General McChrystal on Obama’s strategy

General Stanley McChrystal has given his response to Obama’s strategy.  

“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s addressare critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.

“The NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) objective is equally clear: We will work toward improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow. In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police. That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.

“The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability. The concerted commitment of theinternational community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan — a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.

“We face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality: neither the Afghan people nor the international community want Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment and we remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the insurgency and build their own future.”

Spencer Ackerman, from the Washington Independent, has read way more into this statement than is actually there, here’s Ackerman: 

So much for the “dithering” critique. Here is a statement just released by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, expressing full support and confidence in President Obama and the weeks-long strategy review.

If the GOP really thought it could drive a wedge between McChrystal and Obama or use the general as a cudgel against his commander in chief, this ought to provide an end to such illusions. 

I read McChrystal’s statement twice and both times I saw nothing there at would answer the “dithering critique”.  I also noticed that McChrystal had no words for the imposed timeline. As far as illusions go, Ackerman is doing a pretty good job creating his own with his line about GOP trying to drive a wedge between Obama and McChrystal.

McChrystal asked for more troops and the GOP supported that. When Obama dragged his feet on the request, the GOP called out the dithering. If anything they were trying to get Obama and McChrystal on the same page.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Washington Independent

Sarah Palin's response to Obama's speech at West Point

From Sarah Palin's Facebook Page:

Finally, A Decision for Afghanistan: We're In It to Win It

 Yesterday at 7:29pm

Three months ago, I joined a number of Americans in urging President Obama to provide the resources necessary to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am glad he mostly heeded that advice. 

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan. 

This approach means, as Senator John McCain has noted, that “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.” 

We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

- Sarah Palin

Via: Sarah Palin's Facebook Page

Jackass Chris Matthews calls West Point the “Enemy Camp”

I always thought Chris Matthews was a fool, I think I will revise that opinion to "fucking idiot". Imagine calling America’s young and brave future leaders enemies, because they did not gush and tingle over every little word from the Poser In Chief.

These young men and women have long ago learned to view the world in its stark and real terms. They know the Commander In Chief handed them a weak hand after dithering for months to come up with a politically calculated strategy that does more to cure his political woes, than to assure victory in Afghanistan. Unlike Matthews, they’re not fools.

The only enemy camp I can see here in America is the one in NYC labeled MSNBC!

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Newsbusters

Obama’s Afghanistan speech at West Point

Normally when Obama gives a speech I do not watch, I prefer to read them instead [full transcript here]. This is because I cannot stand the teleprompter head movements and reading his speeches are often far more revealing. That being said, I did both this time just to be sure.

The first thing I noticed was that Obama seems to be making a trend with using prodigious venues when he speaks about national security matters. Remember last time when he spoke about ending enhanced interrogations; he did so in from of the Constitution at the National Archives with a booming echo too. This time the venue is West Point with row after row of young cadets trained on his every word. Question: Are these venues chosen to give gravitas to because there is fear that his words lack weight? I seem to remember several presidents speaking about grave matters of national security from the Oval office, no need for fancy venues.

The venue issue aside, Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan could actually be workable, but plan seems almost deliberately hobbled by the stated 18 month exit window. I simply cannot understand the need for publicly announcing that we will be ready to pack our bags and leave after 18 months. If the idea is to pressure the Afghani government into action, why not simply relay that message in private.  If the idea is to pressure the Afghan people to join forces, the exit date is surely is a let down.

The other thing that I did not understand was given all the time Obama took dithering on this issue, how come there is no explanation as to why he did not give McChrystal the 40,000 troops he asked for? Why just 30,000 and not the 40,000? What was the reason for the reduction?

There were a few lines that caught my attention when reading through the speech.

Our Allies' Support:

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.

Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world.

Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

Sorry but I am not inspired that Obama will get all this help from our allies. Over the last year I have yet to see any of the world's nations flock to Obama’s requests on anything. I have even less hope that our allies will increase their support.

Again here is that exit date getting in the way again. If this was is so important to our security, our allies' security and the credibility of NATO, why then must we put an expiration date on the task at hand?

