Boxer: No more troops to Afghanistan

posted at 11:40 am on November 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Barbara Boxer apparently holds meetings on the streets of Oakland, according to her companions, who didn’t want to allow a constituent with a camera to question Senator Ma’am on policy in Afghanistan. Boxer finally responds long enough to insist that Congress will not allow more troops to go into Afghanistan, which then prompts the question of whether we should keep troops there at all if we’re not going to fight to win there. Boxer walks away, even though the constituent calls her “Senator” … repeatedly:

I guess Boxer’s pretty good at retreating …

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Why are Democrat women so ugly? Why don’t they attempt to do something about it? Jeff from WI on November 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM

She was really cute when she was younger, like, two.

Akzed on November 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM

I hadn’t thought of the angle pointed out above. Yes, statements like Boxer’s just embolden the Taliban. What does this woman use for brains or judgment. I wonder if she even has depth enough to realize what she’s done/is doing.

jeanie on November 1, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Archimedes on November 1, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Bush is Obama. Obama is Bush.

uknowmorethanme on November 1, 2009 at 1:25 PM

By all means I am no fan of Bush, but I do not beleive him to be overtly hostile towards capitalism as such. Nor did Bush associate with elements bent upon the destruction of our way of life. Obama actions and attitude demonstrated by his host of appointments, clearly show otherwise. Obama’s association with radical, subversive malcontents continue apace. One look at the White House visitors logue confirms this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records

Take particular note of, Michael Moore, Jeff Jones and Andy Stern. The Mr J.Wright & W. Ayers are not the ones we are familiar with, just people of the same name.

Bush’s lack of “intellectual curiousity” and ignorance of the potential ramifications to his actions left the building blocks of tyranny in place for someone like Obama to put to nefarious use. Bush likewise did not the NEA, and various federally bankrolled volunteer org’s for blatantly partisan purposes.

Where ever you turn, foreign policy, military support or usurpation of private enterprise domestically, the Obama agenda is undermining the foundations upon which this nation was built.

Much of the Bush terms in office were misguided, but not I feel, intentionally malignant. Some of his policies like the tax cut, which I grossing 70K pr yr as a carpenter got to keep an additional $4400.00 under, I fully supported. Other than allowing the SEAL team take out the Somali pirates, there is not one action or policy of Obama’s that I can get behind, period.

With Obama and his minions at the reigns, the enemy is inside the perimeter!

Archimedes on November 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Here is hoping the voters in California finally grow a brain and vote this vile woman out of office come next time she is up for re-election!

pilamaye on November 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM

So f’ing stupid.

Dave Rywall on November 1, 2009 at 11:48 AM

NEWS FLASH !! The “Canadian” troll defines himself !!

very accurately, too. Nice job, faux-Canadian Dave

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 11:52 AM
———–
katy the mean old lady on November 1, 2009 at 12:18 PM

You missed the point: “Dave” isn’t Canadian. Dave is a Troll.

My post had nothing to do with Actual Canadians

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 1:01 PM
————

Ha ha ha ha not much ever happens in your life does it.

Read the second line of my original post, gasbag.

Dave Rywall on November 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM

I guess Boxer’s pretty good at retreating …

As are most DemocRats.

thebronze on November 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Im fairly convinced that at this point holding out hope that “voters” or an election will change the course we now find ourselves thrust into is a fools mission. Its going to take much more to eradicate the threat we now face from within our own borders.

Viper1 on November 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Senator Boxer is a very small woman in more ways than one.

Mason on November 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Haliburton has to get its stipend from the taxpayers, etc.

The Dean343 on November 1, 2009 at 12:56 PM

1936 (6 years before Dick Cheney was even born)…Democrat Lyndon Johnson climbs into bed with KBR, later to become a part of Halliburton. Stays there for decades. Lady Bird was on Halli’s Board of Directors until her death a couple of years ago. Lyndon gave Halli numerous no-bid contracts in Vietnam, and became a multi-millionaire as a result.

In the 1990s, Democrat President Bill Clinton also gave Halliburton no-bids during his own non-UN-sanctioned War of Choice.

Funny how all we ever hear about is Halliburton and Cheney. Why is that?

Del Dolemonte on November 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM

whether we should keep troops there at all if we’re not going to fight to win there.

Win what? The love of eighth century Muslims?

MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Funny how all we ever hear about is Halliburton and Cheney. Why is that?

Del Dolemonte on November 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Cause Demos are basically historically challenged hypocrites.
It’s really that simple.

BigAlSouth on November 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM

NEWS FLASH !! The “Canadian” troll defines himself !!

very accurately, too. Nice job, faux-Canadian Dave

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 11:52 AM

NEWS FLASH!!! Janos Hunyadi is a two-bit Internet f**ktrumpet who misquotes people in order to smear them!

Dark-Star on November 1, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Funny how all we ever hear about is Halliburton and Cheney. Why is that?

Del Dolemonte on November 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Cause Demos are basically historically challenged hypocrites.
It’s really that simple.

BigAlSouth on November 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM

They are “historically challenged” because the progressive movement has successfully commandeered our educational system and replaced “history” with “Social(ist) Studies” in our schools. This was not by accident and impact on the ignorance of the electorate nad it’s impact on Americans to make in formed decisions is woefully appparent.

Archimedes on November 1, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Win what? The love of eighth century Muslims? MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Your assumption that the Islamists will stop at Afghanistan is wishful thinking. They were repelled at Vienna on September 11, 1683. They have very long memories. If they are not stopped in Afghanistan, eventually these eighth century Muslim imperialists will have their hands on 20th century nukes. If you have your way and Afghanistan is conceded to the Taliban and al Qaeda the small war now being fought in Afghanistan will eventually be seen as an unfortunately shunned opportunity.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Senator Indifference.

Boxer is a piece of garbage if she is willing to let service men and women exist in a virtual the death zone because she is unwilling to provide the resources our forces need nor the willingness to take a principled stand and call for their immediate removal.

She and her party are unwilling to make the necessary decisions that are required because they find the political consequences distasteful.

Absolutely disgusting.

R Square on November 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM

You have got to be one sick,deranged piece of sh!t to support liberals.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Tell us how you really feel, Baxter.

I like it: To the point; sums up an entire political philosophy in one sentence; makes a great campaign slogan – “A vote for “BLANK” means you’re a deranged piece of sh …” ; also makes a great book title: “The Liberal Voter: Deranged Pieces of Sh..”

:-)

Rod on November 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Hey, with that guy Abdullah Abdullah bowing out of the runoff, can we expect Obama to make his decision tomorrow since the excuse was there was uncertainty on the election over there???????????

I must have missed the breaking news…when is the address going to be given tomorrow????

tatersalad on November 1, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Your assumption that the Islamists will stop at Afghanistan is wishful thinking.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM

I have no such assumption and never have. Quite the contrary as I don’t think Afghanistan is much of the front against Islam at all. And I certainly don’t think trying to “nation build” islamic states, if you can even call Afghanistan a state, is anything but madness.

MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 3:31 PM

If you have your way and Afghanistan is conceded to the Taliban and al Qaeda the small war now being fought in Afghanistan will eventually be seen as an unfortunately shunned opportunity.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 3:04 PM

That is not exactly what I have been saying and you have a very Afghanistan-centric view of Islam.

MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM

also makes a great book title: “The Liberal Voter: Deranged Pieces of Sh..”

Is it possible to pre-order a copy on Amazon?

oldleprechaun on November 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM

For the past few weeks it has become abundantly clear there is no heart in D.C. from either party to win this ‘whatever they choose to call it from day to day’….in the meantime, we have the best and brightest over there and in Iraq taking hit after hit. If this country is not going to support them, bring them home. Every last one of them. Bring home every last shred of equipment and let them go back to pounding sand and rocks. When they do though, I for one, do not want one man/woman left there for target practice or any form of peace keeping unit. It’s now ‘bambi’s war and should be shouted from rooftops that he lost it due to his own indecision.

IMO, the only reason our fearless leader has not brought them home is because he simply cannot figure out what to do with that many unemployed returning and officially on the books as unemployed. He can’t figure out what to do with those unemployed now!

24K lady on November 1, 2009 at 3:51 PM

why, oh why do Californians keep reelecting this idiot freak show to the Senate?

