Correction: 61 were arrested, not 82; previously, this post reported 82 arrests were made.
I spoke with Elaine Brower, an organizer with the World Can't Wait, about yesterday's protest outside the White House which ended in a massive arrest of 82 people including well-known peace advocates David Swanson and Cindy Sheehan.
As she explained it, people began to show up to McPherson Square at 9:15 am. They put on orange jumpsuits and held up big signs of Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush. The press came over to talk to them and the crowd began to grow.
Activists lined up around a fountain in the square to give the press a photo opportunity.
At 10:35 am ET, Brower left with a group that headed over to the White House so they could be present when Obama held his press conference on health care at 11:15 am ET.
They stood right outside the White House gate (and forced the White House press corps to find another way to get into a press briefing).
The group chanted "Healthcare Not Warfare" and other slogans.
The police wound up chasing them off the sidewalk.
The press were interested in the 75 or more protesters who had gathered outside the gate. They were turning and looking to hear who was shouting "Bring the Troops Home", "Close Gitmo", etc.
As noon approached, the police became more and more intrusive. David Swanson was shouting about First Amendment rights and freedom of speech on a bullhorn as the crowd grew to somewhere between 200 and 300 people.
Brower sat in stress positions. She sat in a cage giving the press another great photo opportunity.
Different affinity groups were now set up outside the White House. Veterans for Peace had coffins. World Can't Wait setup a museum that involved a waterboarding demonstration and signs detailing walling, stress positions, etc through graphic photos.
Members of Witness Against Torture chained themselves to the fence outside the White House.
The press took pictures and video and interviewed many of the protesters about torture.
The group of protesters began to participate in a reading of the names of those who died in Afghanistan. They chanted after a few names were read, "Mourn the dead. Heal the wounded. End the war," and then the names would continue to be read. They would chant again.
This went on for 45 minutes before the police on horses broke up the demonstration and pushed the crowd in the street behind a perimeter created with caution tape.
Those inside the caution tape were warned a few times and then arrested. A big air-conditioned bus showed up to cart the protesters off to Anacostia. They were processed immediately and then told they would have to come back in 15 days.
Brower noted a shift in protocol. Instead of going through the entire process of getting re-fingerprinted, running protesters' records, etc, the police chose to issue citations and force out-of-towners to come back.
The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful. I asked Brower what she thought about the fact that someone from the press corps mentioned the protest to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I mentioned how the Obama Administration issued a statement saying "leaving Afghanistan is not an option."
Brower said that Gibbs and Obama knew we were there (despite what Gibbs said to the press corps). She does not think they will listen to protest or consider what they have to say. But, people should understand that the people who voted him into office are now standing at his door yelling at him to shift policy.
She added his "base is slipping" and he's going to have to answer to people who wonder why he is abandoning his base.
This was the first protest ever done with a prime focus on Afghanistan.
As indicated in my original entry, the people are trying to push Obama to do what needs to be done. He is ignoring people, pretending people are not there protesting, going about business as usual and simply talking to generals, asking Congress to help with Afghanistan, etc.
How do you confront the reality that Americans will not be able to make Obama do it like they thought they would do when they voted him in office? How do you deal with the idea that he won't deliver hope and change when it comes to Afghanistan?
The answer may be depressing but Americans cannot become further demoralized. Americans must become energized and go out and organize protests in community that share with other Americans the reality of the war in Afghanistan.
For more, read this press release from Voters for Peace and read David Swanson's article, "We Were Arrested for Speaking."
As she explained it, people began to show up to McPherson Square at 9:15 am. They put on orange jumpsuits and held up big signs of Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush. The press came over to talk to them and the crowd began to grow.
Activists lined up around a fountain in the square to give the press a photo opportunity.
At 10:35 am ET, Brower left with a group that headed over to the White House so they could be present when Obama held his press conference on health care at 11:15 am ET.
They stood right outside the White House gate (and forced the White House press corps to find another way to get into a press briefing).
The group chanted "Healthcare Not Warfare" and other slogans.
The police wound up chasing them off the sidewalk.
The press were interested in the 75 or more protesters who had gathered outside the gate. They were turning and looking to hear who was shouting "Bring the Troops Home", "Close Gitmo", etc.
As noon approached, the police became more and more intrusive. David Swanson was shouting about First Amendment rights and freedom of speech on a bullhorn as the crowd grew to somewhere between 200 and 300 people.
Brower sat in stress positions. She sat in a cage giving the press another great photo opportunity.
Different affinity groups were now set up outside the White House. Veterans for Peace had coffins. World Can't Wait setup a museum that involved a waterboarding demonstration and signs detailing walling, stress positions, etc through graphic photos.
Members of Witness Against Torture chained themselves to the fence outside the White House.
The press took pictures and video and interviewed many of the protesters about torture.
The group of protesters began to participate in a reading of the names of those who died in Afghanistan. They chanted after a few names were read, "Mourn the dead. Heal the wounded. End the war," and then the names would continue to be read. They would chant again.
This went on for 45 minutes before the police on horses broke up the demonstration and pushed the crowd in the street behind a perimeter created with caution tape.
Those inside the caution tape were warned a few times and then arrested. A big air-conditioned bus showed up to cart the protesters off to Anacostia. They were processed immediately and then told they would have to come back in 15 days.
Brower noted a shift in protocol. Instead of going through the entire process of getting re-fingerprinted, running protesters' records, etc, the police chose to issue citations and force out-of-towners to come back.
The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful. I asked Brower what she thought about the fact that someone from the press corps mentioned the protest to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I mentioned how the Obama Administration issued a statement saying "leaving Afghanistan is not an option."
Brower said that Gibbs and Obama knew we were there (despite what Gibbs said to the press corps). She does not think they will listen to protest or consider what they have to say. But, people should understand that the people who voted him into office are now standing at his door yelling at him to shift policy.
She added his "base is slipping" and he's going to have to answer to people who wonder why he is abandoning his base.
This was the first protest ever done with a prime focus on Afghanistan.
As indicated in my original entry, the people are trying to push Obama to do what needs to be done. He is ignoring people, pretending people are not there protesting, going about business as usual and simply talking to generals, asking Congress to help with Afghanistan, etc.
How do you confront the reality that Americans will not be able to make Obama do it like they thought they would do when they voted him in office? How do you deal with the idea that he won't deliver hope and change when it comes to Afghanistan?
The answer may be depressing but Americans cannot become further demoralized. Americans must become energized and go out and organize protests in community that share with other Americans the reality of the war in Afghanistan.
For more, read this press release from Voters for Peace and read David Swanson's article, "We Were Arrested for Speaking."
When a major protest event happens, you can count on your friendly mainstream media to be M.I.A. unless the protest involves a band of angry thuggish teabaggers sporting posters comparing Obama to Hitler or Stalin.
Through Facebook, Twitter, and independent media, I was able to learn about what took place today outside the White House. But, this should have been all over the news. Eighty-two arrests should have attracted much attention.
This was all a part of a protest primarily organized by the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR). The following groups supported organization and showed up to protest at the White House at 10 am this morning: Atlantic Life Community, Witness Against Torture, Veterans for Peace, World Can't Wait, Activist Response Team, Peace Action, Code Pink, the War Resisters' League, Voters for Peace, The Washington Peace Center, and the Student Peace Action Network.
It's important to note that all present were asked by NCNR to follow the Nonviolence Guidelines listed on NCNR's website.
TalkingPointsMemo reports on a question Press Secretary Robert Gibbs answered from the press:
I'm not entirely sure what Gibbs meant but it seems like it was a shot directed at the anti-war movement who organize protests that few people in America rarely know have taken place.During his press briefing today, Press Secretary Robert Gates fielded a question about a "disruptive" protest outside the White House that caused people going to the Situation Room to walk around much of the White House in order to get inside.
"Until you said it, I was previously unaware," Gibbs said, adding that such protests are "a hallmark of our country."
Mr. Gibbs wasn't thinking about how these protests are not "fake grassroots" campaigns organized by FreedomWorks. He wasn't thinking about how the corporate media chooses to not cover these protests as news. And, he also was not thinking about how people who are for peace are regularly disdained and shut out of the democratic process.
Obama meets with his "war council." He meets with generals who will decide the future of the Afghanistan War. He does not meet with a "peace council."
Obama's generals will always tell him ways victory can be achieved because it's their job to wage war and if they do not do it, they might consider themselves to be a failure.
