exploring NYTIMES

"Pressing Allies, President Warns of Afghan Battle"


My reactions to today's TIMEs article about the Afgahn battle issue, thing.

"The speech [to the American Enterprise Institute] renewed criticism from Democrats that had the United States no been tied down in Iraq, the situation in Afgahnistan would not have turned dire. At the same time, some Republican lawmakers said Mr. Bush's new strategy would not do enough to tamp down the Afghan drug trade. Outside experts criticized the president for painting too rosy a picture."

I read in a past issue of TIMEmagazine about the president's plans to make a better exit from his time in office by making some progress. I guess this is a step in that direction? I could be wrong. He's not popular with either party and that makes me happy. As a politician, however, it's his job to paint rosy pictures. He's not there to tell the 'truth'. We went into Iraq to find WMD's, remember?
This passage confuses me because it talks about two different things: the democrats are talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, the Repubs. about the "war on drugs".

More troops? Yeah but I thought we wanted more troops to mainly finish the job in Iraq...and that's fine and dandy and I think we should just finish the job and get out.

Alegedly: "These excalating attacks were part of a Taliban offensive that made 2006 the most violent year in Afghanistan since the liberation of the country." Mr. Bush said the question now was whether to "just kind of let this young democracy wither and fade away" or to step up the fight."

All right, this makes me think a few things. Firstly, every statistic is biased and especially something that comes from him. I'm not saying there isn't any violence in Afghanistan anymore but I'll have to see for myself if it's really true that it's been the most violent year. Secondly, that is the motive, aside from keeping tabs on terrorist cells in Afghan. for taking care of this fledgling democracy. There has to be more to the story that I don't quite know here.

"Mr. Bush...called on congress to provide $11.8 billion more to pay for operations in afghanistan over the next two years."
--increase size of Afghan army from 32,000-70,000
--build new roads, better ties with Pakistan
"We underfinanced, undermanned, and under-resourced the war in Afghanistan for the last four years." hhhmmm could it be that there's some major party going on in another middle eastern country?

Progress in Afghan.
--democratically elected government with a parliament 91 women members, and 5 million ppl in school.
Basically: Bush seeks more troops from NATO allies.


what do I think about all this? confusion at first because I don't think I know as much as I should about the situation. My statement holds: take on one thing at a time. Finish what you started before moving on.

"Democratic Leader Gambles that Weekend Detention Could End Senate's Squabbling on Iraq"

Standout passage(s): "republican leaders have asked to vote on a resolution of support for the troops and the full financing of the war effort. They have accused some Democrats of pursuing a strategy to cut war financing gradually...Allowing a vote on war financing, Republicans said, would show that Democrats are just as divided."

"Ms Pelosi sadi the House resoltuion, which is expected to pass with bipartisan support, repsresented thef irst Congressional message of disapproval over the war."

President asked for $100billion for his various wars (Iraq and Afgahn).

Again, tackle one thing first/concentrate on it rather than try to do too many things at once. I'm not saying ignore Afgahn. I'm just saying...improve one situation, please!

other news that is more happy and not political and mind boggling:
More to come later. I have to go take an exam.