crushing economic calamity that reared its ugly head before you were even sworn in?

By Paul

February 10, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this

mm

Ah, but -

Obama promised ‘change’ and a ‘new tone.’

Bush didn’t.

By gadem

February 10, 2009 2:33 PM | Link to this

It’s official, birds are in on the global warming charade as well

By TN Gelding

February 10, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this

The more things change…

DOES ANYBODY REALLY KNOW HOW MUCH DOODOO WE’RE IN?

By RW-(the original)

February 10, 2009 2:58 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Actually Bush did promise a change and a new tone, but every time he reached across the aisle they would take what was in the hand and then bite it.

m()m(),

I trust you have visual evidence to back your claim. There is such a thing as YouTube out there if you need help in your search.

Bosch,

Some of those extremely long complete sentences last night had no resemblance to the beginning of the sentence once they reached the end. It was pretty remarkable how every answer ended in how we must pass the giant Porkulus bill and that Republicans want to do nothing even if the question was about, Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Russia.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

February 10, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this

While Bill Clinton did have a budget surplus for a fiscal year or two (memory fails me on exact number), the only President in U.S. History who carried no national debt was Andrew Jackson. He paid it off. He also hated the National Bank. Maybe there is a lesson in that?

By taxpayer

February 10, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this

Obama delivered on his promise of change. Some people, in particular those in the minority party (aka Republicans), just don’t like the change. That’s OK. As I recall from back in the dark ages of RepuBushlican control, there were those loyal followers of the right wing faith that proclaimed that if you don’t like it, you are free to leave. Well, that applies both ways. Just remember to pay up those back taxes that Bush and the Republicans charged before you go. You know the ones. The five trillion that were not covered as a result of the implementation of that failed trickle down economics crap on top of two wars with no tax increase to pay for them. Republicans. Can’t live with them…

By Bosch

February 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this

RW,

BUT!!! ——-

They were complete!

By AJC/DNC Management

February 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this

gadumb: Did you read your own propaganda?:

{{{{Bird ranges can expand and shift for many reasons, among them urban sprawl, deforestation and the supplemental diet provided by backyard feeders.}}}}

And if temperatures have dropped the last few years, how can “global warming” be a factor?

By RW-(the original)

February 10, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this

gadem,

Last week there was a story about snow owls nesting further south. Did you use that to prove anthropogenic global cooling?

By Paul

February 10, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original) 2:58

[[every time he reached across the aisle they would take what was in the hand and then bite]]

If you’re speaking of those in Congress, well, they seem to be doing the same to Pres Obama (fellow Democrats). If you’re speaking of those posting here…

Bosch 3:05

AND!!!————

They were delivered with forceful eloquence!

By @@

February 10, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

Damn, jay! WaPo and ABC polling of people in Afghanistan????? Do you think maybe they have a hidden agenda?

Back in December, the Asia Foundation conducted their own poll. pdf format.

Their (the Afghan people’s) optimism begins in page 21.

I’ve been keeping up with this administration’s plans for Afghanistan. In many ways it will mirror the efforts in Iraq. In other ways it will not.

Good Grief!!!!! You liberals need to curb this affinity you have for BAIL OUTS!

By @@

February 10, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this

Make that on page 21.

Actually, it could be page 21in the tube, but just to be clear….

IHB!

By RW-(the original)

February 10, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this

Paul,

It seems the big change is in some ways no change at all. With Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama you really have to read what they said. With the former and the latter it’s to see where the eloquent words flutter away into an ether of nothingness and with the one in the middle to see the substance you never heard when you saw it live.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Would someone like to explain why we need a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology that will monitor your doctor to make sure he or she is treating you “cost effectively” as if the government had any clue what that phrase means.

If you can tell me why this is needed then can you tell me why the position and agency has to be created in the “Stimulus” Bill?

By Hillbilly Deluxe

February 10, 2009 3:28 PM | Link to this

Given the nature of the terrain and geography I wonder how representative any poll in Afghanistan could be.

