“If I've lost Olberman, I've lost Middle America."

That's comical. It seems that there are two sides to this end-war story that are represented at all. On one side, you have the hawks who want to stay there because they are paranoid if we don't have people there to snuff out Al Qaeda, it'll come back tomorrow and blow up Disney World. On the other side, we have people who think we should have every single soldier in the world home by lunch.

Truth is, the real discussion is in how to we define the end game and how do we go about achieving that end. There are legitimate disagreements on that that are worth a national debate. But we get stuck on paranoia vs. unrealism.

 

Olbermann wanted the troops home years ago, when a certain someone else was president.

 

And a considerable number of people are still asking for that to happen. It's not going to be an overnight deal, I hope those folks know that. Can't pull all of them now at the same time.

And by the way, it's not a "special comment" anymore, Keith. It's a commentary. Just like the ones you have been doing for 10+ years now? How is each one "special"?

 

So does this mean that Olbermann thinks the President is the Worst Person in the World?

 

I respect Olbermann critiquing of the President's war policy - of course, when we were in Iraq, most on the left said we shouldn't be in Iraq, we should be focused on Afghanistan. Now that we're focused on Afghanistan, they want to bail?
I understand people have grown tired with this war, but there are no easy answers. Yes - staying there will cost more lives and billions more. And No, we don't know what will happen if we leave.
The truth is - we'll be involved there until something more urgent and pressing diverts our attention.

 

This. And props to everyone for not turning this into a pissing match.

 

But as a percentage, Olberman's following is a fraction of what Cronkite's was.

Cronkite truly had Middle America. Olberman had the wing-nut left.

 

I recently heard a talk from a former general who recently retired from the Army after commanding the 4th Division in Baghdad for 15 months. He was asked about Afghanistan, and he pulled no punches. Basically, his take was that there are sound strategic reasons for us keeping a presence in Iraq, but there is no reason – none – for us to be in Afghanistan, and if he had his way we'd pull out every single one of our troops tomorrow. In his opinion, the only thing we've accomplished there is to prop up the opium trade. And since my son the Army National Guard sergeant is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan in about 11 months, that's a view I heartily agree with.

 

If anything, it does give us a base with which to launch drone strikes against AQ in Pakistan.

Thank your son for his service.

 

If I'm Olbermann on this thread, I've lost the second 'N' off my name ...

 

Cronkite would call this entire government, president, congress, etc., the biggest piece of shit he's ever seen. I'm reminded of a similar off camera with the audio still rolling remark he was famous for.....

 

Well they (me and my ilk) want to "bail" because we thought we were at war in Afghanistan for 2 reasons: 1, first and foremost by far, was to find and kill Bin Laden. You know, the guy who started all of this? Yeah, him -- liberals (and conservatives outside of the Bush White House) wanted him dead ASAP. No 2, we wanted to cripple Al Qeada and make sure another 9/11 wouldn't happen.

Seems to me goal 1 is completed and goal 2 is within reach, and can be accomplished via drones and small force attacks.

Meanwhile, us liberals know the government can not continue spending as much money as we do overseas while our cities crumble. Therefore, it's time to get the fuck out and get home.