Obama would lose to any Republican in the field because no one trusts him anymore.  He has aliented all sides thoroughly.  A primary challenge is the Democrats' best hope.  There is no downside.

and perhaps curse this generation for letting it happen.  If the dollar collapses when our Chinese credit card maxes out and their future is gangs running wild because there is no money for police, because we dumped $5 trillion into the Graveyard of Empires, they will justly curse us.  All because we believed a bunch of pols who taught us to be afraid of our own shadows and whose families now live in offshore villas.

and therefore we (US foreign policy) bears responsibility.  There would be no Taliban had we just left the country alone.

and therefore we (US foreign policy) bears responsibility.  There would be no Taliban had we just left the country alone.

a day after McChrstal's sign off is revealed. There are not many ways you can imagine these kinds of quotes being used but in a bad way.  The editor never said he was asked to remove anything.  He said there was no "push back" at all.  If they are fact checking quotes, which is part of what fact-check is, there is no way only the bad quotes would have been omitted by any professional fact check staff. What editor Bates said is pretty clear: "McChrystal was informed of the quotes prior to its publication."

It sounds like hurried catch-up ball to bloggers (like on MyDD!) who happened to be paying attention to Morning Joe, and let the cat out of the bag.  Why would they fact check some quotes but not others?

Thanks for the heads up, though.  I'll look for the article.  Sounds like damage control mode (oh yes, we checked quotes, but not THOSE quotes.  Uh huh.)

McCaffrey's "burn rate" is $9 billion a month.  For that you could hire the entire country for 2 years, and the informal-agrarian economy (the real economy in Afghanistan) would take off. 

Sorry I think you are brainwashed.  Most voters agree with me read "Public Opinion in U.S. Turns Against Afghan War"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081903066.html

The war continues because it si profitable, it has nothing to do with your "freedom," lest you missed my point, which I suspect you did.

ok, I'll ask a three-year old with her ribs showing to stop hiding the Taliban.  

You are ill-informed.  They don't hide the Taliban.  The Taliban come into their villages and put the kids on the roof.  The kind of war we want no part of.

If you sincerely want to know what's going on (I doubt it, sounds like Faux News has got your brain) read this

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR35.1/rosen .php

I didn't say just hungry, I said starving.  To death.  Typical American reaction, fuck them, what about me?  Hope you know the difference between hungry and starving.

Exactly.

That's a silly thing to say.  He wouldn't lose the respect of the entire military.  In case you haven't heard soldiers don't exactly like officers and especially generals as a general rule.  He would gain the respect of those he ultimately leads and is responsible to.  The grunts who do the heavy lifting.

Good question.  We do know it's someone highly-enough placed to be quoted without attribution as true knowledgeable, by a top-shelf news organization.  Which means probably not much less than a three-star.  Since McChrystal has already implicitly challenged the president in public by saying  not granting his troop request "risks failure," which is when Obama should have fired him, he or someone very close to him is a hunch.  At any rate he could be fired for that alone and be made an example of.  An underling does not constrict the president's options by hinting at treason ("failure" would mean more terrorist attacks) in public.  How they fight it out behind closed doors is another matter.  Any ideas on who else it could be?  

He could say the "peace dividend" we will gain from stabilizing Afghanistan through civilian means will be plowed right back into our own economy, for job programs here.  In this case saving $2 trillion by spending what they run through in jet fuel in a few months is a pretty good return on investment (to use Joe Stiglitz's ball park numbers of what all-out war cost in Iraq).

Dreyfuss is right on target.  There is already some development under the present regime, and brave and honest bureaucrats and workers on the ground.  It just isn't nearly enough.  We should identify these players and bolster them independent of the Karzai government.  They'll get rid of him eventually, but the hungry can't wait.

Sure and just let them starve in the meantime.  A cash-for-work jobs program can be tailored to minimize the opportunity for corruption, by putting a limit of 20% overhead on work projects with cash paid directly to workers.  It's not impossible, in fact it's being done right now and is thoroughly detailed in the White Paper noted in the diary.  Why is it that when it comes to an enormous enterprise like war the sky is the limit, Star Wars, smart bombs, but when it comes to feeding starving children it oh f it, it's too hard.  We have designed "smart aid", please read about it.

http://jobsforafghans.org/WhitePaper.pdf