ENTIRE VIDEO: President Obama speaks to troops in Afghanistan

By GottaLaff

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Of course, the video fails to show the love Prez O got on his way in.

Tuh-WEET! There goes another right wing talking point

By GottaLaff

Via Andrea Mitchell just now n Twitter:


There you go, GOP, right there in black, white, and color screen grabs: The troops like President Obama. Imagine that.

Another talking point down the drain.

Liveblog: Obama speaks to troops in Afghanistan

By GottaLaff

I pulled a few screen grabs off the ol' Tee Vee Machine:



Liveblogging President Obama:

The U.S. is a partner, but our intent is for Afghans to provide for their own security.

We salute the members of the Afghan national army who are fighting along side you.

It's a privilege to [be here, see you all]. Thank you.

We're here to help the Afghan people forge a hard-won peace.

Everybody back home is grateful, proud of you, understands your sacrifices...

I know it's not easy. You're far away from home, miss your family, friends... for some of you, this is 4th tour of duty.

If I thought for a minute that Amerca's vital interests were not served, I would order you home right away. But ... your services are absolutely essential to America's safety and security. We are relying on you.

We did not choose this war, or us wanting to expand influence. We were attacked viciously on 9/11. 1000s were killed. This is where Al Qaeda still bases their leadership.

If this region slides backwards, if Taliban retakes this country, Al Qaeda can operate with impunity... The world would be less secure. I'm not gonna let that happen. That's why you are here.

I anguish in thinking about the sacrifices you make. That's why I promise I will never send you out if not necessary... but when it is, you will be backed up by a clear mission, right strategy, and have support to get job done. I am confident you will get the job done here in Afghanistan. [cheers]

That's why I ordered more troops... forged new strategy... pushed our allies to pony up more resources...

Our mission: Disrupt, dismantle defeat Al Qaeda and its allies. Deny them safe haven, strengthen Afghan forces AND government.

Military effort to fight Taliban ... also a civilian effort to combat corruption, partnership with Pakistan. ... We need to succeed on both sides of the border.

We've seen increase in support stateside. With our partners, troops to push Taliban out, we changed the way we operate w/ Afghan people... new partnerships... increase their security.

Pakistan is mounting offensives. They're worried about their own safety.

We are going to keep them on the run, that is what is required for security back home.

Thanks to you, there's been progress. Difficult days ahead... setbacks... We face a determined enemy.

U.S. does not quit once it starts on something [cheers]. We will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that. [cheers]

We'll do right by you back home: Take care of families. Michelle visited with military families, makes sure their needs are met. Child care, support. We'll be there for you when YOU come home. PTSD/brain injury care.

Post 9/11 G.I. Bill moving forward. Increase V.A. budget biggest in 30 years.

You've been there for us tour after tour, year after year. That's why you've inspired your fellow Americans, me... you've earned your place next to the very greatest generation. You represent virtues and values that America needs right now... honor, decency...

I see your sense of purpose. Your willingness to serve in time of danger. Your courage, heroism...

You're protecting your fellow citizens from danger.

I know sometimes when you watch TV the politics back home look messy, yelling, hollering.. There's NO daylight when it comes to supporting all of you. That brings us together. We are ALL incredibly proud, honor what you do. You show us what is possible when people come together... succeed together as one people...

This fight matters to us, to the Afghan people...

The Taliban have no respect for human life... They offer fear, you offer hope. The entire country stands behind you.

The U.S. will always stand up for the security of nations, the dignity of human beings...

Much has happened to our country/world since 9/11, but w/ men and women like you, I'm confident our nation will endure... better days lie ahead.

Obama: No troops to Somalia, Yemen

By GottaLaff

Via an e-mail alert:

President Barack Obama said in an interview with People magazine released Sunday that he has “no intention” of sending combat troops to the terrorist havens of Somalia and Yemen because “working with international partners is most effective at this point.” Obama added: “I never rule out any possibility in a world that is this complex."

For more information...http://www.politico.com

No intention. Never rule out. But for now, hey, they'll be U.S. troopless.

Obama Will Appear on Pro Wrestling Show

Is that crap really that popular with the troops? Or anyone?

President Barack Obama has agreed to deliver a taped holiday message to the troops on NBC's "WWE Tribute to the Troops" special.

The special chronicles the three days that the WWE Superstars and Divas spent visiting military bases and features a special live performance in front of thousands of military personnel.

It airs Dec. 19 at 9 p.m.

Whither the dither? McChrystal calls Obama 'thoughtful,' won't criticize delay

By GottaLaff

I finally got around to watching the HBO Obama documentary. It followed then-Senator Obama from 2006-2008, covering the entire presidential campaign.

What struck me was the media-abetted frenzies over various flashpoints (Bill Ayers, for one) and how so many punditiots tore their hair out, frothed, screamed, opined, panicked, predicted doom, failure, the end of the road, and the death of a career.

And then they were proved wrong. Over and over again. Compressing months and months of campaigning into a couple of hours made the breathless media tabloiditude that much more obvious.

It also pointed out the sheer absurdity of our "news" dee jays' inaccuracies in favor of ratings at the expense of facts and an informed public.

And all of that came to mind as I read this:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal told lawmakers that President Obama had engaged in a "thoughtful process" on Afghanistan and refused to criticize the president for delaying his decision to send more troops.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.):

Some of the lawmakers pressed McChrystal on Obama's lengthy decision-making, but the general described it as a "thoughtful process and wouldn't go any further," Price said. "I was a little surprised he didn't voice frustration with the delay."

More like disappointed, right Tom? There goes another Rushpublic talking point. Poof. Dither-free.

Quickie: Afghan War edition

By GottaLaff

Quickie, via Greg Sargent:

The New York Times theorizes that some Republicans may be wary of looking inconsistent in calling for a pricey troop increase “after criticizing Mr. Obama for his spending.”

That was today's Quickie. Will you still respect me in the morning?

Obama leaning toward 34,000 more troops for Afghanistan

By GottaLaff

I've been consumed by the health care debate on CSPAN today, but thought it might be important to pass this along to you:

As it now stands, the administration's plan calls for sending three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky. and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y. and a Marine brigade, for a total of as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.

Another 7,000 troops would man and support a new division headquarters for the international force's Regional Command (RC) South in Kandahar, the Taliban birthplace where the U.S. is due to take command in 2010. Some 4,000 additional U.S. trainers are likely to be sent as well, the officials said.

The first additional combat brigade probably would arrive in Afghanistan next March, the officials said, with the other three following at roughly three-month intervals, meaning that all the additional U.S. troops probably wouldn't be deployed until the end of next year. Army brigades number 3,500 to 5,000 soldiers; a Marine brigade has about 8,000 troops.

This is a no-win for the president. Whether he adds troops or pulls them out, he'll hear about it. IMHO, get them out. But what do I know, right? I just happen to be one of those people who hates death and maiming and putting our military at risk without a clear reason or positive outcome.

BushCo v. The Constitution: Guess who debated using G.I.’s in U.S. to arrest people

By GottaLaff

I just heard Rachel Maddow mention this, so I had to share. She believes that this story is payback for Cheney's recent smackdown of Bush for the Scooter Libby non-pardon, and that it will be a big deal. And since we're into big deals here at TPC:

Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.

How sick is it that we consider that kind of BushCo thinking "par for the course"?

Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.

Probably because he couldn't pronounce Lackawanna.

A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests would be nearly unprecedented in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.

As if that would stop His Dickiness.

The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.

I seem to remember posting about this possibility back when. Nobody seemed to notice. But you know what they say: Good things come to those who wait.

In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.

That would be the same Justice Department that wrote up those spiffy little torture memos.

“The president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,” the memorandum said.

Of course it did, because that's what Boy Georgie's DoJ deemed. The United Deem of America. Deem and Deemer?

The memorandum — written by the lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty — was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked the department about a president’s authority to use the military to combat terrorist activities in the United States.

Ding!

The memorandum was declassified in March. But the White House debate about the Lackawanna group is the first evidence that top American officials, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, actually considered using the document to justify deploying the military into an American town to make arrests. [...]

Former officials in the administration said this debate was not as bitter as others during Mr. Bush’s first term. The discussions did not proceed far enough to put military units on alert.

See how they could all get along when they put their minds to it?

Still, at least one high-level meeting was convened to debate the issue, at which several top Bush aides argued firmly against the proposal to use the military, advanced by Mr. Cheney, his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials.

Reminder: Read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer. Learn all about Addington, His Dickiness, and their band of merry despots.

Among those in opposition were Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council; Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael Chertoff, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. [...]

Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, said an American president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.

That, of course, was when His Dickiness was just a young boy.

Senior military officials were never consulted, former officials said. Richard B. Myers, a retired general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview that he was unaware of the discussion. [...]

Despite this guidance, some Bush aides bristled at the prospect of troops descending on an American suburb to arrest terrorism suspects.

“What would it look like to have the American military go into an American town and knock on people’s door?” said a second former official in the debate.

Um, like Iraq?

Chief James L. Michel of the Lackawanna police agreed. “If we had tanks rolling down the streets of our city,” Chief Michel said, “we would have had pandemonium down here.”

Um, like Iraq?

Video- VP Biden In Iraq Talks Troops Family Woes

Remissioning statement: 17,000 additional forces to Afghanistan

By GottaLaff

UPDATE:

VoteVets called Obama's announcement "most welcome," praising the new administration for promoting "not just a military boost, but a strengthening of our diplomatic and political efforts there."

Remissioning statement:

The troop deployment to Afghanistan will be announced as a "remissioning," meaning many, if not most, of the forces were already scheduled to deploy to Iraq but will now be diverted to Afghanistan.

[I]t will be politically characterized as a "drawdown" of U.S. military forces in Iraq, permitting the White House to claim in this one announcement that President Obama is making good on two campaign promises -- withdrawing forces from Iraq and sending additional forces to Afghanistan. [...]

According to senior Pentagon and military officials, President Obama today authorized the deployment of 17,000 additional forces to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Gates, however, either has or will sign the actual deployment order for 12,000 forces, 8,000 Marines and 4,000 soldiers for Aghanistan.

The deployment order for the additional 4,000, most support personnel, will be signed at a later date when those individual units and troops are identified. The 17,000 number was in one of the earlier orders that was sent up chain of command then back down again a couple weeks ago.

Obama seems unlikely to widen war in Afghanistan

By GottaLaff

I've gotten a few rather hostile comments over at my YouTube of President Obama's visit to Ben's Chili Bowl, of all places, suggesting that Obama is no better than Bush, because, see, he's a warmongering killer. It sure doesn't look that way from this report:

President Barack Obama, who pledged during his campaign to shift U.S. troops and resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, has done little since taking office to suggest he will significantly widen the grinding war against a resurgent Taliban.

On the contrary, Obama appears likely to streamline the U.S. focus with an eye to the worsening economy and the cautionary example of the Iraq war that sapped political support for President George W. Bush.

"There's not simply a military solution to that problem," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said last week, adding that Obama believes "that only through long-term and sustainable development can we ever hope to turn around what's going on there." [...]

Obama said he wants to add troops to turn back the Taliban, but he has not gone beyond the approximately 30,000 additional forces already under consideration by the previous administration.

A just-completed classified Joint Chiefs of Staff assessment lowers expectations in the conflict in Afghanistan.

Instead, it suggests that key goals should be to make modest gains to stabilize the governance and to eliminate terrorist safe havens [...]

The Joint Chiefs review also stresses that the strategy must be driven by what the Afghans want and that the U.S. cannot impose its own goals on the Afghan government.

Army Gen. David Petraeus is not likely to recommend a "surge" there, either.

Palin Gets Free Ad Time During Superbowl?

By GottaLaff

Via The Mudflats:

Word has it that several pro-Palin military families here in Alaska were contacted to be part of a commercial set to air during the Superbowl pre-game show. The shooting was scheduled around Sarah Palin’s calendar so she could appear in the spot. Wonder what that little bit of PR is worth? [...] The premise of the spot is to thank the troops, and it’s being paid for by an outside private source. More details to come.

Yeah, the spot is to "thank the troops". It has nothing to do with Grandma Mc2012, it's all about the troops. Isn't she just the thoughtfulest ever?

Join the RedState Chickenhawk Army Strike Force

By GottaLaff

Jon Lester linked me to this post about a pathetic group of wannabes. More like neverwills or couldn'tiftheytrieds:

Erick Erickson, the editor of RedState, has just given us fodder to use for the rest of the year. In an attempt at being politically savvy--and by telling himself that what they do is somehow akin to being a "soldier" in a "war"--Erickson has decided that conservatives need to field-organize like progressives. And what better way to motivate the "troops" for activism than by inventing your own unit crest which, of course, replicates those worn by actual combatants in real wars?

This is the unit insignia of the U.S. Army's 75th Ranger Regiment:

And this is the unit insignia of the RedState Army's Strike Force:

Like many chickenhawks who struggle with what it means to be a man in the modern era, Erickson and the "soldiers" in his budding "Strike Force" have again tried to imitate serving in the military without actually having to don a uniform, pick up a weapon, or sacrifice much of anything at all.

Could that be any more embarrassing? Or offensive? Or childish? Or presumptuous?

Or Dwight Schrutey?

Arizona police: Military must prep for unrest; IMF warns of economic riots

By GottaLaff

Martial law much? Via CLG:

'Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis.'

Ariz. police say they are prepared as War College warns military must prep for unrest

IMF warns of economic riots 17 Dec 2008 A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks. "Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," said the War College report. The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S. U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., both said U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson brought up a worst-case scenario as he pushed for the Wall Street bailout in September. Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, said that might even require a declaration of martial law, the two noted.

No, that's not disturbing at all. In fact, it's as reassuring as this was.

Veteran Report Card 2008: Who in Washington Really Support Our Troops and Vets?

From our friends at the IAVA. Hint- McCain made the D list.

From their flag lapel pins to their yellow ribbon bumper stickers, every politician in America wants you to believe they “support the troops.” But actions speak louder than words. When veterans’ issues actually came to a vote in Washington, what did your representatives do?

Now, it’s easy to find out, thanks to IAVA Action Fund’s 2008 Congressional Report Card. At IAVA Action Fund, we tracked every bill and vote on veterans’ issues. We’ve crunched the numbers, and today we’re releasing letter grades for every single Senator and Representative on Capitol Hill (including McCain, Obama and Biden). In just a few clicks, you can find out how your representatives voted.

How did Congress do this year? Over all, they scored very well. From the passage of the landmark Post-9/11 GI Bill to fully funding the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have tremendous progress to celebrate this year. More than 150 legislators earned a perfect score, a grade of A+.

But some lawmakers failed to vote in support of our troops and veterans. This year, 9 politicians earned Ds or Fs.