Barack Obama Will Not Defeat The Taliban | RedState
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/05/21/barack-obama-will-not-defeat-the-taliban/
...”The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.
A year later, when the president and a half-dozen White House aides began to plan for the withdrawal, the generals were cut out entirely. There was no debate, and there were no leaks” ”“I think he hated the idea from the beginning,” one of his advisers said of the surge. “He understood why we needed to try, to knock back the Taliban. But the military was ‘all in,’ as they say, and Obama wasn’t.” …”By early 2011, Mr. Obama had seen enough. He told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exit from Afghanistan. This time there would be no announced national security meetings, no debates with the generals. Even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were left out until the final six weeks. The key decisions had essentially been made already when Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his last months as commander in Afghanistan, arrived in Washington with a set of options for the president that called for a slow withdrawal of surge troops. He wanted to keep as many troops as possible in Afghanistan through the next fighting season, with a steep drop to follow. Mr. Obama concluded that the Pentagon had not internalized that the goal was not to defeat the Taliban.” ”Asked to actually set a meaningful new direction or expend scarce political capital even on an ongoing shooting war, his instinct is to first procrastinate, then kick the can down the road for a while, and ultimately throw in the towel. Rousing the nation to take controversial actions is above his pay grade. The choices before us are indeed difficult. But we have abandoned Afghanistan before, and lived to regret it. Let us hope that we do not again.” From the Washington Post:
Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706.html .."Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years," he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I'm not doing long-term nation -building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."[RRD:Odd,I thought that's what he claimed to be doing here in the U.S.?] Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." ....
RRD:I do not think any of the three thousand Americans who were slaughtered on September 11 are "stronger" for having been killed.
Nor do I feel strengthened by their destruction.
But ”Obama did not mean that”?
What did he mean?
”He meant,well,you see it's sorta like Nietzsche...you see..that which kills some of our civilians makes us stronger as a nation!”
As for ”absorbing” a terrorist attack,if Obama,himself,wishes to personally "absorb a terrorist attack" that is his concern. If he wishes innocent civilians to do so,that is treason. The role of a government is not to treat its innocent men,women and children as bloody sponges and pulverized human sacrifices who exist to ”absorb” attacks.
Oh,you're misquoting Obama,After all,Obama also said that
"We'll do everything we can to prevent it...” Lip service. "I'm not doing 10 years," .... "I'm not doing long-term nation -building. I am not spending a trillion dollars." ..." Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." .... So Obama was told by our Generals that they needed more troops,& he overrode them,he told them that ”HE” was "not doing 10yrs",and then when he was "barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. " he ignored those warnings,and said:
"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." ....
Perhaps it has not dawned on Obama that one is not,in fact, ”doing everything” to prevent a terrorist attack by following the demonstrably disastrous Clinton policy of permitting the enemy establish a safe-haven while you respond to attacks by occasionally flinging cruise missiles at the enemy.
But given Woodward's account of Obama being ”barraged” with warnings about the dangers of such a course, I don't believe for one second that Obama is that ignorant. The Obama/Biden ”strategy” of leaving our enemies in power,while flinging missiles at them,
is quite in line with the Clinton "strategy" that permitted Al-qaeda to murder our troops in Khobar & to butcher our citizens in the first World Trade Center attack.It is the ”strategy” which permitted Al-Qaeda to bomb our embassys in Kenya and Tanzania with impunity;killing 12 Americans,& 200 Kenyans & 11 Tanzanians,it is the ”strategy” which permitted Al-Qaeda to try to massacre civilians at LAX,and to succeed in butchering our sailors who were "safe" and "at peace" on the USS Cole. This suicidal course climaxed in the mass-slaughter of nearly 3,000 Americans,in a attack on the Pentagon--our military command structure,and in a attempt,by "cave dwelling barbarians” who ”cannot really threaten us,with their box cutters” ,to decapitate the government of the most powerful nation on earth;by crashing a jetliner into the White House. This is what Obama refers to when he says that we can ”absorb” another attack,&,when he says that 9/11 made ”us” stronger. Ask yourself again,is this the language of someone who is committed to doing whatever is necessary & just to defend the United States?Or is it someone willing to doing "whatever is necessary" except for what is actually necessary:Wiping out our enemies overseas because a defensive war is doomed to defeat. But you say:
”Robert many conservatives also believe that we should not engage in nation building,are they also anti-american?” Many do,and most of those that I know of who take that position advocate "unleashing hell",and "letting our soldiers fight"(which they are not permitted to do under the suicidal ROE:Rules of Engagement).What they don't do is to speak of the mass slaughter of innocents as making us "stronger" or as something "we" can absorb.
Nor do they have Obama's background as a Alinskite,with "spiritual advisors" like his pet hate-mongers the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ("damn America" ),and Father Pfleger "how dare you insult Farrakhan”....& ”America has done the rape,& America has got to pay the price”(both of these men were initially--officially--part of Obama's political campaign as members of his religious advisory board. fn1)
And does anyone else remember the obscene spectacle of Obama giving ”shout-outs” to his supporters,while the rest of us waited--for 3 minutes--for Obama to get around to addressing the Fort Hood massacre? Obama gives a shout-out before addressing tragedy - YouTube
Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting | NBC Chicago
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html
Obama is a leftist,of the hypocritical breed that loathes the religion of the ”bitter clingers” while ignoring or downplaying the misogyny,& totalitarianism of the Islamists.Hardly surprising,since he has,among his advisors,someone who believes that:"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.”(fn2)
(What world?Did you travel to our world from a alternate universe,much like the characters in the TV show Sliders would journey to other worlds?
What's it like?Do rivers of lemonade run uphill?Are their Round-Squares?Do people age backwards like Benjamin Button?)
Footnotes: fn1.
Archived Blog: Obama's Other Pastor Problem http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_other_pastor_problem.html Obama Says Controversial Pastor Gone From Campaign; Church Fires Back - ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4452990&page=1#.T7vfU-XCsUk ”Rev.Wright was part of the Obama campaign, as a member of the candidate's religious advisory board.
But, as reported by ABC News' Sunlen Miller, during an interview Friday with MSNBC's Keith Olberman, Sen. Obama confirmed that Rev. Wright is no longer on the Obama campaign spiritual advisory committee.” fn2 Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html
”Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz. During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man -made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism". They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government". Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West. She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media. "The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance. "The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases." Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women. It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft. Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”
RRD:
”Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women” Unequal to women?
Poppycock!
The laws favoring the murder of adulterers are somewhat unequal ,but both end up good & dead just the same!
The law is quite fair as regards the murder of apostates.Both are,again,equally dead. But why don't you take it up with the Islamists who were sitting next to you Ms.Mogahed?
Or with the Islamists who are stoning,beheading and beating women throughout the
Medievalist Muslim World?
Why don't you explain to the ”misunderstanders” of the Feminist religion of Islam that adulterers should not be beheaded,that Gays should not be murdered,that apostates should not killed? You could make it a joint tour with Karen ”Mohammed is a prophet for our times” Armstrong.
There are women--like Irshad Manji & Asra Noumani--who consider themselves Muslims,but who believe in a non-literalist interpretation of the Quran.They are willing to confront the Islamists & condemn them,& to acknowledge the reality of what is going on in the Muslim World.
But they must endure death threats as a result.
No it is much safer to attack the American”racists” who will respect your free-speech rights,rights which are denounced by your co-panelists while you remain silent.
Oh,and yes many Muslims DO support murdering adulterers & apostates: Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Global Attitudes Project http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/05/21/barack-obama-will-not-defeat-the-taliban/
...”The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.
A year later, when the president and a half-dozen White House aides began to plan for the withdrawal, the generals were cut out entirely. There was no debate, and there were no leaks” ”“I think he hated the idea from the beginning,” one of his advisers said of the surge. “He understood why we needed to try, to knock back the Taliban. But the military was ‘all in,’ as they say, and Obama wasn’t.” …”By early 2011, Mr. Obama had seen enough. He told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exit from Afghanistan. This time there would be no announced national security meetings, no debates with the generals. Even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were left out until the final six weeks. The key decisions had essentially been made already when Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his last months as commander in Afghanistan, arrived in Washington with a set of options for the president that called for a slow withdrawal of surge troops. He wanted to keep as many troops as possible in Afghanistan through the next fighting season, with a steep drop to follow. Mr. Obama concluded that the Pentagon had not internalized that the goal was not to defeat the Taliban.” ”Asked to actually set a meaningful new direction or expend scarce political capital even on an ongoing shooting war, his instinct is to first procrastinate, then kick the can down the road for a while, and ultimately throw in the towel. Rousing the nation to take controversial actions is above his pay grade. The choices before us are indeed difficult. But we have abandoned Afghanistan before, and lived to regret it. Let us hope that we do not again.” From the Washington Post:
Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706.html .."Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years," he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I'm not doing long-term nation -building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."[RRD:Odd,I thought that's what he claimed to be doing here in the U.S.?] Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." ....
RRD:I do not think any of the three thousand Americans who were slaughtered on September 11 are "stronger" for having been killed.
Nor do I feel strengthened by their destruction.
But ”Obama did not mean that”?
What did he mean?
”He meant,well,you see it's sorta like Nietzsche...you see..that which kills some of our civilians makes us stronger as a nation!”
As for ”absorbing” a terrorist attack,if Obama,himself,wishes to personally "absorb a terrorist attack" that is his concern. If he wishes innocent civilians to do so,that is treason. The role of a government is not to treat its innocent men,women and children as bloody sponges and pulverized human sacrifices who exist to ”absorb” attacks.
Oh,you're misquoting Obama,After all,Obama also said that
"We'll do everything we can to prevent it...” Lip service. "I'm not doing 10 years," .... "I'm not doing long-term nation -building. I am not spending a trillion dollars." ..." Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." .... So Obama was told by our Generals that they needed more troops,& he overrode them,he told them that ”HE” was "not doing 10yrs",and then when he was "barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. " he ignored those warnings,and said:
"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." ....
Perhaps it has not dawned on Obama that one is not,in fact, ”doing everything” to prevent a terrorist attack by following the demonstrably disastrous Clinton policy of permitting the enemy establish a safe-haven while you respond to attacks by occasionally flinging cruise missiles at the enemy.
But given Woodward's account of Obama being ”barraged” with warnings about the dangers of such a course, I don't believe for one second that Obama is that ignorant. The Obama/Biden ”strategy” of leaving our enemies in power,while flinging missiles at them,
is quite in line with the Clinton "strategy" that permitted Al-qaeda to murder our troops in Khobar & to butcher our citizens in the first World Trade Center attack.It is the ”strategy” which permitted Al-Qaeda to bomb our embassys in Kenya and Tanzania with impunity;killing 12 Americans,& 200 Kenyans & 11 Tanzanians,it is the ”strategy” which permitted Al-Qaeda to try to massacre civilians at LAX,and to succeed in butchering our sailors who were "safe" and "at peace" on the USS Cole. This suicidal course climaxed in the mass-slaughter of nearly 3,000 Americans,in a attack on the Pentagon--our military command structure,and in a attempt,by "cave dwelling barbarians” who ”cannot really threaten us,with their box cutters” ,to decapitate the government of the most powerful nation on earth;by crashing a jetliner into the White House. This is what Obama refers to when he says that we can ”absorb” another attack,&,when he says that 9/11 made ”us” stronger. Ask yourself again,is this the language of someone who is committed to doing whatever is necessary & just to defend the United States?Or is it someone willing to doing "whatever is necessary" except for what is actually necessary:Wiping out our enemies overseas because a defensive war is doomed to defeat. But you say:
”Robert many conservatives also believe that we should not engage in nation building,are they also anti-american?” Many do,and most of those that I know of who take that position advocate "unleashing hell",and "letting our soldiers fight"(which they are not permitted to do under the suicidal ROE:Rules of Engagement).What they don't do is to speak of the mass slaughter of innocents as making us "stronger" or as something "we" can absorb.
Nor do they have Obama's background as a Alinskite,with "spiritual advisors" like his pet hate-mongers the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ("damn America" ),and Father Pfleger "how dare you insult Farrakhan”....& ”America has done the rape,& America has got to pay the price”(both of these men were initially--officially--part of Obama's political campaign as members of his religious advisory board. fn1)
And does anyone else remember the obscene spectacle of Obama giving ”shout-outs” to his supporters,while the rest of us waited--for 3 minutes--for Obama to get around to addressing the Fort Hood massacre? Obama gives a shout-out before addressing tragedy - YouTube
Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting | NBC Chicago
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html
Obama is a leftist,of the hypocritical breed that loathes the religion of the ”bitter clingers” while ignoring or downplaying the misogyny,& totalitarianism of the Islamists.Hardly surprising,since he has,among his advisors,someone who believes that:"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.”(fn2)
(What world?Did you travel to our world from a alternate universe,much like the characters in the TV show Sliders would journey to other worlds?
What's it like?Do rivers of lemonade run uphill?Are their Round-Squares?Do people age backwards like Benjamin Button?)
Footnotes: fn1.
Archived Blog: Obama's Other Pastor Problem http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_other_pastor_problem.html Obama Says Controversial Pastor Gone From Campaign; Church Fires Back - ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4452990&page=1#.T7vfU-XCsUk ”Rev.Wright was part of the Obama campaign, as a member of the candidate's religious advisory board.
But, as reported by ABC News' Sunlen Miller, during an interview Friday with MSNBC's Keith Olberman, Sen. Obama confirmed that Rev. Wright is no longer on the Obama campaign spiritual advisory committee.” fn2 Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html
”Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz. During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man -made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism". They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government". Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West. She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media. "The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance. "The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases." Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women. It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft. Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”
RRD:
”Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women” Unequal to women?
Poppycock!
The laws favoring the murder of adulterers are somewhat unequal ,but both end up good & dead just the same!
The law is quite fair as regards the murder of apostates.Both are,again,equally dead. But why don't you take it up with the Islamists who were sitting next to you Ms.Mogahed?
Or with the Islamists who are stoning,beheading and beating women throughout the
Medievalist Muslim World?
Why don't you explain to the ”misunderstanders” of the Feminist religion of Islam that adulterers should not be beheaded,that Gays should not be murdered,that apostates should not killed? You could make it a joint tour with Karen ”Mohammed is a prophet for our times” Armstrong.
There are women--like Irshad Manji & Asra Noumani--who consider themselves Muslims,but who believe in a non-literalist interpretation of the Quran.They are willing to confront the Islamists & condemn them,& to acknowledge the reality of what is going on in the Muslim World.
But they must endure death threats as a result.
No it is much safer to attack the American”racists” who will respect your free-speech rights,rights which are denounced by your co-panelists while you remain silent.
Oh,and yes many Muslims DO support murdering adulterers & apostates: Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Global Attitudes Project http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
No comments:
Post a Comment