More troops needed says McChrystal...

[emmett]

but President Obama who is obviously far more qualified than the general he himself appointed to head the effort in Afghanistan, says:


Obama said in a series of television interviews broadcast Sunday that he will not allow politics to govern his decision. He left little doubt he is re-evaluating whether more forces will do any good.

General McChrystal says:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, said in a confidential report that without additional forces, the war against insurgents there will end in failure,


So...the United States' head general, who is on the ground, that was hired by Obama, says we will fail without more troops, a "surge" so to speak and Barack Obama says he doubts whether it will do any good.

McChrystal also said:

Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating

And our President and CIC said:

A, I want an unvarnished assessment, but, B, I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question


Sounds like a bunch of malarky to me. Hmmm. Does this seem like a little da-je-vu to you guys? Does to me! Only problem is now we do not have a CIC that supports his generals or for that matter believe they know more about how to win than he does. Now I don;t iomagine it is any secret that GW clearloy was right about the surge helping the Iraq situation (even though Harry Reid claimed it couldn't be won), so I'm curious now what Harry, Nancy, and some of the kookie liberals are going to say now that they are being put in the almost exact same scenario.

It is interesting that most are quiet as of now. I posted this thread to make it clearer my point about another thread. Can a man who has no military experience be a proper CIC? I think Barack Obama is answering this question for me very well. Politics before the safety of our troops. Politics before admitting one is wrong. Politics and party over the security of our country.

Barack Obama is wrong for our country. Stand up liberals and face this before we all are wearing turbins and praying to Allah. Or...are you...like your messiah, incapable of admitting when you have made a bad choice? But then maybe you just believe President Obama knows more about winning a war than a man with 35 years experience, which would not surprise me.

[Mr. P]

Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Perhaps since Obama is such an expert in dealing with this war, we can send him over to scrape and bow before the Taliban and Al Quaeda, while pulling out our troops behind his back, then leave him behind. Yep, that's the ticket, I say we send him over there and bring our troops home, seems like a fair trade to me. :salute:

[emmett]

Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway?




THAT...is an excellent question.

However...

like Iraq, if we are going to be there....let's win. I'm all for just packing up and coming home personally.

Watching how political parties use their influence over our military in completely different ways when application is nearly identical makes me feel that the value of our most precious resource, our children in the military are being used as pawns in a quest to promote an agenda.

In closing, why ARE we in Afghanistan anyway?

[gabosaurus]

I believe we should take ALL our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and station them along the Mexican border. Let the Iraqis and Afghans defend their own countries. I am more interesting in defending OUR nation.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The best thing we can do for the Iraquis and Afghans would be to pull out all our troops, get all our contractors out, issue economic and humanitarian sanctions against them and let them get a taste of life in the real world. If they wish to restore economic and humanitarian aid they can trade it for terrorists that THEY capture and hold to be tried as war criminals.

[emmett]

Glad to know you and Gabby are on the same page here. That's a warm and fuzzy moment. lol

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Glad to know you and Gabby are on the same page here. That's a warm and fuzzy moment. lol

Well Mr. El De-Ba-Tor, when I look around I see you and many others on that page too - that makes is especially warm and fuzzy. :salute:

How appropriate that our common ground revolves around doing what is right for our troops who serve and protect us, even as our politicians (on both sides) seem to be trying to oppress and destroy us!!!

Me thinks perhaps we need our troops home to protect us from the crime syndicate that has taken over our country.

[Gaffer]

Yeah let's pack up and go home. Forget those guys that died over the last 8 years. Forget about those that were wounded and will be disabled the rest of their lives. There's nothing worth fighting for. We're tired of it and tired of hearing about it. Let's just pull out and let them reestablish their bases and launch more attacks. We have no business there. We are oppressing another country (a major lib talking point).

This is a flare up of the 700 year war between islam and the rest of the world. It's not being fought properly. It's being dragged out. The islamists know that all they have to do is hold out and bide their time. Their war has been going on for over 700 years. They can wait a little longer. They sit in pakistan and iran and send a few troops into afghan to keep things stirred up. Where have I seen these tactics before?

The dark lord is in charge so we have another 4 years of war ahead of us. He can't pull back and he won't move forward. And the casualties will continue to mount.

Everyone likes to remember 911. Well, if we pull out of iraq and afghan we will have more dates we can all remember. Along with more memorials. Maybe get an extra holiday or two where everyone can barbecue and stores can have sales. Yeah lets give up on this war shit and bring the troops home.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Wars are fought on many fronts, some of which have nothing to do with putting combat boots on soil. If our president doesn't have enough respect for our troops and our military leaders to make the tough decisions required of his post, we shouldn't be there at all. A president who blows off the advice of our military leaders only puts our troops and ultimately our country at greater risk. If he is unwilling to heed the advice of McCrystal and others on staff at the Pentagon, those fine gentlemen should just pull everyone back and bomb the place off the face of the planet. I don't want my son to be one of 'a minimum number of soldiers' on the ground. I don't want that for any other soldier's mother either.

The people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all the fronts upon which the Taliban and Al-Quaeda are allowed to fester have a responsibility to the world to either reveal/deliver the terrorists or face specific and severe consequences. But, I see them as a bunch of gutless sheep, following whichever shepherd smacks them until they submit. Because we don't smack them around, trying instead to act in a humanitarian manner, they don't trust our help. If we pull out and leave them to their own devices, in the end, if the threat grows, and it surely will grow - they should be subject to the severest consequences of all. If they choose to gather up the bad guys and hand them over for justice to be rendered, then economic and humanitarian aid could be reinstated. The mistake is in not making all the people of those nations accountable for the actions of the terrorist that they harbor and aid.

Our forces are being asked to fight an invisible enemy who wears no uniform, one that hides behind women, children and the elderly, in countries where Sharia law keeps the masses oppressed under the thumb of fear and intimidation. My suggestion is not to tuck tail and leave under a legacy of failure, mine is to issue very specific demands and provide highly undesirable consequences for failure to meet those demands.

McCrystal has told our president that without more troops failure is certain, and he was told that would be taken under advisement, but it isn't politically popular. War is rarely politically popular, duh. But, given the answer that political popularity is worth certain failure to Obama, McCrystal has the right to pull every soldier out of harms way immediately. I believe that the soldiers who have given the ultimate sacrifice and those who have been wounded would not want to know that those following in their footsteps are doing so in spite of an anticipated outcome of certain failure.

[maineman]

if the president were required to always heed and approve the advice of military leaders, we really wouldn't have civilian control of the military, would we?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

if the president were required to always heed and approve the advice of military leaders, we really wouldn't have civilian control of the military, would we?

I won't argue that point, but I will say that this is the same man who said this on Face the Nation in July 2008:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sg6InDwaWFc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sg6InDwaWFc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I take real issue with the fact that the reason he is not listening to his own military advisers is because of the political climate. So...what kind of climate does that create for our troops already committed to that region of the world? Is it okay for him to leave just enough troops there for them to be in severe danger?

