Our president is chomping at the bit to meet with dictators such as the evil Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but can't find time in his busy schedule to converse with his general in charge of Afghanistan. How pathetic is that? Afghanistan--isn't that the "good war"?
Combine this appalling bit of news with the comment in which Obama said that victory wasn't necessarily his goal. I'm sorry, but the commander-in-chief of our great military is not even worthy to lick the boots of these brave men and women who have volunteered to serve their country at a time of war.
To quote Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Have you no shame, Mr. President? Have you no decency? George W. Bush spoke weekly to his deployed generals.
Hey, Mr. President, here's how real leaders respond when facing an enemy. Ronald Reagan said regarding his strategy on the Cold War, "We win, they lose." During World War II, General Douglas MacArthur stated, "There is no substitute for victory."
President Obama needs to spend more time on strategy for victory in Afghanistan and less time campaigning. We are all sick to death with turning on our TVs, seeing his face, and listening to yet another speech, as this occurs almost every lousy day.
Read about the recent discovery that Obama has only spoken to General Stanley McChrystal once since becoming president, via Hot Air:
Once?
"How often would one imagine that a wartime President, as Commander in Chief, would meet in the first eight months of his term with the overall commander of the theater of war that this President had said was too often overlooked by his predecessor? Once a month? Especially given how much public consideration this President has given the political and strategic questions of the fight, perhaps that might be once a week over the last couple of months?
How about once a … lifetime?
'The military general credited for capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq says he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan.
“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference],” General 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.'
In June 2008, Barack Obama said that it was time for a redeployment from Iraq that 'refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.' In the same speech, he committed to 'taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. … as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.'
Five months later, Obama won the election and prepared his transition. That was ten months ago. If Afghanistan is his 'top priority' and 'a war that we have to win,' wouldn’t Obama have carved out a little time in his schedule to meet with the man tasked with winning it more than once since appointing him in June? It may have forced him to skip a Wagyu beef dinner and perhaps a night on the town in New York City, but those are the sacrifices that a CinC has to make from time to time.
In comparison, how many conversations will Obama have in Copenhagen to land the Olympics for Chicago? What does that say about the Commander in Chief’s priorities?"
Like I've said before, Obama is not the least interested in foreign policy, except, of course, his obsession with destroying Israel. His first priority is to push through socialized medicine, which, by the way, has fallen to its lowest level of support, and take over 1/6 of our economy.
Sorry, folks, there are consequences to elections, and we are learning that principle the hard way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment