Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
9. It's difficult to understand why the NYTimes piece was written.
Sun May 20, 2012, 01:19 AM
May 2012

Is it an election-year article to give the impression that "Mr. Obama" is a Washington outsider who really decided to stand up to the Generals? And that decision was made in 2009?

What's going on here? Is there a campaign issue here? Is it antipated that a withdrawal at this point, without achieving goals that the public can cheer, is going to be crticized by the Republicans?

What was to be accomplished at the end of 2009? Or in 2010? Or 2011. Or this year? If anyone really knows why we're there and can explain it in a way that can be cheered by the general public, why haven't they done so by now?

Look, he's got the nomination locked up. As well as the re-election. But why does the public need a NYTimes article on how resolute President Obama was in deciding to stand up to the Generals and not give them more time?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Charting Obama’s Journey ...»Reply #9