[maineman]

I won't argue that point, but I will say that this is the same man who said this on Face the Nation in July 2008:

I take real issue with the fact that the reason he is not listening to his own military advisers is because of the political climate. So...what kind of climate does that create for our troops already committed to that region of the world? Is it okay for him to leave just enough troops there for them to be in severe danger?

First off, it seems as if you are unaware that President Obama HAS already significantly increased troop levels in Afghanistan since his arrival in office.

And I find fault with you claiming that 1. he is not listening to his military advisors, and 2. that you seem to somehow be aware of WHY he is not listening to them. I think both points are flawed and inaccurate.

I am just guessing, but methinks that you weren't around for Viet Nam when our president's military advisors promised him time after time that if only he'd send in MORE American troops, we could win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people... and then, six months later, they'd go in and ask for even MORE troops and promise the same result.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Ah, but I was around for Viet Nam; I grew up watching war on television every night with my dad, who had been an infantry point man in Korea. The strategy problem with Viet Nam still exists today, our troops are being treated as police officers instead of soldiers. They are sent into these zones with one hand tied behind their backs, and at levels inadequate to accomplish their objectives. There is a difference between trickling them in a little at a time and flooding a region with an overwhelming number of troops. That was the chief error in judgment then, just as it is now.

The surge in Iraq created a turning point in that war, even if critics want to say otherwise. If the military advisers ask for that and get less, then we shouldn't even be there at all.

[maineman]

Ah, but I was around for Viet Nam; I grew up watching war on television every night with my dad, who had been an infantry point man in Korea. The strategy problem with Viet Nam still exists today, our troops are being treated as police officers instead of soldiers. They are sent into these zones with one hand tied behind their backs, and at levels inadequate to accomplish their objectives. There is a difference between trickling them in a little at a time and flooding a region with an overwhelming number of troops. That was the chief error in judgment then, just as it is now.

The surge in Iraq created a turning point in that war, even if critics want to say otherwise. If the military advisers ask for that and get less, then we shouldn't even be there at all.

I trust that our president, who has already increased troop levels significantly in Afghanistan, along with Sec'y Gates, is reviewing and revising our strategy in that country and will profide the forces necessary to have that strategy prevail. I have seen nothing from any reputable source that would suggest otherwise. I certainly have seen nothing to suggest that he is not listening to his military advisors, as you suggest, or that he is not listening to them because of politics, which I find insulting.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Hmmmm, that's interesting because here is the latest article from MSNBC. Apparently this assessment was provided to Obama three weeks ago and it just leaked out on Monday. I guess the president has been too busy visiting all the 'acceptable' news talk shows and hanging out with Jay Leno to dedicate his attention to the request of this esteemed general.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32959957/ns/local_news-peoria_il/

Is that news source reputable enough?

okay, here is another:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5328101n&tag=related;photovideo

[theHawk]

Chimpy McPresident suddenly finds himself in a bind! His campaign was all about getting out of the wrong war and building up and winning the Afghan war.

Is Chimpy willing lose the war in Afghanistan to appease his radical anti-war base?
He has a big decision to make, even CNN called him out and asked the question if he is going to lose the war or "man up" to win it.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Oh, hey, MM thank you for the link in the Tea party post....it lead me to this article for yet another 'reputable source' for this thread. Good job bud, what a good helper you've turned out to be!! :dance:


I especially like this paragraph of the article:

Are we now to understand that he [Obama] made all those previous declarations and decisions without a strategy he was committed to? Prior to his recent statements, it seemed clear that the president and his advisers had adopted a strategy already—the counterinsurgency one—and that Gen. Stanley McChrystal was tapped precisely because he would implement that plan. The idea, to repeat, was to deploy forces sufficient to clear territory of Taliban threats, hold that territory, and build up the sinews of the country behind that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574426812788385256.html

[maineman]

Hmmmm, that's interesting because here is the latest article from MSNBC. Apparently this assessment was provided to Obama three weeks ago and it just leaked out on Monday. I guess the president has been too busy visiting all the 'acceptable' news talk shows and hanging out with Jay Leno to dedicate his attention to the request of this esteemed general.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32959957/ns/local_news-peoria_il/

Is that news source reputable enough?

okay, here is another:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5328101n&tag=related;photovideo

do you honestly think that he and Gates have not reviewed the request and have decided to wait before jumping? Where does ANYONE say that he does not listen to his generals and where does anyone say that he does not do so because of politics?

[theHawk]

do you honestly think that he and Gates have not reviewed the request and have decided to wait before jumping? Where does ANYONE say that he does not listen to his generals and where does anyone say that he does not do so because of politics?

Of course they have reviewed it. What has Obama done since then? Going on talk shows?

Hey how about make a decision as Commander-in-Chief?

So far he is voting "present". :lame2:

[maineman]

Of course they have reviewed it. What has Obama done since then? Going on talk shows?

Hey how about make a decision as Commander-in-Chief?

So far he is voting "present". :lame2:
and what if his secdef has advised him to hold off before committing more troops?

sometimes not precipitously making a decision is, itself, a better decision, don't you think?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Did you read the article? :rolleyes:

End of 1st paragraph and entire 2nd paragraph:

And a mere three weeks ago, he punctuated his commitments by proclaiming that Afghanistan is a "war of necessity," not one of choice. White House spokesmen reinforced this by promising that the president would "fully resource" the war.

Yet less than one week ago, Mr. Obama said the following about troop increases: "I'm going to take a very deliberate process in making those decisions. There is no immediate decision pending on resources, because one of the things that I'm absolutely clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make a determination about resources." He repeated that on Sunday's talk shows.

then, 4th and 5th paragraphs:

Nothing significant has changed to account for the shift from Mr. Obama's confident policy proclamations to his temporizing statements of recent days. The president certainly understood before last week that the situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating. And he knew when he was inaugurated and when he first uttered his colorful "war of necessity" phrase that his party, and the public generally, were increasingly opposed to the war.

Americans are now confused and caught somewhere between remembering the president's insistence on Afghanistan's importance to U.S. security and rapidly rising pressure from his party to bring the troops home.

Do you really think that our troops over there in the bowels of hades have time for him to waffle and ponder and run the talk show circuit while he makes up his mind? :poke:

[maineman]

Did you read the article? :rolleyes:

End of 1st paragraph and entire 2nd paragraph:


then, 4th and 5th paragraphs:


Do you really think that our troops over there in the bowels of hades have time for him to waffle and ponder and run the talk show circuit while he makes up his mind?


like I said, and you completely ignored: sometimes not precipitously making a decision is, itself, a better decision, don't you think?

[Trigg]

like I said, and you completely ignored: sometimes not precipitously making a decision is, itself, a better decision, don't you think?

This report was given to him THREE WEEKS AGO



I'm sure he wishes he was still a senator, then he could vote present and then skip home to wright another book.

Three weeks is a long time to make a decision. He needs to take a shit or get off the pot.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

McCrystal asked for this THREE WEEKS ago. If it hadn't leaked out we wouldn't know about this now...but the evidence remains that public perception was higher on Obama's agenda than dealing with the war. He said last July that he would devote adequate attention to this matter. What I have seen is a president so busy chatting it up with the 'friendly' news shows that he has set aside the importance of dealing with this situation.

Say what you like, but I find it incredibly disrespectful of our troops for him to be joking with Jay Leno about being 'black before the election' while our troops, black and white, are dying in ever increasing numbers in the bowels of hell.

I have the authority to say this with intense passion because I am the proud parent of an American soldier and I expect my president to serve me as honorably as our troops do!

[maineman]

McCrystal asked for this THREE WEEKS ago. If it hadn't leaked out we wouldn't know about this now...but the evidence remains that public perception was higher on Obama's agenda than dealing with the war. He said last July that he would devote adequate attention to this matter. What I have seen is a president so busy chatting it up with the 'friendly' news shows that he has set aside the importance of dealing with this situation.

Say what you like, but I find it incredibly disrespectful of our troops for him to be joking with Jay Leno about being 'black before the election' while our troops, black and white, are dying in ever increasing numbers in the bowels of hell.

I have the authority to say this with intense passion because I am the proud parent of an American soldier and I expect my president to serve me as honorably as our troops do!

what does that have to do with my point that avoiding a precipitous decision is, in many cases, a better decision?

And I have the authority to say that with intense passion because I SERVED our country for a quarter of a century and am now retired.

[maineman]

This report was given to him THREE WEEKS AGO



I'm sure he wishes he was still a senator, then he could vote present and then skip home to wright another book.

Three weeks is a long time to make a decision. He needs to take a shit or get off the pot.


and you think that taking more than 21 days to decide to send more americans into harm's way is too long? Have you ever been in the military, btw?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Not personally, but I am very familiar with the 'hurry up and wait' posture. That should be the option of the military....not the option of the executive branch because by the time we hurry up and wait for the president to fiddle around and then it goes to congress, where they fiddle around, by the time the approval has come through, how many more soldiers will have died - how many more insurgents will have created how many more IED's. See, I don't believe the president has the luxury of mulling things over too long at a time where human lives are at stake.

[maineman]

Not personally, but I am very familiar with the 'hurry up and wait' posture. That should be the option of the military....not the option of the executive branch because by the time we hurry up and wait for the president to fiddle around and then it goes to congress, where they fiddle around, by the time the approval has come through, how many more soldiers will have died - how many more insurgents will have created how many more IED's. See, I don't believe the president has the luxury of mulling things over too long at a time where human lives are at stake.

I have no desire to rush my president into a precipitous decision. Why in the world would you? YOu have absolutely no idea how many variables and options he is considering.

In the Navy, we used to say, "If you want it bad, you'll get it bad".

[Joyful HoneyBee]

It is only getting worse over there for the troops already deployed. There is no reason for hesitating on this decision. It was supposed to have already been decided to follow the lead of the military advisers. They either need to jump in or jump out, but waffling only gives the insurgents more time and opportunity to do more harm.

[maineman]

It is only getting worse over there for the troops already deployed. There is no reason for hesitating on this decision. It was supposed to have already been decided to follow the lead of the military advisers. They either need to jump in or jump out, but waffling only gives the insurgents more time and opportunity to do more harm.

Like I said, neither of us can even begin to comprehend the amount of variables and the complexity of this decision. I trust our president has our country's best interests at heart.

[Nukeman]

Like I said, neither of us can even begin to comprehend the amount of variables and the complexity of this decision. I trust our president has our country's best interests at heart.


I will respectfully have to disagree with you on this. IMHO he has his own agenda and interests at heart and that is it.

Honestly the man is way over his head, maybe this is above his pay grade???

[maineman]

I will respectfully have to disagree with you on this. IMHO he has his own agenda and interests at heart and that is it.

Honestly the man is way over his head, maybe this is above his pay grade???

so we will have to agree to disagree. And regarding his paygrade, there ain't none higher.

[Mr. P]

Like I said, neither of us can even begin to comprehend the amount of variables and the complexity of this decision. I trust our president has our country's best interests at heart.

So, why are we there? Poppy patrol?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Interesting you mention poppies because I just watched a show on NatGeo about heroin and they said that approximately 90% of the heroin being distributed throughout the world comes from Afghanistan.

But, the original purpose was to ferret out the Taliban and Al-Quaeda, basically...get them before they get us again. However, I don't feel that the rest of the world is really doing their part in the effort. Here's why:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=383166&postcount=14

[theHawk]

Like I said, neither of us can even begin to comprehend the amount of variables and the complexity of this decision. I trust our president has our country's best interests at heart.

Well pardon us if we don't have the same "trust" in Chimpy.

Its obvious the shitbag is sitting on the fence measuring the political winds to see what move will get him higher poll numbers.

:lame2:

[theHawk]

and what if his secdef has advised him to hold off before committing more troops?

sometimes not precipitously making a decision is, itself, a better decision, don't you think?

Odd, earlier you said:


if the president were required to always heed and approve the advice of military leaders, we really wouldn't have civilian control of the military, would we?

So you're saying he should ignore the advice of his own appointed General, and heed the advice of a Bush appointed Sec.

So which is it? Is he taking advice from the military or setting his own policy (of doing nothing)?

[maineman]

Odd, earlier you said:



So you're saying he should ignore the advice of his own appointed General, and heed the advice of a Bush appointed Sec.

So which is it? Is he taking advice from the military or setting his own policy (of doing nothing)?
He should LISTEN to the advice of all of his advisors and, based upon their input and his own judgment, make the decision by himself. Isn't that what you would want ANY president to do?

[maineman]

Well pardon us if we don't have the same "trust" in Chimpy.

Its obvious the shitbag is sitting on the fence measuring the political winds to see what move will get him higher poll numbers.

:lame2:

it's obvious that he is the president and the guy from your party isn't. So you can sit on the sidelines and whine like a girlieman until 2012.

sucks to be you.:lol:

[Trigg]

it's obvious that he is the president and the guy from your party isn't. So you can sit on the sidelines and whine like a girlieman until 2012.

sucks to be you.:lol:

Well since we all had to listen to the libs on this board piss and moan for the past 8 years you'll parden us if we don't all get in line behind bambam.

He's already a lame duck according to the brits, just wait until the dems loose the majority after the 2010 elections.

[maineman]

Well since we all had to listen to the libs on this board piss and moan for the past 8 years you'll parden us if we don't all get in line behind bambam.

He's already a lame duck according to the brits, just wait until the dems loose the majority after the 2010 elections.

no. I actually enjoy listening to conservative caterwauling....it's great fun!

