Priorities and Winning


This has set eyebrows to full raise all across America.

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 teleconferece],” 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.

It is rather appalling, based on what we already know, that the President of the United States would only talk to his commanding general once in the seventy days the general has been engaged.

This is a sign of priorities. The President has spoken over 100 times on health care. It has consumed him in a way critics say Iraq consumed President Bush.

There is a significant difference though. President Bush won in Iraq with his fixation. Barack Obama is losing on the health care front and now looks set to lose Afghanistan too.

Perhaps Obama needs to recalibrate his focus and attention. Patton was right that America won’t tolerate a loser. And thus far Obama is losing on most every front.

But then, I want Obama to fail except in Afghanistan.

Category: , ,

RSS feed

18 Comments Leave a comment

I want Obama to fail except in Afghanistan.

smitch61 Monday, September 28th at 10:53AM EDT (link)

Could not agree more… My nephew is there and if you think I am sleeping soundly at night, think again… Insert any republican president name in there and the media would be all over it. He is off getting the olympics secured, and not Afghanistan.

 

I actually want Obama to fail in Afganistan...

Aaron Gardner Monday, September 28th at 10:55AM EDT (link)

By that I mean to say I want Gen. McChrystal to succeed.

Aaron’s Archive

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

Ditto, Aaron

peg_c Monday, September 28th at 5:57PM EDT (link)

Pres. Pantywaist is “reluctant to use the word “victory.” Meaning (as far as I’m concerned) he wants us to LOSE.

McChrystal does not. I want Obama to fail in every way imaginable because I know exactly what his goals are. And victory for America - any way you define it - is NOT his goal.

Government cannot be the solution when government is the problem.

 
 

So let's see ...

twobeers Monday, September 28th at 10:57AM EDT (link)

President Obama has time to fly to Copenhagen, Denmark to schlep for Chicago’s 20016 Olympic bid, but he doesn’t have time to talk to General McCrystal about Afghanistan.

Wasn’t one of his campaign slogans “judgment to lead?” Yeah, not so much apparently.

 

So let's see ...

twobeers Monday, September 28th at 10:57AM EDT (link)

President Obama has time to fly to Copenhagen, Denmark to schlep for Chicago’s 20016 Olympic bid, but he doesn’t have time to talk to General McCrystal about Afghanistan.

Wasn’t one of his campaign slogans “judgment to lead?” Yeah, not so much apparently.

 

Two things

konstantine Monday, September 28th at 10:59AM EDT (link)

First, I wonder if Newsweek or TIME will have on their cover a soldier in Afghanistan, pictured with his arms outstretched with a “now what” expression with the headline, “Obama’s Forgotten War.” Since this is a similar treatment they gave to Bush. Somehow, I doubt I’ll see this.

And second, we know that certain democrats wanted Bush to fail in Iraq and Afghanistan as a way to prove that ‘they were right’ about Bush. When you say that you want Obama to fail except in Afghanistan, you need to consider the possibility that maybe Obama couldn’t give a cr*p about Afghanistan, and wants our previous mission there to wither on the vine. He can give a speech that he supports it, but if he’d rather work on the government takeover of our healthcare system, and travel to lobby on behalf of the olympics for Chicago …. and not speak to the commander of Afghanistan for almost 3 months. This is neglect. If Obama’s goal is to have Afghanistan to fail, then I want Obama to fail.

 

Grinding up American soldiers in seemingly unwinnable wars

Tbone Monday, September 28th at 10:59AM EDT (link)

fits the Liberals’ agenda perfectly. There is nothing better to turn off the populace against the war than a well-publicized, steady stream of flag draped coffins.

Once public opinion has been turned, retreat and defeat is acceptable and soon followed by an accelerated destruction of the military which is one of the primary goals of all Liberals. (See Vietnam)

If anybody believes that Obama cares about how many soldiers die while he achieves his political ends of destroying the military, they are a fool.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

 

Does Obama even know the meaning of "Commander-in-Chief?"

RedBeard Monday, September 28th at 11:33AM EDT (link)

I hope all the so-called “moderates” who voted for this walking disaster area are sick to their stomachs.

Standard-bearer for grouchy curmudgeonry since, oh, 1975 or so.

As well as

konstantine Monday, September 28th at 11:42AM EDT (link)

our own who told us that McCain would be just as bad.

 
 

Worm-Eaten Mind of a "Progressive"

Skanderbeg Monday, September 28th at 11:50AM EDT (link)

Actually, this sort of thing is a conclusion that I realized a number of years back, and which Mark Steyn has also concluded about obamos.

In the worm-eaten mind of a “progressive” (sic), the main goal is to elevate human society to the highest, terminal endpoint of human social evolution - the western European social welfare state. (Never mind that all of those are crumbling completely to dust - these clowns are theorists who couldn’t care less about results.)

From the very beginning, their basic attitude to the war that was thrust upon us was to curse that d*mn thing - coming along as a distraction and diversion of resources from “the mission.” So now they just want to make the rest of the world go away so that they can concentrate on the “true mission.”

And go back and read this of course:

http://www.redstate.com/skanderbeg/2009/09/20/barack-mondale/

 

Sadly, I'm not sure if I want Obama to succeed in Afghanistan

aesthete Monday, September 28th at 12:07PM EDT (link)

because I have no idea what his objectives in the region are. When he makes public statements on how he is not seeking victory, and when we have a conflict as horribly-defined as Afghanistan has been, it’s hard for me to say that I even support Pres. Obama on that.

Guilt is a rope that wears thin.
-Ayn Rand

“I am a freeman in a free state!”
-Last words of Dumnorix, chieftan of the Aedui, 54 BC

Personally I like us to finish the job in Afghanistan

Richard Mullins Monday, September 28th at 12:35PM EDT (link)

but the problem seems to be that we now are not in it to win it. I want victory but the whole thing now is just defeatism. This admin doesn’t care any more about others and only wants help like minded people. Were pushing away almost everyone now and it’s worse than anything that the 8 yrs has done.

For more on my views, go my wordpress site:
http://rpmullins.wordpress.com

For more on Happy jet airlines, go here:
http://happyjetairlines.wordpress.com

For a good dose of satire go here:
http://thesquash.wordpress.com

For more of I like to do a lot:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42008626@N03

I'd like for someone to define "victory"

aesthete Monday, September 28th at 3:25PM EDT (link)

The Bush Administration did an adequate-to-bad job of describing tenable victory conditions in Iraq, and had several plans to get there (even if they were somewhat screwy up until “The Surge”). Getting a country with a well-educated, prosperous populace and a history of centralized government was and is tenable, and establishing a strong alliance with a democratic Iraq akin to our relationship with Israel (aka, “nation-building”) has tangible benefits, even if it took me a while to realize it :)

Unfortunately, I have yet to see an equivalent, well-thought out endpoint/outcome/condition for victory with regards to Afghanistan, and I certainly have yet to see a tenable plan for even the amorphous and untenable objective of a centralized, democratic, and stable Afghan state of the type that I saw for Iraq. Mind you, there are good reasons to establish tenable goals and plans to get there (Joshua Foust at Registan.net has a great article about it here: http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/08/27/the-case-for-afghanistan-strategic-considerations/), but there has been no attempt to do so for 7+ years now. If that was at a time when we had the political capital, chief executive, and favorable public opinion to carry out this war, what makes you think that we’ll get a sane policy with regards to Afghanistan? Right now, we’d be lucky to get Obama’s foreign policy up to LBJ levels, much less to any point where I would trust him to carry out the war effectively in both its planning and execution (both of which need more work than Iraq’s ever did). In short, Iraq was child’s play compared to Afghanistan, and we barely scraped by on that one: in fact, it’s eminently arguable that our work there is still incomplete. This leads me to believe that there’s not much of a chance that Afghanistan will be handled effectively at all.

Guilt is a rope that wears thin.
-Ayn Rand

“I am a freeman in a free state!”
-Last words of Dumnorix, chieftan of the Aedui, 54 BC

 
 
 

Actually, I'd prefer that The Big 0 not "talk" too much

The_Gadfly Monday, September 28th at 1:43PM EDT (link)

with our military advisers. The less he interferes with them, the more likely they will accomplish what needs to be done while minimizing casualties. What bothers me is that he isn’t willing to back them at any point. Of course, I can’t think of any examples of him backing anyone for something the way Bush did.

We’ve been called racists enough now that it shouldn’t bother us any more.

-AChance, http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/11/03/what-men-may-do-we-have-done/#comment-24463

If NY23 was a beat down for Conservatives, what do you call what happened to Progressives in NJ and VA?

inspired by ColdWarrior, http://www.redstate.com/hooah_mac/2009/11/04/ny-23-the-agony-of-defeat-not-so-much/#comment-156

NObama Will Do His Talking In Copenhagen, Not Kabul/Defining Defeat

Ausonius Monday, September 28th at 3:44PM EDT (link)

In Denmark the main rotten thing will be his crooning for Chicago, while Main Street America mentally burns and sizzles about the moron they elected: but you are quite right ultimately.

Do we will really want a pacifist deciding military matters?

What would be galling politically is the capture of bin-Laden (assuming he is still alive, and I am not so sure about that) or a major collapse of al-Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan. In one sense, that is what we want!

And if it happens, it would be d e s p i t e NObama’s decisions, not because of them.

He of course would take credit for everything!

But how exactly does doing nothing for months cause al-Qaeda/Taliban any concern? And if Iran has acquired nuclear capabilities on NObama’s watch, and nothing is done to prevent Ahmedinejad from dealing with international terrorists, how will we define defeat?

That is the definition I want to hear from NObama, he who refuses to utter the term “Victory” for America.

 
 

He's toast.

toughintn Monday, September 28th at 3:56PM EDT (link)

I’m guessing General Stanley McChrystal will be relieved of his duties before the end of the year. He’s far too transparent for this “most transparent ever” administration.

 

I wish Obama would go fix Chicago

izoneguy Monday, September 28th at 3:58PM EDT (link)

and it’s youth crime problem before inviting the world to see what
is not right with America.

Every night I see another Nat Geo special on Gang Wars….

Oakland, LA, Chicago….young black & hispanic youth - 15-18 years old….doing nothing but drugs, alcohol & gang banging….

The parents have lost control. The schools have failed them.
These kids look at doing time as an opportunity to hone their skills.

I say round them all up……
Ship them over to Afghanistan….
Leave them with crates full of weapons, ammo and C-rations and
let them get it on with the Taliban…..

“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson

 

US accepts Hamid Karzai as Afghan leader despite poll fraud claims.

Kenny Solomon Monday, September 28th at 7:19PM EDT (link)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6853123.ece

The White House has ended weeks of hesitation over how to respond to the Afghan election by accepting President Karzai as the winner despite evidence that up to 20 per cent of ballots cast may have been fraudulent.

Abandoning its previous policy of not prejudging investigations of vote rigging, the Obama Administration has conceded that Mr Karzai will be President for another five years on the basis that even if he were forced into a second round of voting he would almost certainly win it.

The decision will increase pressure on President Obama to justify further US troop deployments to Afghanistan to prop up a regime now regarded as systemically corrupt.

Emphasis mine: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ?!?

Want the Afghan election to go the way you want it ?
Simple.
Send ACORN over there.
All of ‘em.
Tonight.
Please.

Of course you can have my guns……. Bullets first.
I didn’t say rounds, shells or magazines……
I said bullets first.

 

Leave a Comment

 

Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.