By @@

February 10, 2009 3:29 PM | Link to this

I know everyone has moved upstairs, but who knows…..somebody might drop in to read.

Another good article on Afghanistan.

Petraeus, HE ‘DA MAN!!!!!

By rcs

February 10, 2009 3:34 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, you keep attributing 5 trillion to George W. Bush.

When Bush took office the deficit was 5.7 trillion dollars. When Pelosi/Reid gained control of congress, the deficit was 8.67 trillion. That’s 2.97 trillion you can attribute to Bush and the Republicans.

When Obama took office the deficit was 10.33 trillion. That’s 1.66 trillion that came from the Pelosi/Reid congress.

Add the 900 billion that just passed the senate and you have 2.56 trillion from Pelosi/Reid/Obama.

Republicans = 2.97 trillion. Democrats = 2.56 trillion. Looks like there’s plenty of blame for both parties.

By Bosch

February 10, 2009 3:34 PM | Link to this

Paul,

EXACTLY!!!

Hey, if I’m gonna be b.s.ed, I’d rather it be with good grammar and eloquence, instead of some bumpkin telling me basically “because I said so….I’m the Decider.”

I didn’t see the press conference, so I’m pretty much b.s.ing right now.

Hey! Did you like my “beyond the red line” reference on the last thread when I was writing about how we are in unchartered territory? I thought I was pretty clever. I would LOVE IT, if some pundit/commentator or politician would say something like - “Man, we are WAYYYYY out there - in unprecedented territory, or as the Colonial Fleet would say ‘beyond the red line.’”

I’d trust that guy/gal forever.

But like I said earlier - people can reference past economic crisis and compare this and that, but this is unprecedented, so anybody who does that - we can all say……to phrase Dick Cheney…….SO?

I’m updating one of my databases - what a drag. Talk about torture.

By @@

February 10, 2009 3:36 PM | Link to this

Hillbilly Deluxe:

I like you….as in respect your views — many of which I share.

(((Given the nature of the terrain and geography)))

Which is the very reason it would have been unwise for Bush to amass troops into Afghanistan at the onset.

There are many neighboring countries who have a strategic interest in the security of Afghanistan.

Movin’ on….

By MorningStar

February 10, 2009 4:15 PM | Link to this

By Paul February 10, 2009 2:28 PMmm Ah, but - Obama promised ‘change’ and a ‘new tone.’ Bush didn’t.

He (Bush) sure didn’t! You betcha he didn’t. He was very explicit regarding his agenda! And the idiots still voted for him. So much for intelligence. Sigh………

By Bosch February 10, 2009 3:34 PM Paul, EXACTLY!!! Hey, if I’m gonna be b.s.ed, I’d rather it be with good grammar and eloquence, instead of some bumpkin telling me basically “because I said so….I’m the Decider.”

I was so impressed with President Obama’s press conference last evening, and the Florida conference I viewed today. It is wonderful to have a President who exhibits an IQ of a Zillion, is well spoken, and can obviously represent our country ANYWHERE. Not some stumbling fool who needs to be told when to stop reading ‘My Pet Goat.”

Our President Obama has a magnificent mind, and obviously cares what happens to the average American. I must say this is a rare combination.

By Paul

February 10, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this

Bosch

]]some pundit/commentator or politician would say something like - “Man, we are WAYYYYY out there - in unprecedented territory, or as the Colonial Fleet would say ‘beyond the red line.’”

I’d trust that guy/gal forever.]]

Okay, I’m gonna make a comment. Which makes me a commentator.

“Man, we are WAYYYY out there - in unprecedented territory, or as the Colonial Fleet would say ‘beyond the red line.”

Now you gotta trust me forever!

Dang, that was toooooo easy.

And I am adding to a database. More groans. But running with two monitors to keep this screen up makes it bearable.

And now for the collective groans from the rest of the readers:

77 hours and 45 minutes!!!

By Bosch

February 10, 2009 4:20 PM | Link to this

Paul,

“And now for the collective groans from the rest of the readers:

77 hours and 45 minutes!!!”

But not from ME!!! :-)