Obama In No Rush To Support The Troops
Oct 20, 2009 Military, Political
Barack Obama made it clear that the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity and that the war in Iraq was a war of choice. He said, time and again, that he would fight the war in Afghanistan and that it was necessary. Obama’s hand picked commander has submitted a request for the support he needs to fight and that request includes more troops. All of the sudden the war of necessity is not so much so. The request was sent to the White House nearly 80 days ago and no decision has been taken.
Obama is pondering what to do and has stated that he wants to see how the recent Afghan election pans out with either a run-off or co-governance before he decides on sending troops. He is deliberating and giving it thoughtful consideration. At least that is what the White House wants us to believe.
The only thing that Obama has taken his time on since taking office is selecting a family pet. It took him six months to select a dog. He gave it careful consideration.
The stimulus had to be passed immediately, the health care take over must be done now (even though the only thing that will take effect before 2013 is the taxing part of it), the cap and trade bill must be done now as, it would seem, must every other item on the Obama hit list. He wants all the things done by the end of the year and this is an extension of earlier deadlines. The simulus was rocketed through Congress because Obama said now and the Democrats did it now. Then it sat on his desk for four days while he went on a date with his wife.
He is pushing for his agenda items to get through at the speed of light but he is stifled by some Democrats who are worried about their jobs.
The support of the troops in Afghanistan is quite another thing though. Obama received the request nearly 80 days ago and has been stonewalling his commander and the troops. Secretary Gates says we need to act now and not later but Obama is quite busy wetting his finger and sticking it out the window to see which way the wind is blowing. His assertions about the war of necessity and his repeated assertions that this was a war we needed to win have hamstrung him because he would dearly like to appease (he did win a Nobel for that quality) his base and withdraw in defeat. That is what Democrats do.
But he does not want to be seen as a person who trumpeted the war in Afghanistan and vowed to support the troops only to let them down. He does not care about letting them down, he just does not want it to appear that way. So instead of being the Commander in Chief (a job he has no experience to do) he is waffling and stonewalling. He is looking for any reason not to honor the request of General Stanley McChrystal, the man he hand picked to run the war. Obama would love nothing more than to find some reason, any reason, to dishonor our troops so he can appease his leftist loser base.
Obama would not look so bad if he had taken the same stance on Afghanistan that he took on Iraq but he went the other way. He told us it was the war of necessity.
What he needs to do is act like a man instead of the weaselly, limp wristed, metrosexual that he truly is. He needs to man up and honor his commitment to the troops and to the war. He needs to stick to his word and win the war of necessity not only because supporting the troops is the right thing to do but because he told us he would. He needs, for once, to keep his word.
But then again, all Obama promises come with an expiration date.
I loved my 24 years of service to this country but I would not serve in the military under this so called man. He is fortunate that he is wrecking the economy because that has driven enlistments up. People join the military when times are tough because it is a job and it pays. If he had not wrecked the economy and caused such high unemployment then the services would have trouble recruiting.
Who would want to serve under this wishy-washy man? I can’t imagine any of our service members staying in with this guy abandoning them. And it is a certainty that the liberals who support him will not join to protect this country (they will wait for Obama bucks to make ends meet). They live under the blanket of protection provided by better people than they and they like it that way. If Obama does not act like a leader and do it soon then he is going to harm the military worse than Jimmy Carter did.
It might take decades to get the nation’s military strong again.
Obama, man up and take a decision. Do the right thing and support the men and women who were sent to war by the US government. You (the government) sent them there, now support them.
Also:
al-Reuters
UPDATE: What has Obama done since the request for troops was submitted.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
We Are Back To A War On Terror
Aug 31, 2009 Political
It was not that long ago that Barack Obama decided we were not in a war on terror. He decided that this phrase as well as a few words/phrases like Jihadists and global war were no loner acceptable and did not reflect what was taking place.
“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,'” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism. Washington Times
It seems that we are now back to a war on terror and this might have something to do with Obama’s war in Afghanistan. He has sent more troops as part of an increase that started under President Bush’s surge (a strategy Obama said would not work when implemented in Iraq) and now he will likely have to send more if he wants to achieve victory. This has to drive his base nuts because he promised them when he was candidate Obama that he would bring the troops home. It might have looked as if he was heading that way when he softened the terminology but the return to “war on terror” leaves a quick end unlikely.
The term is more threatening than the watered down versions that came out of the White House early on and this might be because Obama wants support for his actions. To be clear, I support any movements that increase troop strength and include tactics aimed at victory but the right is not who needs to be convinced (though we will certainly deride him for his naivete during the campaign). His base is the gaggle that took him at his word when he said he would bring the troops home and they are the ones who need to be convinced.
Obama has not read the assessment of Afghanistan yet (it was sent to the Pentagon today) but it is believed to include the need for more troops. If he decides to send more troops, and it looks like he will, the left will go bonkers. Cindy Sheehan is already ginning up her band of merry mischief makers and it will not be long before the entire left is fed up with Obama and his war.
I want to see an end to war but the only way for it to end is with victory defined on our terms. Obama desperately wants to bring the troops home to fulfill his campaign pledge but now that he is no longer a candidate reality is setting in and he is beginning to see that the decisions are tough and one cannot just make statements or snap fingers and expect results even if the one is the messiah of the left.
It will be interesting to see how the left reacts if this all takes place. The right supports the troops and their efforts and knows that the only exit strategy is victory. Obama won’t have to convince us of the need to support the troops. His task is to reel in his base.
