PDA

View Full Version : Obama U.S. commander in Afghanistan talked with Obama only once


wild1
09-28-2009, 10:48 AM
U.S. commander in Afghanistan talked with Obama only once

By Amanda Carpenter on Sept. 28, 2009 into The Back Story

The military general credited with capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says he has spoken with President Obama only once since taking command in Afghanistan.

"I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconferece]," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.

"You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin followed up.

"That is correct," the general replied.

This revelation comes amid the explosive publication of an classified report written by the general that said the war in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure" if more troops are not added next year. Yet, the debate over health care reform continues to dominate Washington’s political discussions.

Former U.S. Ambassador for the United Nations John R. Bolton said this was indicative of Mr. Obama’s misplaced priorities.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/28/us-commander-of-afghanistan-only-talked-to-obama-o/



http://i34.tinypic.com/2h3zcr9.jpg

***SPRAYER
09-28-2009, 10:58 AM
Don't worry, he's in Denmark. Everything is fine.

WhitiE
09-28-2009, 11:00 AM
lol. its ok he might get the Olympics to be in chicago.....

***SPRAYER
09-28-2009, 11:00 AM
lol. its ok he might get the Olympics to be in chicago.....

You can't make this shit up.

Bill Parcells
09-28-2009, 11:01 AM
who's got time for this irrelevant rubbish? we have to bring the Olympics to Chicago!

ROFL

I hated Clinton. but even he wasnt this blind to national security and public opinion.

***SPRAYER
09-28-2009, 11:03 AM
ROFL

I hated Clinton. but even he wasnt this blind to national security and public opinion.

Other than letting CHICOMS steal all our secrets and selling them the ones that they couldn't steal, Obama makes Clinton look like Alexander Haig.

wild1
09-28-2009, 11:06 AM
Yes, I agree. He's got the Olympics to worry about. No need for something silly like what he said was the right place for us to be at war.

***SPRAYER
09-28-2009, 11:07 AM
Where's Donger?

ROFL

wild1
09-28-2009, 11:09 AM
He also said we should invade "Bockestan" to get Al Queda... I guess that will have to wait until the Olympic selection process is over too.

Demonpenz
09-28-2009, 11:09 AM
We shouldn't even be in both wars anymore anyways. Bring the troops back.

HonestChieffan
09-28-2009, 11:14 AM
Yes but he has seen him on TV 147 times

this month

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 11:17 AM
McCrystal's not his guy.

I'm not saying it's right, but McCrystal is not the guy Obama listens to on the subject.

wild1
09-28-2009, 11:18 AM
There, found the cartoon finally.

ROYC75
09-28-2009, 11:46 AM
Obo is too busy with his failed policy and ACORN right now to worry about the M E.

wild1
09-28-2009, 11:48 AM
Didn't we have a member whose son went to Afghanistan recently?

I wonder how he feels about this?

patteeu
09-28-2009, 12:06 PM
McCrystal's not his guy.

I'm not saying it's right, but McCrystal is not the guy Obama listens to on the subject.

Why did Obama appoint him if he doesn't have confidence in him?

blaise
09-28-2009, 12:11 PM
McCrystal's not his guy.

I'm not saying it's right, but McCrystal is not the guy Obama listens to on the subject.

I think Hillary's his guy.

Amnorix
09-28-2009, 12:21 PM
Eh, so what? There's at least two layers in the chain of command between McChrystal and Obama. The SecDef and CentCom. While Afghanistan is the most important thing going on right now, I'd expect them to use the normal chain of command most of the time.

HonestChieffan
09-28-2009, 12:22 PM
I bet they twitter

wild1
09-28-2009, 12:53 PM
There's only one way to get the Prez's attention focused on Afghanistan.

Someone is going to have to start filming a talk show there.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 01:17 PM
Why did Obama appoint him if he doesn't have confidence in him?

I believe Patreus urged him to. Obama meets with Patreus, but he obviously doesn't trust McCrystal just yet.

HonestChieffan
09-28-2009, 02:03 PM
Patraeus wanted Obama to let soldiers hang while he scoots off to Demnmark to lobby for Chicago. I think you are nuts.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 04:13 PM
Hold off until the healthcare bill is decided. What are the lives of a few poor kids who took a chance defending our nation gonna hurt?
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 04:15 PM
McCrystal's not his guy.

