Obama At War With Own General Part II

[Ame®icano]

Replying to bold letter text: What you said, it gave me an idea that maybe... maybe that is exactly what Obama is aiming at. Mission imposible, we can't win, I knew that all along... I told ya. Even McChrystal think that we can progress, with the right tool.

Except Obama never said Afghanistan was "unwinnable".

We are waiting for months for him to decide what to do there. He chose "no decision" over "a decision", and thats not how you win the war. He didn't have to say its unwinnable, his (no) action is saying so. He doesn't know what to do.

Surge did work in Iraq. Obama was against it, right?

Yes, Obama opposed the surge. I personally think the surge was a political move on the Bush Administration.

Things started to turn around in Iraq when Gates took over.

Imagine what the world would look like if that fuckwit Rumsfeld would have never been in the equation.

Rumsfeld "shock and aw" did work to beat Saddam's army. After that, nothing worked for him. Gates... we could argue about him, but for now, I'll give you that one.

 

[geauxtohell]

Rumsfeld "shock and aw" did work to beat Saddam's army. After that, nothing worked for him. Gates... we could argue about him, but for now, I'll give you that one.

Yeah, when you don't have a plan and live in a delusional fairy tale land, things, surprisingly, don't seem to "work" for you.

Rumsfeld was obsessed with the Air Force and could have given a shit less about the ground war.

That's a pretty fucking stupid perspective to have on the modern battlefield.

It's not like we had Mogadishu in 98 or anything to warn us about this, though.

 

[oreo]

How many times did Obama state: "We took our eye off of the ball?" Remember that one--he must have said it about a million times.

It looks to me like Obama has "dropped the ball." Here we have not only this general calling for more troops but General Petrayous--who agrees.

Obama doesn't want to send more troops because it would send his left wingies into a rage. But, the one thing we can't do is lose in Afganistan. The one thing we can never do--is give the Taliban or Al Queda a victory.

 

[Sinatra]

How many times did Obama state: "We took our eye off of the ball?" Remember that one--he must have said it about a million times.

It looks to me like Obama has "dropped the ball." Here we have not only this general calling for more troops but General Petrayous--who agrees.

Obama doesn't want to send more troops because it would send his left wingies into a rage. But, the one thing we can't do is lose in Afganistan. The one thing we can never do--is give the Taliban or Al Queda a victory.

Obama does not have the capacity to play in this league. He has remained in campaign mode because it is so much simpler than actual leadership mode.

His trip away to the Olympics while your Afghanistan General lays out what he needs to win the conflict - and the Commander in Chief puts it on the backburner for to bring the Olympics to Chicago??

That my friends, is a sign of a president so out of touch with the real demands of his position it is frightening...

 

[DamnYankee]

How many times did Obama state: "We took our eye off of the ball?" Remember that one--he must have said it about a million times.

It looks to me like Obama has "dropped the ball." Here we have not only this general calling for more troops but General Petrayous--who agrees.

Obama doesn't want to send more troops because it would send his left wingies into a rage. But, the one thing we can't do is lose in Afganistan. The one thing we can never do--is give the Taliban or Al Queda a victory.

Obama has been backpeddling from the moment it was official that Clinton wasn't a contender. Bigger fish to fry, so to speak. Wouldn't have been possible to win without the support of the leaners and the Clinton supporters. So, what's he to do? Walk tall and carry a big stick? Hmm... There was support enough for that when 9/11 was freshly imprinted in the minds of everyone, wasn't there? Now? Not so many with cold-blooded revenge in their hearts and minds any more.

(excerpt)

Asked why al-Qaeda, which is comparatively safe in its current sanctuaries in Pakistan, would want to return to Afghanistan, where more than 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops are stationed, Jones said, "That's a good question. . . . This is certainly one of the questions that we will be discussing. This is one of the questions, for example, that one could come back at with General McChrystal."

Jones said it remains possible that, after a decision on strategy by the president, McChrystal might change his mind about the need for more troops. "We will ask General McChrystal, and say, 'Okay, now that you've heard what our strategy is, does this affect your thinking in terms of your resources and, if so, how?' " Jones said.

Other advisers have pushed markedly different approaches to the conflict. Vice President Biden has urged Obama to adopt a traditional counterterrorism strategy focusing on military strikes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Taliban in Afghanistan. This would presumably require fewer troops, possibly fewer than the 68,000 U.S. forces the president has already authorized.