This is a tough position because if they do not side with him he will have hell to pay and if they do it will show once and for all that they are hypocrites.
I think Olbermann will be the first moonbat to jump on board along with tingle leg Matthews. It would not be the first time these guys changed positions based upon the party of the White House occupant.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
New York Times Keeps Mum For Its Own
Jun 23, 2009 Political
David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times, was captured in Afghanistan seven months ago and a few days ago he escaped and is on his way to safety. I am happy he escaped and hope he is none the worse for wear.
The story of his capture was not made public by the NYT. Bill Keller decided that it would put him in danger if the story was published so the took the “agonizing” decision to keep it under wraps.
Deciding not to report initially on reporter David Rohde’s capture by the Taliban for seven months was “an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said Sunday.
“All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for David’s safety was to keep it quiet,” Keller said in an interview on CNN. My Way News
This is the same New York Times that disclosed one secret government plan after another even after being asked not to so that our troops would not be placed in further danger. The NYT only held one story and did not do that for very long. The paper decided that it was in the public’s interest to know about the secret programs.
When it came to one of their own, the paper decided to keep the story quiet so as not to endanger the employee.
Where was the public’s interest?
This is further proof that the NYT is an anti American paper. They took great pride in hurting America when George Bush was trying to protect us even though they were told it could place our troops in further danger.
This should demonstrate the bias of the NYT as well as their hatred of our troops.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: afghanistan, david rohde, new york times, secrets, treason, troops
Obama Enlists Supporters From Military For Staged Affection
Apr 8, 2009 Military, Political
There was a recent comparison as to how Resident Obama was greeted by the troops and how President Bush was greeted. The troops were much more enthusiastic with Bush, golf clap warm for Obama. The left made the excuses, about being at attention (no clapping at attention by the way) and all that. The reality is that an overwhelming number of troops are conservative and vote Republican. Black troops voted Obama about 70% (compared to nearly 95% of the general black population) but over all the numbers were much greater for McCain.
The MSM and the Obama administration were well aware of the comparisons. These people scan the web looking for things that are unflattering to The Won. The MSM were certainly aware of the comparisons. So what do they do? Obama goes to Baghdad and the reports are that wildly cheering troops greeted him, blah, blah. The reporting made it sound like the troops were having orgasms because Obama showed up. MacRanger has a post up and he indicates that he received an email from a soldier who was there. It might explain a few things:
“We were pre-screened, asked by officials “Who voted for Obama?”, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.”
Take a look at the picture at AP and notice all the cameras are the same models? Coincidence? I think not.
The Obama propagandists got there, screened the troops, gave them cameras and then told them to hold them up (so everyone can see how many troops are taking pictures).
I saw raw footage of his speech (could not understand the audio) but the claps and HOOAHs for him were rather restrained. The enthusiasm is not what I would expect from an Army crowd.
I know that Obama would just love to have the troops on his side but most of them do not agree with him and they do not like what he is doing to their country. They will not support him in the next election and I am sure there will be more efforts to disenfranchise them (like went on in New York last week).
No matter. Resident Obama got his photo op. The MSM got its staged photos and can now make the claim that Obama is loved by the troops.
No, they respect the office but so far the reception for the man has been lukewarm at best.
I know he thinks he knows what he is doing but most of those 20 year old men and women have more leadership experience than Obama does and have experienced things in life he will never come close to.
Perhaps one day he will get the big, warm reception but not while he is apologizing to every country in the world and blaming America. Our troops are not too keen on folks who blame America for the ills of the world.
I figured most of them would leave the service if he won but I guess his Democratic buddies have helped him make the job outlook so bad that the troops have to stay in to keep getting paid.
The will continue to succeed (something Obama tried to keep them from doing as a Senator) despite the incompetent boob in the White House.
As an aside, Obama used a lot of phrases that Bush used. Did his speech writers decide sounding like Bush would be better for Obama?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: baghdad, lies, Military, Obama, pre screened, propaganda, troops
Obama Considers Using Military At Border
Mar 12, 2009 Political
Barack Obama is considering using the military to secure the violent region known as the Texas-Mexico border. Obama is said to be looking at a tipping point for action. Americans have been killed down there as a result of the drug war going on. My question is, does not the murder of Americans constitute a tipping point?
I am also don’t think that Obama has much say in this because he is not talking about using active duty troops:
“We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama said during an interview with journalists for regional papers, including a McClatchy reporter.
“I don’t have a particular tipping point in mind,” he said. “I think it’s unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens.”
Unless Obama plans on calling the National Guard to active duty, he has no control over them. He is not the Commander in Chief of the National Guard unless they are called to federal service.
Until that time they belong to the governor of the state and he should be ignoring Obama’s “tipping point” and sending the troops down to squash the violence.
It would make no sense to federalize the Texas National Guard to perform a mission in Texas. The National Guard is capable of handling the unrest and it has the authority to detain Americans who might be breaking the law. The active duty is forbidden by law from performing police actions.
Governor Perry has called for 1000 troops to secure the border but Obama said it is a big border and he is not sure he wants to militarize it.
Perry should just call up his Guard and send them and their combat equipment to the border to protect his state. The border might be an issue that belongs to the feds but the state belongs to Perry and the citizens of Texas. They have every right to defend their state.
He needs to ensure they are safe while Obama twiddles his thumbs looking for the tipping point.
Source:
McClatchy
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: drug war, Mexico, Military, Obama, perry, texas, troops