I'm not saying it's right, but McCrystal is not the guy Obama listens to on the subject.

My God in Heaven!! He appointed the general. If he isn't his guy, who is?

Does he need an Afghani Czar too?
Posted via Mobile Device

stevieray
09-28-2009, 04:21 PM
I believe Patreus urged him to. Obama meets with Patreus, but he obviously doesn't trust McCrystal just yet.

WARNING! do not drive or operate heavy machinary

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 04:25 PM
If he isn't his guy, who is?

Patreus. Holbrooke. Clinton. Kerry. Powell. McCain. Gates.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 04:35 PM
Patreus. Holbrooke. Clinton. Kerry. Powell. McCain. Gates.

So you are saying the man he appointed does not deserve his trust. Why appoint him then? Why not leave Patreus?

You are making excuses for his poor mistakes. While he decides if he can trust a US General in charge of my children, my children could die ala Somalia and the Bay of Pigs.

Your are either overly apolgetic for this POTUS or you simply don't understand.
Posted via Mobile Device

memyselfI
09-28-2009, 04:38 PM
I can understand the reluctance of a POTUS talking to a General TOO much. The appearance of meddling and other sorts of issues which could arise. However, we should give Lite a pass. He's been tied up with truly important matters like the Chicago Olympics. I'm sure once he's got that deal locked up he might have time to be Commander in Chief.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 04:38 PM
So you are saying the man he appointed does not deserve his trust.

I don't know if he doesn't trust him -- I'm just saying he's obviously not in his inner circle because he doesn't garner as much trust as other folks.

If I'm full of shit you are more than welcome to ignore me. But this isn't exactly rocket science. The fact that an on-the-ground commander isn't in the President's inner circle isn't news.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 04:47 PM
I don't know if he doesn't trust him -- I'm just saying he's obviously not in his inner circle because he doesn't garner as much trust as other folks.

I have 3 kids in active miltary, one going overseas soon. I certainly hope that you are assessing things wrong for their sake.

Because if either you or the POTUS told me that my kid could be killed over the next couple of weeks because the POTUS needs time to like the man he should have completed extensive background checks prior to appointing, I would honestly tell both of you to look my family in the eye and tell us that is why my son or daughter could die. Then I would knock the hell out of the first one I could reach.
Posted via Mobile Device

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 04:48 PM
Because if either you or the POTUS told me that my kid could be killed over the next couple of weeks because the POTUS needs time to like the man he should have completed extensive background checks prior to appointing, I would honestly tell both of you to look my family in the eye and tell us that is why my son or daughter could die.

I'd do the same thing if I were you.

Which is primarily why I'm not saying that.

dirk digler
09-28-2009, 04:53 PM
Eh, so what? There's at least two layers in the chain of command between McChrystal and Obama. The SecDef and CentCom. While Afghanistan is the most important thing going on right now, I'd expect them to use the normal chain of command most of the time.

Not surprising it took 18 posts for someone to post something truthful. Of course most people here haven't served a day in their life so they are really just talking out their ass.

Also the OP fails to mention what the General said his biggest challenge was. If you guessed straightening out 8 years of a cluster fuck operation you win!

memyselfI
09-28-2009, 04:56 PM
Eh, so what? There's at least two layers in the chain of command between McChrystal and Obama. The SecDef and CentCom. While Afghanistan is the most important thing going on right now, I'd expect them to use the normal chain of command most of the time.

Lite is a lawyer who will decide how to move forward on the most important case in his career. You don't think he should be invested enough in the decision touch base with those possessing the facts? He's not going to do any additional or in depth personal due diligence. :eek:

I find this shocking especially coming from a lawyer.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 04:56 PM
I'd do the same thing if I were you.

Which is primarily why I'm not saying that.
Then you are not being clear.

Explain to me why my son can possibly be killed if McKrystal is right when he goes to Afghanistan next month and we are undermanned. Without mentioning previous administrations if possible. The POTUS agreed this is a just and winnable war as a candidate in August of last year. What has he been doing since November 2008 that justifies this delay?
Posted via Mobile Device

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 05:00 PM
Explain to me why my son can possibly be killed if McKrystal is right when he goes to Afghanistan next month and we are undermanned. Without mentioning previous administrations if possible. The POTUS agreed this is a just and winnable war as a candidate in August of last year. What has he been doing since November 2008 that justifies this delay?