Unfortunately, the politicians in this country cater to the recommendations of the military on a regular basis forgetting that they are to control whether we wage war or not.
Unfortunately, too many Americans are comfortable letting the military relay reports from the battlefield. They are comfortable with hearing these reports and trusting that generals will eventually find a way to solving the problems faced in war.
But, as with most wars (and especially with today's wars), there is no military solution. There will be no military solution. And, I promise you that one year or two from now if this continues we will still be telling Obama that there is no military solution.
Why? Because there is no military solution.
So, go on Mr. Gibbs. Pretend you hadn't heard about a protest. It's not believable at all but say what you have to say to keep Americans in the dark.
A small amount of America understands that when you make "jokes" like this you are showing insensitivity toward humanity. A small group know you are cheerleading a war that will continue to kill innocent civilians.
The patience of America wears thin.
The Obama Administration says "leaving Afghanistan is not an option." The previous administration would concur.
Liberals and progressives, Americans are trying to make Obama "do it." He's not "doing it." So what should the next move be?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Steven Rockford
Lina Thorne
Organian
SpiritManSF
David Schultz
Anonymous911
Salon.com
Comments
He just said "leaving Afghanistan is not an option." He has the power to tell his generals to bring this war to end so we don't go the way of the Soviet Union.
But, the military is too powerful in American politics. Read David Sirota's recent article.
Hundreds are protesting and encouraging him to clean up this war. Not one of them is showing up to smear or defame Obama.
But, he is adding tens of thousands of more troops and has in fact already sent more troops to Afghanistan to fuel an occupation.
This is HIS war. As painful as that may be to those who believed in Obama, it's the reality. Obama is as into expanding American empire as Bush.
He just plans on making sure we do it differently than Bush did by seeming benevolent when fighting for American "interests" in other countries.
You accuse Trig of using "tortured logic", then you use tortured logic yourself. First of all, whether this is "Obama's War" or not is not much of a point. On the one hand, he is the chief exec., with the responsibility for all decisions made. On the other hand, Obama did not start this war, and getting out is more complicated than starting it. Neither is an excuse for not resolving the issue, but the responsibility must rest with the government. As as a person of voting age, whether you vote or not, this is your war too. It is done on your name. The only person who has outsized "ownership", as it were, is the one who started it. So assigning ownership is somewhat misleading.
The next bit of tortured logic is a bit of conflation. It was Gibbs who stated, "leaving Afghanistan is not an option." Then you said "he", and implied that Obama stated it. Gibbs did not say that the President said that. That was an interpretation by Gibbs. It may very well be accurate, or it may not, but to state it in the way that you did is not a small error.
Now, you may think that you know Obama's full intention, but I doubt it. Leaving Afghanistan may meaning continuing the war, or it may not. It may be necessary, or it may not. And it may be "imperialism", or it may not. They are not all the same things, and they are certainly not necessarily linked, although they may be. But to conclude that they are, and thus Obama has the same imperialistic intent as George W. Bush/Oilman, that is a huge stretch. Some would call it "tortured logic."
First, thanks for your comment. My candid response...
"You accuse Trig of using "tortured logic", then you use tortured logic yourself. First of all, whether this is "Obama's War" or not is not much of a point. On the one hand, he is the chief exec., with the responsibility for all decisions made. On the other hand, Obama did not start this war, and getting out is more complicated than starting it."
I find this to be a myth. Getting out is just as easy as getting in. In fact, the Afghanistan people and government would have little problem if we left.
By leaving, there are less targets for the Taliban to attack. If the Taliban continue to present Afghanistan's government and Afghanis with problems, let the government and Afghanis go after the Taliban.
Why do we need to be there for Afghanistan to be secure?
"Neither is an excuse for not resolving the issue, but the responsibility must rest with the government. As as a person of voting age, whether you vote or not, this is your war too. It is done on your name. The only person who has outsized "ownership", as it were, is the one who started it. So assigning ownership is somewhat misleading."
Okay --- I accept your statement as reasonable. I have a responsibility to follow and pay attention to this war. I have a responsibility to share and educate my community on what is happening and like leaders I have a duty to work to convince my fellow Americans that this war should continue or end.
I can shift consciousness through various tactics. I like to write and blog and cite articles, voice my own opinions, etc and see what others think.