Obama's calculations about how to proceed in Afghanistan are occurring as the war is presenting a political challenge at home. Congressional Democrats have become increasingly skeptical about the war; Republicans voice support for McChrystal's assessment and the likely troop request.

Jones stressed that the president and his advisers will spend the coming weeks focusing on strategy before addressing any troop request.

"The bumper sticker here is strategy before resources," said Jones, adding: "This isn't just about more troops."

washingtonpost.com

And our esteemed Secretary of State? Wasn't she just fascinating on Sunday on Face the Nation?

MR. SMITH: Lets talk about Afghanistan for a couple of minutes. General McChrystal made his report to President Obama. One of the things he says is there is a year window in which the United States has to act in order to ensure that the insurgency doesnt basically take over the country. Do you agree with that assesment?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me just put General McChrystals report into a broader context, because it doesnt stand alone. It is part of a process. And lets look at what we have done during the last nine months under President Obamas leadership.

We inherited a situation. We didnt reject it out of hand, we didnt accept it out of hand. We engaged in a very thorough review. We reached some critical decisions, including looking at both Afghanistan and Pakistan together because, of course, the threat goes back and forth, across the borders.

We also reaffirmed our commitment to going after al-Qaeda to dismantling, defeating them. We believe and we have seen this, just this week here in New York we believe that al-Qaeda poses a direct threat to the United States, to friends and allies throughout the world. So, we are very clear about our mission. Our mission is to protect the United States and to protect our friends and allies, and to go after the scourge of al-Qaeda and related extremist groups.

Now, the decision that was made to add troops in the Spring has not even been fully implemented yet. You know, you dont get up and just deploy the 82nd airborne, and they get there the next day. We are only now reaching the deployment cycle.

We also know that going hand to hand with our military strategy was our civilian strategy, a much more focused effort, a much more accountable one, dealing with the government of Afghanistan. So we not only saw the change of commanders in the military, we saw a change in our ambassador, and a beefing up of the embassy in Kabul.

At the same time, Afghanistan is going through an election. And this is not like an election in Western Europe or in the United States. To carry out an election in these circumstances was going to be difficult under any conditions. Its not over yet. We have to wait until it is resolved hopefully very soon then make a new commitment about how were going to meet our strategic goals. And its going to be up to the President to determine how best to achieve that.

So, General McChrystal, the new commander was asked for his assessment, there is other input that is coming throughout the government that the President will take on board. But I think we ought to look at it in context.

MR. SMITH: There is growing discontent about sending more troops into Afghanistan. And one of the issues is the Karzai government, which is corrupt at least, and may, in fact, have tried to steal this most recent election. Is it worth American blood to help support a regime like that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, with all respect, were doing this for the United States. We are doing this because we think that a return to a safe haven in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda, with Taliban elements associated with al-Qaeda for the same purpose, to basically run a syndicate of terror out of either Afghanistan or the border regime is something we cannot tolerate. And you know, we have to recognize that this was always going to be a challenge.

Now, having said that, does the Karzai government, or whoever is the next president, have to do more to fulfill the needs of the Afghan people, to understand what is expected for the rule of law, transparency, accountability? Absolutely.

But, again, we inherited a situation with a set of expectations and behaviors that we have gone about attempting to influence and change. And one of my highest priorities is, once this election is finalized, to work with our entire civilian team, with Special Representative Holbrooke, with Ambassador Eikenberry, and everyone else, to really impress upon the new government what is expected of them.

But lets not forget, Harry, this is about us, sitting right here in New York. This is about making sure that weve got the intelligence and the capacity to interrupt potential attacks, that we try to continue our efforts to destroy al-Qaeda that are, unfortunately, still to this day, attempting to kill and destroy Americans and others

MR. SMITH: Najibullah Zazi went to Pakistan to the border areas in order to get bomb training. Is Pakistan doing enough to clean up its own house?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look at, again, what has happened in the last nine months. Pakistan has increased its commitment in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda

MR. SMITH: They were successful in the Swat valley.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely successful. A lot of people thought that would never happen. I believed that if we engaged very intensively with our Pakistani friends and we did, through meetings in Washington and in Islamabad if we shared information, we listened to each other, that there would be a decision by the civilian and military leadership that the threat was directed at them, that it could undermine their government. In fact, it will lead to very dangerous consequences, in terms of the survivability of the state in many parts of the country.

So, yes, have they taken action? Absolutely.

MR. SMITH: Have they done enough is the question?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know, we are always working for more. As I just finished saying, we are not satisfied with anything. This is not a check box kind of experience where Were done with that, were done with that.

But look at what has been accomplished, and I think that we will continue to see a very close coordination. But it is important for Americans to understand that focusing on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who are largely but not exclusively now in Pakistan, cannot be done if we allow them to return to a safe haven in Afghanistan. So, this has to be viewed as part of the overall strategy.

MR. SMITH: Madame Secretary, well thank you so much for your time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, Harry. Its always good to talk to you.

Hillary Clinton on Face the Nation «



Damn, she's good isn't she? Double-talking her way through an interview? Good Presidential material doncha think? Real good.... Blamed the "inherited situation" and the election process that was going on too. Thumbs up, Hillary!

Sorry, I got carried there for a minute....

In 2005, there were 152,000 troops (give or take) in Iraq. Today, there are still 130,000 troops -- AFTER Obama's July pullout that the Iraqi President was dancin' and shoutin' about. Oh, before I forget, Obama PROMISED that MOST would be out of Iraq by August 2010. I haven't figured out yet how many "most" is, have you? Took six months to move 22,000. Hmmm... 22,000 x 2 (2 more 6 month periods before August '10) = 44,000 and 130,000 - 44,000 = 86,000. That's still more than half of 152,000. Doesn't look like "most" to me. I do believe he'd better get his ass in gear, don't you?

Oh, one more thing. Aren't THESE the troops that were supposed to be re-deployed to Afghanistan? In addition to all those new recruits of course. How's he possibly going to wind up with as many troops in Afghanistan if he doesn't get them out of Iraq? To do the right thing for America? That WAS the "right war", wasn't it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Iraq invasion upset the equation, guys. That dimwitted move drained the resources out of Afghanistan at a time when we had a window of opportunity for success. That window is now shut. Unless every last one of you war mongers are willing to go to a full time war footing, then we do not have the capacity and resources to accomplish one mission like this, much less two.

Yes, our history teachers and instructors are not teaching hundreds of thousands of students daily that Bush and the GOP did badly with Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[DamnYankee]

The Iraq invasion upset the equation, guys. That dimwitted move drained the resources out of Afghanistan at a time when we had a window of opportunity for success. That window is now shut. Unless every last one of you war mongers are willing to go to a full time war footing, then we do not have the capacity and resources to accomplish one mission like this, much less two.

Yes, our history teachers and instructors are not teaching hundreds of thousands of students daily that Bush and the GOP did badly with Iraq and Afghanistan.

How would Obama (and Hillary) ever survive without their Blame Bush Troops strategically positioned to support their latest strategy?


Plan for Ending the War in Iraq
The Problem
Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable.

Strains on the Military: More than 1.75 million servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; more than 620,000 troops have completed multiple deployments. Military members have endured multiple deployments taxing both them and their families. Additionally, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate after years of constant use in Iraq’s harsh environment. As Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said in March, “Today’s Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies.”

Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

A New Strategy Needed: The Iraq war has lasted longer than World War I, World War II, and the Civil War. More than 4,000 Americans have died. More than 60,000 have been injured and wounded. The United States may spend $2.7 trillion on this war and its aftermath, yet we are less safe around the globe and more divided at home. With determined ingenuity and at great personal cost, American troops have found the right tactics to contain the violence in Iraq, but we still have the wrong strategy to press Iraqis to take responsibility at home, and restore America’s security and standing in the world.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up with President Bush for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” He and Joe Biden are fully committed to ending the war in Iraq as president.

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

Encouraging Political Accommodation
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences, but the Bush Administration’s blank check approach has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.

Obama and Biden's plan offers the best prospect for lasting stability in Iraq. A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama and Biden will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Iraq



Obama to Order Iraq Withdrawal on Day One, Axelrod Says
By MARY BRUCE
Jan. 18, 2009

Incoming White House senior adviser David Axelrod said this morning that President-elect Barack Obama will fulfill his campaign promise and begin on Wednesday the process of withdrawing America forces from Iraq within 16 months.

"He believes that that is a reasonable timetable. We've moved a great distance from the time he started talking about that, and now we're in an area where everyone agrees that we should be on a path to withdrawing those troops. And he is going to begin that process, as promised, on that day," Axelrod said in a "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos.

On Wednesday, Obama will call in his military commanders and ask them to come back with a plan for withdrawal.

Obama to Order Iraq Withdrawal on Day One, Axelrod Says - ABC News



How's that hope and change workin' out for you?

 

[Sinatra]

The Iraq invasion upset the equation, guys. That dimwitted move drained the resources out of Afghanistan at a time when we had a window of opportunity for success. That window is now shut. Unless every last one of you war mongers are willing to go to a full time war footing, then we do not have the capacity and resources to accomplish one mission like this, much less two.

Yes, our history teachers and instructors are not teaching hundreds of thousands of students daily that Bush and the GOP did badly with Iraq and Afghanistan.

How would Obama (and Hillary) ever survive without their Blame Bush Troops strategically positioned to support their latest strategy?


Plan for Ending the War in Iraq
The Problem
Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable.

Strains on the Military: More than 1.75 million servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; more than 620,000 troops have completed multiple deployments. Military members have endured multiple deployments taxing both them and their families. Additionally, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate after years of constant use in Iraq’s harsh environment. As Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said in March, “Today’s Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies.”

Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

A New Strategy Needed: The Iraq war has lasted longer than World War I, World War II, and the Civil War. More than 4,000 Americans have died. More than 60,000 have been injured and wounded. The United States may spend $2.7 trillion on this war and its aftermath, yet we are less safe around the globe and more divided at home. With determined ingenuity and at great personal cost, American troops have found the right tactics to contain the violence in Iraq, but we still have the wrong strategy to press Iraqis to take responsibility at home, and restore America’s security and standing in the world.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up with President Bush for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” He and Joe Biden are fully committed to ending the war in Iraq as president.

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

Encouraging Political Accommodation
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences, but the Bush Administration’s blank check approach has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.

Obama and Biden's plan offers the best prospect for lasting stability in Iraq. A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama and Biden will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Iraq



Obama to Order Iraq Withdrawal on Day One, Axelrod Says
By MARY BRUCE
Jan. 18, 2009

Incoming White House senior adviser David Axelrod said this morning that President-elect Barack Obama will fulfill his campaign promise and begin on Wednesday the process of withdrawing America forces from Iraq within 16 months.

"He believes that that is a reasonable timetable. We've moved a great distance from the time he started talking about that, and now we're in an area where everyone agrees that we should be on a path to withdrawing those troops. And he is going to begin that process, as promised, on that day," Axelrod said in a "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos.

On Wednesday, Obama will call in his military commanders and ask them to come back with a plan for withdrawal.

Obama to Order Iraq Withdrawal on Day One, Axelrod Says - ABC News



How's that hope and change workin' out for you?

Amazing how little this president has accomplished after the months of campaign promises. The Dems control the House and Senate, and yet - little more than dissention and chaos from within the Democrat Party has transpired since Obama took the oath...

 

[ba1614]

Amazing how little this president has accomplished after the months of campaign promises. The Dems control the House and Senate, and yet - little more than dissention and chaos from within the Democrat Party has transpired since Obama took the oath...

It's because he's still campaigning. It's all he apparently is good at.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Things turned around in Iraq when Bush RIGHTFULLY took the war out of Rumsfelds hands and placed it BACK in the hands of the generals. In the first phase of Iraq, I was there, things went beautifully. The mission was an overwhelming success. The generals were on top of their game. They knew what had to be done, post Sadaam, there were plans in place to deal with an insurgency, that was a given would happen. Rumsfeld took over the mission. Started making tactical decisions in place of the generals, against generals advice. It turned into a disaster, and Rumsfeld has much american blood on his hands. He changed the strategy. Changed our rules of engagement to the point that we were sitting ducks. "Do not fire unless fired upon, even if there is an AK or RPG trained on your ass". That was the way we saw it.
YOU NEVER ALLOW CIVILIANS TO RUN A WAR. It's never worked, and never will work. This was fully proven in Iraq when troop strength was surged, and things dramatically changed.
Wasn't it Obama's incompetent ass who said a surge would never work?
Why yes it was!
Get your skinny black ass back in that chair in the oval office, OBAMA! And do your god damn job!
Stop flying around all over the place, like you've just gotten hold of a brand new toy. Yeah, that is a nifty jet alright but, we taxpayers foot the bill for you to fly all over the universe acting like you're still on the campiagn trail. KNOCK IT OFF!
Troops are dying over there. Your field commanders are counting on you to make decisions, FORTHWIT!
You are no longer a candidate, YOU ARE NOW THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
START COMMANDING, or simply resign and get the fuck outta the away!
Screw the Olytmpics in Chicago. We've got far more important things to deal with.
Put that James Brown lookin' wife of yours on a plane, commercial airline AT YOUR EXPENSE, and let her go grovel for Chicago.
Bottom line, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, ASSHOLE!