...are we talking about McCrystal anymore?

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 05:14 PM
...are we talking about McCrystal anymore?

Since I used his name, I believe I am. Did you not read the post?
Posted via Mobile Device

WilliamTheIrish
09-28-2009, 05:42 PM
Then you are not being clear.

Explain to me why my son can possibly be killed if McKrystal is right when he goes to Afghanistan next month and we are undermanned. Without mentioning previous administrations if possible. The POTUS agreed this is a just and winnable war as a candidate in August of last year. What has he been doing since November 2008 that justifies this delay?
Posted via Mobile Device

McKrystal is the guy who believes this war is one of protecting the population and rebuilding the infrastructure.

Tell your kid what I told mine: If it's a showdown between you and somebody on the other side (man, woman or child) FUCK THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.
I'd rather visit them in the brig than in the cemetery.

Donger
09-28-2009, 06:02 PM
Obama certainly seems to be more willing to engage our enemies in "discussion" than our own people.

I'm really starting to be concerned about Obama's competence. He does realize that he's POTUS, right? That the campaign is over?

That he needs to LEAD?

ChiefaRoo
09-28-2009, 06:42 PM
We shouldn't even be in both wars anymore anyways. Bring the troops back.

He's not even doing that. He's doing, nothing.

wild1
09-28-2009, 07:14 PM
I'm really starting to be concerned about Obama's competence. He does realize that he's POTUS, right? That the campaign is over?


The 2012 campaign is in full swing.

***SPRAYER
09-28-2009, 07:15 PM
I'm really starting to be concerned about Obama's competence.

Starting?

***SPRAYER
09-28-2009, 07:16 PM
Of course most people here haven't served a day in their life

What branch of the service were you in, Faygler?

Saul Good
09-28-2009, 07:19 PM
He's not even doing that. He's doing, nothing.

Nothing like having a CIC vote "present".

dirk digler
09-28-2009, 07:45 PM
What branch of the service were you in, Faygler?

USMC

Donger
09-28-2009, 07:46 PM
USMC

Navy boy? I wouldn't have figured that.

dirk digler
09-28-2009, 07:49 PM
Navy boy? I wouldn't have figured that.

Don't insult me 4321

Donger
09-28-2009, 07:55 PM
Don't insult me 4321

That was supposed to be a compliment. Guarding our ships from pirates and other nefarious nasties is a honorable job.

Amnorix
09-28-2009, 09:30 PM
That was supposed to be a compliment. Guarding our ships from pirates and other nefarious nasties is a honorable job.

While that is of course the basis for the creation of the Marines, I don't think they're thrilled that they remain technically a subset of the Navy, nor would I imagine they'd be thrilled with your descrption of their job.

Of course, I realize you're probably just pulling his chain, but just in case....

Donger
09-28-2009, 09:31 PM
While that is of course the basis for the creation of the Marines, I don't think they're thrilled that they remain technically a subset of the Navy, nor would I imagine they'd be thrilled with your descrption of their job.

Of course, I realize you're probably just pulling his chain, but just in case....

I would never do such a thing.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 09:31 PM
That was supposed to be a compliment. Guarding our ships from pirates and other nefarious nasties is a honorable job.

Fail.

Amnorix
09-28-2009, 09:32 PM
So, just for the record, do you guys think that McCrystal isn't reporting regularly to CentCom, who reports regularly to SecDef, who confers frequently with Obama and the balance of the National Security team?

Or do you guys think that everything Obama learns or knows about Afghanistan is coming from McCrystal, and since he's only spoken to him once, that clearly means he doesn't know a damn thing that doesn't care what is going on there?

Think hard now, it's a really tough question...

Amnorix
09-28-2009, 09:33 PM
I would never do such a thing.


;)

I always preferred to pick on wing wipers myself. Safer. Jarheads can hurt ya when they get done breaking bottles over their heads and smashing tables to prove how tough they are.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 10:13 PM
So, just for the record, do you guys think that McCrystal isn't reporting regularly to CentCom, who reports regularly to SecDef, who confers frequently with Obama and the balance of the National Security team?

Or do you guys think that everything Obama learns or knows about Afghanistan is coming from McCrystal, and since he's only spoken to him once, that clearly means he doesn't know a damn thing that doesn't care what is going on there?

Think hard now, it's a really tough question...

If he can use those resources noted and the 66 page report he has received and make an informed decision, I would say the chain of command is fine. However, he is waffling and wavering and using the excuse he needs more data and time - which leads me to believe that:

A. He is listening to polls more than advisors.

or

B. He wants to push his agenda of healthcare prior to pissing off the left or the right before he decides to send or not send troops.

Amnorix
09-29-2009, 06:25 AM
If he can use those resources noted and the 66 page report he has received and make an informed decision, I would say the chain of command is fine. However, he is waffling and wavering and using the excuse he needs more data and time - which leads me to believe that:

A. He is listening to polls more than advisors.

or

B. He wants to push his agenda of healthcare prior to pissing off the left or the right before he decides to send or not send troops.

Or that others in the military aren't certain that McCrystal's is the right strategy and they don't want to wait 4 years before changing strategies like a certain recent President we all know?

There are alot of possible explanations. Yours are possible, but unsurprisingly given your political views, you're selecting the ones least flattering to the Administration.

There is a subset of people (including conservatives) that think that Afghanistan is not really likely to be "democracized" and that our pouring endless resources into it for that purpose, while admirable, is unrealistic, wasteful, unlikely to succeed, and unlikely to be long-term supportable by the American public. The alternative is a lighter footprint, ignore societal change, and blow up what we need to if/when we want to.

I'm not saying that's the right strategy, but I heard a conservative British MP talking about just that course. A guy who had spent extensive time in the country.

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:08 AM
I can understand the reluctance of a POTUS talking to a General TOO much. The appearance of meddling and other sorts of issues which could arise. However, we should give Lite a pass. He's been tied up with truly important matters like the Chicago Olympics. I'm sure once he's got that deal locked up he might have time to be Commander in Chief.

I agree that it's not terribly troubling that he's only talked to McChrystal once. What is troubling is that he's had all this time to come up with a strategy but he's still spinning his wheels.

It's not like he's planning for a war that hasn't started yet. It's not like he's had an issue that he was unfamiliar with dropped in his lap when he was sworn in as President. He's been speaking as if he was an authority on Afghanistan, the good war, for years now. In March he announced, with much fanfare, that he was implementing a new strategy for victory in Afghanistan as a result of a comprehensive review by his administration. (Apparently that strategy has failed). Now, after yet another comprehensive review, by the general that he put in charge of the war, he's still not ready to act. WTF is he waiting for? He's a deer in the headlights.

http://www.johnlund.com/images/889720-001.jpg

Radar Chief
09-29-2009, 07:17 AM
;)

I always preferred to pick on wing wipers myself. Safer. Jarheads can hurt ya when they get done breaking bottles over their heads and smashing tables to prove how tough they are.

Wing Wipers = AF? :shrug:
First time I drove onto an AF base the guard smiled at us as he waved us through and I was like, WTF is his problem? :grr:
You never see an Army gate guard smiling. They are NOT happy to be there.

***SPRAYER
09-29-2009, 07:18 AM
USMC

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

:rolleyes:

Amnorix
09-29-2009, 07:45 AM
I agree that it's not terribly troubling that he's only talked to McChrystal once. What is troubling is that he's had all this time to come up with a strategy but he's still spinning his wheels.

It's not like he's planning for a war that hasn't started yet. It's not like he's had an issue that he was unfamiliar with dropped in his lap when he was sworn in as President. He's been speaking as if he was an authority on Afghanistan, the good war, for years now. In March he announced, with much fanfare, that he was implementing a new strategy for victory in Afghanistan as a result of a comprehensive review by his administration. (Apparently that strategy has failed). Now, after yet another comprehensive review, by the general that he put in charge of the war, he's still not ready to act. WTF is he waiting for? He's a deer in the headlights.

With all due respect my friend, as an inveterate supporter of Bush's policies on Iraq, regardless of their merits or demerits, and regardless of how long it took him to wake up and smell the coffee on the failed policies that he adhered to for YEARS too late, it seems more than a bit comical that you're abusing any President for not having a good strategy in place.

Even moreso when you consider that Obama has been in office for less time than Bush's Iraq pretty obviously failed Iraq policy was maintained before being dramatically revamped.

Amnorix
09-29-2009, 07:48 AM
Wing Wipers = AF? :shrug:

Yes.

<TABLE id=entries><TBODY><TR><TD class=word>wing wiper </TD><TD class=tools id=tools_646216></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD class=text id=entry_646216 colSpan=2>A term used to describe a member of the US Air Force (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Air%20Force).

Probably comes from the Air Force's reputation for being neat and orderly.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Though according to urban dictionaries online, it could also refer to a Marine assigned to an aviation unit which I didn't know.

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:51 AM
With all due respect my friend, as an inveterate supporter of Bush's policies on Iraq, regardless of their merits or demerits, and regardless of how long it took him to wake up and smell the coffee on the failed policies that he adhered to for YEARS too late, it seems more than a bit comical that you're abusing any President for not having a good strategy in place.

Even moreso when you consider that Obama has been in office for less time than Bush's Iraq pretty obviously failed Iraq policy was maintained before being dramatically revamped.

Bush had a strategy in place at all times and didn't dither about like the current WH occupant. There was never a lack of attention to the matter and it was always his top priority. There really is no comparison between the two men. Bush and his war team were far superior to the Obama version. That's why I expect us to lose both wars under Obama despite the fact that Bush gift-wrapped a victory in Iraq for him. It's what we get for electing a democrat to do a Republican's job.

RINGLEADER
09-29-2009, 08:06 AM
Don't insult me 4321

No chit. That was low.

RINGLEADER
09-29-2009, 08:18 AM
My problem isn't with Obama re-evaluating -- we've lost more men this year than the first four years in Afghanistan combined using his new strategy that everyone seems to be saying has yielded few, if any, positive results on the battlefield -- but the pace at which Obama and his political team are arriving at their decisions.

We don't know everything that is being contemplated and who is involved in the discussions. If we're there to take and hold territory then I don't see how you don't send many more troops. If we plan to take the fight to the Taliban and their bases in Pakistan then I'm not sure how you don't send many more troops. Absent some kind of real offensive on our part I think a lot of people who know more than any of us on the subject would point to a more remote type of warfare conducted with far fewer men as a very real option.

This would seem to be the safest approach but I have also seen interviews with the commanders in the field who claim that the need for on the ground intelligence is critical in the deployment of predator/other strikes. This takes me back to the first paragraph of this post.

Amnorix
09-29-2009, 08:26 AM
Bush had a strategy in place at all times and didn't dither about like the current WH occupant. There was never a lack of attention to the matter and it was always his top priority. There really is no comparison between the two men. Bush and his war team were far superior to the Obama version. That's why I expect us to lose both wars under Obama despite the fact that Bush gift-wrapped a victory in Iraq for him. It's what we get for electing a democrat to do a Republican's job.

Gift wrapped victory in Iraq? Really? That's a fascinating view on it. To me, after the surge, it was merely a bomb that had been temporarily sealed deep in the sand, but remained ticking. Maybe, at least. Just as in Vietnam, it's isn't necessarily feasible to attain the kind of victory that we want. And the decider of that final victory isn't the US or its military might. It's the domestic population and its political leaders, plus the other forces that will try to exert their own various types of pressure on the situation (Iran, Syria, etc.)

Essentially, to me, Bush merely replaced one bomb (Hussein) with another bomb. Whether the new bomb is a better or worse bomb, or can be completely defused, remains to be seen.

And we certainly hadn't "won" in any kind of permanent sense in Afghanistan under Bush, nor were we ever going to with the attention (lack of, really) that he was devoting to it. That might not be Bush's fault, as it's possible that we also cannot "win" in the traditional sense of the word absent taking extreme measures (like wiping up huge portions of the population.

Chief Henry
09-29-2009, 08:51 AM
There's only one way to get the Prez's attention focused on Afghanistan.

Someone is going to have to start filming a talk show there.

LOL, its sad and funny at the same time.

Chief Henry
09-29-2009, 08:58 AM
Obama certainly seems to be more willing to engage our enemies in "discussion" than our own people.

I'm really starting to be concerned about Obama's competence. He does realize that he's POTUS, right? That the campaign is over?

That he needs to LEAD?

By campaigning - he thinks he's leading. He has no earthly idea what to do
with the military because he's always been hangin around people and leftwing
radicals that have loathed the military.

Radar Chief
09-29-2009, 09:00 AM
It's what we get for electing a democrat to do a Republican's job.

:LOL:ROFL Oh no you di-unt! :Poke:

***SPRAYER
09-29-2009, 09:01 AM
LOL, its sad and funny at the same time.

I notice that every day with B.O.

KCWolfman
09-29-2009, 12:03 PM
Or that others in the military aren't certain that McCrystal's is the right strategy and they don't want to wait 4 years before changing strategies like a certain recent President we all know?

There are alot of possible explanations. Yours are possible, but unsurprisingly given your political views, you're selecting the ones least flattering to the Administration.

There is a subset of people (including conservatives) that think that Afghanistan is not really likely to be "democracized" and that our pouring endless resources into it for that purpose, while admirable, is unrealistic, wasteful, unlikely to succeed, and unlikely to be long-term supportable by the American public. The alternative is a lighter footprint, ignore societal change, and blow up what we need to if/when we want to.

I'm not saying that's the right strategy, but I heard a conservative British MP talking about just that course. A guy who had spent extensive time in the country.
I guess the major difference is you are assuming he has and needs more data. My assumption (and obviously his during the campaign) is that he has the data he needs. If he doesnt , perhaps our kids in Afghanistan need him to focus on their plight instead of vacations. We have had record number of deaths in country since he has taken over - that seems priority to me.
Posted via Mobile Device

dirk digler
09-29-2009, 01:56 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

:rolleyes:

Why would I lie about something like this? Weren't you in the Navy?

Amnorix
09-29-2009, 04:00 PM
I guess the major difference is you are assuming he has and needs more data. My assumption (and obviously his during the campaign) is that he has the data he needs. If he doesnt , perhaps our kids in Afghanistan need him to focus on their plight instead of vacations. We have had record number of deaths in country since he has taken over - that seems priority to me.
Posted via Mobile Device

Deaths are (very unfortunately) a likely result of the new strategy. Just as invading Iraq and trying to pacify it necessarily resulted in some deaths. Just as every war results in some deaths.

Last I knew, any situation as complex as Afghanistan has new data constantly being gathered and analyzed. Unless you want your President to keep relying on stale data that is...? Bush's inflexibility was both one of his greatest strengths and his greatest weaknesses. And while Americans (especially those on the other side of the aisle) love to criticize any change as being wishy-washy or whatever, I don't think that total inflexibility is a good thing ot have in a President or an Administration.

Assuming you were a Bush supporter, it's almost comical to criticize any other President on this point.

Amnorix
09-29-2009, 04:01 PM
Why would I lie about something like this? Weren't you in the Navy?

Because he finds it impossible to believe that not everyone who ever served in the military isn't the same breed of drooling arch-conservative lunatic that he is.

KCWolfman
09-29-2009, 04:07 PM
Deaths are (very unfortunately) a likely result of the new strategy. Just as invading Iraq and trying to pacify it necessarily resulted in some deaths. Just as every war results in some deaths.

Last I knew, any situation as complex as Afghanistan has new data constantly being gathered and analyzed. Unless you want your President to keep relying on stale data that is...? Bush's inflexibility was both one of his greatest strengths and his greatest weaknesses. And while Americans (especially those on the other side of the aisle) love to criticize any change as being wishy-washy or whatever, I don't think that total inflexibility is a good thing ot have in a President or an Administration.

Assuming you were a Bush supporter, it's almost comical to criticize any other President on this point.
Again the Potus didn't use a single caveat during the campaign. He felt the data in 2002 carried the same weight in 2008. And he has been in office for 9 months. Time enough to take a vacation, right? It is time to get his ass in gear and consider troops instead of cute lines for the Letterman show.
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
09-29-2009, 04:14 PM
Amno - I think what bothers me most is the changing policy. When asked on 60 Minutes McChrystal said "to protect the Afghani people"!!!

The original policy was to "remove the Taliban from power and eliminate al Qaeda". IMO that should continue to be policy.
Posted via Mobile Device

Amnorix
09-30-2009, 06:40 AM
Amno - I think what bothers me most is the changing policy. When asked on 60 Minutes McChrystal said "to protect the Afghani people"!!!

The original policy was to "remove the Taliban from power and eliminate al Qaeda". IMO that should continue to be policy.
Posted via Mobile Device

I agree.