So a good friend and I disagree on almost everything possible when it comes to politics. But we can good naturedly disagree and argue and have done so for a long time. So I responded to a comment on her social blogging site, and a third party butted in. Now this third party is a complete right-wing tool (R.W. Tool). And I've been given permission by my friend to respond to her, but I thought I would turn to the hive mind and hopefully get some help. She wants facts. I'd like to give her facts. So, I'm hoping you can help me craft a proper response.
Here is my first run at her post with my responses
You wrote:
Well...okay.
http://www.reuters.com/...
We'll start there. He's trying to replicate a policy that worked for Holbrooke in Iraq. Iraq and Afghanistan are completely different.
I respond:
Again, instead of simply saying we should not deal with the Taliban, give an option of what Obama CAN do. The Taliban are vile. No argument there. But Obama does not have a lot of good options. He has a choice of bad ones. Really bad ones. There’s almost no way he will be able to make a successful end to either war.
You wrote:
It would also help if Obama wouldn't start his foreign policy by dissing our closest and staunchest ally.
I respond:
Oh, the snub that wasn’t? What snub? You mean this one? http://www.nytimes.com/... Or are you referring to the fake controversy being stirred up by Fox News?
You wrote:
And rather than repeat the oft-disproven liberal canard about Iraq being a distraction, actually read about who and what organizations were dismantled when we went into Iraq. And what terrorist organizations suddenly had to find new funding when Saddam was removed. And the treasure house of information we gathered from Abu Nidal's office. And the payments to PLO suicide bombers' families as "rewards" that Saddam was sending. I could go on for days...but you won't find anything about most of that in the regular press, because they were so terribly concerned with reporting ONLY what made Bush look bad, as opposed to any kind of real analysis.
I respond:
Iraq is and continues to be a distraction. There’s nothing liberal or conservative about that. There is only reality. Bush fucked up when he lied his way into a war that took resources away from the stated goal of catching Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Go back to Ned’s original post. That is what caused her understandable anger. I am not happy that we have to resort to dealing with the Taliban. Let me repeat and I’ll type slowly for you ... Bush lied his way into a war.
And what "regular" press? Do you think that the mainstream media is actually liberal leaning? Mainstream media is owned by the same corporations that brought this lovely fiscal mess to us.
You wrote:
Want to learn more? Then be open to different sources. Challenge your own thinking. Read and search for what would disprove what you believe. I do that constantly. Start here: http://pajamasmedia.com/...
and search under "Iraq". Read what pops up.
I respond:
Pajamasmedia.com? Really? Why don’t you quote Fox News, Free Republic or the Drudge Report? You do not challenge your thinking by feeding at the trough of such places. You merely reinforce your narrow world view.
You wrote:
And go back and learn about what actually caused the financial crisis instead of uniformly blaming Bush for everything. We'll start with the number of times Bush called for investigations and such on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,(THE main source for the huge crash in derivative trading, which has snowballed through the financial markets) but was stymied by the Democratically controlled congress. Who reassured everyone that both of those organizations were FINE as little as July of last year. Aside from that enormous fine that was paid because Fannie mae (I think...could be the other) was cooking the books and lying about their accounting to cover the huge mess they were in. But hey, Franklin Raines walked off with what, $90 mil for the fine job he did running the place, so who cares?
I respond:
True, this financial meltdown was not all Bush’s fault. He’s not competent enough to cause anything. I lay the blame squarely on the trend of the last thirty years of deregulation, corruption and greed. And that crosses party lines. It is not a liberal or conservative issue. What has happened is that the wealth transfer from the lower classes to the higher classes has happened at an insane rate.
You wrote:
Then let's talk about the guy Bush wouldn't have anything to do with because he's such a fanatical dictator and opresses his people so horribly, but Obama's going to have to be buddies with, cuz we need the monster's support to have the supply lines we need for the new offensive in Afghanistan. http://pajamasmedia.com/...
I respond:
So? (to quote Cheney) Have you ever heard of an honorable way to win a war? You kill people, you make deals with insane people. Give an alternative that will work.
You wrote:
Then let's talk about the TRIPLING of the national deficit (which was HIDEOUS when Bush was going to do it, according to the NYTimes three years ago, but is perfectly okay now, since it's a democrat doing it) and how it's actually going to make this financial mess much worse, and then cause a real recession next year for sure.
I respond:
Recession next year? Have you looked around you lately? We’ve been in a recession at least since Dec 2007.
http://thinkprogress.org/...
http://www.bloomberg.com/...
I don’t think you will find anyone terribly pleased that the government needs to spend so much money to get us out of the current fiscal crisis. But Friedman had his chance and now it’s Keynes turn. At least Obama is being honest about the cost of the wars, unlike Bush who kept it off the official books.
You wrote:
Buzzwords and feel-nice talk are so easy. Obama's got a massive task ahead of him, and he's made some huge gaffes that are terrifying to people who's opinions I have enormous respect for...experts in foreign policy and diplomacy. This world is a tremendously complex and dangerous place--and the solutions are hardly as simple as some think they should be.
I respond:
Again, I go back to my original question, what do you suggest that Obama do in Afghanistan?