[emmett]

President Bush followed the advice of his military advisors so comparison is of no consequence. Barack Obama is not!

You can't tell a liberal to operate with conscience. They will not, even when presented with excellent evidence, do anything but repeat themselves such as how MM has done when "slammed" by the Buzzing Bee.

[maineman]

President Bush followed the advice of his military advisors so comparison is of no consequence. Barack Obama is not!

You can't tell a liberal to operate with conscience. They will not, even when presented with excellent evidence, do anything but repeat themselves such as how MM has done when "slammed" by the Buzzing Bee.

I do not want my president to rubber stamp the recommendations of his generals.

It is sad that you do.

[Kathianne]

I do not want my president to rubber stamp the recommendations of his generals.

It is sad that you do.

Indeed. Your president should ignore all advice, and listen to his stellar VP on military strategy. Good choice. Wow, MM is sounding alot like Pat Buchanan on LSD.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

I do not want my president to rubber stamp the recommendations of his generals.

It is sad that you do.

To reiterate, one more time, again....no one is asking the man to rubber stamp anything; merely to live up to the commitments he made to the voters before he was elected.

Am I gonna have to go out and dig up more of those interviews he did where he was promising to take responsibility for Afghanistan....because I can do it and I will :slap:

[theHawk]

I do not want my president to rubber stamp the recommendations of his generals.

It is sad that you do.

Yea, you'd rather he rubberstamp the plans his self-appointed boobs with no military experience come up with.

[maineman]

To reiterate, one more time, again....no one is asking the man to rubber stamp anything; merely to live up to the commitments he made to the voters before he was elected.

Am I gonna have to go out and dig up more of those interviews he did where he was promising to take responsibility for Afghanistan....because I can do it and I will :slap:

And if the situation on the ground changes, I take it that you really don't want him to reconsider his position? You want him to bull forward doing what he said he would do during his campaign regardless of how much the Afghanistan situation may have changed, by, say, a fraudulent election and a completely disillusioned population? Who cares, right? "Into the valley of death rode the six hundred!"

[theHawk]

He should LISTEN to the advice of all of his advisors and, based upon their input and his own judgment, make the decision by himself. Isn't that what you would want ANY president to do?

I'm sure he's spending countless hours doing a lot of "critical thinking" on the issue.

I have no doubt he will come up with an ingenius plan to lose the war. His whole campaign was built on the anti-war movement and he blasts the US in every international speech he gives (like today's). He detests the military, and everyone in the military knows it. He could care less if they lose in Afghanistan. He'll see it as a way to raise his poll numbers throughout the world.

[maineman]

I'm sure he's spending countless hours doing a lot of "critical thinking" on the issue.

I have no doubt he will come up with an ingenius plan to lose the war. His whole campaign was built on the anti-war movement and he blasts the US in every international speech he gives (like today's). He detests the military, and everyone in the military knows it. He could care less if they lose in Afghanistan. He'll see it as a way to raise his poll numbers throughout the world.

Are YOU in the military? Have you ever BEEN in the military?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

There are young men and women already on the ground in that hellhole, and six thousand more scheduled to be deployed before the end of this year. The generals have told him that they need more troops on the ground or the mission will be a failure.

It takes time to move troops.....I still say he needs to stop waffling, either pull them out and issue ultimatums or move them in using numbers significant enough to make a difference. He didn't say anything about taking off time to scratch his head and rethink the program throughout his campaign. He was elected because people thought he was decisive and surefooted. I'm not seeing that.....sorry....I'm seeing someone who is uncertain and lacking confidence so much that he thinks he has to hawk the happy friendly news show circuit to reconnect with his adoring public. His adoring public is shrinking....there are a few rare liberals who have kids stationed over there too.

here is another video from before the election.....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3vpCBpTbEds&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3vpCBpTbEds&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Kathianne]

And if the situation on the ground changes, I take it that you really don't want him to reconsider his position? You want him to bull forward doing what he said he would do during his campaign regardless of how much the Afghanistan situation may have changed, by, say, a fraudulent election and a completely disillusioned population? Who cares, right? "Into the valley of death rode the six hundred!"

What has changed? Other than his policies that have led to a worsening of what had gone before?

[maineman]

What has changed? Other than his policies that have led to a worsening of what had gone before?

had the election happened before he was inaugurated? had the incumbent president apparently stolen the election through fraud and completely lost the trust of his citizenry? Have you been in a "FLIPPING" cacoon for the past six months?

[Kathianne]

had the election happened before he was inaugurated? had the incumbent president apparently stolen the election through fraud and completely lost the trust of his citizenry? Have you been in a fucking cacoon for the past six months?

LOL, you've got a serious case of 'excuse aplenty!'. He's responsible and we all know it, trust me, spin on MB will not cut it.

[maineman]

LOL, you've got a serious case of 'excuse aplenty!'. He's responsible and we all know it, trust me, spin on MB will not cut it.

you asked what had changed. I gave you an answer. Do you care to refute that, or just continue tap dancing?

[emmett]

you asked what had changed. I gave you an answer. Do you care to refute that, or just continue tap dancing?


Virgil...

Did you hear what the general said, you know, the man Barack Obama said was more qualified to make those decisions than anyone in the United States military? Did you actually hear what he said. He said we would fail. Now that is change too because up until now our military has been very successful.

When a surge was called for in Iraq, YOU (and yes you did) and your liberal friends said it would not work and was not needed. You critisized Bush, called him all kinds of shit, and were ....WRONG!

You are wrong again. Spin it, twist it and spin some more "SIR", but the general said we need the troops to be successful, it looks bad that Barry does not have more confidence in his people....

Wait a minute...whaty am I saying? You know what? You could be right....based on the job performance of the some of the other shit he has appointed, Van Jones, etc,... tax cheats,...liars,...... maybe I need to look at this again.

[maineman]

Virgil...

Did you hear what the general said, you know, the man Barack Obama said was more qualified to make those decisions than anyone in the United States military? Did you actually hear what he said. He said we would fail. Now that is change too because up until now our military has been very successful.

When a surge was called for in Iraq, YOU (and yes you did) and your liberal friends said it would not work and was not needed. You critisized Bush, called him all kinds of shit, and were ....WRONG!

You are wrong again. Spin it, twist it and spin some more "SIR", but the general said we need the troops to be successful, it looks bad that Barry does not have more confidence in his people....

Wait a minute...whaty am I saying? You know what? You could be right....based on the job performance of the some of the other shit he has appointed, Van Jones, etc,... tax cheats,...liars,...... maybe I need to look at this again.

One thing I learned in my time in uniform, nothing is as easy as it looks. I know that the decision to commit more troops to Afghanistan is a terribly complex one. I am certainly aware that Obama can definitely make a WRONG decision here, but I do NOT think that, by taking some time and postponing his decision for a week or a month, that he has failed in any way

[Mr. P]

So, why are we there? Poppy patrol?

