Dem Candidates Starting To Oppose Afghan Surge
By Reid Wilson
Ohio Sec/State Jennifer Brunner (D) has become the third Dem candidate to openly oppose Pres. Obama's plan to add more than 30K troops to the U.S. force in Afghanistan.
In a post at Huffington Post, Brunner blames ex-Pres. Bush for getting the U.S. into the war, but says it's time to remove troops from the country.
"At the risk of being called a naysayer, a name I'm not often called that because of the "can do" attitude I normally adopt, I believe the costs are too great -- in human lives and economic resources -- to continue along the current path. It is clear to me that America must set a timetable for bringing our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible," Brunner writes.
"I doubt that General Stanley McChrystal is the leader whose advice we should follow without significant validation of his recommendations. Gen. McChrystal recommended the deployment of additional troops in a 'surge' modeled after the one in Iraq," she writes. "Also, General McChrystal's previous association with the abuse of detainees and with the incident surrounding Pat Tillman give me pause as I evaluate his recommendations."
Brunner is running what looks like an increasingly long-shot bid for the Dem nom against LG Lee Fisher. Fisher has raised much more money, and he has support from much of the OH Dem establishment. Quiet efforts to ease Brunner out of the race have so far been unsuccessful.
But a stronger candidate has already come out against Obama's Afghanistan plan. MA AG Martha Coakley (D) said in a statement 11/29 that she, too, opposes the surge.
"Based on what I know now about the President's planned troop increase, I do not believe that we should send additional troops into Afghanistan. I believe we should begin the process of bringing our troops home," Coakley said in her own statement. "Without a credible Afghan partner, we cannot achieve a goal of securing this country with increased troop levels and then implementing a sound exit strategy that leaves it in the hands of a stable Afghan government."
Coakley leads the race to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) by a wide margin. Dems head to the polls 12/8 for a primary pitting Coakley against Rep. Mike Capuano and two wealthy candidates.
In PA, the issue has become a central disagreement between Sen. Arlen Specter (D) and Rep. Joe Sestak (D). Specter opposes a troop surge, while Sestak favors a "measured" troop increase. But Sestak said Obama must have a "comprehensive exit strategy" before he commits more troops.
With contested Dem primaries in IL and KY, how many more candidates will try to differentiate themselves from their opponents, and solidify their bona fides with the Dem base, by opposing a strategy Obama has yet to even lay out? We've got calls out to key candidates in both states to get their reaction.
UPDATE: A spokesman for IL Treas. Alexi Giannoulias (D) says his candidate will wait until Obama officially lays out his plan tomorrow night. Giannoulias rival/ex-Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman (D) said in a statement emailed to Hotline OnCall he is a skeptic of the plan to raise troop levels, but did not take a final position on whether he would support or oppose the move.
"I am skeptical that our mission in Afghanistan should be to spend years rebuilding the country with our armed forces at potentially great cost of American life," Hoffman said. " I am skeptical that our mission in Afghanistan should be to spend years rebuilding the country with our armed forces at potentially great cost of American life."
SECOND UPDATE: KY LG Daniel Mongiardo (D) will also take a wait-and-see approach, but he says he looks more favorably on a surge:
"I am waiting to hear what the President has to say tomorrow night. I am inclined to support a troop surge in Afghanistan. I believe we have to defeat the Al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the attacks on 9/11 who are still present in the region and remain a threat to our national security. I am looking for President Obama to clearly define our mission in Afghanistan and how we attain those objectives. Between Ft. Campbell, Ft Knox, our National Guard and Army Reserve, many Kentucky families have loved ones serving in Afghanistan. We must make sure our fighting men and women have the resources necessary to complete their mission as safely and quickly as possible," he said in a statement emailed to Hotline OnCall.
A spokesman for AG Jack Conway (D) has yet to respond to a request for comment.





Ms. Brunner has consistently been out front on important issues while her primary opponemt has been slow to take any hard stands. Despite his huge campaign coffers, Fisher hasn't been able to shake Brunner in the polls. Polls which consistently show her popularity with independents which are necessary to win in Ohio. Bruner doesn't carry any of the economic or job loss issues that Fisher has been tagged with. With Brunner at the top of the Ohio 2010 ticket, the whole democratic slate stands a better chance to win.
Help us OUT of war!!
Letter written to Obama:
If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.
So all of you dems and peace activists welcome to the family of being in a elite majority.....
You all Know..... because you oppose Pres Obama on this that you now can be called........
"Racists"
"Un-patriotic"
"Domestic Terrrorists"
"A....Bunch of thugs"
"Loudmouth jerks"
WELCOME>>>>>
“The Surge”
December 6, 2009 by politicalsnapshots.wordpress.com
“The Surge”
The war in Afghanistan is also a continuation and expansion of the corporate welfare policy of the Bush administration, which interestingly is not only wholly accepted by President Obama, but is raised to a higher level (surge). The more private contractors sent to Afghanistan, the better for the bottom line (surge) (profit). The more the merrier. Bush or Obama, as always, the interest of the corporate elite is paramount.
The decrease in violence in Iraq was not a result of President Bush’s strategy of sending 30,000 more troops to Iraq (surge), that President Obama is so desperately trying to duplicate, but it was mainly a result of the U.S. government’s payment of about $10 a day to about 70,000 Sunni insurgents.
During his speech to the nation explaining his reasons for the Afghanistan “surge”, the president said:
“So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. … In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.”
I thought I was listening to President Bush. Word for word the same message, but, a different messenger, one who is more articulate. He also used Bush’s tactic of scaring the American public, the danger to America “is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat”. The only thing missing from his speech was that, he didn’t use the threat level colors. It is too early in his presidency; we might still see him use the threat levels in the future.
The president’s troop” surge” in the Afghanistan war has made his Conservative Republican friends temporarily happy, but members of his own political party and the American citizens at large are not supportive of his so-called “surge”. While America is facing a massive unemployment, millions of citizens without health insurance, the country burdened with cumbersome and chocking growing debt, to say the least, the president’s choice of the Afghanistan “surge” at this particular moment, seems to be unwise.
Professor Mekonen Haddis.