Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What will McChrystal do if he doesn't get more troops?

All eyes are on the White House, where President Obama will soon make a decision on the way forward in Afghanistan. But it pays to keep an eye on the Kabul headquarters of senior American and NATO commander Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal. If, as is being widely rumored in Washington, Obama ends up not going along with McChrystal’s request for a reported 40,000 troops to support a sustained, substantial counterinsurgency commitment to achieve victory in Afghanistan, what will McChrystal do?

McChrystal is a consequential figure. He is one of the pioneers of counterterrorism and a highly intelligent, reliable, and well regarded general. His standing in the Pentagon and NATO and his professional reputation are on the line.

After all, McChrystal is the top military officer Obama dispatched to assess the Afghan situation on the ground. Having found a dangerously deteriorating situation, McChrystal, as instructed, proposed a strategy up through the chain of command to the White House that he concluded has the best chance of staving off defeat in what Obama has called a “war of necessity.” McChrystal wants to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting civilians, winning over cities and building infrastructure -- a strategy that calls for more manpower on top of the 68,000 U.S. troops already there and a much longer time horizon.

McChrystal has made it clear that he does not support the more limited campaign pushed by Vice President Biden that stresses a counterterrorism effort against Al Qaeda along the Pakistani border with missiles and drones.

If Obama agrees with McChrystal’s goals and strategy yet scales down the mission by sending fewer troops, will the general salute like a good soldier and carry on, as the White House would wish? Or will McChrystal conclude that he has been second-guessed by poll-driven civilians outside the military, that he has been handed a stripped-down mission that cannot succeed and which will only endanger the men and women entrusted to him?

Will he decide that he can no longer serve as Obama’s war commander? Because an Afghan strategy crafted around a table in the White House will be all Obama’s, even if it draws upon some ideas of McChrystal.

Yes, watch the White House. But keep a close eye on Stanley McChrystal.

By Colbert King  | November 2, 2009; 11:36 AM ET
Categories:  King  | Tags:  Colbert King  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Divide and conquer
Next: No, we can't just spend our way out of trouble


Successful COIN ops require 2 things.

1. The ability to protect the civilian populace. Help them rebuild, gain their trust and they will hand the bad guys over.
2. The ability to also go and pursue and engage the enemy where they are at away from civilian populations.

These two things must be done at the same time to have the chance to succeed. doing one or the other will assure failure. Obama put McChrystal in that job for a reason and he would be wise to listen to him. I know obama is *SUCH* the military genius with all his experience in serving in the military and has been trained and has studied extensively on how to fight and win these wars(oh, wait..), but risk avoidance to the point of inactivity is dangerous and does no one any good.

Posted by: moose6 | November 2, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The basic problem is that the success of counterinsurgency depends on more than a military strategy, which is in the control of the the US president and the generals. It depends on the presence of a respected Afghan government as an alternative to the Taliban. Afghans do not want the US to govern them and dictate what happens in Afghanistan. Unless the US is seen as helping a legitimate Afghan government, no counter terrorism strategy will succeed.
McCrystal warned we will be defeated rapidly if we don't send in more soldiers and change the strategy. He didn't claim rapid victory is likely if we do so.

So the question remains, is it a good idea to bet on the Afghan government as the partner needed for an ultimate victory, or is Karzai and company a poor bet? That is the Trillion dollar question.

If it the Karzai government is not a good partner, why not take our lumps now, and rather than spend another trillion dollars on another Vietnam? In that case we have better things to do with our money. It is worth thinking about this carefully and watching what Karzai does with his flawed election victory.

Posted by: eadler2 | November 2, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

And electoral defeat is a sign of public approval?

Posted by: Matthew_DC | November 2, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
02 November 2009

As a matter of fact, General Stanley McChrystal was asked what he would do if President Barack Obama, his Commander-in-Chief, refused to send him the 40,000 more U.S. troops he requested through the chain of command.

His answer was that he would obey the Commander-in-Chief's decision--whatever that will turn out to be.

And that is a good reply considering that his Commander-in-Chief, the supreme civilian authority, has the final say on the matter.

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | November 2, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama runs the risk of adopting the Rumsfeld policy. More troops will be unpopular but a quagmire will be even more unpopular.

Posted by: alstl | November 2, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

General McChrystal's recommendations were based on a specific mission articulated by President Obama in March. If the President excercizes his perogative as commander in chief to modify that mission to a more limited set of objectives requiring fewer resources(as seems likely), General McChrystal should prepare new recommendations based on the new mission (this has probably already taken place as part of the review process), salute and drive on. If the President instructs General McChrystal to attempt to achieve the mission articulated in March with less resources than are needed in the general's professional opinion, he has an obligation to his soldiers to resign in protest. General's take an oath to support the Presidident's missions. They also have an obligation to their troops to ensure they are provided the resources needed to be successful. If a President articulates a mission and provides the neccessary resources, a general's only response should be to follow orders. If a President will not provide resources commensurate with the mission, a general's only appropriate response is to resign.

Posted by: WoodbridgeVa1 | November 2, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

If McChrystal decides that the Ditherer In Chief is placing the troops in harms way then McChrystal will likely resign. It will be a huge black-eye for the Administration and they know that a failure of the war after such a resignation will place the war good or bad firmly in the lap of the DIC (Ditherer In Chief).

Posted by: Bubbette1 | November 2, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I haven't a clue as to what McChrystal will do if Obama, after all his dithering decides not to provide the troops that McChrystal believes to be necessary to win the war. Obama has stated that he is uncomfortable with the concept of winning which must be the antithesis of every fiber of McChrystal’s being. Therefore unless Obama provides McChrystal with the troops necessary to win then how could McChrystal continue sending troops into battle and their deaths knowing that the CINC has no desire to win the war. Logic would seem to suggest that if McChrystal doesn’t get the troops needed then he needs to retire and Obama needs to announce that he is surrendering to the Taliban.

Posted by: fenoy | November 2, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

From what you wrote today, Mr. King, this may come as a surprise to you: the President doesn't work for the generals.

Posted by: mikehike | November 2, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

If McChrystal decides that the Ditherer In Chief is placing the troops in harms way then McChrystal will likely resign. It will be a huge black-eye for the Administration and they know that a failure of the war after such a resignation will place the war good or bad firmly in the lap of the DIC (Ditherer In Chief).

Posted by: Bubbette1 | November 2, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse
You Neocons are calling the President NAMES after you started this illegal war..

You did not Raise Taxes to finance it.
Then you managed it miserably.

He how about you Cheney Ditherers go to Afghanistan and see if you can fix it?

If you die in the process what!!

We can visit you in Dover, DE.


Posted by: Issa1 | November 2, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

You Neocons are calling the President NAMES after you started this illegal war..
How is the war in Afghanistan illegal? Have you forgotten the attacks of 9/11/2001? Are you incapable of reading and understanding English.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40
115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Posted by: fenoy | November 2, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

To begin, any successful COIN strategy would require far more than 40,000 troops. As was recently reported, the Taliban controls more of Afghanistan now than it did when we invaded 8 years ago. This road McChrystal wants to travel sounds exactly like Vietnam--just send in this many more troops, then just this many more troops, and on and on. Generals ALWAYS believe they can win with just this much more _____(fill in the blank).There is no compelling reason to remain in this country for 10-15 years. And with part of the Pakistani ISI supporting them, the Taliban will sustain themselves for quite a while. We shouldn't sacrifice the American kids that will die and get maimed, and we cannot afford another trillion dollar war, not with so many pressing problems at home.

The GOP will pound and scream and yell "surrender", but these same chicken hawks pounded and screamed about Iraq, and were completely wrong. And to accuse the administration of "dithering" is laughably hypocritical. Whose war was it for 8 years? Whose incompetence brought us to this point? Face it, Republicans will condemn Obama NO MATTER THE OUTCOME.

The atomized tribal society that is Afghanistan will slog on until the Pashtuns unite with the other tribes against the Taliban. We are in a hellish position with the populace, because our very presence unnerves them, and our drug eradication efforts take away the only crop that brings them any money at all. Their government is corrupt and largely ineffective, and the Taliban, like Hamas, sustains the communities even while terrorizing them.

If McChrystal wants to copy any strategy, he should encourage the Administration to bribe those parts of the Taliban he can, and hope the resulting split will result in them wiping each other out in internecine warfare. All our aid should be to build a sustainable infrastructure and social network that will help the populace transition to this century. But we should not sentence any more of our troops the play death roulette here. It just isn't worth it.

Posted by: bklyndan22 | November 2, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama has to face a full responsibility for something. Congress is positioned to own health care, Bush owns the financial problem (and everything else too) and Fox is not being fair. O's time has come.

Or, as Gagdad Bob says:

The problem is, the moment Obama actually does something,
he will have made the transition from ideal to real.
He will have undergone the formality of existing,
which is always an insult to omnipotence --
not necessarily to his, but to that of his cult members.

It's the same reason why you can't show a picture of Mohammed.
[Or see Obama’s original certified birth certificate.]

Posted by: ApplyCS | November 2, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

The delay of Oboma (commander & Chief)is not due to deliberate deliberation on whats best for our troops and/or Afganistan it solely centered on what feels good to him and not on our generals or even common sense.

Posted by: rvaw120 | November 2, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

The Afghans have 90,000 troops and threw out the Taliban in 2001 with far less soldiers and only air support from the United States

100,000 American and NATO troops are now in Afghanistan.

The general who originally requested 85,000 more American troops admits that only the Afghan army will defeat the Taliban.

The general wants more American troops in Afghanistan to fight until the Afghan army defeats the Taliban.

A new twist with a strategy of American troops dying until the Afghan cavalry finally decides to fight and defeat the Taliban.

The question is not what the general does if his plan of military suicide is not accepted but rather of a military that conceives of such plans. After all the years of supposed changes in military thinking, the generals are still eager to face every new situation simply based on the last war. This is the only possible explanation for this plan of military suicide.

Posted by: bsallamack | November 2, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Thank you (armchair ?) general moose6 ! I've really never seen so many military experts as there have been since this review began. Why hang back, general ? Offer your services directly to the president himself !

Posted by: rbe1 | November 2, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I don't care much for reruns - and I sense that we're about to start watching Korea/Vietnam/Iraq all over again.

Hope not.

Posted by: norriehoyt | November 2, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: mikehike
From what you wrote today, Mr. King, this may come as a surprise to you: the President doesn't work for the generals.
Yeah you're right Mike - unfortunately the dumbazzz works for us and is proving to be the worst President (including Carter) to disgrace the White House since Taft.

Hopefully he can brush up on his community organizing skills that apparently he sucked at according to his then boss so he doesn't have to add himself to his quickly groqing unemployment rolls.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | November 2, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

McChrystal, Obama, and all Obama news all of the time:

Best site I've seen.

Daily 24/7 Obama news:

Economy, Health care, AfPak, Iran, Stimulus, Entertainment, Opinion.

The HuffPo of Obama news.

Posted by: DocinDC1 | November 2, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Interesting dilemma. On the one hand, Obama is the CIC and the General's boss. It's McChrystal's duty to soldier on, if he can. On the other hand, if he can't support Obama's plan, then it's his duty to get out of the way and let Obama replace him with someone who can. McChrystal's resignation would be a political disaster for Obama and things are going all that well anyway. We are all aware of how sensitive Obama is to the political situation.

Posted by: Auburninbp | November 2, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama has heard both General McChrystal and his top adviser's opinions months ago. He lack the fortitude to make a decision. He's in over his head.

Posted by: Billw3 | November 2, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

He could do the honorable thing: harikari!

Posted by: lichtme | November 2, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Think of all prima donna Generals in the last half century, starting with westmoreland in Viet Nam, not one of them honest enough to say the mission was impossible, or disagree with superiors by putting his career on the line.

We are fighting two wars, we are overextended financially and in man power, troops are exhausted, some of them on their fourth and fifth tours, we are in two no win situations, we need to get our brave troops out of these hell holes, bring them home and let them defend our southern border against drug smugglers and illegal aliens.

Posted by: daniel3715 | November 2, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

McChrystal presented three options. One called for 80,000 troops; they just aren't available. The 40,000 option will have to draw on Iraq reductions. There is also an option at around 15,000 to 18,000 troops. So I think we have the answer from the general himself.

Posted by: j2hess | November 2, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

What McChrystal,George bush,Dick Cheney,General Petraeus and Barack Obama are'nt saying about our troops is this:Todays Army was built after the end of the COLD WAR to be a quick strike force.At the end of the cold war we let our troop level fall to the point that we our now using National Guard Soldiers in combat.We spent (8) years in Iraq.(8) more in Aghanistan,and now we are looking at staying even longer with a army that's designed to fight for about (6)months tops.We have NO FRESH TROOP ROTATION,THEEY DONT HAVE TANKS,JUST PERSONEL CARRIERS,NO FIGHTER JETS,JUST DRONES.We cant give McChrystal what he want,without a redign of our army.So the question become:will we redesign the army of the mission? To redign the army would require a DRAFT.I say lets do it.Start a draft and get our army out of the malls,streets,jails and momma's basements and train them to be a LEAN,MEAN,KILLING MACHINE,then America will be respected around the world.

Posted by: apez54 | November 2, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Successful counterinsurgncy requires ... blah, blah, blah.

I know of a single instance of successful counterinsurgency since WW2. That was Greece. It lasted four years (not the 8+ that we have in Afghanistan), and was fought strictly be the locals (not a bunch of foreigners who wanted to overhaul the culture). The winning side consisted of a government that had broad popular support, and as able to field an army capable of fighting independently in less than 2 years.

With all due respect to the military, the experts, and th patriots, none of that exists in Afghanistan.

So, if you want to rely on the lessons of the only successful counterinsurgency, we have followed the wrong policy for 8 years, and McChrystal's approach will fail. But that is only if you rely on experience.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | November 2, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

If McChrystal is a real soldier; he'll either salute or resign. I'm hoping for his resignation after his cover-up in the Pat Tillman tragedy!

Posted by: wiatrol | November 2, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama should name DICK Cheney the ambassador to Afghanistan and not allow his chicken-sh*t A$$ to come home until we win this this...whatever winning means at this point.

Posted by: wiatrol | November 2, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

As of right now, he should phone Obama, tell him the Afghans have elected a president, and to either stop dithering with the decision to send the number of troops he, McChrystal, has requested, or cut bait, and get completely out. The status quo has gone on entorely too long.

Posted by: jemvbcarmagh06 | November 2, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"As of right now, he should phone Obama, tell him the Afghans have elected a president."

Actually, he should phone Obama, tell him that the Karzai government has no hope of garnering the support of the people, and that he recants on his proposed counter-insurgency plan and its endless thirst for resources.

If he wants to offer to resign, that's fine. He's just saying he's unable to work the problem posed by the political situation. I'm sure the DoD can find somebody who can whole-heartedly shoulder a reduced scope counter-terror campaign.

General worship is a completely disgusting practice.

Posted by: fzdybel | November 2, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

McChrystal's record follows him through his choice of deception for show as can be seen in his Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman frauds. But his "report" to Obama made available by the WashPost shows an intellectual deficiency in analysis to explain why prior strategy went wrong and how he would fix it and why his fix would work. It was a hot buttons prssing statement showing that he is the blaring trumpet that thus seeks to quell the sound of his Spring request for 20,000 troops followed immediately after they arrived in Afghnaistan in June with a request for 80,000 more. And for all the dead marines his "surge" brought on he provides us a rather shallow report to justify another 80,000. It seems to me that his military accument is right up there with kArzai's political accumen in how he won re-election. Obama is just stuck with both because he assumed the best.

Posted by: danieleteodoru | November 2, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has heard both General McChrystal and his top adviser's opinions months ago. He lack the fortitude to make a decision. He's in over his head. Posted by: Billw3"

May we take it, then, that when the President calls for the draft, for an increase in the Army to 1.5million active duty soldiers, with comparable incresase in the reserves, and $5000 billion a year in new taxes you will be out there cheering his decision?

Obama and his generals long ago reached a meeting of the minds. I suspect that mcChrystals comments that got him in trouble were cleared at White House level as necessary to brace the American people for some real sacrifice. Getting McChrystal to say it and start the debate was a move worthy of Truman letting Marshall announce the marshall Plan at an Ivy League commencement with out warning the press.

So, all you warhawks and fire eaters, here is a simple poll.

War in Afghanistan can easily require 250,000 American troop levels in the 250,000 renge. That can easily cost $250 Billion a year, which we would really need at least that much in new taxes to pay for. It will also require a draft.

Before you call Obama a ditherer you have to vote on that issue.
All in favor say I.

(Here, by the way, is the first aye vote. I am a very liberal Democrat. I have done my time in combat and so has my son.)

Posted by: ceflynline | November 2, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

More important than victory in Afghanistan, more important than even the lives of our troops, is the American political tradition of civilian control of the military.

There are many countries where politicians and presidents dance to the generals' tune, and live in fear of whether the military will 'approve' of their decisions. The USA is not, and should NEVER be, one of those countries.

Posted by: DupontJay | November 2, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

"War in Afghanistan can easily require 250,000 American troop levels in the 250,000 renge. That can easily cost $250 Billion a year, which we would really need at least that much in new taxes to pay for."

At what point do we get to say: "Sorry, we can't possibly afford this, it would bankrupt us?" Even on a pay-go basis, this is a no-go. The economy is not in a state to support this drain, either as taxes or as debt.

Even assuming we could somehow afford it, what on earth is there in Afghanistan to make it worth $250 billion dollars more, on top of the hundreds of billions already spent? Especially when it's the Karzai government we're talking about.

The problem of funding this foreign war is going to come up at a time when the Medicare issue is on the table. Funding this boondoggle in Afghanistan is going to stand out in sharp relief, because of this delay. Which is it going to be? Granny or Karzai?

Posted by: fzdybel | November 3, 2009 4:11 AM | Report abuse

I hope that McChrystal has the fortitude to quit if the plan he is presented with is so watered down that he feels that he cannot properly protect and defend his troops and do the job as directed. It is the only way that he can have any impact. Additionally, he will later be blamed for improper implementation if the plan fails. It can be argued that Vietnam was a lost cause because it was run out of the White House. This is another example of the same planning and implementation strategy. Where would be be if Eisenhower, through Patton and others, had been allowed to go all the way through Germany in the face of a weakened Russian army. Or where would we be if MacArthur had been allowed to fully take down North Korea back in the 50's. I say give McChrystal what he says he needs and then hold him accountable. We sure cannot hold him accountable if it is not his plan!

Posted by: pprucci | November 3, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Mr. King has refined his message to the point that future writing will be easy. All he needs is a stamp that says ""Give up. It is hopeless."

Soon that will be the next great fashion accessory - to have that stamped on every forehead.

Posted by: gary4books | November 3, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"What will McChrystal do if he doesn't get more troops?"

Shut up and deal with it or resign. The military is not a democracy. Period.

Posted by: Gatsby10 | November 3, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

McChrystal decided to break with keeping his mouth shut after seeing what happened to Gen. Tommy Franks. Good for him. The ending of stop loss this spring has left a logistically possible 15,000 equipped troops to be added until more can be drawn down from Iraq. I had this view a month ago and it appears correct looking at British Foreign Secy Milliband's take and Sen. Lugar on C-Span this weekend. 15,000 is enough hopefully to safeguard the population centers. Guarding the eastern border and the rural strategy will have to wait until the request is fulfilled. That is my take on what McChrystal will do.

Posted by: jameschirico | November 3, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

If the Messiah gives the General a plan he can't live with, then he must resign. Remember that the Messiah was quoted as saying that he "is not comfortable" with the concept of victory. No military commander should serve a president who is not comfortable with victory.

Posted by: neilwied | November 3, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

We already out-man the Taliban 12-1, Obama sent in 30k more troops shortly after his inauguration so how is that "dithering"?.

With the election in disarray no world leader would be prudent to make another decision until it was settled.

Someone tell me how sending in even more troops into a meat-grinder when we already outnumber them 12-1 is going to make the situation in Afghanistan better?

Posted by: JRM2 | November 3, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

If I give you a chair with three broken legs do you go about carefully repairing it before using it?


do you slap some duct tape on it and call it fixed?

Seems like the cons opt for the duct tape every time.

And that is the situation handed to our current President and would have been no matter who won the election.

Posted by: JRM2 | November 3, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Even though much of the press gushes over General McChrystal, he is badly damaged goods when you look at him closely.

1. It appears his promotion to get another star was closely linked to his active participation in the Tillman cover-up. In other words, if he had been truthful, would his career been derailed?

2. We need to know much more about the secret torture prisons that McChrystal was responsible for. If he is willing to hide behind claims of national security for that, then he should be disqualified for any office higher than what he presently holds.

3. Give (1) and (2), it makes one wonder what else lurks in McChrystal's past. Can we get an honest look at what he was doing on his way up through the ranks?

Posted by: evelyn911 | November 3, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

With BHO as Commander in Chief, it's just a matter of when [not if] the AfPak War will be lost. He could full the American electorate with his politically correct b.s., but the fanatical Moslem insurgents have taken his measure.

Posted by: tiberiusjacksonIII | November 3, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Obvously, he will send more troops because we simply cannot leave a leaderless nuclear power to the whims of local terrorists building up on the Afghan/Pakistan border. A proven nuclear power with a revolving-door pseudo-democracy, Pakistan, has been rendered nearly leaderless by the same terrorists that attacked the US. On Dec. 27th, 2007 they assasinated Bhutto who had returned to Pakistan to oppose Musharraf in democratic elections. Now her nutty, manic-depressive husband is "running" the country while suicide bombs go off monthly.

The reason Obama delays is to figure out a very specific strategy and mission so that we don't continue a "US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." (from his 2002 speech on Iraq).

Posted by: YoungAtheart | November 3, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The better question is what you wish he would do, because when it comes down to it, Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal will do exactly what the Rockstar tells him to do. And sadly, the Rockstar has no clue and doesn't listen to the military.

Posted by: 2009frank | November 3, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

"The better question is what you wish he would do, because when it comes down to it, Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal will do exactly what the Rockstar tells him to do. And sadly, the Rockstar has no clue and doesn't listen to the military. Posted by: 2009frank"

Naughty, Naughty, you didn't vote before making your totally unjustified claim that Obama isn't listening to his Generals. You can't just make up nonfacts and get any real audience in this world, outside of your 20%er clique.

So let's here how you voted on $250 Billion a year in new taxes, and the draft.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 3, 2009 9:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company