Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan
by Jeffrey JenaThe situation in Afghanistan is like a poker game. There are only three options for action: raise, call or fold. The President seems to be unable to pick one that doesn’t have Americans on both sides of the debate pulling out their hair.
During his campaign for the White House President Obama said, “We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there… I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.”
He promised to send another ten to fifteen thousand troops to help those already there. He also declared that the war in Afghanistan was the proper front in the war against terror. Now that he is Commander-in-Chief, his vision seems to be less clear.
The military commanders gave the President four troop deployment options earlier this week but he refused all four. Not for military reasons but because of some hooey about the corruption of the government in Kabul and their inability to run a fair election. Mr. President, if our support for governments was based on whether they are corrupt or not and could run a fair election, we would have pulled federal funding from Chicago years ago. The problem with pulling out of Afghanistan, or Chicago for that matter, is that they would fall into violent anarchy. We have already seen that happen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Current thinking on what to do in Afghanistan is based on two faulty assumptions:
The first is that wars are clear and concise events with specific outcomes and easy to find exit points. When John McCain told us the truth about how long we might be in Iraq, we didn’t want to hear it. We have been in Japan and Germany for over sixty years and in the Philippines for much longer. I wonder if back during the Spanish- American War leftist were telling the President that the Philippines were tribal islands and would never be able to be organized into a stable democratic government?
The second faulty assumption is that if we walk away from Afghanistan, simply pull all of our troops out, the war it then over. How long would it be before the Taliban was running things again and Al Qaeda was using it as a base of operations? We will be fighting the same people again in the future, perhaps armed with nuclear weapons from Iran or Pakistan. Our national attention span has shortened to Twitter-like dimensions while our enemies think in terms of centuries.
The real problem for President Obama is that is if he deploys more troops and commits to staying, Afghanistan is no longer Bush’s war but his. Not even a year into his term and he is already worried about his legacy rather than doing what is best for the country. He is worried that his presidency will get bogged down in the battle for liberty instead of being able to focus on strengthening ACORN and the SEIU.
The left doesn’t mind waging long, costly, and non-winnable wars, so long as they are they start them themselves. Look at the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Our cities are littered with the lives ruined by those wars. We have thrown enough money into those two rat holes to finance Iraq and Afghanistan for the next fifty years and toss in twenty years of free government health care to boot. Do we have an exit strategy from the Welfare State, Mr. President?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
68 Comments
Excellent post. I would also like to add that the politician in chief has no concept of Honor. If he did he would not be cutting and running.
Who was more excited that Obama won the election…liberals, or the Taliban?
Our President doesn't seem to realize that military force is a form of diplomacy. Negotiations and military force are contrapuntal, not contradictory.
[...] and Warner on Obama: Bare-fisted Politician at Home- Pantywaist Abroad Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Snaggletoothie of the Loyal Opposition: Bush Has Deserted Obama in His Hour of Need Michael Yon, [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Debbie Myatt and Big Hollywood, Michael Chavez. Michael Chavez said: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan http://bit.ly/3Q8Hcg [...]
[...] A First Things Blog: Lib Blog: Afghan support was a political tactic Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Giovanni’s World: Obama Again – Obama Is Considering Strategy Shift in Afghan War From the [...]
[...] Surrenders In Afghanistan and Afghanistan: Do We Win Or Do We Lose Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Flopping Aces: 8 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Fiercest Battle Since Wanat Are You Freaking Stupid?: [...]
Jeffry,
It already is his war, remember his March 27th plan. Placing McCrhrystal in charge, +21,000 more troops he owns it.
Obama to terrorists March 27th: 'We will defeat you' “If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged,” Obama said, “that country will again be a base for terrorists.”
'Disrupt, dismantle and defeat'
Also remember the war in Kosovo that Clinton started. Still going on 14,000 troops on the ground.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fernando Colon, Barbara Simson. Barbara Simson said: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan http://is.gd/4YoEv [...]
he will do nothing until his domestic left wing agenda- namely 'health care' is passed…
For fear of upsetting his looney left base. They hate both wars, and took him seriously when he said he would disengage.
Of course, the internationalist interests won't allow that- it never was an option, really- he just said it to get elected. So, he needs all the support he can to seize US wealth and strip power from the middle class.
