Showing posts with label mccain afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccain afghanistan. Show all posts

Sunday, March 29, 2009

McCain on Geithner and Afghanistan

McCain mentions "good asset" banks. Are there any? Don't they all -- minus some of the community banks -- have bad assets? McCain thought Geithner explained the plan well but slammed him for not being coherent earlier.
McCain also mentioned that Geithner hasn't said how much is left from TARP 1. The WSJ estimates:
The Treasury has tried to revamp its $700 billion financial-rescue program, promising "a new era of accountability, transparency and conditions." But the Treasury isn't answering a key question: How much is left in the rescue fund?

Based on Dow Jones Newswires' reporting and calculations, it appears that Treasury has, at most, $52.6 billion left in its rescue fund. That would mean about 92% is already committed. That assumes the Treasury spends $100 billion in TARP funds to rid bank balance sheets of toxic assets.

The Treasury has yet to provide an official accounting.
McCain says the loyal opposition debate could be more respectful.
I'll post full video of Meet the Press when it's up here.

McCain says there will be lots of soldiers killed (casualties) in Afghanistan.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

McCain's Earlier Stance on Afghanistan

This from slinkerwink:
RUSSERT: Would you have any problem expanding President Bush's orders to the CIA to go after Osama bin Laden to include Saddam Hussein?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I leave that to the president. But as a matter of principle and morality, of course not.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I think Joe's right.

And I would just like to add one additional point. I believe that we will succeed. We will endure in Afghanistan. We will take out bin Laden, and we will take out the Taliban. And then we've got a major challenge of a stable government, but...

RUSSERT: How long will that take?

MCCAIN: I think the longer we give the impression that we're there for, the shorter it'll be. Because, as you quoted from articles earlier, they think they can outlast us. I don't think they can this time.

RUSSERT: Do you believe the American people will continue to stay with that campaign?

MCCAIN: Absolutely, and I think the president is doing a great job in leading America and making us aware of the challenge we face.

But I think the real crunch is going to come after Afghanistan is settled and then we have to address the other countries, including Iraq. That's where the coalition may not be so strong. That's where people like the Saudis and the French and many others may have real reservations. read the whole thing

What happened? Well, as we know, the Bush administration thought they had Afghanistan all wrapped up. You know, like Iraq, "mission accomplished." Who knows what this administration's line of thinking is. Nothing has been transparent. I don't even think George Bush knows. Dick Cheney and others are the holders of the keys to the Bush administration.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Gates Asks For More Troops in Afghanistan

It seems Obama's call for more attention to Afghanistan is coming to fruition. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is asking for more troops. Obama has been talking about Afghanistan for months now. McCain, all over Iraq, has avoided Afghanistan. 
CBS: Pentagon leaders on Wednesday signaled a surge in U.S. forces in Afghanistan "sooner rather than later" - a shift that could come later this year as they prepare to cut troop levels in Iraq.

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, defense officials said sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence.

"I think that we are clearly working very hard to see if there are opportunities to send additional forces sooner rather than later," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pentagon reporters. But, he added that no final decisions or recommendations have been made.

His comments suggested an acceleration in what had been plans to shift forces there early next year. And they came as the political discourse on Afghanistan as a key military priority escalated on both Capitol Hill and the presidential campaign trail.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from meetings with commanders in Afghanistan, said they clearly want more troops now.

"It's a tougher fight, it's a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there," said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.

Gates also said that we can't kill our way to victory. Hmmm. Seems I've heard that line before. But who said it? Oh, yes, it was Obama.

On Tuesday, Gates expanded on that theme, using the worsening situation in Afghanistan as an example of the problem. A recent spate of deadly attacks in Afghanistan has underscored the resurgence of the Taliban there - more than six years after they were ousted by the U.S.-led invasion.

The surge in violence has led to calls for the U.S. to send more troops to Afghanistan, shifting them away from what has been an improving security situation in Iraq.

Military leaders, however, are not yet ready to say how many troops can be pulled out of Iraq, stressing that the gains there are fragile.

Gates on Tuesday was introduced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - a choice that reflected their generally strong working relationship and his vocal support for giving her more resources.

"We cannot kill or capture our way to victory," Gates said, adding that military operations should support measures that promote economic and political growth. That effort, he said, must be coordinated with the U.N., NATO, other nations and agencies such as United States Agency for International Development.

"The Foreign Service is not the Foreign Legion, and the U.S. military should never be mistaken for a Peace Corps with guns," said Gates.

In the future, Gates said, the U.S. may not be toppling a regime and rebuilding a nation, but there will be a need to help countries that are struggling with insurgents, failed governments or natural disasters.

In fact, I would argue that Obama helped turn attention toward Afghanistan. He also led the discussion of race and fatherhood. He led the discussion on patriotism. He led the discussion on religion. He challenged people to think.

Obama is a natural leader, which is why so many people hate him so dearly. He's good at what he does. The good ones are always loathed by the folks resistant to expanding their minds. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anyone who doesn't support Obama is a hate monger. I recognize that people have different ideas and are inclined to support John McCain or someone else. I'm talking about the radical haters, who spend their day photoshopping ugly posters and such.