 

[geauxtohell]

Things turned around in Iraq when Bush RIGHTFULLY took the war out of Rumsfelds hands and placed it BACK in the hands of the generals. In the first phase of Iraq, I was there, things went beautifully. The mission was an overwhelming success. The generals were on top of their game. They knew what had to be done, post Sadaam, there were plans in place to deal with an insurgency, that was a given would happen. Rumsfeld took over the mission. Started making tactical decisions in place of the generals, against generals advise. It turned into a disaster, and Rumsfeld has much american blood on his hands. He changed the strategy. Changed our rules of engagement to the point that we were sitting ducks. "Do not fire unless fired upon, even if their is an AK or RPG trained on your ass". That was the way we saw it.
YOU NEVER ALLOW CIVILIANS TO RUN A WAR. It's never worked, and never will work. This was fully proven in Iraq when troop strength was surged, and things dramatically changed.
Wasn't it Obama's incompetent ass who said a surge would never work?
Why yes it was!
Get your skinny black ass back in that chair in the oval office, OBAMA! And do your god damn job!
Stop flying around all over the place, like you've just gotten hold of a brand new toy. Yeah, that is a nifty jet alright but, we taxpayers foot the bill for you to fly all over the universe acting like you're still on the campiagn trail. KNOCK IT OFF!
Troops are dying over there. Your field commanders are counting on you to make decisions, FORTHWIT!
You are no longer a candidate, YOU ARE NOW THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
START COMMANDING, or simply resign and get the fuck outta the away!
Screw the Olytmpics in Chicago. We've got far more important things to deal with.
Put that James Brown lookin' wife of yours on a plane, commercial airline AT YOUR EXPENSE, and let her go grovel for Chicago.
Bottom line, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, ASSHOLE!

1.) I agree that Rumsfeld was an asshole and probably the worst SECDEF since McNamara.

2.) On the one hand you preach that politicians should stay out of the General's way and on the other you lambaste Obama for not being involved enough.

Which is it?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Things turned around in Iraq when Bush RIGHTFULLY took the war out of Rumsfelds hands and placed it BACK in the hands of the generals. In the first phase of Iraq, I was there, things went beautifully. The mission was an overwhelming success. The generals were on top of their game. They knew what had to be done, post Sadaam, there were plans in place to deal with an insurgency, that was a given would happen. Rumsfeld took over the mission. Started making tactical decisions in place of the generals, against generals advise. It turned into a disaster, and Rumsfeld has much american blood on his hands. He changed the strategy. Changed our rules of engagement to the point that we were sitting ducks. "Do not fire unless fired upon, even if their is an AK or RPG trained on your ass". That was the way we saw it.
YOU NEVER ALLOW CIVILIANS TO RUN A WAR. It's never worked, and never will work. This was fully proven in Iraq when troop strength was surged, and things dramatically changed.
Wasn't it Obama's incompetent ass who said a surge would never work?
Why yes it was!
Get your skinny black ass back in that chair in the oval office, OBAMA! And do your god damn job!
Stop flying around all over the place, like you've just gotten hold of a brand new toy. Yeah, that is a nifty jet alright but, we taxpayers foot the bill for you to fly all over the universe acting like you're still on the campiagn trail. KNOCK IT OFF!
Troops are dying over there. Your field commanders are counting on you to make decisions, FORTHWIT!
You are no longer a candidate, YOU ARE NOW THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
START COMMANDING, or simply resign and get the fuck outta the away!
Screw the Olytmpics in Chicago. We've got far more important things to deal with.
Put that James Brown lookin' wife of yours on a plane, commercial airline AT YOUR EXPENSE, and let her go grovel for Chicago.
Bottom line, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, ASSHOLE!

1.) I agree that Rumsfeld was an asshole and probably the worst SECDEF since McNamara.

2.) On the one hand you preach that politicians should stay out of the General's way and on the other you lambaste Obama for not being involved enough.

Which is it?

Obama simply signs the executive orders. The Generals tell his incompetent ass what they need, he signs it, they get what's needed to accomplish the mission. It's as simple as that.
There is no need to mull things over. There is no need for Obama to prolong the decisions by flying all over the universe doing absolutely nothing instead.
He's prolonging this because he's so god damned worried about stepping on political toes within his party. He's got that lunatic vice president in his ear telling him one thing. His SOS in another ear telling him something else. He's got Pelosi's crazy ass running off at the mouth, telling nothing of significance because she doesn't know anything about anything, and is just a far left liberal nutjob. And then he's got the Generals, WHO DO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, requesting additional troops to accomplish the mission. The decision is not a complicated one. But the more he worries about stepping on toes, the more of our troops will needlessly die.
His complete and utter incompetence is truly amazing.

 

[Sinatra]

Things turned around in Iraq when Bush RIGHTFULLY took the war out of Rumsfelds hands and placed it BACK in the hands of the generals. In the first phase of Iraq, I was there, things went beautifully. The mission was an overwhelming success. The generals were on top of their game. They knew what had to be done, post Sadaam, there were plans in place to deal with an insurgency, that was a given would happen. Rumsfeld took over the mission. Started making tactical decisions in place of the generals, against generals advise. It turned into a disaster, and Rumsfeld has much american blood on his hands. He changed the strategy. Changed our rules of engagement to the point that we were sitting ducks. "Do not fire unless fired upon, even if their is an AK or RPG trained on your ass". That was the way we saw it.
YOU NEVER ALLOW CIVILIANS TO RUN A WAR. It's never worked, and never will work. This was fully proven in Iraq when troop strength was surged, and things dramatically changed.
Wasn't it Obama's incompetent ass who said a surge would never work?
Why yes it was!
Get your skinny black ass back in that chair in the oval office, OBAMA! And do your god damn job!
Stop flying around all over the place, like you've just gotten hold of a brand new toy. Yeah, that is a nifty jet alright but, we taxpayers foot the bill for you to fly all over the universe acting like you're still on the campiagn trail. KNOCK IT OFF!
Troops are dying over there. Your field commanders are counting on you to make decisions, FORTHWIT!
You are no longer a candidate, YOU ARE NOW THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
START COMMANDING, or simply resign and get the fuck outta the away!
Screw the Olytmpics in Chicago. We've got far more important things to deal with.
Put that James Brown lookin' wife of yours on a plane, commercial airline AT YOUR EXPENSE, and let her go grovel for Chicago.
Bottom line, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, ASSHOLE!

1.) I agree that Rumsfeld was an asshole and probably the worst SECDEF since McNamara.

2.) On the one hand you preach that politicians should stay out of the General's way and on the other you lambaste Obama for not being involved enough.

Which is it?

Obama simply signs the executive orders. The Generals tell his incompetent ass what they need, he signs it, they get what's needed to accomplish the mission. It's as simple as that.
There is no need to mull things over. There is no need for Obama to prolong the decisions by flying all over the universe doing absolutely nothing instead.
He's prolonging this because he's so god damned worried about stepping on political toes within his party. He's got that lunatic vice president in his ear telling him one thing. His SOS in another ear telling him something else. He's got Pelosi's crazy ass running off at the mouth, telling nothing of significance because she doesn't know anything about anything, and is just a far left liberal nutjob. And then he's got the Generals, WHO DO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, requesting additional troops to accomplish the mission. The decision is not a complicated one. But the more he worries about stepping on toes, the more of our troops will needlessly die.
His complete and utter incompetence is truly amazing.

I have to agree the whole 'I'm gonna think it over" routine being played by Obama while he takes a trip to Europe to try and get Chicago the Olympics is pretty damn lame...

 

[Wicked Jester]

1.) I agree that Rumsfeld was an asshole and probably the worst SECDEF since McNamara.

2.) On the one hand you preach that politicians should stay out of the General's way and on the other you lambaste Obama for not being involved enough.

Which is it?

Obama simply signs the executive orders. The Generals tell his incompetent ass what they need, he signs it, they get what's needed to accomplish the mission. It's as simple as that.
There is no need to mull things over. There is no need for Obama to prolong the decisions by flying all over the universe doing absolutely nothing instead.
He's prolonging this because he's so god damned worried about stepping on political toes within his party. He's got that lunatic vice president in his ear telling him one thing. His SOS in another ear telling him something else. He's got Pelosi's crazy ass running off at the mouth, telling nothing of significance because she doesn't know anything about anything, and is just a far left liberal nutjob. And then he's got the Generals, WHO DO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, requesting additional troops to accomplish the mission. The decision is not a complicated one. But the more he worries about stepping on toes, the more of our troops will needlessly die.
His complete and utter incompetence is truly amazing.

I have to agree the whole 'I'm gonna think it over" routine being played by Obama while he takes a trip to Europe to try and get Chicago the Olympics is pretty damn lame...

It is lame. It seems as though he just wanted access to that damn plane by getting elected. How much time has he spent in the WH doing his damn job?
Seriously, this guy is racking up the frequent flier miles. Miles that are being paid for by us taxpayers. And NOT ONE VIABLE THING has been accomplished buy his flying around the universe on a whim.
He needs to park his ass in his office. Start listening to his generals, too include his TOP COMMANDER IN THE FIELD, and get a handle on this situation RIGHT NOW!
Something tells me though, he's going to cut and run. He doesn't have the guts or stomach to ride this to complete victory. He's a far left liberal after all, and there isn't one who actually has a spine.

 

[PI2]

Things turned around in Iraq when Bush RIGHTFULLY took the war out of Rumsfelds hands and placed it BACK in the hands of the generals. In the first phase of Iraq, I was there, things went beautifully. The mission was an overwhelming success. The generals were on top of their game. They knew what had to be done, post Sadaam, there were plans in place to deal with an insurgency, that was a given would happen. Rumsfeld took over the mission. Started making tactical decisions in place of the generals, against generals advice. It turned into a disaster, and Rumsfeld has much american blood on his hands. He changed the strategy. Changed our rules of engagement to the point that we were sitting ducks. "Do not fire unless fired upon, even if there is an AK or RPG trained on your ass". That was the way we saw it.
YOU NEVER ALLOW CIVILIANS TO RUN A WAR. It's never worked, and never will work. This was fully proven in Iraq when troop strength was surged, and things dramatically changed.
Wasn't it Obama's incompetent ass who said a surge would never work?
Why yes it was!
Get your skinny black ass back in that chair in the oval office, OBAMA! And do your god damn job!
Stop flying around all over the place, like you've just gotten hold of a brand new toy. Yeah, that is a nifty jet alright but, we taxpayers foot the bill for you to fly all over the universe acting like you're still on the campiagn trail. KNOCK IT OFF!
Troops are dying over there. Your field commanders are counting on you to make decisions, FORTHWIT!
You are no longer a candidate, YOU ARE NOW THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
START COMMANDING, or simply resign and get the fuck outta the away!
Screw the Olytmpics in Chicago. We've got far more important things to deal with.
Put that James Brown lookin' wife of yours on a plane, commercial airline AT YOUR EXPENSE, and let her go grovel for Chicago.
Bottom line, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, ASSHOLE!

You contradict yourself complaining that politicians should not meddle in military affairs calling out Rummy then your rant about Obama not doing the job.

So what is he supposed to do? Is he supposed to make the Military decisions or is he supposed to let the Generals make the decisions?

Come on Chef I'm sure you have an answer.

Make up your mind.

 

[Sinatra]

Things turned around in Iraq when Bush RIGHTFULLY took the war out of Rumsfelds hands and placed it BACK in the hands of the generals. In the first phase of Iraq, I was there, things went beautifully. The mission was an overwhelming success. The generals were on top of their game. They knew what had to be done, post Sadaam, there were plans in place to deal with an insurgency, that was a given would happen. Rumsfeld took over the mission. Started making tactical decisions in place of the generals, against generals advice. It turned into a disaster, and Rumsfeld has much american blood on his hands. He changed the strategy. Changed our rules of engagement to the point that we were sitting ducks. "Do not fire unless fired upon, even if there is an AK or RPG trained on your ass". That was the way we saw it.
YOU NEVER ALLOW CIVILIANS TO RUN A WAR. It's never worked, and never will work. This was fully proven in Iraq when troop strength was surged, and things dramatically changed.
Wasn't it Obama's incompetent ass who said a surge would never work?
Why yes it was!
Get your skinny black ass back in that chair in the oval office, OBAMA! And do your god damn job!
Stop flying around all over the place, like you've just gotten hold of a brand new toy. Yeah, that is a nifty jet alright but, we taxpayers foot the bill for you to fly all over the universe acting like you're still on the campiagn trail. KNOCK IT OFF!
Troops are dying over there. Your field commanders are counting on you to make decisions, FORTHWIT!
You are no longer a candidate, YOU ARE NOW THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
START COMMANDING, or simply resign and get the fuck outta the away!
Screw the Olytmpics in Chicago. We've got far more important things to deal with.
Put that James Brown lookin' wife of yours on a plane, commercial airline AT YOUR EXPENSE, and let her go grovel for Chicago.
Bottom line, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, ASSHOLE!

