CNN

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President said in last week's speech that he will send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan - but also set July 2011 as a target for starting to withdraw forces.

But you'd never know it listening to some of his top assistants over the weekend.

A lot of people didn't like that the president set a timeline for withdrawal. Republicans suggested setting a withdrawal date 18 months out would allow the Taliban and other enemies to just wait us out. Also - Afghan and Pakistani officials are worried the U.S. will leave too quickly.

So here's what we got over the weekend:

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: quote "we are not talking about an exit strategy and a drop-dead deadline".

• Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "there isn't a deadline"... and only a "handful" or "small number" of troops might start withdrawing in July 2011... conditions permitting

• National Security Adviser General James Jones says the July 2011 withdrawal date is quote "not a cliff, it's a ramp" for the beginning of turning over to Afghan Forces... Jones adds the U.S. would be in the region "for a long time"

• And head of U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus - says the president's strategy "doesn't trigger a rush to the exits"

That should clear things up.

Meanwhile - Afghan President Hamid Karzai is asking for patience... saying that his country's military might not be ready in 18 months to take over responsibility.

Here’s my question to you: President Obama said the U.S. would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011. Do you believe him?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

When it comes to Afghanistan, President Obama better be right. After months of meetings and criticism that he was "dithering" and "weak" on Afghanistan - he finally made what may be the most important decision of his presidency.

President Obama spoke at West Point last night. He laid out his plan for an increase of 30,000 troops in efforts to eventually begin to transition U.S. forces out of Afghanistan starting in July 2011.

But the announcement to deploy 30,000 additional troops is cloaked in contradiction. We're going to rush more troops in so we can begin to rush them out in 18 months. The Taliban and al Qaeda will probably make a note of this timetable.

You don't suppose the decision to withdraw in July of 2011 would have anything to do with the President's 2012 re-election campaign do you?

There was no mention of how we're going to pay for this. The 30,000 additional troops will cost an additional $30 billion in the first year.

Where's that money going to come from? Some Democrats are calling for a so-called "war surtax." But With a fragile U.S. economy, an unemployment rate topping 10-percent, and a costly health care reform plan on the table - there may not be much appetite for that.

Meanwhile - a new USA Today/Gallup poll suggests the American public has just about gotten its belly full of Afghanistan. Only 35-percent approve of what President Obama is doing there. That's down from 49-percent in September and 56-percent in July. 55-percent disapprove… not the kind of numbers that are likely to lead to a second term. Can you spell Vietnam?

Here’s my question to you: How optimistic are you about success in Afghanistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Should the wealthiest Americans pay more taxes to send more troops to Afghanistan?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Some top Democrats think the wealthy should have to pony up more taxes in order to pay for a troop increase in Afghanistan.

Democrat Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says people earning more than $200,000 or $250,000 a year should pay an "additional income tax."

Levin says richer Americans have done "incredibly well,” and that it's important to pay for a troop surge instead of increasing the federal debt.

Democratic Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, also says
he favors a so-called "war surtax."

Obey says that people making $400,000 or $500,000 per year should be asked to pay as much as 5 percent of their incomes, while lower earners might pay a smaller amount - down to 1 percent.

Obey says if we don't increase taxes, the war in Afghanistan will "bleed every dollar in the budget away from any other initiative." Unless of course the government cut spending elsewhere. Hah!

First they wanted to tax the rich to pay for health care reform. Now they want to do it to pay for more troops for war. This administration also plans to increase the top income tax rate. Pretty soon the rich won't be.

The White House suggests it could cost as much as 40 billion dollars per year to send 40,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. President Obama is expected to announce his decision in the next few weeks. He will meet with his national security team tonight - again.

Here’s my question to you: Should additional taxes be levied against wealthy Americans to pay for more troops in Afghanistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Read the rest of this entry »

U.S. army in Afghanistan.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Still no decision from Pres. Obama on Afghanistan, despite eight formal meetings that have consumed more than 20 hours.

A lot of people are asking what's taking the president so long. His own press corps used the first question on his Asia trip to ask "what piece of information" he's still waiting for to make the call on this war, now in its ninth year.

The president got a little testy and said the people involved in Afghanistan "recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right." He says the decision will come "soon."

