Maine delegation mixed on troop surge plan
poll

Maine delegation mixed on troop surge plan


By Kase Wickman
Boston University Washington News Service
WASHINGTON — When President Barack Obama stood in front of cadets at West Point Military Academy in New York Tuesday night and announced that 30,000 more troops would be deployed to Afghanistan, he acknowledged that the move would not be universally popular. He said in his speech that the debate over the Iraq war — and by extension, the war in Afghanistan — has drawn the “dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy and our national attention.”

The “wrenching debate” will continue in the aftermath of the president’s address, even among members of Maine’s congressional delegation.

Today's Poll

Do you agree with the president’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan?

Yes
No


Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has traveled to Afghanistan four times, and said in a statement that she continues “to have questions about the impact of deploying more American combat troops to Afghanistan.” She said that a surge in American troops would have to be met with a surge in Afghan troops.

“The situation [in Afghanistan] has worsened significantly,” she said. “I found American troops carrying the bulk of the military burden, valiantly and courageously, but often with too few Afghans by their side.”

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, also has seen the situation in Afghanistan firsthand, and agreed that more Afghan troops should participate, as well as NATO forces. She also said in a statement that equipment likely would need to be updated before the troops are deployed.

“There is no question that when we send our brave men and women in uniform in harm’s way, we must ensure that they are fully equipped and supported with the resources they require,” she said.

Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, said in a statement that while he “unequivocally supports” Obama’s goal of defeating al-Qaida, he would reserve final judgment until more details, such as the cost increase involved and how many allied troops would join the American surge, emerge.

Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said in an interview after the speech that as it stands, she would vote against funding the troop increase.

“I don’t agree with [Obama] that we should increase the number of troops before we decrease,” she said. “I want to see a legitimate debate about beginning to draw down the troops and talk about what is a reasonable amount of support in Afghanistan, and shift debate from increasing troops to what we need to get done, and our security in general.”

Like the other Maine members of Congress, Pingree also cited concern over the cost of continued combat. “I think every day of people in Maine who are out of work,” Pingree said. “I think of just the tremendous variety of needs in our country.”

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
33 comments on this item

The cost of continued combat is a concern to Chellie?

Signing blank, Trillion dollar checks for "stimulus" to bail out unions and rich bankers, and a Trillion for a Government heath care take over never made her flinch!

Amazing how a "surge" in Iraq was fully supported by our Republican delegates, but now they have lost interest in the main objective of capturing the people responsible for 9-11. Isn't that what these wars were all about?

I agree with mike_staples. Although the cost of the war is a concern to all of us taxpayers, I find it hard to believe that a politician is concerned with the cost of anything. I believe that defense spending right now only accounts for about 6% of our GDP compared with about 40% back in the 1960's. Why is it that the same people that do not want to spend money on defense have no problem with bailing out car companies and banks or passing a stimulus bill that hasn't created any jobs? They actually expect us to believe that if the government takes over the healthcare system that it isn't going to cost us more than their initial estimate? We are all smarter than that. I agree that healthcare needs to be overhauled, but does anyone think that the government (the most inefficient business ever!) will actually be able to have control over one-sixth of our economy without taking more money away from us? They have never been able to run any entitlement program efficiently before, yet they want us to believe that this time things will be different. .....Please join me in holding the politicians accountable for their votes no matter what party they are from! It's our country!

Take away the cost of yearly living allowance from the seniors and military retirement cost of living to support the war. People right here in this state are hurting and can't put food on their plate or buy oil for the winter and things are going to get worse. American people get screwed again when will America take care of its own first?

I think it's time we throw out the lobbyists and the political action commitees and the special interest groups and clean up our politicians. If we truely are a government of and by the people then our congressmen and senators NEED to hear from us ! If you don't complain then don't complain.

poormaniac just nailed it, and I sincerely hope more Mainers will get active in helping to solve today's major political mess. Part of a common sense solution can be found at the grassroots level - www.MaineTaxpayers.com

Chellie also thought the Health Care proposal was a great idea 12 hours after it was presented.

At almost 2000 pages, that woman sure can read and retain...

Pingree comes up with the right answer for the wrong reason. That's the only way she gets 'em right. We should not be the world's policeman. We should not be an imperial power. We should leave other countries to hell alone unless we are protecting ourselves. There are far better ways to fight the extremists than to attempt to impose our system of governance on a backwater like Afghanistan. We would have similar results if we went into every prison in the country and tried to train the inmates to run the prisons.