WarEagle01 on November 1, 2009 at 4:00 PM

I’m shocked, shocked I say, by Boxer’s comments.

vcferlita on November 1, 2009 at 4:12 PM

MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Thanks MB4. The west still does not believe this is a war of culture and a war of religions.

chemman on November 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM

In war, you fight to win…there is no voting “present.”

And if you do not intend on winning [overwhelming firepower, use of force multipliers, tactics that grow with the situation, and so forth] then, if you have no intention of winning, keeping troops engaged is tantamount to murder…
coldwarrior on November 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM

This is spot on and we need to make sure the liberals are held accountable for this.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM

You have got to be one sick,deranged piece of sh!t to support liberals.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Very well said. All of it.

fourdeucer on November 1, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Thank you,
I don’t know how anyone who does not appreciate and cherish the bravery and sacrifice of our Soldiers could not hate the democrats for the treasonous actions they are taking.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM

In the 1990s, Democrat President Bill Clinton also gave Halliburton no-bids during his own non-UN-sanctioned War of Choice.

Funny how all we ever hear about is Halliburton and Cheney. Why is that?

Del Dolemonte on November 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I agree. This isn’t a partisan issue, and I didn’t even mention Cheney in that last post. Obama and the rest of the gang of thieves definitely has deep ties to them.

The Dean on November 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM

You have got to be one sick,deranged piece of sh!t to support liberals.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Tell us how you really feel, Baxter.

I like it: To the point; sums up an entire political philosophy in one sentence; makes a great campaign slogan – “A vote for “BLANK” means you’re a deranged piece of sh …” ; also makes a great book title: “The Liberal Voter: Deranged Pieces of Sh..”

:-)

Rod on November 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Sick and deranged fits a group of people who send our men and women off to fight a war they voted for in an area that anyone paying attention knows is vital in fighting the jihadist and their quest for the new Caliphate.

They tried to set up in Iraq and were soundly defeated by our military and strong leadership at home that understood the severe consequences of retreat.

Now in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater where they are the strongest and exert the most control than in any other place in the world, the “hope and change” crowd want to retreat after years of telling us how important is was to win there.

Absolute insanity but fully expected from lying,corrupt,narcissistic liberals who put personal gain ahead of what is right not just for America, but for the world.

I can’t wait to see how the Boxer crowd spins their 180′ from “we are going to get Osama and defeat the Taliban ” to “the Taliban are no longer a danger, it’s global warming we should be worried about”:

Obama no Commander and Chief

Obama at the White House March 27th, 2009:

“Today I am announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan……….
………This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.

Now Obama says:

“ “Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there — beyond what we already have,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Sept. 21, 2009

“We need to finish the fight in Afghanistan… George Bush and John McCain have been weak on terrorism. It’s time to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”


Barack Obama
2008 Presidential Campaigning

When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell–but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives. . . .
I will . . . finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Barack Obama
August,2008

Although Mr. Obama has said that a stable Afghanistan is central to the security of the United States,

Obama Considers Strategy Shift in Afghan War
NY Times, Sept. 22, 2009

(AP)  U.S. President-elect Barack Obama pledged in a telephone conversation with Afghan President Hamid Karzai that fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and the region would be a top priority during his administration, Karzai’s office said Sunday.

Karzai: Obama Promises To Fight Terror
Nov. 23, 2008
CBSNEWS

“The only reason I send a single young man or woman in uniform anywhere in the world is because I think it’s necessary to keep us safe,” the president said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Obama on Face The Nation
Sept. 20, 2009


According to Obama, Eliminating the terrorist safe havens,training camps,and ability to launch attacks from Afghanistan and Pakistan is vital to America’s safety.

“We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”

“[al Qaeda] are now operating in 60 countries. We have to go to the root cause, and that is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s going to be critical. “

“…every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”
And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.

Obama on Afghanistan/Pakistan during the 2008 Presidential debates

So why would Obama deny our military what it needs to win?

Remember…democrats are always wanting to fight the “other” war instead of winning the one they helped put us in.

All this talk of now taking the fight to Pakistan will mean squat with surrender in Afghanistan.
The Pakistanis pretty much say so themselves:


What Islamabad thinks of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443352072071822.html#

Critics of the war in Afghanistan—inside and out of the Obama Administration—argue that we would be better off ensuring that nuclear-armed Pakistan will help us fight al Qaeda. As President Obama rethinks his Afghan strategy with his advisers in the coming days, he ought to listen to what the Pakistanis themselves think about that argument.

In an interview at the Journal’s offices this week in New York, Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi minced no words about the impact of a U.S. withdrawal before the Taliban is defeated. “This will be disastrous,” he said. “You will lose credibility. . . . Who is going to trust you again?” As for Washington’s latest public bout of ambivalence about the war, he added that “the fact that this is being debated—whether to stay or not stay—what sort of signal is that sending?”


The democrats do have one faction that is 100% behind their cut and run policy:


New On MEMRI TV: Taliban Commander in Paktika Province Maulvi Sangin: America Seeks Escape Route From Afghanistan

http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/19619.htm

How’s that “smart power” working out.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Boxer has little man syndrome

Wade on November 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Barbara Boxer is a dwarf. I hate dwarfs. Don’t want no short people in the Senate.

Percy_Peabody on November 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM

California is such a gloriously beautiful. It is such a shame that 75% of the inhabitants are nutjobs and Boxer is supreme among them.

NavyMustang on November 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM

California is such a gloriously beautiful state. It is such a shame that 75% of the inhabitants are nutjobs and Boxer is supreme among them.

NavyMustang on November 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Sorry. Missed a word.

NavyMustang on November 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM

She was really cute when she was younger, like, two.

Akzed on November 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Then why did her parents tie a pork chop around her neck to get the dog to play with her?

Jeff from WI on November 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Dave Rywall on November 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM

the second line says it all, “Dave”

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Dark-Star on November 1, 2009 at 2:51 PM

scary insult from a scary nic.

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Remember everyone, McChrystal, Obama’s hand-picked general, is not exactly giving top priority to killing Taliban.

We don’t win by destroying the Taliban. We don’t win by body count. We don’t win by the number of successful military raids or attacks, we win when the [Afghan] people decide we win.
- General McChrystal (in London some time ago)

Nor does he seem to put a very high value on the lives and limbs of his own troops.

Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect.
- General McChrystal (from his COMISAF assessment of the war in Afghanistan)

Imagine, just imagine if John Kerry or Jack Murtha or Code Pink or Jane Fonda had said we were “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces”!!!

There are many reasons to fire Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and all of them are contained within his 66-page “assessment” of the war in Afghanistan.

The document is fascinating, just as the work of zealots is always fascinating. As a high priest of the politically correct orthodoxy, McChrystal has laid out a strategy to combat Taliban jihad in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan without once mentioning Islam, and forget about jihad (fireable offense No. 1).

The resulting black hole leads the commander to conclude, for example, that the reason the 99 percent-plus Muslim people of Afghanistan are “reluctant to align with us” is due to the “perception” — eight years and untold billions in largesse after we entered the country — “that our resolve is uncertain.” Nothing so simple as what a member of the Afghan parliament recently told the Economist: “The Taliban tell them the Koran says they have to fight the Crusaders and they believe them.”

No, it’s all our fault. Seizing on the Left’s all-time favorite villain, the general blames us — our troops — for the Afghan people not liking us. And that, according to the report, is why we’re losing this war (fireable offense No. 2).

To win what McChrystal describes not as a battle in the war on global jihad (fireable offense No. 3), but rather as “the struggle to gain the support of the (Afghan) people,” (fireable offense No. 4), he writes that we must “connect with the people” — the same “people,” he acknowledges, who “can often change sides and provide tacit or real support to the insurgents” (fireable offense No. 5).

Turning battle-hardened Marines into Miss Congenialities who “must be seen as guests of the Afghan people” doesn’t mean our men have to wear swimsuits, but they do have to take off their armor (fireable offense No. 6). “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces,” McChrystal writes, “we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect.”

Frankly, McChrystal is “pre-occupied” with what he calls “population protection” in a manner that “distances” him — psychologically and emotionally — from the men and women under his command (fireable offense No. 7).

That a general could write so disparagingly of the means to preserve his soldiers at least to fight another day is despicable. But this is what zealots do. They serve theories, not men; they see visions, not reality. And that theory, that vision is akin to the familiar Marxist notion, likely imbibed during PC school days, that denies that identity, religion and culture matter. In the resulting tunnel vision, the so-called hearts-and-minds strategy looks like a winner.

MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM

How’s that “smart power” working out.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM

I understand and agree with you my friend. As a Vietnam-era vet, I’ve “up-close-and-personal” experience with the lying, defeatist, traitors.

I’m sickened and heart-broken that, within such a relatively short time-frame, our “leaders” are again on the cusp of repeating the same un-forgivable sin of withholding the resources our soldiers have asked for and desperately need to win a war.

They are advancing the goals of our enemy – they are traitors – and they should be treated as such.

Rod on November 1, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Can anyone even imagine General George S. Patton saying anything like what Stan McChrystal has been saying?

We don’t win by destroying the Wehrmacht. We don’t win by body count. We don’t win by the number of successful military raids or attacks, we win when the [German] people decide we win.

Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the [German] people we seek to protect.

MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 6:28 PM

boxer is a disgrace to humanity!

jgdp on November 1, 2009 at 7:06 PM

And Boxer represents who!!

canopfor on November 1, 2009 at 7:11 PM

How in Gods name did this women ever get elected? Have you heard her speak?

royzer on November 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Shining the light of truth on the surrender Liberal
Democrat Party of perpetual procrastination policies
of Afghanistan,and Foreign policy debacles over all!!

canopfor on November 1, 2009 at 7:18 PM

How in Gods name did this women ever get elected? Have you heard her speak?

royzer on November 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM

She “Borked” Bruce Hirschenson, who was and is a Good Man, and won in a very close election. After that, name recognition and corruption ( think ACORN )

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Now they are saying that they will defeat the Taliban within six weeks.
MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Does anyone really believe that the Pakistanis will “defeat” the Taliban.
They have simply made deals with certain tribes that “promise” not to attack their government (but are dedicated to attacking in Afghanistan)if the Pakistani Army takes out their competition.
Another game played to keep money coming in from the west while they make faux peace agreements that will come back to bite them in the a$$ later:

Right at the Edge
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=2&ref=world&pagewanted=print

By DEXTER FILKINS

Whenever I hear about Pakistan fighting the taliban I remember this quote: “I cannot lie to you,” Namdar said, smiling at last. “The [Pakistani] army comes in, and they fire at empty buildings. It is a drama — it is just to entertain….America’

“The army agreed to compensate the locals for collateral damage,” the official said. “Where do you think that money went? It went to the Taliban. Who do you think paid the bill? The Americans. This is the way the game works. The Taliban is attacked, but it is never destroyed.


“It’s a game,” the official said, wrapping up our conversation. “The U.S. is being taken for a ride.”

The Pakistan government has a long history of making deals with the tribes to give the impression they are taking the jihadist seriously so that they can continue to get money from the US.


Pakistan’s ISI has a long history of working with the Taliban:

Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say

By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
NYTimes
March 26, 2009

The American officials said proof of the ties between the Taliban and Pakistani spies came from electronic surveillance and trusted informants. The Pakistani officials interviewed said that they had firsthand knowledge of the connections, though they denied that the ties were strengthening the insurgency.

American officials have complained for more than a year about the ISI’s support to groups like the Taliban. But the new details reveal that the spy agency is aiding a broader array of militant networks with more diverse types of support than was previously known — even months after Pakistani officials said that the days of the ISI’s playing a “double game” had ended.

…not only intelligence help and cover, but also funding


Diverse Sources Fund Insurgency In Afghanistan
Restricting Cash Flow Difficult, U.S. Says

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, September 27, 2009

U.S. officials said there is no evidence today that the Saudi, UAE or other Gulf governments are giving official aid to the Taliban. They said they suspect that Pakistani military and intelligence operatives are continuing to fund the Afghan insurgency, although the Islamabad government denies this.


I know that sometimes we have to work with demons to try and defeat the devil but the democrats complained about this for years and now that they are in charge, they are pretty much doing the same thing.
What happened to “hope and change”?


Even now the deals the Pakistani government is cutting with the tribes helps certain tribes gain more power and does nothing to stop their main objective of taking over Afghanistan:

Pakistan Cuts Deals With Anti-American Militants
Monday , October 19, 2009

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan

Both allow their lands to be used by fighters who cross into Afghanistan and are loyal to the Mullah Omar, the head of the Afghan Taliban. Omar is believed to be living in Pakistan.

As the region’s British colonial rulers did decades ago, the army is exploiting tribal rivalries to try to gain control in the region. Nazir is an old-time opponent of the Mehsud tribe, while Bahadur is reportedly angry over the appointment of Hakimullah as Taliban chief.


The Long War Journal: Pakistan carefully advances in South Waziristan

Written by Bill Roggio on October 20, 2009 12:46 AM to The Long War Journal

Both Bahadar and Nazir sponsor al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and Pakistani jihadi groups and host training camps for these Islamist terror groups.Powerful elements withing Pakistan’s military establishment view Nazir, Bahadar, the Haqqani family, and other groups as ‘good’ Taliban as they do not attack the state but focus their efforts on jihad in Afghanistan.

Terrible ROE that exposes our Soldiers to extreme and sometimes unnecessary dangers combined with to much emphasis on “winning hearts” is giving the jihadist and their supporters to much room to manipulate and adjust.

The best way to gain their respect and “win their heats” is to destroy there ability to train and carry out their attacks.
We have to kill as many of the enemy as possible and destroy their ability to regroup.
Show the populace that the way of the jihadist is certain death.
We have almost totally stopped bombing raids on camps and known terrorist hideouts(drone attacks are not full on bombing raids to destroy whole areas of enemy encampments).
How do you not utilize the most superior air force in the world when we are at war??
It is insane to tie our hands behind our backs and then say “lets go get them guys”.

We have a superior Army and Armament.
Use it.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 7:54 PM

I understand and agree with you my friend. As a Vietnam-era vet, I’ve “up-close-and-personal” experience with the lying, defeatist, traitors.
Rod on November 1, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Thank you for your service.

I can only hope that enough Americans will have learned the lessons of politicizing a war and demeaning the service of Brave Soldiers such as yourself, like was done in Vietnam and Iraq, that we will hold the democrats accountable for their lies and backstabbing of this war effort.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Call her a whore. Call her a slut. Call her a f’ing stupid cow. Just don’t call her “ma’am”.

MaiDee on November 1, 2009 at 8:17 PM

S’cuse me………..

Would you mine calling me SENATOR.

I worked HARD for that.

Barbie, you’re a ditz. You’ve been nothing but a ditz since you bought your office in your first election, and you continue to flabbergast the intelligence of the rest of the country outside of CA with your flighty idiocy.

bannedbyhuffpo on November 1, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Call her a whore. Call her a slut. Call her a f’ing stupid cow. Just don’t call her “ma’am”.

MaiDee on November 1, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Can I call her Babs the Bigot ?

NO !

Why?

Oh yeah she is a Dummycrat !

cableguy615 on November 1, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Well that will be useful in a campaign ad…

dogsoldier on November 1, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Rush speaking “truth to power”:
(via gatewaypundit)
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/rush-nails-it-questions-obama-dems-commitment-to-national-security-update-obama-will-delay-troop-decision/

WALLACE: But you don’t think that Barack Obama has a profound respect for our soldiers and the families that are giving the sacrifice?

RUSH: Chris, throughout the Iraq war, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military. They convened hearings and accused General Petraeus of lying. They said the surge would not work.

Harry Reid stands up, waves the white flag — this war is lost. Jack Murtha is out saying our Marines at Haditha are guilty of rape. John Kerry is accusing our Marines of committing terrorism acts by going into the homes of Iraqis at midnight in the dark terrorizing, looking for Al Qaida or whoever was there.

Yeah. I mean, look. I hate to be honest with you here, but I do question their commitment to national security. I question their commitment to the U.S. military. They’ll put their political survival and their political power being gained over anything else. They’ll use anybody and throw anybody away in order to achieve it.


As usual Rush nailed it.

Baxter Greene on November 2, 2009 at 1:49 AM

Got to be some way of prying this horrific person out of office.

rayra on November 2, 2009 at 2:12 AM

Boxer needs to be made a private citizen, ASAP. Here’s hoping a true conservative candidate can make that happen for the good of the state as well as the nation.

itzWicks on November 2, 2009 at 8:47 AM

The object is to destroy our military. Don’t you remember the Carter years? Obama is Carter++.

{^_^}

herself on November 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2