McCain: “Success is the real exit strategy”
posted at 9:57 pm on December 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
Maverick’s never been a fan of timetables.
“The President has made the right decision to embrace a counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan and to resource it properly. I think the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that will deploy as part of this mission, plus greater allied commitments, will enable us to reverse the momentum of the insurgency and create the conditions for success in Afghanistan. I support the President’s decision, and I think it deserves the support of all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats.
“What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the President’s decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies – in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the entire region – all of whom currently doubt whether America is committed to winning this war. A withdrawal date only emboldens Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight.
“Success is the real exit strategy. When we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, our troops should begin to return home with honor, but that withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary deadlines. In the days ahead, I will seek to address this and other questions I have about the President’s policy, including my continuing concern about the civilian aspect of our strategy.
As previously noted, The One did in fact reserve the conditions-on-the-ground loophole for himself tonight, although he and McCain have opposing visions of when that might come into play. For McCain, COTG is cause to stay when the going gets tough; for Obama, COTG is likely cause to stay when the going gets easy, i.e. if McChrystal repulses the Taliban and reduces the risk of casualties to U.S. troops, which in turn will reduce the heat on Obama from his lefty base. When was the last time you heard a liberal pound the table about withdrawal from Iraq? There’s a reason for that, my friends. Presumably The One figures that either things will improve, in which case no one will much care about holding him to his timetable, or things will deteriorate, in which case he’ll credit himself for giving it the ol’ college try and blame Bush (again) for diverting resources to Iraq and handing him an unwinnable war.
As it is, McChrystal’s got essentially one calendar year — from July 2010, when all new troops will (hopefully) be in theater, to July 2011, when withdrawal begins — to turn it around and train the Afghan army. Good luck, general. For your viewing pleasure, here’s Krauthammer taking a dim, McCain-esque view of the speech; compare and contrast with Bill Kristol, who’s in sync with me in thinking that, as feeble as it is, this one last chance is more than we ever expected to get from Obama. Exit quotation: “‘The interest is consistent.’ That’s the heart of the matter. It’s encouraging that Obama seems to understand this fact.” Click the image to watch.
Update: The AP gets to the heart of Obama’s mixed message.
Update: More support from the Standard, this time from Andrew Ferguson:
Obama’s critics to his right should remember the president’s critics to his left. The poor gentle souls must be gobsmacked. Obama is the first Democratic president in forty years to call for a significant deployment of American troops in the national security interest of his country. This is very big news. His predecessor, President Clinton, could give a stirring address dispatching bombers over Bosnia and be confident of the support of his fellow Democrats, because the show of power was purely humanitarian and had nothing to do with keeping us safe from our enemies. With great courage, Obama is trying something that hasn’t been tried within the living memory of most of the members of his party. He may even recall the era when liberal Democratic presidents — Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson — could lead a fight because it was in the interest of the country to fight.
This is a historical moment, and one we should be grateful for.
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 Next »
If you would have FOUGHT for this country in 2008, we wouldn’t be in this position.
I blame you, maverick.
Go away.
HornetSting on December 1, 2009 at 10:01 PM
McCrystal has whatever time he needs, depending on the success at the mythical timetable.
I do not for a second believe any politician over timetables. I think the debate is simply one of semantics, and the GOP loves “gung ho,” in forever. The reality is that people are war-weary, and a timetable sounds like we’re just not jumping off a flipping cliff.
But do I buy it?
Not in a heartbeat.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Why can`t Obama understand this simple fact
“Success is the real exit strategy”
bluemarlin on December 1, 2009 at 10:02 PM
You are so irrelevant ! Crawl into a hole and disappear squirrel-boy ! And take your dumbass bimbo daughter with you !
cableguy615 on December 1, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Sen. McCain has always been consistent on this point. He would have irritated me on numerous occasions had he been elected in 2008, but he would have been a much better president than this very ill-prepared rookie.
Jill1066 on December 1, 2009 at 10:03 PM
ann? annn?
easy.. that is entirely NOT true…
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:03 PM
http://www.stonesintoschools.com/
The President needs to be looking at this guy for advice. Our SOF’s do.
CTSherman on December 1, 2009 at 10:03 PM
OK, I’m willing to be wrong. I’ll just say, it appears that’s the case.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:05 PM
The public prefers victory over a genteel retreat.
