U.S. ambassador dissents on Afghan troop increase

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: Official: Obama rejects all Afghan war options

Dissent or tactic?

The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the last week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, said senior U.S. officials. [...]

The last-minute dissent by Eikenberry, who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, has rankled his former colleagues in the Pentagon -- as well as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said defense officials. [...]

His position as a former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is likely to give added weight to his concerns. It will also likely fan growing doubts about U.S. prospects for Afghanistan among an increasingly pessimistic public.

2005: A prescient Obama addresses dissenting Democrats

By GottaLaff

It is not uncommon to have Comment threads, here and at other blog sites, in which supposed Hillary supporters lash out against Obama supporters, and vice versa. I say "supposed" because many of us are suspicious that some, not all by any means, might be members of our lovely troll following.

One of our regular Obama fans linked to an old Daily Kos post by Barack Obama himself. Smart guy. Long winded (it's a long post), but smart, as well as wise:

How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy? [...]

When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted. Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. [...]

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. [...]

In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I do not agree with everything Obama has put out there, nor with a few of his Senate votes. However, I do think he's a good candidate with superb skills and insights. He is light years better than John Sidney McAlito.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, just as there's no such thing as a perfect mate, teacher, boss, or... person. People disagree, and ideally, will either do that civilly, or agree to disagree.

As I posted here, Russ Feingold voted for Ashcroft and Roberts, Wellstone and Dodd voted for the Patriot Act, and Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War and for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I still respect all of them, and have supported most of their efforts.

Barack Obama is our nominee. At this point, despite my initial support of Dodd and Edwards, I wouldn't have it any other way.

H/t: Commenter Nancy