Same question..and

Afghanistan is unwinnable.

[theHawk]

Are YOU in the military? Have you ever BEEN in the military?

Yes I have been.

In my current job I work side by side with Army soldiers that get deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[maineman]

Yes I have been.

In my current job I work side by side with Army soldiers that get deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

and they ALL feel that the president detests them?

I keep in close contact with many of my former shipmates and classmates still on active duty. Very few of them have such an attitude about our President.

[Jeff]

You know at one point I thought Obama was the man to vote for, then I listened to that nut job Hilliary talking about how her name isn't Hilliary Rodham Clinton if she doesn't have the troops out of Iraq and back home within one month of taking office , well we all know what a whack job she is, but then they played Obama's response, he promised to have them out with in 3 months, but he wasn't bringing them home he was sending them to the REAL war in Afghanistan,I knew then he was as full as shit as Hilliary just not quite as stupid, Well we are still in Iraq so there is #1 lie, but if he couldn't get us out of there and send the soldiers to the REAL war what the hell is the question about sending others to Afghanistan?

[theHawk]

and they ALL feel that the president detests them?

I keep in close contact with many of my former shipmates and classmates still on active duty. Very few of them have such an attitude about our President.

Let me put it this way: I don't "keep in close contact" with active duty, I work with them every day for 8 hours. I don't go around talking about the President to all of them (we usually have more important things to do), so I can't answer your question, but I can tell you I never hear any praise about him. They are military and Obama is their CNC, so they can't come out and say too much. When we civilians talk about Obama policies they laugh in agreement how rediculous Obama's policies are. Its well understood that this is going to be just like the Clinton years, where the military just need to keep their mouth shut and nose to the grinder and ride the storm of yet another slackjawed liberal CNC.

When I served it was mostly under Bush (but I did join during the Clinton years), and I remember vividly how upset the older military people were that Clinton gutted the military the way he did. How he willingly threw military commanders under the bus for HIS mistakes in policy. Didn't see any of that attitude during the Bush years, most people liked Bush as a CNC.

[Jeff]

and they ALL feel that the president detests them?

I keep in close contact with many of my former shipmates and classmates still on active duty. Very few of them have such an attitude about our President.

Was that on the Good ship Lollipop ?

[theHawk]

You know at one point I thought Obama was the man to vote for, then I listened to that nut job Hilliary talking about how her name isn't Hilliary Rodham Clinton if she doesn't have the troops out of Iraq and back home within one month of taking office , well we all know what a whack job she is, but then they played Obama's response, he promised to have them out with in 3 months, but he wasn't bringing them home he was sending them to the REAL war in Afghanistan,I knew then he was as full as shit as Hilliary just not quite as stupid, Well we are still in Iraq so there is #1 lie, but if he couldn't get us out of there and send the soldiers to the REAL war what the hell is the question about sending others to Afghanistan?

Yup, funny how you don't hear liberals like MFM screaming about Obama lying about pulling the troops out. Obama quickly adopted the policy of Bush once he got into office.

[Jeff]

Yup, funny how you don't hear liberals like MFM screaming about Obama lying about pulling the troops out. Obama quickly adopted the policy of Bush once he got into office.

I don't think he had any choice but to do so, he lied all threw his campaign and idiots like MM ate it all up, and now won't admit the man is a liar

[maineman]

the world situation is very fluid. I have no desire to see my president so rigid that he cannot adapt to changing circumstances.

Since our last election, Afghanistan has also had an obviously fraudulent election which calls into question the legitimacy of their government. If we do not have a legitimate partner with the support of the people, our mission in Afghanistan must necessarily be modified... wouldn't that make sense? Or would you prefer that Obama continue on the same path regardless of what happens to make travelling on that path an ill advised journey?

[Jeff]

the world situation is very fluid. I have no desire to see my president so rigid that he cannot adapt to changing circumstances.

Since our last election, Afghanistan has also had an obviously fraudulent election which calls into question the legitimacy of their government. If we do not have a legitimate partner with the support of the people, our mission in Afghanistan must necessarily be modified... wouldn't that make sense? Or would you prefer that Obama continue on the same path regardless of what happens to make travelling on that path an ill advised journey?

This whole post = Obama is a liar but I still love to kiss his butt

[emmett]

The question is simple.

Who knows more about the strategy, the general in charge or Obama?

The choice to make is simple as well. If you want to win you add and pursue. If you want to withdraw...then withdraw. Either is OK with me. Anything in the middle is leaving soldiers in harms way without the resources to win. THAT is unacceptable.

Elementary my dear Watson.

[theHawk]

the world situation is very fluid. I have no desire to see my president so rigid that he cannot adapt to changing circumstances.

Since our last election, Afghanistan has also had an obviously fraudulent election which calls into question the legitimacy of their government. If we do not have a legitimate partner with the support of the people, our mission in Afghanistan must necessarily be modified... wouldn't that make sense? Or would you prefer that Obama continue on the same path regardless of what happens to make travelling on that path an ill advised journey?

Regardless of the political situation, the troops on the ground are getting hit hard there right now. We need more troops, we need a much bigger military period so we don't have to deploy the same troops over and over for an on-going war.

Yes, the world situation is very fluid. And we are stuck with an inept President that is so ill-qualified for the job he is contradicting himself at every turn. He ran on the premise of getting out of Iraq and providing more troops and resources for the "good" war we should be fighting in Afghanistan against those who attacked us on 9/11. Yet today we're still in Iraq and now he is refusing to give more help in Afghanistan.

Then there is his disgraceful speech at the UN. He essencially tells the world we US will never be a super power again, and we need to abandon the old "cold war" ways of thinking. Then he turns around and starts telling the world we need to embrace "nuclear proliferation", a cold war idea. Its an absolutely idiotic idea to believe nuclear proliferation will ever work, history has proven this. If a nation wants to get nuclear power, it will. Nothing has stopped, nor will stop dictators from obtaining the technology. The only thing nuclear proliferation will do is eliminate the US aresnal while everyone else stocks up. Instead of speaking against dictators and thugs that support terrorism, he is going after technology.

[maineman]

Regardless of the political situation, the troops on the ground are getting hit hard there right now. We need more troops, we need a much bigger military period so we don't have to deploy the same troops over and over for an on-going war.

Yes, the world situation is very fluid. And we are stuck with an inept President that is so ill-qualified for the job he is contradicting himself at every turn. He ran on the premise of getting out of Iraq and providing more troops and resources for the "good" war we should be fighting in Afghanistan against those who attacked us on 9/11. Yet today we're still in Iraq and now he is refusing to give more help in Afghanistan.

