<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Report: Obama Rules Out &#8216;Biden Option&#8217; on Afghanistan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/</link>
	<description>Original and up-to-date news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:47:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Top International News Round-Up &#171; Hope2012</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-5329</link>
		<dc:creator>Top International News Round-Up &#171; Hope2012</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-5329</guid>
		<description>[...] Obama Rules Out ‘Biden Option’ on Afghanistan &#8211; Yahoo 10/8/09 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Obama Rules Out ‘Biden Option’ on Afghanistan &#8211; Yahoo 10/8/09 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Code Yellow: The selling-out of the antiwar movement &#171; In These New Times</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-4998</link>
		<dc:creator>Code Yellow: The selling-out of the antiwar movement &#171; In These New Times</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:24:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-4998</guid>
		<description>[...] to an approximation of what will no doubt turn out to be the position of the Obama administration: he’s already ruled out getting out, and yet is unlikely to accede to the military’s request for 40,000 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to an approximation of what will no doubt turn out to be the position of the Obama administration: he’s already ruled out getting out, and yet is unlikely to accede to the military’s request for 40,000 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Afghanistan: It&#8217;s Obama&#8217;s War Now &#171; Kasama</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-4935</link>
		<dc:creator>Afghanistan: It&#8217;s Obama&#8217;s War Now &#171; Kasama</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-4935</guid>
		<description>[...] From antiwar.com [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] From antiwar.com [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MAJUSMCRET</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-4925</link>
		<dc:creator>MAJUSMCRET</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:57:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-4925</guid>
		<description>We are debating sending more troops to Afghanistan to protect Afghans. Yet, we apparently do not have the wherewithal to protect Americans from border crossers since we are moving &quot;hundreds&quot; of Border Guards from our insecure Mexican border to the Canadian border. See more at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Protecting_Americans.php&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Protecting_Americ...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We are debating sending more troops to Afghanistan to protect Afghans. Yet, we apparently do not have the wherewithal to protect Americans from border crossers since we are moving &quot;hundreds&quot; of Border Guards from our insecure Mexican border to the Canadian border. See more at: <a href="http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Protecting_Americans.php" target="_blank">http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Protecting_Americ&#8230;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Senate Passes $636 Billion Military Bill &#124; Warrior Society Radio</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-4920</link>
		<dc:creator>Senate Passes $636 Billion Military Bill &#124; Warrior Society Radio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-4920</guid>
		<description>[...] October 7, 2009 &#8212; Obama Rules Out ‘Biden Option’ on Afghanistan [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] October 7, 2009 &#8212; Obama Rules Out ‘Biden Option’ on Afghanistan [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LittleAlex</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-4911</link>
		<dc:creator>LittleAlex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:23:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-4911</guid>
		<description>The New York Times was reporting yesterday that the &quot;Biden Option&quot; isn&#039;t the &quot;significant reduction in troops&quot; the London Times is reporting it is: &lt;a href=&quot;http://wp.me/pnWUd-22n&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://wp.me/pnWUd-22n&lt;/a&gt; 
 
From my understanding, the &quot;Biden Option&quot; is a remobilization of troops to the border, away from policing, to underplay the perception of propping up Kabul with the strategy shift of an &#039;intel surge&#039; and strong-arming the Pak gov&#039;t to put ISAF troops alongside the Pak Army on the ground. I could be wrong, but Obama officials said after that meeting that a &quot;significant reduction in troops&quot; wasn&#039;t even an option on the table, yet the &quot;Biden Option&quot; still is, from what I gathered in that NYT report. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Times was reporting yesterday that the &quot;Biden Option&quot; isn&#039;t the &quot;significant reduction in troops&quot; the London Times is reporting it is: <a href="http://wp.me/pnWUd-22n" target="_blank">http://wp.me/pnWUd-22n</a> </p>
<p>From my understanding, the &quot;Biden Option&quot; is a remobilization of troops to the border, away from policing, to underplay the perception of propping up Kabul with the strategy shift of an &#039;intel surge&#039; and strong-arming the Pak gov&#039;t to put ISAF troops alongside the Pak Army on the ground. I could be wrong, but Obama officials said after that meeting that a &quot;significant reduction in troops&quot; wasn&#039;t even an option on the table, yet the &quot;Biden Option&quot; still is, from what I gathered in that NYT report.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twitted by LilAlexWndrland</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-4909</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitted by LilAlexWndrland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-4909</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was Twitted by LilAlexWndrland [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was Twitted by LilAlexWndrland [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Obama Rules Out ‘Biden Option’ on Afghanistan -- News from Antiwar.com -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-4908</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Obama Rules Out ‘Biden Option’ on Afghanistan -- News from Antiwar.com -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:03:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-4908</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by AngelaKeaton and theopolitico. theopolitico said: Obama Rules Out ‘Biden Option’ on Afghanistan: In a meeting designed to reassure the most hawkish elements of C.. http://bit.ly/gUwSU [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by AngelaKeaton and theopolitico. theopolitico said: Obama Rules Out ‘Biden Option’ on Afghanistan: In a meeting designed to reassure the most hawkish elements of C.. <a href="http://bit.ly/gUwSU" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/gUwSU</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twitted by Antiwar2</title>
		<link>http://news.antiwar.com/2009/10/07/obama-rules-out-biden-option-on-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-4907</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitted by Antiwar2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.antiwar.com/?p=6440#comment-4907</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was Twitted by Antiwar2 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was Twitted by Antiwar2 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 8/23 queries in 0.172 seconds using disk: basic

Served from: news.antiwar.com @ 2012-02-10 16:02:00 -->