"The next bit of tortured logic is a bit of conflation. It was Gibbs who stated, "leaving Afghanistan is not an option." Then you said "he", and implied that Obama stated it. Gibbs did not say that the President said that. That was an interpretation by Gibbs. It may very well be accurate, or it may not, but to state it in the way that you did is not a small error."
Well, what is Gibbs' job? He is... The Press Secretary for Obama
His job is to go before the press and provide a representation of the Obama Administration's stances and views on issues and policies as they exist and are being developed. He provides the press opportunity to question and get information from the Commander-in-Chief of our nation.
So, when Gibbs says "leaving is not an option" unless Obama retracts this statement I accept it to be in line with his thinking on the war.
"Now, you may think that you know Obama's full intention, but I doubt it. Leaving Afghanistan may meaning continuing the war, or it may not. It may be necessary, or it may not. And it may be "imperialism", or it may not. They are not all the same things, and they are certainly not necessarily linked, although they may be."
I do not know Obama's full intention but what I do know is that he is not making any moves to indicate that he is willing to end the senseless killings of innocent civilians that are a result of our nation's presence in Afghanistan.
Leaving Afghanistan would mean ending the war. If we are not there anymore, the war does not continue. We started the war. We can end it.
Violence may continue but it will no longer be a result of us. It will be a result of insurgent forces that we played a role in fomenting. But, that doesn't mean we return to the country and get in the way of Afghanistan's sovereignty again.
"But to conclude that they are, and thus Obama has the same imperialistic intent as George W. Bush/Oilman, that is a huge stretch. Some would call it "tortured logic."
Obama does not have the same group of neoconservative policymakers in his Cabinet or advising him on the Middle East. He still seems to be entertaining neoconservative notions but he leans more toward pragmatism and idealism.
Pragmatism employs a bit of neoconservatism. It seems to be a combination of idealism and realism. Realism is at the heart of neoconservatism.
I don't know what Obama's intent is. But, I know he is leaving the possibility open for a lot to happen that Bush gladly supported when he was president.
"The military industrial complex amongst others pull the strings."
Obama is the "front" man.
He does, however, have the capacity to say "no" and I may live in a world of illusion when I suggest that but I would like to see him tell the military and private contracting companies and corporations ---
No. This is the way we will do things. Not your way.
I admit I have misconceptions then.
What is McChrystal doing when he makes a speech in London on Afghanistan? It seems like he is trying to determine how America wages the war. It seems like they are trying to head off Obama before he makes the mistake of concluding that there is no military solution to the problems in Afghanistan.
What was Gen. Petraeus doing when Bush was in power? He was creating arguments and justification for Bush to continue the war in Iraq. Wasn't he?
Maybe the politicians decide what the military does and does not do but currently, the politicians look to military leaders for their input and use that input to justify war.
What you say makes sense. Seeing it in the news, however, I had a different conception of the way things were working in the decision-making process on wars in Afghanistan & Iraq.
BTW --- Did you read this column from David Sirota?
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20091006/OPINION06/910050339/David+Sirota++Deciding+the+next+step+in+Afghanistan
No. This is the way we will do things. Not your way."
I would like that too I suppose Kevin, yeah of course. I don't pretend however to understand the complexities and delicacies involved in dealing with such a matter; if it is at all as simple as just saying "Hello America (and the world) as of today we quit. All troops will be immediately withdrawn from Afghanistan (and oh yeah, what about Iraq?). And oh, by the way we will categorically ignore now and in the future any hinky stuff going on in Iran and elsewhere in the region.
Yes Kevin, the Bushites could have had Bin Laden at Tora Bora back in 02. They chose not to pursue. Why? If you ask me they didn't give a fuck about capturing and or killing Bin Laden. The Bin Ladens and Bush's are or at least were close friends. No, all the neocons and military industrial complex (Hello Cheney) wanted was to get into a long protracted thing in Iraq. Once again, why? To rid the world of Saddam (formerly on the payroll of the CIA)? To bring democracy? Pfffft... NO, for the ten billion a month spent on military related crapola. How much of that 10 billion do you suppose goes to soldiers payroll? Not much I'm thinking. How much goes to Halliburton and weapons manufacturers? Most of it.
This is the snafued reality that Obama is left to deal with.
You "find" i to be a myth? There are countless reasons for why it is not a myth. I'll start with Western civilization history. It is always harder to end a war than to start one. Starting a war is a simple as a decision in a cabinet room. As simple as a reaction, or an over reaction to an assassination. As simple as hyper belief in nationalistic mythology. All it takes is an act of war, or silly adventurism to start a war. Ending a war has immediate considerations. Such as, what happens from the territory of a failed state? What happens with our allies or potential antagonists? What happens in a legal and or a diplomatic vacuum? You think it is "just as easy" as starting one? I am afraid that is a profoundly naive, and somewhat ignorant view of history. Nations have always struggled mightily to end wars. Many conflicts persist after the shooting has stopped. The U.S. Civil War, and The Korean War are two examples. Saying that it is "just as easy" is absurd.
Is it necessary and desirable to end wars? Absolutely. Should the U.S. endeavor to end the war in Afghanistan? Absolutely. But all of history defies conclusion, and now qualifies your accusation of "Obama being as imperialistic as Bush", and equally unreasonable. Wars exist when government and diplomacy have failed and ceased. They dont just restart by flipping a switch. It takes great effort to maintain it, and to reconstruct it when it has been abandoned. How old are you, Kevin?
Norway, Sweded, and Finland once represented lawless, religionless lands of barbarian, war seeking hoards which sought to destroy society. They essentially sacked the Roman Empire. The Western world was once sacked by Norsemen. Now Western Civilization is threatened by middle eastern religious extremism. The conflict is somewhat exacerbated by religious extremism from the West, i.e. Christian religious extremism, and the negative manifestation of that, Crusades, Zionism, and other thrusts of the Western religious sword. The likelihood that the Middle East will just be pacified by absence after so much agitation is quite slim. In the age of potential nuclear terrorism it would be foolish. These ebbs and flows happen. They have happened before. Now, forces from the Middle East just believe that it is their turn. Whether that it true or not wont be known until it happens. I oppose war and I oppose military occupations, but walking away from a failed state like Afghanistan could get the West decked.
"How old are you, Kevin?"
What does that have to do with anything we are talking about? You are going to argue against what I am trying to suggest because I happen to be only 21 years old?
"You "find" i to be a myth? There are countless reasons for why it is not a myth. I'll start with Western civilization history. It is always harder to end a war than to start one. Starting a war is a simple as a decision in a cabinet room. As simple as a reaction, or an over reaction to an assassination. As simple as hyper belief in nationalistic mythology. All it takes is an act of war, or silly adventurism to start a war."
What you are arguing is subjective and we will probably never agree.
You provide an argument for why wars are easier to start than end, I think that they are just as easy to start as they are to end. They are just as hard to begin as they are to bring to a halt too. It all depends on the parties involved and I believe they have the power to decide the duration of a conflict or war.
"Ending a war has immediate considerations. Such as, what happens from the territory of a failed state? What happens with our allies or potential antagonists? What happens in a legal and or a diplomatic vacuum? You think it is "just as easy" as starting one?"
These considerations are created by people who think occupations or conflicts should continue. I am not disputing the need for diplomatic and political solutions in Afghanistan. I am disputing the suggestion that troops have to stay in Afghanistan for Afghanistan to be stable.
"I am afraid that is a profoundly naive, and somewhat ignorant view of history. Nations have always struggled mightily to end wars. Many conflicts persist after the shooting has stopped. The U.S. Civil War, and The Korean War are two examples. Saying that it is "just as easy" is absurd."
Actually, there were opportunities during both of those wars to end the war sooner. One or both of the parties involved just chose to keep fighting.
You're talking to somebody who questions the idea that a military should be used to address disagreements or issues countries have with each other. I do not believe in the military solution. I do not believe it works especially now in the 21st Century.
I think this is the problem you are having with me. You are trying to argue and justify the use of military in Afghanistan by our nation's Commander-in-Chief and our nation's foreign policymakers and I do not think we should be using our troops to achieve these goals or objectives our leaders think need to be achieved.
"Is it necessary and desirable to end wars? Absolutely. Should the U.S. endeavor to end the war in Afghanistan? Absolutely. But all of history defies conclusion, and now qualifies your accusation of "Obama being as imperialistic as Bush", and equally unreasonable."