And greenlighting McChrystal's request would erode his domestic base which he needs desperately.
Yes, he is playing games with American lives. (Hint: it's been done before) And, truth be known, he cares very little for all this foreign affairs nonsense- it interferes with his true desire, which is of course the transformation of the US into a socialist worker's paradise- or what Andy Stern considers paradise, anyway.
Now you know the 'rest of the story' (apologies to Paul Harvey)…
Truman became President, was notified of the A-bomb project, DECIDED to use it, and used it in less than 4 months (April 12, 1945 to August 6, 1945).
This President has not decided how many troops to use (let alone what strategy to use) in about the same amount of time.
Bush got us in to Afghanistan for no reason and with no exit strategy (something he swore not to do during his campaign.) The Taliban (which translates into "students" because they were educated college students) took over when we created the power vacume after we withdrew when it was no longer politically expedient to support the rebels against the Soviets. There is no connection between the Taliban and the staged false-flag attacks on 9/11 (ask yourself why it just so happened to coincide with a day of massive "war games" maneuvers and why Cheney in his spider-hole got so mad when questioned if the "orders" still held)
Withdraw now. There is no downside except for those making massive profits from this futile war.
[...] JEFFREY JENA: Dithering On Afghanistan. [...]
The downside is that without American presence in Afganistan the Taliban and thier supporters will have a base to attack Pakistan from and then the Islamists will have Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal. If we rely on India to come to Pakistans aid to protect thier Nuclear arsenal you will find that Indias solution will be to deploy thier own Nuclear arsenal to protect themselves. So the downside is a Nuclear War.
By the way, we never withdrew from Afganistan what we did do was stop funding a war that was no longer being fought.
Video: Obama's Afghanistan Strategy Decision Making Process Captured on Time-Lapse Photography http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/10/obamas-afghan...
Our troops are doing a tremendous job in Afghanistan but with no real clear mission the din of Vietnam is getting louder. Give General McChrystal what he needs and turn him loose and let him win this war. Go all the way or get the f- – k out . It's the moral thing to do. For my money I say if it can be won win it.. I don't want to see Vietnamistan. We have the Military leadership, we have high caliber troops. It's the political arm were we're weak. Does Obama have the cogliones to go all the way. I can only hope… but I don't think so. As of right now I'm extremely under-whelmed to say the least by his decision making and leadership skills .Heavy on the talk, light on the do. I pray for our troops and my Country.
Tony Two Shoes: Like the flavor of that koolaid?
The issue is, in fact, not whose war it is. The issue is will American military capability be projected to defend American interests. If so, what is the objective and what are the ROE? If not, to what point will we allow Afghanistan to crumble before deciding once again to intervene? And what form will that intervention take? Many other questions obviously cascade from these, but these frame the debate. Is there a time limit on when the President needs to decide or can he postpone that decision as long as he wants? I presume someone in the White House has this decision tree prominently displayed on a wall and knows what information is necessary to answer those questions. Meanwhile, our troops are in harm's way and would like some kind of decision. FSO
Regarding the Philippines comment, go to Amazon.com and look up: Benevolent Assimilation
In that era of "manifest destiny", the progressives thought that it was in the best interest of the poor people of developing countries to be "assimilated" into an American empire comparable to the European ones (but more "benevolent" – like "social justice" arguments today, or statist socialists). Our government could obviously look out for other people better than they could do it themselves, right? Ditto for Panama and elsewhere. All for the greater good of mankind, of course, as a new world order. A century later, they still haven't learned.
Yes, but he has already decided that Hiroshima was a mistake for which we should apologize to Japan.
Wrong. He just doesn't really care about Afghanistan, or the troops. His sense of honor is defined by loyalty to his leftist base and domestic political ambitions. His foreign agenda isn't to defend America, but to apologize for it as a stalling tactic while also using international initiatives to help push his domestic agenda (like cap and trade). He won't cut and run from the fights which actually interest him – such as to impose his leftist social agenda on us. Everything else is irrelevant to his desire to create a legacy of liberal programs greater than FDR or Johnson which are designed to perpetuate political power for the Democrats. He really cares no more about the Afghans than Reagan-Bush did after the Soviets pulled out. If it causes future harm to our national security interests abroad or to Americans at home (rather than just to our troops who are left at risk), he expects that his domestic social legacy will already have been accomplished in one term. Like Carter, his international legacy may be a disaster, but that's not even a serious question of honor for him.
War is death and suffering it can not be entered into lightly nor can it be extinguished on a whim. All the Bush blaming in the world does not change the fact that we are there. Your point is excellent war is messy there are no clear ends. A nation fights for domination and demands cultural change (Germany, Japan), Or the Pc feel good nonsense of democratization. Without the cultural change you get the same enemy over time. Democracy is not the cure it is merely a tool of empowerment. Without a history of liberty there is little desire to do the work to defend it. the end result is Hugo Chavez democratically elected strong men that never allow liberty to blossom
Mr Obama please step down this is all beyond your pay grade
[...] Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
"Obama is a dancing skin populated by lobbyists like a corpse by maggots: where they jerk, he moves."
So it was educated college students that we watched publically stoning women to death in the soccer stadium. The same college students that blew up the 1700year old sandstone Buddah statues. Where did they go to school Chicago's Columbia?
It's his war now. It became his the moment he took the oath of office. Now he has to make Presidential like decisions. Oh, wait…..never mind.
Well, if it isn't our historically-challenged Paulbot. I notice you never responded to my previous contention regarding the necessity of WWI, WWII, and the Cold War.
But since responding to that is apparently beyond you meager brainpower, let me give you the courtousy of tearing this latest bout of stupidity to pieces.
"Bush got us in to Afghanistan for no reason"
No reason. No Reason. NO REASON??? Am I supposed to believe the Taliban's alliance with Al-Qaeda and its refusal to divulge its members after being asked following 9/11 is NO REASON? Are you REALLY that daft, knave?
"and with no exit strategy (something he swore not to do during his campaign.)"
Are you referring to his 2000 campaign, which happened BEFORE 9/11, BEFORE our intervention, when this was not even on our radar? No KIDDING he had no exit plan. There was literally NO TIME to concoct it.
And besides, an exit plan is HIGHLY overrated. We had absolutely no exit plan when we took over vast swaths of Europe and the Pacific after WWII. And THAT turned out remarkably well, don't you think?
"The Taliban (which translates into "students" because they were educated college students)""
Well, thank you for telling us that. I think I learned that something like…. one hour after I began to study Afghanistan in the late 90's.
"took over when we created the power vacume"
Unless by "power vacume" you mean something different from a "power vacuum", we DIDN'T create it. The Soviet withdrawal and the collapse of the Afghan Communists did that. We may have helped concoct the situation, yes, but we hardly created it.
"after we withdrew"
Have you EVER studied history? We NEVER withdrew from Afghanistan in the 80's/90's because we HAD NOBODY IN-COUNTRY to withdraw. The only thing we did after the Soviets left was we closed up the aid channels and moved our (mainly Pakistani based) intel officers out.
"when it was no longer politically expedient to support the rebels against the Soviets."
Because there were no Soviets for us to support the Rebels against?
"There is no connection between the Taliban and the staged false-flag attacks on 9/11"
So, the fact that they sheltered Al-Qaeda and made several very sympathetic public references to it is NO CONNECTION to you?
"(ask yourself why it just so happened to coincide with a day of massive "war games" maneuvers"
Um, one of those million-to-one coincidences, like the Japanese ordering a national air raid drill on THE VERY SAME DAY as the Doolittle Raid?
"and why Cheney in his spider-hole got so mad when questioned if the "orders" still held)"
A. Proof?
B. And what "orders" were those?
C. How do we explain the recordings from the various Black-Boxes?
D. How does this explain Al-Qaeda's communiques crediting itself with the attack?
"Withdraw now."
GOD NO.
" There is no downside except for those making massive profits from this futile war."
By that, I KNOW you mean the evil transnational arms manufacturers whom you believed caused WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and every single was since the Revolution.
But in your arrogance, you fail to realize that we are ALL making "massive profits" from the war, albeit not in money.
But in safety.
Since we engaged the enemy on his home soil, not a single coordinated terrorist attack has taken place, and indeed none save for the work of a few grass-roots slimebags like Hasan have struck our mainland since.
In your hubris and your ignorance, you fail to forget that the enemy will not simply melt away if we withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, and hunker down in your Fortress America.