Sharr on December 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM
;)
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM
I have even less sympathy for the radical left than I do the filthy lying coward in the White House. They are all traitors to America as far as I am concerned. The poor gentle souls can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
highhopes on December 1, 2009 at 10:07 PM
This is a copout matched only by our last days in Vietnam when the politicians gave up and we all came home. The soldiers fight on but the populace is “war- weary” . . . that’s garbage.
rplat on December 1, 2009 at 10:07 PM
The history of Afghanastan is really a huge factor here. It broke Russia. We’re on the cusp of national bankruptcy.
It makes sense to me that we’re all worried that it will break us, too.
I’m not sure I agree with ANY of the politicos about this decision/reaction.
I’m not sure a rabble-rousing speech would have ever really worked with the public. This approach of “reluctancy” may actually work better.
Just my 2 cents, btw.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM
God, I just don’t get this…either he is right and stands up for it…or he’s playing politics. He knows what the polls say about Afghanistan…I’m betting he’s doing a typical Obama here. He’s trying, and failing, to triangulate. His heart isn’t in it…that is obvious to anybody who’s cares to look. I know you want it to be otherwise, but the evidence is overwhelming that this is another game he’s playing. This guy doesn’t do truth.
AUINSC on December 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Saw this over at AOSHQ per a commenter:
FDR’s Day of Infamy speech: No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
Obama: 18 months and we’re outta there!
powerpro on December 1, 2009 at 10:09 PM
I guess if you juxtapose the motivation to continue an armed conflict in the absence of a clear strategy for exit with the motivation to continue an governement entitlement program in the absence of a clear exit strategy then we will arrive at the same point.
When do we stop welfare? When people are no longer poor?
When do we leave Afghanistan? When people are no longer violent?
Both are difficult and circular, costly arguments.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:09 PM
It’s sort of like we all clock in for yet another round. The real deal is up to McCrystal.
What will motivate is success. Let’s hope he can deliver.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:09 PM
If you would have FOUGHT for this country in 2008, we wouldn’t be in this position.
I blame you, maverick.
Go away.
HornetSting on December 1, 2009 at 10:01 PM
HornetSting: “My Friends,fight with me”!
Sting,Capt’n Queeg,master of his McCain Mutiny of the
Republican Party was busy in espionage against SarahCuda!!
And,how have you been:):):)
canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 10:10 PM
You make great points, historic ones. Great armies have been crushed on the mountains of Afghanistan. As we move forward, we too will approach that point, particularly when we fail to define a strategy.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:11 PM
If Stan the Man can have the freedom to execute a strategy that is well thought out and has the will of the American people behind it, then he could taste success. However, those young SPC and SGTs are only going to be as motivated as the CINC indicates. Tonight, there wasn’t too much worth fighting for in that speech.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I did take his speech to mean we’re not following the notion that rebuilding is the goal.
Honestly, I don’t think he moved the debate much further with this speech.
I think people are still very confused as to why we’re there.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I think McCain fought for this country, all of his life. You might not like him, but we would be a lot better off he had won. You can say it was because he did not fight, but in truth a lot of people who should have voted for him did not bother…and that is their fault, not his or Palin’s.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:13 PM
..these guys are clowns. One guy flounces around the world kissing the the rings and asses of potentates, emperors, and communist dictators, and the other sits on his VP candidate during an election.
we are 300,000,000-plus in this country and out of the
two bestfour best people we can come up with to lead us, we get an equal-opportunity recipient, a guy who’s been in the biggest boys’ club in the world for over thirty years, and an aging war hero who sleeps with the enemy....the only one with bona fide executive experience is hooted down by a lap dog press and screaming leftist actors.
No wonder 71% of the voters in this country hate the government.
If I were MO at this point, I would be studying the eating habits of the proletariat instead of recommending that they buy the $6,000 purses, $500 sneakers, and seat cake.
You get much a citizenry above 71% anti-gummint, old son, and pretty soon the people start showing up on the commons with their muskets, powder, and shot.
VoyskaPVO on December 1, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Well, General McCrystal is going to be the story to watch. Let’s see what he’s made of, eh?
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Wait…What???
BigWyo on December 1, 2009 at 10:15 PM
It’s fundamentally a denial-of-use mission. To deny the enemy the opportunity to use AF as a training base to launch missions on us. It requires us to find them, secure the areas, train the police/army, and support the government. Lots of moving parts, made doubly difficult when the government is corrupt.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:15 PM
..are you serious, you old bat? He’s the one guy in this mess with an appropriate CV; his leader, the POSOTUS, is the one you should keep your eyes on.
VoyskaPVO on December 1, 2009 at 10:16 PM
He doesn’t know how to triangulate with finesse the way Bubba could. You have to appear sincere, for one thing. Bubba was great at faking sincerity. Obama hasn’t a clue.
Wethal on December 1, 2009 at 10:16 PM
G
Obama might also be afraid of the political fallout of a lost war. It is one thing to say people are tired of the war, it is another to give up and then live with what comes after.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:17 PM
From a commenter on C4P:
Sarah Palin (during her convention speech): “He never utters the word VICTORY, except in his own campaign.”
powerpro on December 1, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Well said.
Missy on December 1, 2009 at 10:17 PM
We don’t exactly have a great record with that scenario, Ted.
In fact, it’s one of the interesting things about reading history.
I’m often amazed we’re a world power, given our excursions into failure.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Burn the poppy fields
PrezHussein on December 1, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Yes, this is true.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:18 PM
His effort is for naught unless the CINC has his heart in it. GWB put his presidency into the surge mission and it cost him. He won, but it was the right thing to do at the time. I didn’t see any heart tonight–soldiers see that stuff–so do regular folks. If the president was there to try to tacitly wash his hands of this problem, then he may as well have sunk his own effort right there.
I would’ve really appreciated him getting up there and said, “I hate war–and this is why A, B, C” However, sometimes war is what we have and this is why we’ll win A, B, C. That would’ve been the honest and open approach rather than the wandering approach he took tonight.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:19 PM
The Afghan war could be won quickly, decisively and cheaply in mere minutes if a man with guts and a winning attitude was at the helm. Man up Obama-boy. Nuke those f**kers off the map or at least unfurl a frikkin curtain of MOABS across that god forsaken place. Be done with it. Let Iran wonder no more about our determination. Or the world for that matter. Shouldn’t be that hard a concept for a Chicago boy. Send one of ours to the hospital, we send one of yours to the morgue. Ring a bell dipsh!t? Well they sent thousands of ours to the morgue dumb@ss. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?
Guardian on December 1, 2009 at 10:19 PM
“The Lord looks after drunks, fools and children…” and apparently the USA, too.
Wethal on December 1, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Really, Terrye? Really? I’m not going to get into this with you…you can defend him, he still believes obama is great and that he believes in the constitution, and live in a dream.
I’ll take reality.
HornetSting on December 1, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Obama? Watch him?
Are you kidding me?
This guy is totally inexperienced, has no basis for making decisions, and is praying his butt off, if he prays at all.
No, I’ll watch the general.
If McCrystal is a fool, then…..he is, and we’ll suck it up big-time.
I hope he knows what he’s doing.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM
We have won a lot more than we have lost.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:21 PM
We became a world power when we stood for the right thing in WWII. We emerged from that conflict as a world power but certainly didn’t enter it in that way. Our nation has the potential to both assume, wield and maintain its status as a world power. Once gone, we can reassume it, but at a great cost. Tonight, we coughed up a few bucks.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:22 PM
I’ve got the answer. Bomb the shiite out of the mountains, carpet bomb every single known AlQ and Taliban post/city/etc. I’m serious.
We need to stop pussyfooting around with these people. They are playing hardball. We need to play with them. None of this PC crap. get it done, do it like Dresden and be done with it.
All this crap is doing is letting those terrorist a-holes know that they need to just hold out a little while longer then business as usual.
We are winning nothing when we don’t play as ruthlessly with them as they do with us.
mjk on December 1, 2009 at 10:22 PM
..where I come from, you keep your eyes on the card sharp. At least we agree that the General will do a good job.
VoyskaPVO on December 1, 2009 at 10:22 PM
My question is why is anyone even bothering to listen to anything MaverDICK John McCain has to say about anything anymore these days!
The man is irrelevant!
His views are irrelevant!
His loud-mouthed thunder-thighed fake blond haired chunky-cheeks daughter is irrelevent!
The whole lousy McCain clan is irrelevent!
pilamaye on December 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM
HornetSting:
I am not going to get into it with your either, not really. I understand how you feel and I respect your opinion. I am not even defending McCain, I am just saying people voted for Obama and that was their mistake. I doubt if it would have mattered who the GOP even ran. I don’t think it had anything to do with a lack of fight on anyone’s part.
We can just agree to disagree on this.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM
ann, honey, come on. I’ve worked for GEN McC, and he is a man who understands his limits. His authority and power come from the president and the will of the American people. Put the presidents performance tonight, the national mood on AF, and the ground truth situation in AF all into an equation and do you think that anything that Stan McChrystal can muster up and do (no matter how good he is) can overcome net negatives in those categories?
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Do me a favor then. When you see me post about McCain, don’t bother commenting on it. I know how you feel, how you still want to defend him, and you know I hate him.
Let’s just leave it at that.
HornetSting on December 1, 2009 at 10:25 PM
He doesn’t know how to triangulate with finesse the way Bubba could.
Wethal on December 1, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Wethal: Triangulation,Hopey is not!
As I’ve said before,everything Liberals do,is coldly
calculated,and politically motivated,and Obama is having
a devil of a time trying to protect his political *ss,
and trying to come out like a rose,in setting himself up
for his non-existent second term!!:)
canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Does McCain give a definition of success? Apparently he can’t be bothered.
Does McCain give a definition of goals? Apparently he can’t be bothered.
This is obscene as it implies that if the troops return home before reaching this McCain “success”, whatever that is, and achieving these McCain “our goals”, whatever those are, they will return home in dishonor.
I guess he thinks that 10 years or even 20 years or any number of years, even 50, even make it a 100!, would be arbitrary. Who would commit to any big project, even one without a lot of Americans being killed and maimed, without some kind of limit? What does McCain think Afghanistan is, the Big Dig in Boston? Goldman Sachs? A Perpetual Motion machine? Nancy Pelosi’s botox budget?
MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Oh absolutely, Ted. He’s an implementer. All he needs he got.
He doesn’t need validation from the public or rah-rah, other than in recruiting efforts.
He knows, if he’s worth a penny, that’s up to him, anyway. Success will absolutely breed success.
It’s his show now.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:29 PM
HornetSting:
Okay, I will resist the temptation. I promise.
Terrye on December 1, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Sorry, no. It’s all for show to make Obama appear macho. By the time the less-than-requested troops get over there, they’re already at their limit of the timetable and will be brought back home.
McChrystal said we had 12-months to win the war. That time frame started three months ago. All the less-than-requested troops won’t be in Afghanistan until well AFTER that time frame. They’ll be there for a few months and then the drum will be pounded on, in time for the 2012 election, to bring them home. As the saying “there is no there there” goes… This is no surge surge.
Enoxo on December 1, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I now want to see the discussion move away from Obama and his tepid speech.
The focus should be on McCrystal.
Let’s see what he can really accomplish. I personally think that we’re a bit war-weary and not thinking entirely clearly.
If we’re tired, they are bound to be even more tired.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I know it’s tough. But, at least this is the only thing we disagree on. If you slip up, I won’t sting you, Terrye. :)
HornetSting on December 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Then Obama was successful in convincing you of that. I predicted just yesterday that the President’s motivation in delivering this at West Point (McChrystal’s alma mater) was a nonverbal relinquishing of responsibility for the outcome of this war. If McChrystal were to go out there and secure AF so well that they build McDonalds and Disneylands there, then what would Obama do? If McChrystal were to go out there and this thing falls on its face, then Obama has laid the ground work to lay it right in McChrystal and Petraeus’ laps. He never said ‘victory’ tonight, so he can’t be held to that standard now. Moreover, once he boards AF1 tonight, he’s wiping his hands of this issue and it’s back to healthcare and capandtrade tomorrow–watch.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:34 PM
McCain needs to go and help Newt read all the fan mail Newt got on the Scozzafava fiasco. Just maybe McCain will get a clue!
Crimefyter on December 1, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Ann; are you an insurgent? Are you covertly giving Obama cover? If so, I’m nailing you on it. The US military is controlled by civilian politicians. GEN McChrystal is a tool of the US government and exercises command and control of forces within the strategic framework of US military policy as an arm of US foreign policy. President Barack Obama is the commander in chief of the military and we are at war–these are facts. This is not McChrystal’s booger now, it remains Obama’s–by virtue of his campaign speeches and his Constitutional responsibility.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:37 PM
At what point did that AP article get “to the heart of Obama’s mixed message”?