The issue is making the president look weak and indecisive. Former V.P. Cheney has accused Pres. Obama of "dithering”. Mitt Romney says Mr. Obama "can't make up his mind".

Meanwhile, with record violence in Afghanistan, the Army says morale among the troops has fallen... with a lot of soldiers struggling with depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress. There is a shortage of mental health workers; there were only 43 in Afghanistan at the time of the Army survey.

And most sadly, the Army says the number of suicides among active-duty troops is on track to reach a new high this year.

Is all of this lost on the Commander in Chief?

Here's the question: When it comes to Afghanistan, are you tired of waiting for a decision from President Obama?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Read the rest of this entry »

Call it CBS News versus the White House.

CBS reports that President Obama intends to give General Stanley McChrystal most - if not all - of the 40,000 troops he's asking for in Afghanistan. They say the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands of more support troops.

General Stanley McChrystal is the U.S. Military commander in Afghanistan.

According to CBS, the troop buildup would last for about four years - until the Afghan military doubles in size. This surge would mean the number of U.S. troops would grow from the current 68,000 to about 100,000 by the end of the president's first term.

But the White House insists the CBS story is false. They call reports that the president has made a decision about Afghanistan "absolutely false." They say Mr. Obama still hasn't received or reviewed "final options" with his national security team.

So - who's telling the truth here? It comes down to the word of the Obama White House against the network of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.

Of course... CBS News also saw Dan Rather step down in 2005 after apologizing for a report that questioned President George W. Bush's National Guard service. Rather said the report was based on false documents.

Meanwhile the Associated Press seems to support the CBS story, saying President Obama is nearing a decision to add tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan - but not the 40,000 that McChrystal wants.

Some officials dub that likely troop increase McChrystal Light since it would fall short of the general's request.

Here’s my question to you: CBS News says nearly 40,000 additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan. The White House says the story is false. Whom do you believe?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev who has "been there, done that" when it comes to Afghanistan says that instead of sending more troops, President Obama should prepare to withdraw U.S. forces. It's advice Mr. Obama may want to consider as he weighs sending up to 40,000 additional troops into that eight year old war.

Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev .

You see, the Soviets occupied Afghanistan in 1979. A decade later, they picked up their toys and went home after intense opposition from Afghan fighters, backed by the U.S. and Pakistan.

13,000 Soviet soldiers - and more than a million Afghans - died during those 10 years. At the time that Gorbachev withdrew his forces - he called the occupation of Afghanistan a "bleeding wound."

Gorbachev now says the Soviets talked about sending more troops back then - but decided against it. Instead, he says they chose to work on domestic development in Afghanistan and promoting reconciliation between the various factions in the country.

Gorbachev acknowledges that terrorism can't be ignored... but that the overall emphasis should be on dialogue and ultimately a withdrawal of troops.

Meanwhile President Obama has been holding meetings for over a month now with top military and foreign policy advisers about what to do next in Afghanistan. Maybe some day he'll make up his mind.

Last month was the deadliest in the eight year war for U.S. troops.

Here’s my question to you: Should President Obama heed former Soviet Pres. Gorbachev’s advice on Afghanistan and prepare to withdraw U.S. troops?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As President Obama weighs whether to send as many as 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan - the government we're supporting over there continues to become more of a joke. President Hamid Karzai has been declared the winner in the disputed election; after his chief challenger Abdullah Abdullah dropped out of the runoff that would have happened Saturday.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai addresses a press conference at the Presidential Palace in Kabul.

Abdullah was calling for the resignations of top election officials to avoid the kind of fraud that happened in the first election. Didn't happen.

Faced with a transparently phony situation, President Obama is calling for "a new chapter" of improved governance in Afghanistan now that Karzai's re-election is complete. He really doesn't have much of a choice.

Mr. Obama says that Karzai has to take on the rampant corruption and drug trade - which he hasn't done so far and has helped the Taliban make its comeback.

Fat chance... maybe Karzai's brother - a suspected player in Afghanistan's illegal opium business and also suspected of rigging those August elections - could head up the Afghan Ethics Committee.

With each new development our presence in Afghanistan looks more and more futile. And it's no surprise that Afghan political experts along with regular citizens there say the elections have undermined the people's faith in democracy.

Meanwhile President Karzai vows that he will stamp out corruption and work with the Taliban. But even the Taliban isn't buying that - calling the election a fraud manufactured by Washington. Just what we need as our troops continue to die in that godforsaken place and more of them could be going there soon.

Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. place its faith in Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

An Afghan opium farmer stands next to his poppy field in southwest Afghanistan. U.S. Marines based there are battling a Taliban insurgency funded in large part by the drug export trade. (PHOTO CREDIT: John Moore/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As U.S. troops suffer the deadliest month so far in the war in Afghanistan, it seems worth asking exactly what our strategy is.

Turns out the U.S. is now set to pay Taliban fighters to switch sides and stop killing our troops. Supporters say the buyout idea is meant to separate local Taliban from their leaders,which is similar to a program used to win over insurgents in Iraq.

Many of these fighters owe no particular allegiance to the Taliban, but rather support them for a paycheck and because there is no other way for them to support their families.

But experts say that although the program may have some success, the U.S. is ultimately buying a "very temporary allegiance." You don't have to be an expert to figure that out.

Speaking of payments, The New York Times reported yesterday that the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a suspected major player in the country's drug trade - and has been on the CIA payroll for eight years.

This makes no sense. U.S. officials talk about how Afghanistan's opium trade threatens the stability of the country, pays for the Taliban fighters' war effort against us, and corrupts government officials.

Ahmed Wali Karzai denies that he has anything to do with drug trade, and says he doesn't take payments from the CIA. I think I will choose to believe The New York Times.

Officials also say there's evidence that the president's brother helped create hundreds of thousands of phony ballots and set up dozens of so-called ghost polling stations for the August election.

If it's true, no wonder Harmid Karzai won; and if this stuff doesn't make you scratch your head, it should.

Here’s my question to you: What exactly are we doing in Afghanistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be blowing up in President Obama's face at the same time. This month has become the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Two insurgent attacks there have killed eight more U.S. troops, bringing the October death toll to 58. This follows two helicopter crashes yesterday that killed 14 Americans.

An Iraqi woman and her two little boys survey the damage after a suicide truck bomb struck in central Baghdad over the weekend. The near-simultaneous twin suicide vehicle bomb attacks were the deadliest in the violence-wracked country in over two years.

President Obama is trying to decide whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He is scheduled to meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday.

Here's something else for the president to consider: A foreign service officer and former Marine Corps captain who fought in Iraq has become the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan.

Matthew Hoh says he no longer knows why we're fighting; and he thinks the U.S. is asking its troops to die for what is a far-off civil war.

As for Iraq - those two weekend bombings in Baghdad killed at least 155 people, including 20 children, and wounded more than 500 others. Al Qaeda in Iraq has claimed responsibility for these attacks - the deadliest in that country in more than two years.

The bombing of government buildings in Iraq raises some serious questions about Iraq's security and the national elections planned for January. Earlier this week - President Obama repeated America's commitment to withdrawing our troops.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, what's the right strategy?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

A U.S. Marine points his rifle at Afghan men ordered to raise their arms to show they're not carrying explosives in Farah Province, southern Afghanistan. (PHOTO CREDIT: DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Tomorrow marks eight years since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

Eight years and 865 U.S. troops killed - and the Obama administration now says leaving is not an option. With both violence and troop deaths on the rise - this White House is caught up in a rather public discussion about what to do next.

They're playing down reports of divisions over strategy among members of the administration; but some of these disagreements seem hard to ignore. The top U.S. commander, Stanley McChrystal, has made no secret of his opinion that more troops are needed - perhaps as many as 40,000 - or else the mission will fail.

Others - like V.P. Joe BIden - want fewer U.S. troops targeting only al Qaeda, along with more training of Afghan troops and increasing Predator drone strikes.

McChrystal has said this approach would lead to "Chaos-istan" and that he wouldn't support it. So much for everyone being on the same page. It's no wonder Defense Sec. Robert Gates is calling on all military and civilian leaders to keep their advice to the president private...

Meanwhile, President Obama has said he needs time to meet with advisers to figure out the best way forward... and today he's talking with a group of bipartisan congressional leaders to get their opinions.

As for the American people - it doesn't seem like there's much of an appetite for this conflict. A recent poll shows support for the war in Afghanistan hit a new low of 39-percent.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to the eight-year-old war in Afghanistan, the White House says leaving is not an option. What are America's options?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »