Obama did not criticize the troops. I have been watching how this media seems very biased toward him from the start of this campaign.

WRIGHT: Then this week at a New Hampshire forum, Obama seemed to criticize the performance of U.S. troops in Afghanistan

How was he critical of our troops? I still do not get this? We do kill civillians. Can we never mention this in the eyes of the GOP?

No, apparently not.

But even if he DID criticize "the troops"... so what? They're humans like everyone else, and do great things as well as horrible things.

I hate this idea that "criticizing the troops" is somehow forbidden. That's what leads to disasters. 

It's the idea of criticizing the troops without giving them the benefit of the doubt that poses a problem with some.  Troops, as you should know, do what they are told, and they fight brave fights.  To immediately criticize those who give you and I freedom is unfair to them and disrespectful.  The military has accountability measures in place, and soldiers are held to a standard to which they are to adhere to, or they know they can and will be court martialed.  It's the idea that Obama conveyed in say that we are "just" air raiding and killing civilians.  No one is disputing that civilians have been killed, but to suggest that this is the only thing are doing  there is disrespectful and unacceptable.  That is the issue.

This is just the Bush apologists' default method for derailing a conversation which is heading in an embarassing direction for the GOP. It's based on the bogus premise that our soldiers are so thin skinned and emotionally fragile that they just cannot function if we criticize the idiotic policies of President George W. Numbnuts Bush. They usually throw it out there when someone raises an uncomfortable truth to which they cannot respond.

What an ass, this guy is.

Congratulations, David Wright. You've been Hannitized!

Is David Wright the NY Mets 3rd baseman also?

This is ridiculous. It is obvious that Obama was attacking our troops. The folks at Media Matters for Al Qaeda, none of whom served in the military, should stop spinning for this vile man.

Buh-bye troll...

YOU are a liar, stop lying

Why would it matter if MMFA staffers served or not?  How does that invalidate anything they have written?

Secondly, if it was really obvious, you guys would stop relying on interpretations and paraphrases of what Obama said and would show his remarks in full context - without embellishment of any kind.  You simply can't and won't do that.

This is ridiculous. It is obvious that Obama was attacking our troops. The folks at Media Matters for Al Qaeda, none of whom served in the military, should stop spinning for this vile man.

I see... Well, when you put THAT way it seems obvious.

*rolls eyes*

If it is "Media Matters for Al Qaeda". Then why are you fraternizing with us terrorists?

Since you are knowingly fraternizing with terrorists, you are commiting an act of treason. Therefore, you must also hate the troops, you flag-burning hippie. 

Wow! Neo-Con "logic" is fun!

Kevin, by "spinning", do you mean providing entire quotes in context, as opposed to clipping phrases out of those quotes?

Well, well. JamesBondKevin has come in from the cold. I guess he's been on a secret mission to some terrorist hotbed. Kevin went to spy school, you know.

I'm glad Kevin has time in his busy schedule of torturing terrorists and rescuing kittens to stop by and share his stale Rush Limbaugh talking points. It makes me feel....special.

We'll encourage the eligible MMFA staffers to enlist as soon as we see the bush girls, the Romney boys or anyone named Cheyney in uniform.

This is ridiculous. It is obvious that Obama was attacking our troops. The folks at Media Matters for Al Qaeda, none of whom served in the military, should stop spinning for this vile man.

kevin

-------------------------------

Hey Dick Cheney where were you and G Dumbya when it was time to serve in Nam?

Oh god please don't respond to trolls, they can't be taught, they don't want to learn, and eventually responding to them just ruins the thread. Which, I suspect, is their intention.  When someone says something that goes against the Media Matters take but is intelligent and thoughtful, we can have a decent debate.  When someone uses terms like "Media Matters for Al Quaeda" it ought to be a good enough indication that that person is not interested in debate, just mudslinging. Really, not worth our time.

I believe the greatest comeback during this whole campaign was Obama's when he responded to Hillary's comment about not saying things even if you think them.  It was something to the effect:  "I don't believe in hiding things from the American people....there has been too much of that."

Wright needed a sound byte of some kind. Since he does "cartoon" news reporting what do you expect?

Cut the story and Run with it .........

Our troops in Afghanistan do need criticized. They sit in air-conditioned bases eating pizza and drinking beer while the Taliban slowly move out and take over more land from their enclave that US troops refuse to enter. We have plenty of troops in Afghanistan, they just don't do anything. We're not setting up infrastructure, repairing roads, bridges, and public works, organizing border guards and crossings, etc. Our troops sit on bases and do NOTHING in Afghanistan. You can blame our moron generals for that.

Obama doesn't know this, he doesn't understand the situation or warfare at all. He'd just send more troops to sit and do squat under the same generals.

Part of the issue deals with the policy, rather than the troops.  The policy which has been followed has been based on the use of technology rather than "boots on the ground."  This has been the problem.  The Bush administration has focused on technology, rather that well qualified physical personel.  In regards to the Taliban this has meant shifting troops to Iraq, and ignoring the Taliban.  The substitution of technologies such as those of the airforce have been based on expanded usage of technologies.  These technologies, however in spite of the labor saving goals have increased the level of inadvertant casualties while limiting the capability of building up regional infrastructures.  Obama is, i suspect, at least hypothetically dealing with this issue.

I think the problem is that the current administration hasn't used EITHER technology or "boots on the ground". They are plainly and simply so incompetent that they haven't managed to carry out a single successful strategy, and it doesn't matter what they have done.

Bill Clinton, and to some degree George HW Bush before him, had simple, limited strategies in place that worked at least somewhat (many of which were IMO objectionable from a humanitarian standpoint, but that's another matter).

I think what's needed is a mix of the old and the new - but more importantly, the non-military side of these conflicts need to be dealt with. And the current administration is incompetent in that area too.

I don't think Obama is smart enough to grasp the realities of infrastructure. To him, it's a catch-phrase in a speech given at a fund-raiser. Beware the leader who talks much and does little.