A premonition of elements in tonight’s speech by the President.

1Dec/0915

A premonition of elements in tonight’s speech by the President.

While I heartily approve of the President finally deigning to approve General McChrystal's reinforcement request, a couple of facets disturb me greatly.Â

First, were I Obama, in matters like this I would have tended to, you know, actually trust and rely on the recommendations of the commander that I appointed and whose strategy I gave public, full-throated endorsement to in March and August of this year.

Secondly, as President I certainly wouldn't be setting a timetable for withdrawl before I actually sent the necessary reinforcements.Â That's kind of like a gentleman showing up on a blind date, and upon meeting, askingÂ his companion just which hotel he'd be schtupping her in later !Â It's definately putting the cart before the horse, and obviously inspires a strategy on the part of your enemy to simply lay low until your pre-determined withdrawl date, and then mount their own offensive!

Still, based on this move by John "Lurch" Kerry, I'm getting a feeling for what will be a major component of the President's message tonight:

President Obama unveils his new Afghanistan strategy today, and in the nick of time Senator John Kerry has arrived with a report claiming that none of this would be necessary if former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had only deployed more troops eight years ago. Yes, he really said more troops.

In a 43-page report issued yesterday by his Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Kerry says bin Laden and deputy Ayman Zawahiri were poised for capture at the Tora Bora cave complex in late 2001. But because of the "unwillingness" of Mr. Rumsfeld and his generals "to deploy the troops required to take advantage of solid intelligence and unique circumstances to kill or capture bin Laden," the al Qaeda leaders escaped.

The timing of the report's release suggests that Mr. Kerry intends this as political cover for Mr. Obama and Democrats, and some in the press corps have even taken it seriously. But coming from Mr. Kerry, of all people, this criticism is nothing short of astonishing.

Yeah...Astonishing all right, especially in view of some stubborn facts and inconvenient truths provided by someone who is eminently knowledgable on the subject of that phase of the war; General Tommy Franks:

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts

So, on top of Kerry being terribly mistaken, and obviously playing domestic political games with foreign policy and the lives of our troops, he has also telegraphed what the President plans to use as his main talking point tonight; I BLAME BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Listen to the President's words tonight.Â In between all of the palaver about avoiding a Vietnam-esque "quagmire" by stipulating withrawl dates in advance, he'll blame Bush for the situation we are in today, and he wil never use the word victory.Â This is all a swan song, calculated to keep the nutroots and the far left of his party on board with his agenda, and to keep them energized and active.Â It's more about securing his political flank than our soldiers flank; more about his electoral success than actual victory in the war that he spent two years calling the "good war"-using it as a cheap politicalÂ ploy to showcase his foreign policy toughness, all while declaring the surge, and indeed the war, in Iraq lost.

So listen to him, remember his words, so that you'll be able to enjoy watching him try to weasel out later; when this promise, like many of his others, expires...

Posted at 19:50 eastern time, just beforeÂ Mr. Obama'sÂ address.

Rocketman

Tagged as: Afghanistan, Dithering, John Kerry, Obama, Playing Politics with soldiers lives Leave a comment

Comments (15) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Dan Collins
December 1st, 2009 - 19:44

Not a lot of pleasure in that pleasure.

Lurch has a lot of credibility on war issues. Genghis Khan is seared, pan-fried, into his memory.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Justin Reynolds
December 1st, 2009 - 21:53

For a moment during Obama’s speech I froze. I thought he said he was ordering 30,000 more floaters to Afghanistan. All I could think of was 30,000 more deck-swabbing naval lifers all with bladders bloated by scare pee. Oh shit.

30,000 more fighters, as in fighting men. Whew!

Gofer, golfers, floaters, fighters…

It was nice to see a real patriotic American President take his job as Commander in Chief seriously versus Bush Daddy’s son, Spalding, who did nothing but pick his nose, lick his finger and chew. Yes, our military men today can count on a man of sound mind and solid spine as head of our military, and a American President who is not afraid of finishing a job.

Thank God for President Barack H. Obama.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Mike LaRoche
December 2nd, 2009 - 01:39

Shorter thor: “I have nothing intelligent to say, so I’ll insult my betters and post brainless Obama worship.”

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Justin Reynolds
December 2nd, 2009 - 02:20

Shorter LaRoche: I’m gay for thor.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Buttfisted McThorster
  December 2nd, 2009 - 03:55
  
  thor, the ass leprechaun.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
Bob Reed
December 2nd, 2009 - 10:16

Just as I thought, it was all Boooooooosh!’s fault, and he never used the word voctory…

A lot of palaver about “ending the war” and telling us about all of the wonderful domestic policy things he was doing for us but no talk about, you know, actually winning the war…

Oh, and one of my favorite parts was when the hypocrite-in-chief whinged about how the war efforts ofthe past 8 years have cost nearly one trillion dollars. Heck, he dropped nearly as much on the spendulus in one year!, and if Obamacare becomes the law if the land it will cost our economy nearly 6 times that much over the next 8 years…

Obama looked phony, came off as uncomfotable or lying, and got a cool but respectful reception from the cadet corps…

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Justin Reynolds
  December 2nd, 2009 - 10:42
  
  Voctory is yours.
  
  BTW, You Lie! Thank God your dithering ilk was discharged. Our military is better served with fighting men of honor. Seditious floaters need not apply.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Bob Reed
    December 2nd, 2009 - 10:53
    
    Point out the lie, you whinging windbag, or forever be branded as a liar yourself!
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - Justin Reynolds
      December 2nd, 2009 - 11:49
      
      You cheap, gutless, racist coward, Obama never declared the Iraq war lost last night.
      
      And when you state the costs of the health care reform bill you’re using mere estimates, Liar, so they should be cited as such.
      
      All your dumb-struck opinions are grounded in your cheap politics, now fuck off, and quit insulting everyone’s intelligence while insulting the Commander in Chief and President of the United States.
      
      Don’t like it? Don’t dish it out, keyboard coward.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - agile_dog
      December 2nd, 2009 - 13:04
      
      Bob’s post was made before the speech, so he didn’t say the President DID say the Iraq war was lost, Bob indicated that he thought the President would say that. So he was not a liar on that point. He was predicting the future, not reporting the past. Whether he was wrong or right, he couldn’t have been lying.
      
      Second, so not citing that numbers are estimates makes someone a liar? Everyone talking about the healthcare reform is using estimates, since nothing has actually happened, so everyone is a liar? Rep. Wilson was right – Obama lied! You just proved it. (Asshole.)
      
      Bob served his country – he is no coward. You, OTOH, who won’t even use the same name from day to day, are just another sniveling turd.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Bob Reed
      December 2nd, 2009 - 13:12
      
      Uh, no, but during the 2008 campaign, Obama, like all of the other Democrats in Congress continually pronounced publicly that, “the surge is a failure”, and, “the Iraq war was lost”.
      
      And what’s wrong with citing a Cato institute study? The last I checked they were not a member of the vast wingnut conspiracy…
      
      My opinions are grounded in fact, unlike yours; which are merely driven by your desperate need to find ways to defend the President’s indefensible actions.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Justin Reynolds
      December 2nd, 2009 - 13:59
      
      You Lie. You’ve been pimping the Cato estimate as fact, and it’s many times higher than all others estiamtes. And yes, the Cato Institute are conservative wingered shills.
      
      You Lie. You said Obama would say that Iraq was lost, specifially, last night.
      
      You don’t I know all the numbers? I read, you IQ-insulting moron.
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
    - Justin Reynolds
      December 2nd, 2009 - 13:59
      
      Your don’t think…
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
  - agile_dog
    December 2nd, 2009 - 11:18
    
    Please identify where Bob lied.
    
    And “men of honor” – obviously rules you out.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
Bob Reed
December 2nd, 2009 - 14:42

Evidently you can’t read too well thor, because in the post I clearly state that Obama, like the other Democrats, declared the war lost-decalred as in the past tense, like during the 2008 campaign…

The Cato institute’s estimate is higher than the others; because it exposes all of the hidden costs as well as costs that an unintended consequence of the legislation, such as increased insurance premiums. And they are a centrist, libertarian, think tank-no wingers, much to your chagrin…

And if you do know the numbers, as you say you do, then you should be stunned at Baucus’ admition that the previously pimped governmental cost figure of 1 trillion over 10 years is low figured based on some rhetorical gamesmanship, and that the 2.5 trillion dollars over 10 years figure is a more realistic governmental cost estimate.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/baucus_admits_reid_bill_costs.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/chart_total_10year_cost_of_rei.asp

Or, maybe Obama’s budget director admitting that it may take decades before the cost saving measures that they claim will save so much money will actually start to work…

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/02/wh_budget_director_may_be_decades_before_health_care_system_works.html

Cato actually get’s at the cost ripple effect in our economy…

Chew on this links and get back to me.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )