Liberals Attack Against McChrystal Begins

[Fatality]

Actually alot of us to this day agree with Shinseki. Rumsfeld was wrong about trying to win the war with such a small force.

So what is wrong with McChrystal asking for a bigger force to fight the war with? Thats supposedly what Obama promised us when he was campaigning. Or let me guess...that was yet another promise we'd never see come to fruition?

What is more troubling is that it appears the now growing liberal attack campaign against McChrystal stems from simple defense of Obama - not what is best for the troops, the Afghan campaign, or longer term international policy.

These people appear to place devotion to Obama above all else...

Have they called the good General a racist yet?

give em time, they are waiting for the email with the list of prescribed names

 

[MaggieMae]

And so one of the most highly regarded military commanders of the modern era now faces attacks from the liberal left of America for having the audacity to speak his mind regarding Afghanistan - the very conflict he was hand-picked to oversee by the Obama White House...

____

Sack the general; stop the war
Gen. McChrystal the lobbyist is wrong about Afghanistan

Wednesday, October 07, 2009
By Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

what part of "don't post an article in its entirety don't you get, exactly?-del



Read more: Sack the general; stop the war

___

Sack the general; stop the war

I've heard only a few extreme comments like "sack the general," so I wouldn't try to make THIS another one of your right-wing attacks either. There has been meeting after meeting to decide upon a course of action, so until there is one, how about saving your rotten demagoguery until that decision is announced?

 

[MaggieMae]

There is so much more that has not been reported on how this all went down - I couldn't say who I believe is in the right and who is in the wrong on this one.
Too many folks will just be inclined to use it as a club to suit their own political purposes and spin it however they need to in order to suit that purpose.

You're right, of course. Therefore, I'm not wasting any more of my time on it until there's more to go on.

 

[Si modo]

Actually - one source lists the current level at 68,000

CNSNews.com - 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements

(a decidedly conservative source) so it may have changed - most of the sources I found listed the current level at 48,250.

Anyway - do a little homework for yourself and make up your own mind - just don't buy into what some message board poster claims anyway. The notion that Obama promised more troops but didn't deliever may stoke your biased fires - but check it out first.

Well, I never said he didn't send in more troops. We all know more were sent.
The concern is what type of troops are being sent in.
We need frontline combat troops. Sending in rear echelon clerks and supply types will do absolutely nothing.
It begs the question as to what the "oval office", "armchair Generals" thinking truly is. Are they truly commited to this mission or, are they just looking to appease the public and party by playing politics until they completely pull out? Meanwhile our troops are continuing to die at an alarming rate.

Indeed. War does not call for over a month's worth of sitting on one's ass with indecisiveness when resources are requested by those on the ground.

 

[Sinatra]

Actually - one source lists the current level at 68,000

CNSNews.com - 43 U.S. Troops Have Died in Afghanistan Since Gen. McChrystal Called for Reinforcements

(a decidedly conservative source) so it may have changed - most of the sources I found listed the current level at 48,250.

Anyway - do a little homework for yourself and make up your own mind - just don't buy into what some message board poster claims anyway. The notion that Obama promised more troops but didn't deliever may stoke your biased fires - but check it out first.

Well, I never said he didn't send in more troops. We all know more were sent.
The concern is what type of troops are being sent in.
We need frontline combat troops. Sending in rear echelon clerks and supply types will do absolutely nothing.
It begs the question as to what the "oval office", "armchair Generals" thinking truly is. Are they truly commited to this mission or, are they just looking to appease the public and party by playing politics until they completely pull out? Meanwhile our troops are continuing to die at an alarming rate.

Indeed. War does not call for over a month's worth of sitting on one's ass with indecisiveness when resources are requested by those on the ground.[/QUOTE]