Was it here:
Or perhaps here:
Those two nations would be which?
Afghanistan and , and , IRAQ!
Paak-e-stan is Jugears baby alone.
And now that we’re speaking of inheritances; doesn’t this “war” keep getting passed down for generations?
Nobody, it appears, wants to win it ‘cept the BOTG (boots on the ground).
OkieDoc on December 1, 2009 at 10:38 PM
We are a world power because our military(might) has done what was right without fail. Politicians are the failures. And speaking from personal experience we(the military) had Vietnam in the win column.
Tom
marinetbryant on December 1, 2009 at 10:39 PM
I do agree. But I think that’s his strength. He redirects away to people who actually have responsibility for delivery.
I honestly don’t disagree with that, btw.
I do think McCrystal got what he wanted, and I think he needs to deliver.
I don’t mind that shift away from thinking that Obama is totally the deal.
That’s how we ended up with way, way too much focus on the presidency.
It’s not an entirely bad shift. He’s open to criticism, of course.
But I also don’t think any one person changes people’s real feelings, either. He could have given a great speech, and I still think people would have felt, deep-down, reluctant.
Context is important. And it’s more important than individuals, in my opinion, even the president.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Success? You mean like the ‘success’ we’ve had for the past few years, with bombs going off every week after a certain doofus declared “Mission Accomplished” in front of the cameras?!?!
McCain isn’t ‘Bush Lite’, he’s just ‘Lite’…in the head!!!
Dark-Star on December 1, 2009 at 10:43 PM
No, Ted. Here’s my real opinion.
The focus on one figure in government is actually nothing more than mass entertainment.
I’m opposed to that.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Next Presidential Election!
When,a slitherly Liberal nominee with zero Girl Guide
experience,or Boy Scout experience,and is a Anti-War
MoonBat,who is also a War Protestor,and sides on Team
Axis of All Evil,who just so happens to be a Muslim,and
yet the State Runned Socialist Marxist Media shill`s for
him as a G*d D*mned American so-called Christian and tries
to sell you,
on a plan for the current war,or claims they have an out
standing Foreign Policy,or National Security,just remember,
pay attention real clooooooooose,and never ever vote this
FU BO Clown Operation evernever again,and make available
to all schools,the history of this unpresedented dabauchery
that is currently in operation,
now in AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!(Snark,on the Highest Order).
canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Bread and circuses, Ann…oldest formula in the world and it still works just great.
Dark-Star on December 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Reading Gen. McChrystal’s Afghanistan assessment is easier than reading tea leaves, but judging by the murkiness of the debate about Afghanistan, few in the media or politics have read it. I say this having watched public discussion turn disagreement over troops levels into The Question of Consequence regarding overall strategy. Conservatives, listening to “the commander in the field,” play McChrystal as The Hawk who wants to crush America’s enemies into rubble (or, at least, more rubble than they are already in) as opposed to Obama The Wimp, whose hesitation and apparently dwindling support for a “surge” in Afghanistan threaten to turn McChrystal’s winning strategy into a politically correct and ineffective recipe for defeat.
But what really separates Obama and McChrystal? Judging by publicly available statements and writings, nothing much. Which is why — prediction time — McChrystal probably won’t quit when Obama gives him fewer forces than McChrystal is asking for.
Why? If you read McChrystal’s report, the general makes it very clear that his change in strategy, not his change in troop levels, is his top priority. But this change in strategy is almost always left out of debate [I may have missed it but I have never heard McCain go after McChrystal on this.]– and certainly out of the conservative end of the debate, which focuses on giving the general the forces he wants to win. What McChrystal actually wants to win — the support of the Afghan people, which is the basis of his new strategy — is never mentioned.
This strategy change to “population protection” at the expense of “force protection” [I may have missed it but I have never heard McCain go after McChrystal on this.] is in fact a politically correct and ineffective recipe for defeat, and, therefore, something right up the boss’s alley.
MB4 on December 1, 2009 at 10:47 PM
agree
BS, great leaders can motivate people to do great things that, by themselves, they’d never be able to do. Great coaches, great generals, great teachers, and great presidents.
I’ve personally rolled down the road in AF and felt encouraged because I knew the President was 110% behind our efforts and said so. (Bush). Moreover, I knew my family was supported because both he and his wife both said so and demonstrated as much.
Leaders CAN motivate people to reach down deep. Soldiers need that–when they’re cold, lonely, scared, when they have a baby at home, a wife, dreams, hope and long for something to come home to. Presidents can articulate that, they can also fail to articulate that. Soldiers know this, and it has an impact. It has less of an impact on those people who’s most difficult mission of the day involves getting through the line at StarBucks.
Perspectives.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Translation: Let me hijack the thread.
Aviator on December 1, 2009 at 10:47 PM
good, as long as its not in effort to subvert the presidents’ constitutional responsibility for being the commander in chief.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:49 PM
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Hmm jibberish, talk about how we shouldn’t focus on Obama when he’s the Commander-In-Chief. The buck’s begins and ends with HIM! Not the generals in the field.
Sharr on December 1, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Oh please. If you have an opinion on what we’re talking about, please join.
Otherwise, quit whining. The rest of us are really talking.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:53 PM
do you like store your comments or something?
weird.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:53 PM
No, they both bear a great amount of responsibility and accountability in this. The president can assume lots of credit, deflect lots of blame but bears the majority of the responsibility for the outcome. The framers had it right that way.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM
.
I voted for him, I worked, I contributed and I told you the old fool would fail when he and Huckelberry double teamed Romney!
He did not fight in Michigan, his handlers hobbled Sarah Palin, he did not make issue of Obamas communist associations, his ACORN associations, he did not ask Obama to produce his Birth Certificate although MCDumbass did! He was an inarticulate old bumbler in debating a lyin Pinnochio!
Most of all he suspended his stupid campaign and went back to D.C. not to lead, not to grab the microphone that was his for the taking, not to stand up for free enterprise, conservatives, and capitalism, rather the bumbling old panderer sold out conservatives as usual, his supposed Party, and American Free Enterprise and capitalism!
As the socialists danced in the House and the Senate proclaiming capitalism as dead McCain had blood on his hands because rather than stand up and fight he stood down and joined them!
However honorable John McCain may have been as a young war fighter and pilot, he has been nothing of the sort as a Senator, he has been a mean, little, loud mouth sellout and I am with HornetSting and others in wishing he would STFU and take his spawn and go away, far away!
dhunter on December 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM
I’d go for that, but alternative crops are less profitable and they can’t get them to market because of transportation infrastructure.
I hate to be a pessimist, but am highly skeptical this will turn out even as well as Iraq. Too many negatives, plus the enemy has been fighting this way for centuries,..it’s what they do, as opposed to Iraq with the street thugs, sectarian violence, and el Queda manipulators.
I just don’t think we have the political will for the long haul it would take. It certainly won’t happen in a couple of years.
a capella on December 1, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Context is important. And it’s more important than individuals, in my opinion, even the president.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:42 PM
AnninCA: Context is important,really,with American and
Canadian Soldiers dying on the battlefield,while
Obama was busy,jerking for time,and letting General
McChrystal twist in the wind!!!
Obama’s Liberal mandate,voted in by the ObamaVoter
Bots,in which,I`m sure your one of them,was to end
the WAR,and bring the TROOPS HOME!!!
Obama has painted himself quite nicely in a polit
ical corner,a pickle,as they say!!
canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
I think McCrystal has what he needs now to continue to break the back of Al Quaida.
I have watched the stories about the leaders killed, etc. It’s got to be close to being weak to the point that they are set back for decades.
AnninCA on December 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Folks Afghanistan is a conundrum. If Afghanistan were a 100% peaceful country, it’d still be a conundrum. Mountains, weather, food supply and infrastructure make it a Rubik’s Cube for any commander there. There is nothing easy in Afghanistan these days, except stepping on a landmine, that’s a piece of cake.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 10:57 PM
yes, the drone whacks that occur help thin the herd and scatter them. That helps, it weakens them, they’re not monolithic. I predict, reluctantly, that if OBL is sighted, he’ll be marked, followed, cornered, then whacked—-in OCT 2012…and obama will get reelected.
Priorities.
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 11:00 PM
I don’t like Johnny boy generally. However in foreign relations and warfare the guy is right. Timetable and conditions on the ground are contradictions.
To my liberal friends…. Defeat is not an option. War is never pleasant. In warfare messaging and perception is very important.
For now the President made the right decision. I would have liked to see this same decision come earlier. His messaging was very poor. I hope the time-line is just crumbs to his insane base. I REALLY do.
PS: I would have preferred a rallying cry from President Obama. Now go ahead and smoke the rats out.
antisocial on December 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM
nite ya’ll good discussion
ted c on December 1, 2009 at 11:05 PM
What part of Commander-In-Chief you don’t understand?
antisocial on December 1, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Something that has worried me for some time is the possibility that the bad guys might be outfitted with ground-air shoulder fired missles like the Stingers we supplied the Afghanis to use against the Russian Hind helicopters. Surely that thought has occurred to Iran, Russia, or China. Perhaps our helos are advanced enough in defense technology so that wouldn’t be a problem, but it would sure play hell if the Taliban had access to something like that and started taking out our choppers in large numbers. Don’t even like to post about it.
a capella on December 1, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Absolutely! If you have NO other frame of reference for this, please load up Google Earth and take a tour of the country. Speed along valleys and over ridges/ranges and passes.
You’ll get the idea real quick. This place is better left to the Marco Polo sheep.
I can hear it now.
Stop the war!
Feed the sheep!
Shheeeiiit! It might work along the lines of putting
former tusk ivory poachers in charge of protecting African elephants.
Make AQ and the Tali-wackers Game Wardens!!!
OkieDoc on December 1, 2009 at 11:10 PM
How does McCain define ‘Success’ using Obowma’s Rules of Engagement…?
Seven Percent Solution on December 1, 2009 at 11:28 PM
GO HOME McLame. you are a dismal piece of crap.
hawkman on December 1, 2009 at 11:30 PM
+1 for the dude from the great white north.
Geochelone on December 1, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Yo Ted, have one or two of those 7 beers before you hit the sack.
Geochelone on December 1, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Shouldn’t McCain be more silent in his shame?
He’s a freakin’ war hero who couldn’t beat a Marxist, racist piece of filth like Obama.
You bear the burden, John. I’m not really into the opinions of a guy who ran the shittiest presidential campaign in modern American politics.
No offense, Bob Dole.
David2.0 on December 1, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Folks are complaining about the President giving a timetable. Get a grip. What the President is really saying is that he plans to finish the job of kicking the Taliban’s ass in 18 months. I’m okay with that.
Political Season on December 1, 2009 at 11:55 PM
canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM
+1 for the dude from the great white north.
Geochelone on December 1, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Geochelone:-:)
canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 11:56 PM
How does McCain define ‘Success’ using Obowma’s Rules of Engagement…?
Seven Percent Solution on December 1, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Seven Percent Solution: Recipe for DOOM!:)
canopfor on December 1, 2009 at 11:59 PM
President Obama’s speech felt totally disjointed tonight. I gave the content a C- and the delivery a D.
LFRGary on December 2, 2009 at 12:09 AM
That’s not what Obama’s hand picked general says.
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 not that long ago)
MB4 on December 2, 2009 at 12:10 AM
I would give his content a B and delivery an A.
However, I have been observing what he has been doing with his hands under the table and give them an F.
Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on December 2, 2009 at 12:16 AM
..jeez! What is this? Toastmasters? Here we are beating our gums about — what? — a speech; another one of the POSOTUS’s Greek Column extravaganza’s and a chance to — what? — beat his gums some more.
The guy is a vapid, empty cypher who has and will continue to botch the office of POTUS because he has zippola in executive and leadership ability.
Wringing our hands over whether his delivery a C- or D+ is like eating a vat of congealed chicken fat. Wake up people! Are you going to join the 71% who think this gummint sucks and git up off’n your pimple-covered fannies and take back our country? (Hint: we can start now; we have eleven months!)
Or are you going to sit here and deconstruct this Pantload’s Rotary Club address?
VoyskaPVO on December 2, 2009 at 1:04 AM
Obama: Er, um… present!
Sorry Obamao, the buck really does stop on your desk. We don’t want your disinterested 3rd party, drive-by, ivory tower commie, viewpoint. You need to take a stand. I remember the statue of Iron Mike from my Ft. Benning days. Two words a leader says, “follow me.” That’s what we need Obambi.
Mojave Mark on December 2, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »