With 9/11 soon to become just another national day of whatever we can all take comfort in the knowledge that President Obama is fully prepared to protect our country from terrorists with all the resources at his disposal in a way not seen in this country since the days of President Carter:
From Yahoo/Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers: The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama’s administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.
<snip>
However, administration officials said that amid rising violence and casualties, polls that show a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn’t worth fighting. With tough battles ahead on health care, the budget and other issues, Vice President Joe Biden and other officials are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops.
So, is the war worth fighting? If not, great, pull everyone out and move on. But if yes, isn’t it the president’s job to explain that to the American people? To explain why it is critical to our national security?
Isn’t this the war the Democrats said we should have been fighting all along? But now that a poll says it’s unpopular, we should just keep it on life support and not provide the necessary resources to win, just to lose slowly?
If it’s all about the polls, guess we can end all of this debate over the Obama’s big plans to take over health care… we don’t want it.
Are Obama and Biden leaders or politicians (silly question)… Biden is concerned about how Americans would respond to sending more troops? Frankly, we wouldn’t like it, especially if Obama can not explain why, can not explain the path to victory, can not even tell us what victory looks like. But that doesn’t mean the answer is to not send troops or even discuss the option publicly… the answer is to do your job as commander in chief and tell us what needs to be done and why.
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk to the media, said Biden has argued that without sustained support from the American people, the U.S. can’t make the long-term commitment that would be needed to stabilize Afghanistan and dismantle al Qaida .
He’s probably right… so what are they going to do about getting the country behind winning this war?
“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier,” a senior Pentagon official said. “We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”
Translation… the commander in chief is a weenie.
Monday’s assessment initially was to include troop recommendations, but political concerns prompted White House and Pentagon officials to agree that those recommendations would come later, advisers to McChrystal said. Although the White House took a hands-off approach toward Afghanistan earlier this summer, Pentagon officials said they’re now getting more questions about how many troops might be needed and for how long.
Say what you want about George Bush, he never abandoned the troops and he never let polls get in the way of making what he believed to be the right decisions… granted he should have done a better job of explaining why we were in Iraq, but right up until the end the troops knew he was behind them. Doesn’t look like they have that same confidence with the new guy.
Try, if you can, to reconcile the mixed message from team Obama…
On the one hand:
Obama now feels that McChrystal and his superior, Army Gen. David Petraeus , the head of the Central Command, are pressuring him to commit still more troops to Afghanistan , a senior military official said. The official said that retired Marine Gen. James Jones , Obama’s national security adviser, told McChrystal last month not to ask for more troops, but that McChrystal went ahead anyway and indicated in interviews that he may need more.
On the other hand:
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Obama administration inherited an under-resourced war in Afghanistan , but he stopped short of promising more troops.
Got that? It’s Bush’s fault there are not enough troops in Afghanistan and this administration does not appreciate folks pressuring them to send more troops when clearly that would not be very popular.
Administration officials said that the White House is planning a series of “quiet discussions” among top advisers over the next six weeks or so about the way ahead.
“What the president is going to want to do is review the report and then discuss and talk with all of those that have equities in it to get their viewpoints and to ensure that each and every person is heard on this, and that’s what the president intends to do,” Gibbs said Monday.
Uh what? Discuss and talk with all those who have equities to get their viewpoints over the next six weeks? Like who… who has “equities” that require six weeks of chat? Is he commander in chief or committee head in chief? Take your time, no rush here.
Just curious… if we decide to not send troops, or even pull out all together, where is the front for this war on terrorism?
I’m thinkin’ it may be right here…
|
|
|
|