Tell me Obama is not as imperialistic as Bush. What has he done to show he is different? He still is doing what every "front" man (as trig called him) has to do.
I do not believe presidents should be building or seeking to maintain empire. I think they should be concerned with the people and land within our nation's borders. Therefore, these actions and policies toward Iraq and Afghanistan do not sit well with me.
"Wars exist when government and diplomacy have failed and ceased. They dont just restart by flipping a switch. It takes great effort to maintain it, and to reconstruct it when it has been abandoned. How old are you, Kevin?"
By that argument, I could infer that you are suggesting government and diplomacy failed and that is why war began in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is this what you want me to infer?
Iraq & Afghanistan were not mistakes. The Bush Administration crafted an argument for invading, tried to sell it, used propaganda on the American people to get us to buy it, employed weapons of mass deception (the news media), and then they sent troops in without fully considering what the endgame would be in either country, without worrying about the fact that they were beginning occupations in both countries.
And why weren't they worried? Occupations were what the Bush Administration wanted.
Does Obama want occupations in Iraq & Afghanistan? For you I give him a week to show me that Afghanistan could end and we could wind up leaving at some point before 2020. But as for Iraq, I can't concede. He has shown through action and policies he is quite alright with occupying Iraq.
How old am I? You tell me what that has got to do with anything, whether you want it to be part of this discussion or not, and I will directly address my age. Until then, I'm 21. And what's that got to do with anything, Bill?
The local ABC News station covered the protest. Here's the article posted on Common Dreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/05-11
I dont seek to justify the war in Afghanistan. I can't say whether or not it is a valid use of an awful thing. I dont know if we would be harmed by withdrawal. But I do know that strict adherence to principle when someone is throwing a punch at your face will not keep that fist from connecting. If you have the chance to evade or duck, or even counter, you had better do so. Your pacifism will not prevent his punch from landing. That would be a misunderstanding of how conflict works. Occupations exist for a reason. Sometimes they are good, and sometimes they are misapplied. But when survival is at stake, principle takes a back seat to pragmatism.
You nailed it. Great comment.
We need a paradigm shift. Keep up the good work, Kevin.
besides, it keeps the marines in a state of maximum readiness, has led to great strides in the development of guided bombs, puts the fear of god in godless furriners, and when pinko lefties complain about the expense of sustaining the biggest military establishment the world has ever seen, why, just point to those dozen ragheads and they see what they get for their money.
obama is keeping you safe, be grateful.
It seems strange that Obama, outstanding man of peace that he is, has not so much as whispered a suggestion that we might, just maybe, consider making a substantial reduction in US military spending from its current level of $623 billion a year (about half the world's total, the largest source of Federal government debt, the black hole that siphons off all the money we are told we don't have for things like education, healthcare, transport, infrastructure, green energy technology or poverty relief), or reduce US troops in Afghanistan, or close any of our 700 plus foreign military bases. Our government pays for our imperial military establishment by issuing dollar denominated debt to foreign governments, which use the dollar as a reserve currency. Asian governments are understandably nervous about our solvency and are seeking alternatives to the dollar. I haven't heard Obama mention anything at all about this, except the usual platitudes about how America needs a strong defense, blah, blah, blah.
Change we can believe in?
We might as well believe in Santa Claus.
Back the fuck up a minute!!!!!!!
Let me guess. It's not "Obama's war." Bush started it.
I've heard this before if that's where this is going. And to it, I reply...
Obama isn't acting like this was Bush's war. He's acting like it was a good war that Bush started and one that is worth continuing.
We did not go to war with Afghanistan (at least that wasn't what I heard). I heard we went to war with the Taliban. We went after al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Right?
Well, we have done more to disturb and disrupt people's lives in Afghanistan and not nearly enough to track down the criminals behind the act we were retaliating against.
Let's get the criminals (if they are still in Afghanistan, if they even are alive) and let's get out.
This operation has become a quest to dominate a region and take control of it. It no longer is about war. It's about controlling more land and resources.
When does Bush's war become Obama's war? Well, let's see if Obama can bring this war to an end before he accepts his Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 10.
If he does, I will gladly never ever again refer to Afghanistan as "Obama's war." It will forever be "Bush's war." Okay?