Afghanistan Escalation Will (and Should) Hurt Congressional Democrats in 2010

[unhappycamper]

Afghanistan Escalation Will (and Should) Hurt Congressional Democrats in 2010
Derrick Crowe
Five-year Capitol Hill veteran, Creating a Culture of Peace nonviolence facilitator
Posted: December 26, 2009 01:13 PM

In a midterm election, you live or die by your base. The party that motivates its base to donate, volunteer and vote more effectively than the other will pick up seats in Congress. Unfortunately for Democratic incumbents, their base opposes the president's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan and wants troops brought home faster than planned. Democratic candidates for the House and Senate, then, must fight the president's escalation if they want to mitigate their losses in 2010. If they don't, the Democratic base should (and likely will) sit this one out.

Democrats emphatically oppose the war in Afghanistan and the president's latest escalation. Prior to the president's announcement at West Point, 61 percent of Democrats opposed sending more troops to Afghanistan versus 27 who supported an escalation . A USA TODAY/Gallup poll on November 20-22 found that 57 percent of Democrats wanted to start bringing troops home.

Ferreting out the implications of the post-escalation-announcement polling is slightly more complex, but shows a consistent picture of Democratic opposition to escalation in Afghanistan. When asked about the president's stated policy combining another escalation with a drawdown beginning in 2011, 58 percent of Democrats expressed their support. However, when the same poll bifurcated the two components of the policy, it became clear that Democrats supported the drawdown date, not the troop increase:

* A plurality of Democrats (43 percent) believed President Obama was sending "too many" troops.
* 62 percent of Democrats either agreed with the timetable or wanted the troops to begin coming home sooner.


Rest of article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derrick-crowe/afghanistan-escalation-wi_b_403958.html

[TexasObserver]

1. Recommend. It will definitely hurt us in 2010 elections.

Sometimes I wonder if the president has any idea how badly he's screwing up the 2010 election for Democrats with his very unprogressive policies, including this dumb war. Unfortunately, he seems to believe his personal popularity will endure, even as he abandons policies favored by his voters. He will not garner one vote from anyone who voted against him in 2008, but he will cause many who did vote for him in 2008 to stay home in 2010.

Fool me once ... ya can't get fooled again.

[Wizard777]

2. If they vote Republican in 2010. Obviously they can get fooled again.

[TexasObserver]

4. Didn't say that. If they voted Dem in 2008 and stay home in 2010, that's not getting fooled again.

I didn't say they'd vote Republican, did I? I said they'd stay home because they're disgusted with the weakness of the president and the party leadership regarding Democratic issues.

[zeemike]

3. If I said that it is all part of the plan I would be called a conspiracy theorist.

And so no one wants to think that there could actual be a plan.
The right wing does not plan and has no plan to stay in power.

And so we tend to miss the obvious, that all of these little thing add up to a big thing with time.

If I were plotting to stay in power and did not want to actually resort to murder, I would exploit everything to divide my rivals, and with a diverse side like progressives it is so easy to do when you have the help of media.
Then I would kick them in the ass with fear of some prominent evil.

Yep, it's working....the plan that is.

[NJmaverick]

5. I think that the latest terrorist attack will change the way people view things

and I think that will change the support for the Afghanistan war.

[Don Caballero]

6. Agreed

This latest attempt by Al Qaeda to disrupt the American way of life, will show the civilians that Af/Pak is a noble and worthy war.

[tekisui]

13. What a load of crap.

The failed criminal act had zero to do with Afghanistan. Zero.

[Don Caballero]

14. The attack originiated in Yemen

A haven for Al Qaeda fighters just like Af/Pak.

[tekisui]

16. So what does an attempt from one person, acting alone from Yemen

have to do with Afghanistan?

[Don Caballero]

23. The 9/11 attacks originated from Af/Pak

The Al Qaeda network is operating all over the globe. We must use all available outlets to stop them from attacking our homeland or our allies around the world.

[tekisui]

24. What does the failed attack have to do with the war in Afghanistan?

He did not come from there, he wasn't funded or supported by anyone there. The failed attempt has nothing to do with 9/11. Absolutely nothing.

[Don Caballero]

25. The mindset of terrorists originated from Af/Pak because of 9/11

If 9/11 did not happen this conversation would not be happening. Since Af/Pak is the central front for terrorist training and planning, the Nigerian surely had been encouraged by the 9/11 attacks.

[tekisui]

26. AfPak is not the central front for training and planning.

No attacks on the west have originated from there for 7 years or more. It really doesn't matter if he was encouraged by 9/11. His acts still had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan.

[Don Caballero]

28. He was absolutely encouraged to attack American due to the war.

There were even reports of him mumbling about the war when he was subdued by the heroic Dutchman.

[tekisui]

29. He was encouraged to attack us because of our occupation.

Don't you get it? Our war in Afghanistan is not targeting potential terrorists who would attack us on US soil. But, it is serving as a recruitment for would-be attackers from other parts of the world. You make my point for me.

[Don Caballero]

30. That theory has not been proven

Terrorists will not just go away if we left Iraq and Af/Pak. Their number one goal is to kill Americans for a plethora of reasons.

[Toots]

7. What exactly did a bumbling idiot have to do with Afghanistan?

Terrorist attack.....come on......

[NJmaverick]

8. People were starting to feel like Al Qaeda had been beaten

that they no longer posed a threat. This attack may have failed but it served as a stark reminder that Al Qaeda is still active and is still a threat.

[tekisui]

12. He was not al-qaeda. He was a lone wolf. Jeez, you are so transparent.

But, what is really sad, is that it's clear you will use anything you can find to justify a lost war.

[Don Caballero]

31. He is part of the Al Qaeda mindset

Maybe not a paid dues member but definetely a follower of their leadership.

[Mari333]

9. actually, the more we occupy other people's countries

steal their resources, attach permanent bases there, continue sending in troops and mercenaries, continue flexing our adolescent muscles and stuffing our own hand picked dictators into their countries, and continue killing people all over the globe to assert ourselves in the name of multinational corporate profit, the more people here might finally, and DO finally realize that when we get any blowback about it , its probably OUR OWN FAULT.

[NJmaverick]

10. I not a big one for blaming the victims. While certain foreign policy

has been less then helpful, I am not willing to give murders and brutal people a free pass.

[Mari333]

19. murders and brutal people..again, thats what we have been doing in afghanistan

yemen, pakistan, and iraq,.
we are the brutal people and we are committing the murders..and we experience the consequences of that. we create terrorists by being terrorists ourselves.

[tekisui]

11. What terrorist attack?

There was a feeble failed attempt by one criminal. It wasn't a 'terrorist attack', it was a failed criminal act. It has nothing, remotely, to do with Afghanistan. That is like connecting 9/11 to Iraq.

[NJmaverick]

15. A failed attack is still an attack

Edit to add- "your claim of a lone criminal" is incorrect as the terrorist has admitted to receiving training from Al Qaeda.

[tekisui]

17. It was an attempt, and has absolutely nothing to do with the war

in Afghanistan. You are being quite intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

[NJmaverick]

18. Wait a second you were the one trying to claim a terrorist that

admitted to being trained by Al Qaeda was just "a lone criminal". Based on that, you are not in a position be accusing anyone of intellectual dishonesty. Still your notion that the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Al Qaeda would be an incorrect one.

[tekisui]

20. He was a lone criminal.

And, he was not from Afghanistan. he had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

When you try to connect a solo act by a man from Yemen to the war in Afghanistan, you sound like the bushies connecting Iraq to 9/11. And, you are just as dishonest as them when you do it.

[NJmaverick]

21. Repeating something doesn't make it true

I can't discuss something with someone making up their own facts

[tekisui]

22. You are trying to propel false propaganda. Why do you repeat

falsehoods?

[Winterblues]

27. Is there any consideration that he "admitted" under duress?

The USA is known to torture people. The current Administration refuses to hold anyone accountable for torture so it would appear it has become accepted policy..I have learned to question authority because it seems to tell LIES more often than it does the truth.

[NJmaverick]

32. President Obama has made it more than clear torture is no longer an accepted practice

beyond that your suggestion that they tortured the suspect while in the hospital seems pretty far fetched.

[Winterblues]

33. Obama has said that yes but he also said

"Beginning on Day One"..."One Brigade a Month" .."I support the Public Option".. He has indeed said many things that sound great to me but his actions speak louder..It has just been revealed that we, the USA, is indeed still torturing people in a secret prison in Afghanistan run by the CIA and Blackwater...In Baghran (sp) I believe.

[NJmaverick]

34. You are blurring the lines between law and political statements

which is confusing you as to what is really going on.

[Winterblues]

36. What exactly is the Law on torture?

If there is Law against it and the Leader of our country chooses not to enforce that Law or Prosecute breakers of that Law then does the Law truly exist?

[NJmaverick]

37. Here

<<Obama's Torture Ban
President Obama issued an Executive Order yesterday banning torture and providing for treatment of individuals in U.S. custody consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the Federal Torture Statute, and the Convention Against Torture.

The EO revoked Bush's 2007 EO 13440 (tightening restrictions on interrogation techniques, but leaving some wiggle room) and "ll executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals . . . ." It also effectively revokes Office of Legal Counsel opinions authorizing abusive interrogation techniques: It prohibits the Attorney General from relying upon "any interpretation" "issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009," in interpreting any interrogation law--"including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document . . . ."

In stark contrast to the legal analysis in the Bush administration OLC opinions authorizing abusive interrogation techniques under the President's Article II powers and the AUMF, the Obama EO simply states this:

Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

SDS>>

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/01/obamas-torture.html

[clear eye]

39. Don't give 'em any ideas. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Especially when the casualty rates go up during the "fighting" months in a lost war. K&R

My rep (D) is in a purple district and voted for more funding. The loss of the left could cost him his seat.

[amborin]

38. K&R