Indecision taken to new levels

[Sprayber]

Obama said that U.S. troops deserve a clear strategy and full support to fulfill their mission.

The things GWB never provided in 7 years.

Let's rag on Obama though.

I'd prefer to concentrate over the person IN office than the person that WAS in office, but I suppose it comes down to a decison on substance vs hot air.

[Wezil]

I'd prefer to concentrate over the person IN office than the person that WAS in office, but I suppose it comes down to a decison on substance vs hot air.

Can you direct me to your criticism of GWB Afghan policy when he was in office?

Otherwise I'll consider your attacks no more than partisan.

[Sprayber]

Can you direct me to your criticism of GWB Afghan policy when he was in office?

Otherwise I'll consider your attacks no more than partisan.

You seriously need to be directed to attacks on Bush's policy on Afghanistan? Iraq? His choice of dinner on any given night?

[rah]

Otherwise I'll consider your attacks no more than partisan.

Granted there are a lot of partisan politics in play here, but calling something partisan doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

And I think many of us repugs did say that we would have preferred focusing on Afghanistan than sidetracking to Iraq at the time.

[Wezil]

You seriously need to be directed to attacks on Bush's policy on Afghanistan? Iraq? His choice of dinner on any given night?

From you Sprayber.

You have been a poster here since 2000. Where are your complaints over those 7 years about GWG's indecision?

Obama has dithered since the McChrystal comments in August. GWB dithered for 7 years.

Have you been consistent over this time or are you really just interested in attacking Obama?

[Wezil]

Granted there are a lot of partisan politics in play here, but calling something partisan doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

No, but the poster that is only partisan lacks credibility.

And I think many of us repugs did say that we would have preferred focusing on Afghanistan than sidetracking to Iraq at the time.

Agreed. I am prepared to give Sprayber (and other Repugs) the benefit of the doubt.

Awaiting his cite.

[Sprayber]

From you Sprayber.

You have been a poster here since 2000. Where are your complaints over those 7 years about GWG's indecision?

Obama has dithered since the McChrystal comments in August. GWB dithered for 7 years.

Have you been consistent over this time or are you really just interested in attacking Obama?

But mommy, sussie hit me first. mommy, sussie called me a poopie head, but mommie sussie delayed her Afghan policy for years.

[Wezil]

Hack.

Couldn't rise to the challenge.

[rah]

And in all fairness GWB didn't really dither for 7 years.
Once he screwed up and made IRAQ a target he no longer had the option of sending additional troops to Afghanistan since they weren't available. Based on his paying attention to his ground commander and authorizing the surge in Iraq, I think it's safe to say that if his commander recommended more in Afghanistan that Bush would have backed the request completely once troops were available. Iraq was the real problem, not Afghanistan.

[Sprayber]

[

[Sprayber]

Hack.

Couldn't rise to the challenge.

The thing is, I don't have to rise to your challenge. I don't have to search through the archives for a post bashing anyone. I prefer to look at the person who is in office NOW who can change things now. But it is fun watching you Call me some more interesting names I find it amusing.

[Wezil]

You've shown your stripes.

If the issue you post on mattered at all you would have commented on it (at least once) in the last seven years. The fact you haven't means this is just a chance to attack Obama. Hence you are a political hack.

I'm glad having your credibility so thoroughly trashed amuses you. You must have an entertaining life if that is the case.

[Wezil]

And in all fairness GWB didn't really dither for 7 years.

Define "dither".

Once he screwed up and made IRAQ a target he no longer had the option of sending additional troops to Afghanistan since they weren't available. Based on his paying attention to his ground commander and authorizing the surge in Iraq, I think it's safe to say that if his commander recommended more in Afghanistan that Bush would have backed the request completely once troops were available. Iraq was the real problem, not Afghanistan.

This counts as "dithering" to me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How does that count as dithering?

[Wezil]

How does that count as dithering?

I added a wink smiley to my definition question for a reason. A half hearted position...


An argument could be made that launching a war of aggression against a 3rd nation which sapped troops from the real fight (Afghanistan) was dithering.