You contradict yourself complaining that politicians should not meddle in military affairs calling out Rummy then your rant about Obama not doing the job.

So what is he supposed to do? Is he supposed to make the Military decisions or is he supposed to let the Generals make the decisions?

Come on Chef I'm sure you have an answer.

Make up your mind.

His mind appears made up already.

He thinks Obama is doing a crap job as President...

 

[PI2]

What is the mission in Afghanistan?

What threat do a bunch of tribal gunmen barely out of the Stone Age running around in some of the most rugged terrain in the world pose to the United States?
What interests do we have in Afghanistan that are so vital that we continue to send our Troops in harms way?

 

[PI2]

Things turned around in Iraq when Bush RIGHTFULLY took the war out of Rumsfelds hands and placed it BACK in the hands of the generals. In the first phase of Iraq, I was there, things went beautifully. The mission was an overwhelming success. The generals were on top of their game. They knew what had to be done, post Sadaam, there were plans in place to deal with an insurgency, that was a given would happen. Rumsfeld took over the mission. Started making tactical decisions in place of the generals, against generals advice. It turned into a disaster, and Rumsfeld has much american blood on his hands. He changed the strategy. Changed our rules of engagement to the point that we were sitting ducks. "Do not fire unless fired upon, even if there is an AK or RPG trained on your ass". That was the way we saw it.
YOU NEVER ALLOW CIVILIANS TO RUN A WAR. It's never worked, and never will work. This was fully proven in Iraq when troop strength was surged, and things dramatically changed.
Wasn't it Obama's incompetent ass who said a surge would never work?
Why yes it was!
Get your skinny black ass back in that chair in the oval office, OBAMA! And do your god damn job!
Stop flying around all over the place, like you've just gotten hold of a brand new toy. Yeah, that is a nifty jet alright but, we taxpayers foot the bill for you to fly all over the universe acting like you're still on the campiagn trail. KNOCK IT OFF!
Troops are dying over there. Your field commanders are counting on you to make decisions, FORTHWIT!
You are no longer a candidate, YOU ARE NOW THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
START COMMANDING, or simply resign and get the fuck outta the away!
Screw the Olytmpics in Chicago. We've got far more important things to deal with.
Put that James Brown lookin' wife of yours on a plane, commercial airline AT YOUR EXPENSE, and let her go grovel for Chicago.
Bottom line, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, ASSHOLE!

You contradict yourself complaining that politicians should not meddle in military affairs calling out Rummy then your rant about Obama not doing the job.

So what is he supposed to do? Is he supposed to make the Military decisions or is he supposed to let the Generals make the decisions?

Come on Chef I'm sure you have an answer.

Make up your mind.

His mind appears made up already.

He thinks Obama is doing a crap job as President...

Yeah right I see he's morphed into the Second Ranger instead of the Manchu warriors also.

 

[DamnYankee]

What is the mission in Afghanistan?

What threat do a bunch of tribal gunmen barely out of the Stone Age running around in some of the most rugged terrain in the world pose to the United States?
What interests do we have in Afghanistan that are so vital that we continue to send our Troops in harms way?

Hmmm.... It wasn't clear when he was campaigning? Maybe you should have asked him then.

 

[Sinatra]

What is the mission in Afghanistan?

What threat do a bunch of tribal gunmen barely out of the Stone Age running around in some of the most rugged terrain in the world pose to the United States?
What interests do we have in Afghanistan that are so vital that we continue to send our Troops in harms way?

Then clearly you strongly disagree with the position of President Obama...