(Sorry if this posted twice.)
By November 2009, Obama had sent about 60,000 more troops into Afghanistan, bringing the total to about 100,000.
And what was the result of Obama's "right war"? According to Conn Hallinan of Foreign Policy in Focus:
"When the Obama administration sent an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan in 2009 as part of the “surge,” the goal was to secure the country’s southern provinces, suppress opium cultivation, and force the Taliban to give up on the war. Not only did the surge fail to impress the Taliban and its allies, it never stabilized the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. Both are once again under the sway of the insurgency, and opium production has soared. What the surge did manage was to spread the insurgency into formerly secure areas in the north and west."
...Even Obama called the Iraq surge a success and Saddam is not Obama's problem now.
Obama's surges in Afghanistan have made things worse with no end in sight.
So why does he get a pass by the liberal media and Bush, in spite of stabilizing Iraq to Obama's advantage in the Middle East, did not?
I recall Obama saying how he was against the surge in Iraq. The surge worked well there so Obama, being a clueless, inexperience & inept DemoKrat tried the same thing in Afghanastan. Typical square peg in round hole routine DemoKrats do.
I challenged the liar, Dumb Dave, to show us how Bush "abandoned" Afghanastan. Dumb Dave used the word "abandoned".
In his typical moron weasel fashion, he won't respond, but the bonehead is Johnny on the spot to try and nail others by twisting a fact into some hair splitting technicality.
Reading the libatrd posts here is a great reminder of how twisted the left is.
By the way, Emaem (the imposter) was just busted replying to my post to Emaen as Red State Sucker. I wonder who this ghetto juvenile is. lily, ghost, dumb dave?