Damned if you do and dead if don't. I guess I would rather be damned.The planes that flew into the towers and the pentagon would be a daily occurance if wasn't for our defense. That why we have a government to protect us first the rest are all perks.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should have bombed the crap out of the Taliban in Afganistan back in 2002. After a month of this they should have left the country without ever putting a soldier on the ground. They should have left Iraq alone completely because it didn't have anything to do with 911. Hussain was cornered and powerless outside of his own country. Blame the Bush administration! Jerks!

For an independent Mainer's take on the irony of the situation in Afghanistan, go to:

www.eightfits.blogspot.com

COSTCost>Why Do You Not Go ask the Family and Friends of 9 / 11.

Why Do You Not go ask the Brave Souls that saved America from the Site of A Black Hole

In The United States of Americas` White House

Why, I wish rite now that I could take you and your sorts to A Troops Greeter Event at BIA.

And watch you talk your stuff to the Troops

And oh how I wish we still believed in the Tar and Feather Event

But I guess I will just have to Wait for the Elections

To Tar and Feather You and Your Friends<

JUSTtheFACTSplease,

Given your name why don't you offer any. No one is proposing that the government take over the health care system. No one is even proposing that the government take over the health care insurance system. The people who gave us the bank and auto bailouts - Bush and Paulsen - are out of office. The people who don't want to spend money on defense know that its wasted. If the government can't effiecently run entitlement programs why would you think they can run defense programs? Also defense spending in the 60's is not comparable to today. We were building the world's largest nuclear arsenal, fighting a major war in which 58,000 died, and replacing weapons lost in WWII and Korea. Today we are dismantling the nuclear arsenal, involved in two small and unnecessary wars, and not replacing weapons because we haven't been involved in a major war for more than 30 years. Oh and there was that little thing - the Cold War - in the 60's, but not now.

Every western empire in world history has collapsed when their economy could no longer support their military establishment. Our empire is threatened with the same result. The economy has been wrecked. Between 1980 and today the standard of living of workers have gone down by more than 20% while the CEO's and financial sevices people have gone up by a factor of 10. Several times, We came within days of complete collapse in 2008 and January of 2009. We have 12 trillion in fiscal debt and much more in guarantees and committments that would come due if the economy collapsed. More than 7 million people have lost everything between December 2007 and today. Their jobs, their homes, their assets. I think our military spending in the least of our worries.

PopperFK,

Hindsight is great, but Bush Cheney etc did bomb the crap out of the Taliban in 2002. They had the right to force the Taliban out of Afghanistan. You are right that leaving Afghanistan before the job was done and without capturing Bin Lauden in order to invade Iraq for no reason was a tragic mistake which we are paying for now.

If we have to send 30,000 troops into Afghanistan in order to safely get our 68,000 other troops out by training an Afghan army and police force, then I'll give it the chance to work. Pulling the 68,000 out immediately would weaken Pakistan and place their nuclear weapons in the sights of Taliban and Al Qeada. Leaving our troops their permanently will not result in victory and would prop up a corrupt government that would discredit us throughout the middle east.

We allow terrorists into the military...as was allowed in Fort Hood. I used to think we were right in going to Iraq because of what happened in Yemen, 911 and our American Embassies over seas.. Now I'm beginning to think spend that money at home to protect this country instead of abroad in foreign countries. At least we will be putting our people to work.

If I would have been a West Point cadet, I don't know how I would have felt having Obama as commander in chief speaking in front of me. The cadets didn't seem to welcoming. And Obama is giving away our freedoms on a silver platter. No blood shed there.

Popper... these terrorists fight a different war. They use their children, their people and purposely place them in harms way so then they can accuse our military of war crimes. Look what happened to the three Navy Seals who gave one most wanted Iraqi a fat lip. The three are going to be court marshalled. Does that make sense? Nothing makes sense in this country anymore. It's just crazy.

Wow, the thumbs down treatment from some over zealous Bush supporter who still believes the axis of evil, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and their made up stories about Iraq. Fool. So I repeat; we should have bombed Afganistan to beat the heck out of the Taliban who were in power and then just left. We should never have invaded Iraq.

As Obama spoke last night, it was interesting to see him pucker his lips (while looking deep into the TV camera) in the same way that President Bush used to.

Why was Obama's lips and teeth all blue, did any one else notice?

Looks like he just got done eating a blueberry pie.

I didn't hear last night what the thinking was with the Summer 2011 withdrawal timetable.

How does Obama know that the Afghans are going to be ready by Summer 2011 to secure their country, vs. Spring 2011 vs. Winter of 2013.

It's not like we're scheduling the Olympics.

Did someone else catch the reasoning with that specific date?

He will pull out the troops just in time for the election in which he will win if he does...

As long as We Kick Butt

While waiting for another Issue to Kick Up

This Is a long ways from Done

And THEN there IS the ECONOMY!!!<

He is far from being the first ONE wanting a Second Term

In my Humble Obama is sliding ever so slowly to the Right

And will Be in the Middle Again for the Election

It is just a matter OF if he will be believed Again

I love the song Eyes Wide Open<<

President Obama, before he was elected, spoke often about the problems in Afghanistan and that the emphasis should have been placed there, (more troops,etc.) than in Iraq. This is not news.

No... noticed nothing about "blue lips" . Perhaps he did eat blueberry pie. Perhaps , as an African American, his coloring is a bit different than yours and mine. I heard someone say that a member of her church prior to the election made a joke (that backfired) about his "blue lips",etc....but realize you were only joking. Hope he enjoyed his blueberry pie anyway. I would not mind a slice right about now!

Anyway....the best to all the troops.....and hope this "surge" action will prove to have been the right decision at this time. Time will tell...

PopperFK: They can't handle a difference of opinion?!

Yes, we watched his talk at West Point; the cadets seemed serious (rightly so) but sure seemed glad to shake the President's hand afterwards, taking photos ,etc. It was quite visible. You could tell by the looks on their faces when doing so, and how they tried to reach out their hands to him. It was clear.

After all this deliberation, a conclusion was finally reached. One I agree with. Obama said one thing I was glad to hear, we aren't there to govern. He should have been emphatic though that we are there for one purpose and that is to find and kill taliban/al quada. We are there to prevent Afghanistan from once again being a home of these terrorists. As long as the people there understand why we are there, they will still be supportive of us. I don't think they want the rule of the taliban either.

As for how the cadets appeared...I must have watched a different speech. They were respectful and rightfully so. After who wouldn't want to shake the pres's hand and get a picture. Maybe some of you missed how the troops appeared when Bush spoke to them or showed up at an event. Very enthused and glad to see him. Other presidents were also well received by military folks at events. It is nothing new or surprising.

Clinton should have "silenced" Bin Laden when the Saudis offered him to us. Hindsight is of course 20/20.

@LilMikey<>I guess you missed the part that he did explain why we were there

And why we are not there

You and I LilMikey will probably always see things different

For I guess you live in the Past

For in the Present things are much different

Than in the Bush Years

Maybe you did not watch the cadets at the Start and the Middle and the End

The hand shaking is a different thing

Oh well LilMikey I hope you can at least acknowledge what I told you so a long time ago

And again these are very different times

After 8 long years of another War

I guess you expected All to be jumping up and down in the House of Gentlemen and Officers

In front of Our Nation and A New President that probably has as many enemies on the extreme Left as on the Extreme Right

At least you agree LilMikey and are happy with that decision

For me; I am more interested in What Allied Support we are going to Get

Do you my Friend remember the road out of Kuwait covered with blown up vehicles

and what A Demonstration of Power working Together Again

For if Our Allies would really help out Again

Just maybe We really could Clean House that could last a long time and Peace for Awhile

And our Allies could also help repair the Damage

Like We did after WW 1 and 2 Well Just Maybe>I Pray for IT<<

Electraglide....I don't think I am seeing anything different on this one. My perception of what I see is not making me look or live in the past, rather on the contrary. I am looking at the future and am looking for us to be successful in accomplishing what I feel is most important....eradicating those who mean to do us harm. I want us to veni...vidi...vici. Not dick around....do the job and leave. I agreed with obama as I said. This is one thing he may have gotten right. But let's also not be afraid to say we want to do bodily harm to the people who harbor terrorists and make sure they know it.

I watched the cadets...I saw attentiveness as I would expect from West Point Cadets. I didn't see anything different from when any other president would address a military group. Point being, a prior post said they were 'reaching out their hands to him' would give one the impression they were reaching out to touch Jesus. They are military, that is their boss and they showed proper respect. What is wrong with what I said then? As for them jumping up and down..where the heck did you get the idea I was saying such a thing?

As for my comment as to what he said.. I heard it clearly. Again, I will say...I would have liked him to have been more emphatic on what we were going to do to the taliban and other terrorists there.

Also, he was correct....this is not like Vietnam. It is not even like the Russian invasion. And it is very possible for us to be successful there...as long as they don't shackle the people who do this better than anyone in the world.

LilMikey: You ran with that one. If you were standing a bit away from me, I would "reach across" if I was going to shake your hand. Don't make something out of nothing. I merely was responding to another poster. We saw it at our home on TV too and saw respect. Why would they not want to reach to shake the hand of the President of the United States ? Don't put intentions and insinuations in another's words that aren't there...in your mind only.

Our "empire" will be the first to collapse due to unsustainable social welfare programs.

JonAlbrecht,

I respect your opinion and you make valid points. Let me just give you my opinions.

Whether the govt. is proposing taking over healthcare or not, I don't think that we can afford to spend one trillion dollars on a new entitlement program. Right now 80% of Americans have health insurance and I believe that the bill before congress still doesn't cover all of the uninsured. If the government proposes 1 trillion it will likely cost about 3 trillion based on their estimates of past programs. Taxes will have to be raised and we can't afford that.

Finally someone realizes Bush and Paulsen are out of office.

Money spent on defense isn't wasted if it used in the right way. Paying troops and making sure they have the right equipment is worth the money. Striking back at Al Queda wasn't a waste of money. I agree that they can't run defense efficiently just like they can't run entitlements efficiently, but I would rather have my taxes go towards defense.

You're right that it is a whole different world than it was in the 60's. We were manufacturing nukes then and fighting a major war. Today we are fighting against an enemy that is different then the 60's, but we have to spend money on the effort. Although the enemy isn't state sponsored and they don't where uniforms they are very dangerous. They attack civilian targets and hide behind their own citizens in schools and hospitals when they are cornered. Whether you consider it a war they have declared war on us. We are dismantling nukes while others are buliding them to use against us.

I agree with most people that Iraq was a bad idea. I also agree that going after Al Queda and the Taliban that was sponsoring them in Afghanistan was a good idea and that we should have focused on that. Sending the 30,000 extra troops to finish the job and train the Afghan army is the right thing to do. Keeping Pakistan's nukes out of the hands of our enemies is a must. We shouldn't stay there forever. Time for the Afghans to stand up for themselves.

Every western empire in history has collapsed when it couldn't support the military. Also every country has collapsed that has had the government in charge of everything. The government is there to help the small percentage of people that need assistance not take 40% of the income of the so called wealthy and disperse it among the other income brackets many of whom don't pay anything in income taxes yet always seem to get money back from the government at tax season. This experiment has failed time after time. The only communist countries left are ones no one would want to live in (Cuba, N. Korea, China).

I agree the economy is a mess. Everyone agrees the economy is a mess. Standard of living is down, people have lost everything, we are 12 trillion in debt. How do we fix it? The stimulus isn't working. Bailing out car companies so they can fail later didn't work. Unemployment is on the rise. Printing money by the truckload isn't working. Raising taxes on the "wealthy" doesn't work. They create the jobs. If they are taxed more they can't hire more employees. They will pass higher prices on to us. New entitlements that we can't afford aren't the answer. Cutting taxes on small businesses might work. Collecting less taxes from the rest of us would encourage us to spend more pumping more money back into the economy. Borrowing more money to give to us didn't work.

Anyone else have any ideas? Maybe the politicians could stop fighting and focus on how we get out of these messes?

Ok LilMikey after 8 longs years I would think

That you would not nick pick

We All know we are there to shoot them in the Head

Watch next time he gives a speech on the subject

He learns like us ALL

Your slam at least he got this right<>proves what about you

Ya, the talking heads<>it is always amazing to watch also

All the booble Heads

I gotta tell You LilMikey

A lot of times that sounds just like you

You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.