Then there is his disgraceful speech at the UN. He essencially tells the world we US will never be a super power again, and we need to abandon the old "cold war" ways of thinking. Then he turns around and starts telling the world we need to embrace "nuclear proliferation", a cold war idea. Its an absolutely idiotic idea to believe nuclear proliferation will ever work, history has proven this. If a nation wants to get nuclear power, it will. Nothing has stopped, nor will stop dictators from obtaining the technology. The only thing nuclear proliferation will do is eliminate the US aresnal while everyone else stocks up. Instead of speaking against dictators and thugs that support terrorism, he is going after technology.



I would love to see a quote from President Obama where he "embraced nucleat proliferation".

When you get that.... please post it.

[hjmick]

the world situation is very fluid. I have no desire to see my president so rigid that he cannot adapt to changing circumstances.

So far, he's come across as being too limp to adapt to anything. What I don't understand is this, Obama insisted that the stimulus had to be passed immediately or America as we knew it would cease to exist, he insists that the healthcare bill has to be passed immediately or millions will die and those who don't die will lose their homes because of their medical bills. It doesn't matter that no one reads these piles of shit they all vote in favor of, it doesn't matter that no one knows what's in them or how much they will cost, they must be passed, damn it! But when the general HE selected to run the war in Afghanistan says, "Yo, I need 40,000 more troops or all will be lost," all of a sudden we hear the screech of the brakes, there is pressure to keep the request under wraps, the Washington post is encouraged by the Pentagon to hold the story about the request for more troops, and almost a month later Obama hasn't made a decision on the matter. Maybe if he spent less time trying sell this half-baked ill conceived healthcare debacle on six different network shows and more time in his office, a decision could have already been made. But no, almost a month after McChrystal says he needs more troops, Barack is still Hmmming and Hahing, waiting for the polls to come in more than likely. So don't feed me this bullshit about not wanting a President "so rigid that he cannot adapt to changing circumstances" because as far as I'm concerned, right now we've got a President too afraid to make a decision about what is essentially the welfare of our troops in the field. Either send more troops, or bring the ones there home now. Either way, quit being a fucking pussy.


Since our last election, Afghanistan has also had an obviously fraudulent election which calls into question the legitimacy of their government.

Are you saying that our last election was fraudulent? Because this is what your words say...

[Jeff]

So far, he's come across as being too limp to adapt to anything. What I don't understand is this, Obama insisted that the stimulus had to be passed immediately or America as we knew it would cease to exist, he insists that the healthcare bill has to be passed immediately or millions will die and those who don't die will lose their homes because of their medical bills. It doesn't matter that no one reads these piles of shit they all vote in favor of, it doesn't matter that no one knows what's in them or how much they will cost, they must be passed, damn it! But when the general HE selected to run the war in Afghanistan says, "Yo, I need 40,000 more troops or all will be lost," all of a sudden we hear the screech of the brakes, there is pressure to keep the request under wraps, the Washington post is encouraged by the Pentagon to hold the story about the request for more troops, and almost a month later Obama hasn't made a decision on the matter. Maybe if he spent less time trying sell this half-baked ill conceived healthcare debacle on six different network shows and more time in his office, a decision could have already been made. But no, almost a month after McChrystal says he needs more troops, Barack is still Hmmming and Hahing, waiting for the polls to come in more than likely. So don't feed me this bullshit about not wanting a President "so rigid that he cannot adapt to changing circumstances" because as far as I'm concerned, right now we've got a President too afraid to make a decision about what is essentially the welfare of our troops in the field. Either send more troops, or bring the ones there home now. Either way, quit being a fucking pussy.



Are you saying that our last election was fraudulent? Because this is what your words say...

LOL@MM, he will wiggle out of it with a bunch of lies

Obama is the president for 1 reason, well a couple, he is black so he can reach a whole other set of voters and he is a good salesman, but he is failing,
he has gotten caught up in thinking he is really something and he is only A pawn for the dems, they tried to use him to sell there agenda and Obama didn't realize he was suppose to be just a salesman and has his own agenda, he is a bright fellow, but no he can't figure out what to do in Afghanistan about troops, cause your Dems don't want wars, he don't want to hurt his people, and your Liberal quacks just sit around like a teenage girl on prom night smiling cause there guy is in office

Meanwhile we lose more men and woman all in the name of Politics , how patriotic of this administration!!

[maineman]

So far, he's come across as being too limp to adapt to anything. What I don't understand is this, Obama insisted that the stimulus had to be passed immediately or America as we knew it would cease to exist, he insists that the healthcare bill has to be passed immediately or millions will die and those who don't die will lose their homes because of their medical bills. It doesn't matter that no one reads these piles of shit they all vote in favor of, it doesn't matter that no one knows what's in them or how much they will cost, they must be passed, damn it! But when the general HE selected to run the war in Afghanistan says, "Yo, I need 40,000 more troops or all will be lost," all of a sudden we hear the screech of the brakes, there is pressure to keep the request under wraps, the Washington post is encouraged by the Pentagon to hold the story about the request for more troops, and almost a month later Obama hasn't made a decision on the matter. Maybe if he spent less time trying sell this half-baked ill conceived healthcare debacle on six different network shows and more time in his office, a decision could have already been made. But no, almost a month after McChrystal says he needs more troops, Barack is still Hmmming and Hahing, waiting for the polls to come in more than likely. So don't feed me this bullshit about not wanting a President "so rigid that he cannot adapt to changing circumstances" because as far as I'm concerned, right now we've got a President too afraid to make a decision about what is essentially the welfare of our troops in the field. Either send more troops, or bring the ones there home now. Either way, quit being a fucking pussy.





I have no problem with him taking more time in deciding to risk American lives than he does in deciding to risk American money.

[Silver]

and you think that taking more than 21 days to decide to send more americans into harm's way is too long? Have you ever been in the military, btw?

Sometimes I wonder if YOU'VE been in the military....

The late Sen. Teddy Kennedy, having achieved the lofty position of Private in the course of his military career, knew more about the military than the pinhead, now in the Oval Office, knows.....

[maineman]

Sometimes I wonder if YOU'VE been in the military....

The late Sen. Teddy Kennedy, having achieved the lofty position of Private in the course of his military career, knew more about the military than the pinhead, now in the Oval Office, knows.....

we know YOU were in...four years of peeling potatoes...

With the revelation of the rampant fraud in the last Afghan election, Obama now runs the risk of repeating the LBJ support of the equally fraudulent Diem regime in Vietnam. I am all for a careful reevaluation of our strategy in that region in light of that election. And you, I suppose, would simply pour in more troops to prop up what appears to be a less than legitimate regime? Now THAT will be sure to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, won't it?

[Mr. P]

Interesting you mention poppies because I just watched a show on NatGeo about heroin and they said that approximately 90% of the heroin being distributed throughout the world comes from Afghanistan.

But, the original purpose was to ferret out the Taliban and Al-Quaeda, basically...get them before they get us again. However, I don't feel that the rest of the world is really doing their part in the effort. Here's why:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=383166&postcount=14

Being that yer in the South I'm sure you have had experience with Fire ant control in your yard, right? Did ya have success? That is my analogy of Afghanistan, Al-Quaeda and the Taliban. I'll explain if I must when I have time to post more.

[theHawk]

I would love to see a quote from President Obama where he "embraced nucleat proliferation".

When you get that.... please post it.

His idea of stopping all nuclear proliferation throughout the world, starting with disarming the US. Its his first "Pillar" for destroying America....I mean achieving "world peace".

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=385514&postcount=5


The idea of getting rid of all nuclear weapons was a pipe dream made up by liberals during the Reagan era. Because you know, the right wing warmongers like Reagan and Thatcher were going to start a nuclear war that would destroy the world.

Obama actually says he is for most any country obtaining nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes yet somehow believes we can prevent those countries from getting nuclear weapons. He never explains how we'll prevent that, I guess sanctions, and "working together", and nastly letters from the UN will do that.

[gabosaurus]

This is America. We shouldn't care about the Middle East or Afghanistan. We shouldn't care about the U.N. We should care about ourselves.
Once again, the simple solution is to pull ALL troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, bring them home, and station them along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Because I am a LOT more frightened by Mexican drug cartels than I am of any Islamic terrorist group. The drug lords do not just threaten this country. They are IN this country.

The only way to send a message to drug cartels is a massive show of force at the border. We need land forces, 24-hour aerial surveillance and intelligence missions.
The border needs to be completely shut down. Fuck the Mexican government if they don't like it.

[maineman]

His idea of stopping all nuclear proliferation throughout the world, starting with disarming the US. Its his first "Pillar" for destroying America....I mean achieving "world peace".

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=385514&postcount=5


The idea of getting rid of all nuclear weapons was a pipe dream made up by liberals during the Reagan era. Because you know, the right wing warmongers like Reagan and Thatcher were going to start a nuclear war that would destroy the world.

Obama actually says he is for most any country obtaining nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes yet somehow believes we can prevent those countries from getting nuclear weapons. He never explains how we'll prevent that, I guess sanctions, and "working together", and nastly letters from the UN will do that.



you said he embraced nuclear proliferation. I guess you didn't really mean that then, did you?

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Good questions raised here.......

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/largeplayer011008/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='FOX News' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=011008&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=undefined&referralObject=9984919' />

[Mr. P]

Good questions raised here.......

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/largeplayer011008/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='FOX News' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=011008&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=undefined&referralObject=9984919' />

:thumb: :salute:

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Joint Chiefs Chairman Receives Afghanistan Troop Request, Aides Say
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is expected to request 30,000 to 40,000 additional troops, met with Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, FOX News has confirmed.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/25/aides-mullen-likely-sign-afghanistan-troop-request/?test=latestnews

[emmett]

Now hold on y'all, we got to get a strategy before we can go sending adequate troops to Afghanistan.

[maineman]

civilians develop strategy. military personnel implement strategy.

simple as that.

[red states rule]

The Generals and field Commanders are asking for more troops to launch a surge, one Commander is threatening to resign over Obama's lack of interest, and Obama has spoken to Gen McChrystal ONCE

Meanwhile, Obama is on Lettermen, making the rounds on the talk shows to push for Obamacare, and going overseas to push for Chicago to get the Olympics

Shows his priorities folks. More hope and change

[red states rule]

I guess Obama thinks once is enough


Once?
posted at 10:12 am on September 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How often would one imagine that a wartime President, as Commander in Chief, would meet in the first eight months of his term with the overall commander of the theater of war that this President had said was too often overlooked by his predecessor? Once a month? Especially given how much public consideration this President has given the political and strategic questions of the fight, perhaps that might be once a week over the last couple of months?

How about once a … lifetime?

The military general credited for capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq says he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan.

“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference],” General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.

“You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up.

“That is correct,” the general replied.

In June 2008, Barack Obama said that it was time for a redeployment from Iraq that “refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.” In the same speech, he committed to “taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. … as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

Five months later, Obama won the election and prepared his transition. That was ten months ago. If Afghanistan is his “top priority” and “a war that we have to win,” wouldn’t Obama have carved out a little time in his schedule to meet with the man tasked with winning it more than once since appointing him in June? It may have forced him to skip a Wagyu beef dinner and perhaps a night on the town in New York City, but those are the sacrifices that a CinC has to make from time to time.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/28/once/

[maineman]

my guess is that the generals talk to Gates on a regular basis. that is how the chain of command works.

[red states rule]

my guess is that the generals talk to Gates on a regular basis. that is how the chain of command works.

Why should Obama waste time fullfilling his duties as CIC? He has enough trouble fullfilling his job as Teleprompter In Chief

[red states rule]

While only talking Gen McChrystal one time since his appointment, the Generals urgent rquest for help on hold, Obama is flying off to address a much more urgent issue then our troops on the ground in wartime, - to promote the Olympics for Chicago.

Yes more hope and change from the Chosen One

[Jeff]

civilians develop strategy. military personnel implement strategy.

simple as that.

Is Obama or was he ever part of the military? he promised more troops in Afghanistan, you remember where the real war was, oooppps guess he forgot, maybe he should put politics behind and just do what is right for our troops, Naaa that would make to much sense

[red states rule]

Is Obama or was he ever part of the military? he promised more troops in Afghanistan, you remember where the real war was, oooppps guess he forgot, maybe he should put politics behind and just do what is right for our troops, Naaa that would make to much sense

Maybe Obama will honor Gen McChrystal with a phone call during the flight over to Denmark. Just think about it - Obama will speak to him TWICE about the war

Wow, what a guy

[Jeff]

Maybe Obama will honor Gen McChrystal with a phone call during the flight over to Denmark. Just think about it - Obama will speak to him TWICE about the war

Wow, what a guy

The whole question of IF we should send more makes Obama look like such a ass, Generals telling him we need them he promised them, but now that he may piss of his dem buddies he would rather let our troops suffer over there, a real American patriot

[red states rule]

The whole question of IF we should send more makes Obama look like such a ass, Generals telling him we need them he promised them, but now that he may piss of his dem buddies he would rather let our troops suffer over there, a real American patriot

If he sends more troops it will piss off his kook base of peace niks and anti war nuts

If he does not send the troops, the US could lose this fight. Remember, Obama was opposed to the surge in Iraq - even when it was clear how successful it was

Obama will have to decide which is a bigger hit. He will never consider the fact the troops are asking their CIC for help - only how it will help or hurt him politically

[Jeff]

If he sends more troops it will piss off his kook base of peace niks and anti war nuts

If he does not send the troops, the US could lose this fight. Remember, Obama was opposed to the surge in Iraq - even when it was clear how successful it was

Obama will have to decide which is a bigger hit. He will never consider the fact the troops are asking their CIC for help - only how it will help or hurt him politically

So comforting to know our president is party over country, he is a true Liberal, a black Virgil, how patriotic of him

[red states rule]

So comforting to know our president is party over country, he is a true Liberal, a black Virgil, how patriotic of him

So now Obama has to deal with San Fran Nan

Funny how Pelosi wants to "listen" to the people when it comes to Afghanistan - but wants to ignore and smear them when it comes to Obamacare



The Afghan Waver
Speaker Nancy Pelosi flip-flops on Afghanistan

In a ceremony at the Pentagon yesterday commemorating the attacks of September 11, President Obama said: "Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and who plot against us still. In defense of our nation, we will never waver."

Sometime soon, Mr. Obama will have to respond to Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal's likely request to increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan.

This past Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the most explicit suggestion so far that Democrats may oppose any such request. "I don't think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan," Speaker Pelosi said, "in the country or in Congress."

It is well known that Mr. Obama has called Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Less publicized is that in 2007 Speaker Pelosi was also saying that our real interests were in Afghanistan. "The war on terror is in Afghanistan," Ms. Pelosi said just two years ago. "The fact that we weakened our commitment to Afghanistan in order to concentrate in Iraq has taken a toll."

If President Obama wants to join her in forsaking an earlier commitment, that is his prerogative. The worst outcome, though, would be the spectacle of American indecisiveness. That would disserve the U.S. forces fighting on our behalf and our allies, including those in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Whatever President Obama's decision on the McChrystal report, the one thing he should not let the world see is a Presidential waver.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574407280921341384.html

[Joyful HoneyBee]

White House Begins Afghan War Strategy Review
Obama administration unexpectedly decided to review its strategy in Afghanistan after a series of recent setbacks in the war, including fraud allegations following last month's presidential elections

The Wall Street Journal

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The White House began its review of the Afghan war strategy in earnest Tuesday, with senior administration officials meeting via videoconference with the top commander in Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, at the start of what could be weeks of debate over whether to send thousands of reinforcements.

White House officials said President Barack Obama will join in the discussions Wednesday, when he is expected to meet with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among other top officials.

The White House unexpectedly decided to review its strategy in Afghanistan after a series of recent setbacks in the war, including allegations of fraud following last month's presidential elections and surging violence throughout the country. It begins just days after Gen. McChrystal submitted his request for as many as 40,000 additional troops to the Pentagon.

Some in the administration, notably Biden, have argued for a smaller military footprint and a tighter focus on counterterrorism as the best way forward.

Advocates of such a shift point to the effective use of Predator drone strikes to kill Taliban leaders in Pakistan. Two additional Predators are expected to be shifted soon to the region to patrol the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, according to people familiar with the decision, a move that would bring the total drones in the theater to a number the military has wanted for years.

Obama gave voice to a possible shift in emphasis on Tuesday when he spoke of "dismantling, disrupting, destroying the Al Qaeda network" as the mission, without mentioning the Taliban. He also said the U.S. is working with the Afghans to bring security to the country.

source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/white-house-starts-review-afghan-war-strategy/

more at WSJ......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125427038855351227.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopSto ries

[red states rule]

Other countries, as well as the terrorists, see Pres Obama for what he really is



Barack Obama: President Pantywaist - new surrender monkey on the block


President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you’d notice.

Barack is not the first New World ingenue to discover that European leaders will load him with praise, struggle sycophantically to be photographed with him and outdo him in Utopian rhetoric. But when it comes to the critical moment of opening their wallets - suddenly it is flag-day in Aberdeen. Okay, put the G20 down to inexperience, beginner’s nerves, what you will.

On to Nato and the next big objective: to persuade the same European evasion experts that America, Britain and Canada should no longer bear the brunt of the Afghan struggle virtually unassisted. The Old World sucked through its teeth, said that was asking a lot - but, seeing it was Barack, to whom they could refuse nothing, they would graciously accede to his wishes.

So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops - all of them non-combatant, of course - which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.

Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l’il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

“Rules must be binding,” declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. “Violations must be punished.” (Sounds ominous.) “Words must mean something.” (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America’s missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/9441479/Barack_Obama_President_Pantywaist__new_surrender_m onkey_on_the_block/

[gabosaurus]

We wouldn't be "giving up." We would be handing the country back to its rightful owners. <br>
Bring home ALL our troops to protect OUR country.

[Jeff]

We wouldn't be "giving up." We would be handing the country back to its rightful owners. <br>
Bring home ALL our troops to protect OUR country.

OOO and just tell the terrorist ya better not do it again, LOL, We have the toughest Men and Woman in uniform, Obama needs to sit his scrawny ass down and let the Generals take care of business, if he would do this, along with all politicians it would be over rather quick

[gabosaurus]

It will NEVER be over, whether we are there or not.
The United States is in greater danger from drug lords and internal terrorists than we are from those in foreign countries.
Our "mission" was "accomplished" long ago. We need to step away and allow the Iraqis and Afghans to run their own countries. There is no reason we need to stay there in any more than an advisory capacity.

[red states rule]

It will NEVER be over, whether we are there or not.
The United States is in greater danger from drug lords and internal terrorists than we are from those in foreign countries.
Our "mission" was "accomplished" long ago. We need to step away and allow the Iraqis and Afghans to run their own countries. There is no reason we need to stay there in any more than an advisory capacity.

No, our biggest danger is liberasl like you who would rather stick their heads in the sand and leave their backside exposed to be kicked

People like you Gabby are weak and naive. You honestly think if we leave the terrorists alone they will go away. Well they will not. They will see the weakness and harden their resolve to kill as many Americans as possible

You are always the first to attack and smear the members of the US military. but you wil always be the first to hide behind them for protection. Even though they know the low opinion you have for them - they would still die trying to keep your sorry ass safe

[Jeff]

It will NEVER be over, whether we are there or not.
The United States is in greater danger from drug lords and internal terrorists than we are from those in foreign countries.
Our "mission" was "accomplished" long ago. We need to step away and allow the Iraqis and Afghans to run their own countries. There is no reason we need to stay there in any more than an advisory capacity.

I dis agree Gabs, you have a good point, but if we stop them before they hit our soil no chance of a problem then, If our Leader would just allow the Generals and men and woman of our armed forces to do what they are trained to do and give them what they need then it would get accomplished, after cleaning up in Afghanistan go on to the next group of nut jobs, eventually they will realize we don't and wont take shit , and Allah isn't helping them they may just back off

[red states rule]

I dis agree Gabs, you have a good point, but if we stop them before they hit our soil no chance of a problem then, If our Leader would just allow the Generals and men and woman of our armed forces to do what they are trained to do and give them what they need then it would get accomplished, after cleaning up in Afghanistan go on to the next group of nut jobs, eventually they will realize we don't and wont take shit , and Allah isn't helping them they may just back off

Amazing how libs now want to cut and run from Afghanistan like they did in Iraq

One would think libs would learn form past mistakes. But then again if they did, they would stop being liberals and see the only way to win a war is to fight to win - and not fight to lose