They will be emboldened, and they will doubtless not only try and attack our allies, our assets abroad, and our home soil again. And they may well succeed even beyond 9/11.
What you and your fellow Isolationist fools fail to recognize is that the enemy picked this fight, and we merely picked the battlefield. For the same reason Wilson eventually bowed to the obvious sent the AEF to combat the desperate but startlingly powerful Kaiserreich in WWI, FDR gave as much aid as he could to Britain and the other Western Allies in WWII, Truman intervened to save South Korea, and every President from JFK to Nixon tried to save South Vietnam, we fight today in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillippines, the Former Yugoslavia, and the Red Sea.
Because, like Truman, Wilson, FDR, and the like were eventually forced to realize, the ambitions of these people DO NOT stop at the Atlantic, or at the Hindu Kush, or the Persian Gulf. They truly have a global agenda, and one that, if implemented, would see the lives of you and your loved ones be snuffed out or silenced merely because you do not bow to Mecca. And even if we withdraw but they fail, it will merely open the door for our other enemies, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Latin American Communists, to attack us while we are weak.
Do you realize what the costs Europe and ourselves would suffer if, by withdrawing from Afghanistan, Central Asia were either turned into an Islamist tumor or occupied by Moscow or Beijing? Can you EVEN IMAGINE the suffering of the innocent that have staked their lives and their resources to aid us only to be cowardly backstabbed by swine such as yourselves?
Can you even imagine what the world would look like ten years down the road from that decision?
The main reason we got "lucky" in Southeast Asia was because we and the French fought Hanoi and its local allies to the point of absolute exhaustion, leaving them with only enough strength to subjugate the South and the other parts of old Indochina to Communist tyranny but no other area.
And if the same thing happens in Afghanistan, do not believe the repercussions will be so muffled.
You knaves want to live life on the easy road, holing up in Fortress America and leaving the rest of the world to burn in hell.
What you fail to recognize is that hellfire- if powered by the resources of a sizable majority, or even a sizable minority of the world's resources and backed by the new tactics of asymmetrical warfare in the digital age- is MORE than enough to burn down the "impregnable" walls of Fortress America-AND US ALONG WITH IT- if given half the chance.
Perhaps you would learn, in those last dark hours of your life, before they cart you out in front of the cameras and slit your throat with cold steel, how damnably wrong you were.
But I have little faith in such a possibility, and in any event, that would make it too late for the rest of us.
You are welcome to commit suicide any time you wish, but do not feel obliged to take the rest of the West down with you.
Evil thrives when idiots such as yourselves hold the reigns of power. And is there any question why the enemy, from Moscow to Beijing to the caves of Saudi Arabia to our shores, is now so emboldened?
He's on their side.
Not sure what Obama's point is. History is rife with examples of USA supporting 'corrupt' governments in order to achieve larger goals: post-war Italy, post-war Greece, and post-war South Korea, to name a few.
In fact, University of Chicago Professor (Bruce Cumings?) can explain at length how corrupt South Korea was in the post-war period in a very nationalistic manner – the South Koreans extracted quite a bit of money from the USA during the 50s, 60s and 70s.
Obama needs to get an education quickly.
"In that era of "manifest destiny", the progressives thought"
They weren't the only ones, and indeed, the "Progressives" of that era were often anti-Imperialists.
"that it was in the best interest of the poor people of developing countries to be "assimilated" into an American empire comparable to the European ones (but more "benevolent""
And given how epically Liberia, the Philippines, and Cuba have gone to hell, can it not be argued that they were not entirely wrong?
" like "social justice" arguments today,"
More like "White Man's Burden."
"Our government could obviously look out for other people better than they could do it themselves, right?"
That becomes not as ironic as you think when you look at what happened in the Philippines post-independence.
"Ditto for Panama and elsewhere."
…. and because we were justifiably afraid of predators like the Germans and Spanish taking over before we did, and thus menacing the US itself.
"All for the greater good of mankind, of course"
Not really, more like "for the greater good of ourselves and for most in the colonies." The rest of the world, the US felt in that era, could sod themselves.
"as a new world order."
Nope, more like a new REGIONAL order, with the US not being pushed around by Europe or faced with encirclement.
"A century later, they still haven't learned."
Oh, we learned plenty. And it turns out that those eeevviiillll Imperialists WEREN'T so wrong, after all.
The second faulty assumption is that if we walk away from Afghanistan, simply pull all of our troops out, the war [is] then over.
The next time you hear some Leftist nitwit spout this inane rhetoric, ask them if the war was over when our troops left Vietnam, Lebanon or Somalia. If they say "yes", slap them for being so ignorant.
You are right. A simple reinforcement of troops doesn't take a lot of logic, talent or even leadership. The politician in-chief is deliberately stalling while Americans die.
Unfortunately Jena uses the wrong analogy. The situation is not like a poker game.
In poker you respond to a static problem. Your opponent has done something and you hold certain cards. How do you respond?
In war both the cards and the opponents activities change while you ponder your response. War does not pause because the commander of one side wants to think about what should be done.
While O the problem itself changes. And our allies, some with political problems of their own about sending troops, must decide whether to stick with us or go home.
Tony –
It is foolish to attempt to appear knowledgeable in the Google age, when assertions can be checked so quickly. No need to look up your "educated college students", though – anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the history of the Taliban (or, for that matter, any maddrassa-educated "college student") understands that these young men were not educated in any modern sense but solely studied the Koran and various Wahhabi religious writings. Talk to a business person who has to deal with the "college educated" imams and religious leaders who run society in Muslim countries – they drive even the marginally educated to distraction with their general ignorance and stupid demands. An accountant friend (Iranian) gave up his business in the UAE because these "college educated" religious leaders, who held great authority in businesses, would call him on the carpet and tell him "These numbers do not please Allah. Change them so they do." (Continued)
(Continued)
To characterize the Taliban as "college educated" is nonsensical. The Taliban was created using Saudi funding (for the maddrassas) and the support of the Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) along with then-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as a proxy army to extend influence into Afghanistan (originally used to protect trade convoys from Pakistan into Afghanistan against raids by warlords). Mullah Omar, a roving preacher of no real accomplishment, was chosen to lead this band composed primarily of war orphans who had no proper education and had been raised on jihad and the hateful brand of Islam called Wahhabism.
To picture them, as you evidently do, as impassioned econ and poli sci majors who practice with their AK47s between reading Kant and Chomsky is simple ignorance and projection. The schools that educated the first Taliban (or, frankly, any Taliban) did not teach math or science or philosophy – they taught the writings of the Prophet (PBUH) and the norms of Sharia law. Western 6th graders (even in the US!) know more about math, history, science, art and music than these poor souls, because none of these things reflect Allah or are needed.
" The Taliban (which translates into "students" because they were educated college students) took over ". . .
Yep, just a crazy muslim version of "Lord of the Flies" , kids will be kids.
Obama boasted that he knew how to conduct the war in Afghanistan and the MSM gushed over his 'genius'. He was going to concentrate on the 'real' war, plus he would get Bin Laden. His boasts about his 'judgement to lead' (Whatever the heck that means. I guess it makes a nice sound bite for perky Katie Couric.), were taken to mean that he was soooo smart, that he could run a war better than MacArthur, Eisenhower , Montgomery and any field commander. Besides he had 'General' Joe Biden as a backup. The guy who had the brilliant plan for splitting up Iraq, and going against the surge (which actually worked).
Obama trotted out his team right after winning the election and they were touted as being far smarter than the Bush Administration, and they'd show how to fight a war. Obama got his hand-picked general to lead the Afghan campaign, and once again boasted about his strategy. Again, the MSM swooned at his 'genius'.
Then reality bit him in the rear, when his general decided to actually try to win, rather than just shut up and do photo-ops. The One became paralyzed with the thought of actually having to make a decision, rather than blame it on George Bush (Well, he is still doing that, but the tactic has worn off except for Matthews, Olbermann and the gals of the View.).
Oh what to do, what to do? In typical Obama fashion, he voted 'Present' and turned it over to a committee. When they gave him four choices, again he voted 'Present' and claimed he had to wait for the runoff election. When the runoff didn't happen due to the other candidate dropping out, he claimed that his hand-picked Ambassador had 'concerns' about corruption. I think his next excuse for not making a decision is that he has to tutor his daughters for their science tests, or paper-train BO.
Obama dithers, delays, puts-off, delegates, and puts the blame on everyone (usually George Bush or some straw man) but himself. But it's his usual method of operation. It's been that way since he was a 'Community Organizer' for ACORN, an Illinois State Senator, and a U.S. Senator.
How's that Hope and Change working out?
Thanks to affirmative action, you can almost be sure ( but not completely.) that everything he has ever been a part of has been above his pay grade.
I've been thinking on what I would have said were I asked point blank about that. I'd probably have mentioned cost-benefit analysis of ground invasion vs the Bomb, and how Truman's decision prevented the American deaths that would have occured during an invasion.
I'd have suffixed it with, "If Japan had had the bomb instead of us, I have no doubt they would have used it."
There is no dithering. Leaving Afghanistan ASAP regardless of the situation, so long as political cover could be found, was always the plan, even during the talk tough moments of the campaign. The current trial balloon is to state we are getting out so that the next president doesn't have to deal with it. If the public buys that answer well enough to keep Democrats from losing elections, that will be the reason. If the public doesn't buy it, then a new rationale will be floated. After three or four have been dismissed as transparent lies, the tactic will switch, claiming that the Republicans will not accept any reason, and want us to be there forever. The substance of Obama's statements is of no importance whatsoever. Real-world events only exist as counters on the DC gameboard in his mind.
Or "I don't need a reason because we were at war, which they started with a bomb."
OK National Security Team: How do I allow Afghanistan to fail, our Troops to return indisgrace, our casualties to have died for nothing, the Taliban returning to extract vengence on everyone who helped us, and the foreign nationals to return there and plot terrorism on America and I come out of this looking good?
Can I still Blame Bush?
Someone look in the magic Teleprompter and see if anyone has put anywords in there since the last time I looked?
adversarial diplomacy without the implied, credible threat of force, is nothing more than a prayer pretending to be a policy. and empty threats are worse than nothing.
good point- it's more like a chess game where your opponent continues to move his men while you dither over your next play. unless your opponent is a complete idiot and is in the process of committing suicide, that tactic is a sure LOSER.
Obama, like all liberals, is a coward.
http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/
The Anti Liberal Zone
Oh he cares, he deeply cares, just not about Afghanistan. He's already at war with his far left base over socialized medicine.
He can't afford to lose them till he's got a bill on his desk. That's when he wants to make the decision. But it's not so clear the senate will help him out on this one.
"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."
Will Rogers
Bingo.
No connection between the taliban and al qeada?
You are insane.
Don't forget to toss Kosovo in that list. And South Korea.
Well said Jeff, no wonder u don't fit in Hollywood.
Vladimir Ulyanov called. He wanted to congratulate you on your usefulness.
Bingo. That's the word.
You'll recall Jimmy Cahteh getting tough with the Iranians, inviting the Shah to die in elegance and grace here in the USA? Well I think that O believed that the Taliban and AlQaeda and Iran and all those other people who just really hate our guts would suddenly have a shiver up their leg thus falling star-struck with O's brilliance and charm and peace would break out all over the place. Are you saying it didn't happen yet?
[...] Times Online: Afghanistan is hard all the time, but it’s doable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Snaggletoothie of the Loyal Opposition: Bush Has Deserted Obama in His Hour of [...]
[...] Times Online: Afghanistan is hard all the time, but it’s doable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Snaggletoothie of the Loyal Opposition: Bush Has Deserted Obama in His Hour of [...]
[...] Times Online: Afghanistan is hard all the time, but it’s doable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Snaggletoothie of the Loyal Opposition: Bush Has Deserted Obama in His Hour of [...]
[...] issued his report 8 weeks ago, when will Obama issue a decision? Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] issued his report 8 weeks ago, when will Obama issue a decision? Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] issued his report 8 weeks ago, when will Obama issue a decision? Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] issued his report 8 weeks ago, when will Obama issue a decision? Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] issued his report 8 weeks ago, when will Obama issue a decision? Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] Vice Online: Taliban not the enemy after all – Obama willing to deal Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] Vice Online: Taliban not the enemy after all – Obama willing to deal Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] Vice Online: Taliban not the enemy after all – Obama willing to deal Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] Vice Online: Taliban not the enemy after all – Obama willing to deal Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
[...] Vice Online: Taliban not the enemy after all – Obama willing to deal Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan Caffeinated Thoughts: Cheney vs. Obama: Dueling Speeches on National [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.