Obama’s Straw Man For The Exit Date:

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort, one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.

Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

This is a typical Obama straw man argument. Only Al Queada and the Taliban need know our commitment is open ended, the Afghani government can be told privately when we plan to go.  Obama’s mention of reasonable cost, gives our enemies another clue to defeating us, simply make the fight expensive and we will bolt!

Talk About Gall:

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue, nor should we. But I also know that we as a country cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that, when this war began, we were united, bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe...

Hold up, wasn’t it Obama and his party who did everything in their power to undermine the previous administration’s efforts to gain victory in Iraq? It seems pretty galling now that he has the responsibility of the two wars in his hands, that he would dare lecture anyone about rancor, cynicism and partisanship!

Overall:

Because I have great faith in our armed forces, I think this plan may work despite the unnecessary public announcement of our departure date.  However, the cynic in me sees failure and the exit date being used as our excuse to pack it in consequences be damn. The timing is perfect to bring the troops home and patch thing up with his base all in time for reelection.  I am even willing to bet that even at that late date, Obama will still try to blame Bush for the loss.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Washington Post

Cheney slams Obama on Afghanistan yet again

Once again former Vice President Dick Cheney takes Obama and his administration to task for their handling of Afghanistan  and national security. Once again Cheney is refreshingly blunt about it too. From Politico:

MCLEAN, Va. — On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

Cheney's sharpest critiques on Obama was on the image Obama presents to America's adversaries. I think it is more than safe to say Dick Cheney thinks Obama is a joke on the world stage.

“Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... — see that as a sign of weakness.”

Cheney doesn't stop there, he even questions Obama's understanding and belief in American exceptionalism.

During the campaign, Cheney recalled, he saw Obama as “sort of a mainline, traditional Democrat — liberal, from the liberal wing of the party.” But Cheney said he is increasingly persuaded by the notion that Obama “doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism — the idea that the United States is a special nation, that we are the greatest, freest nation mankind has ever known.”

“When I see the way he operates, I am increasingly convinced that he’s not as committed to or as wedded to that concept as most of the presidents I’ve known, Republican or Democrat,” he said. “I am worried. And I find as I get out around the country, a lot of other people are worried, too.”

Dick Cheney is probably the only person I have seen to date to give a very blunt opinion on Obama. However, with Obama's plan to increase the troop level in Afghanistan tonight, I suspect some Cheney-like bluntness to emerge from the left. 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Politico

Maurice Clemmons killed by Seattle police

From The Seattle Time:

Maurice Clemmons, the suspect wanted in the slaying of four Lakewood police officers, was shot and killed in South Seattle early this morning by a Seattle police officer making a routine check of a stolen car.

The shooting occurred about the same time as Pierce County sheriff's detectives took into custody a man believed to have acted as a getaway driver in Sunday's slayings of the Lakewood officers. Police also booked four people into jail on suspicion of providing assistance to Clemmons, said sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer.

Several other people also will be taken into custody for helping Clemmons, Troyer said.

Clemmons, who was armed with a handgun taken from one of the officers he is accused of killing, was shot in the 4400 block of South Kenyon Street during a confrontation with a South Precinct patrol officer, police officials said. He refused commands to stop and was shot by the officer about 2:45 a.m., the officials said.

Troyer said Clemmons had an older wound to his stomach believed to be the result of a gunshot fired by one of the Lakewood officers killed Sunday. Troyer said he was surprised Clemmons survived that wound. MORE 

While the death of Clemmons ends the story of the manhunt for him, the story of how this guy slipped through the crack of both the Washington and Arkansas justice systems begins. We will no doubt learn of the various ways dangerous criminals fall though the cracks.  In the process keep in mind this administration’s decision to process dangerous mass murdering terrorist through the same imperfect system.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Seattle Times

Little Green Footballs officially goes left

Many of you have asked why I posted the No Linky Love for Little Green Footballs (LGF) logo on my blog. Well, today Charles Johnson author of LGF explains why far better than I can.

If you click over to Memeorandum (nope, I’m still not linking LGF), you can take a peek at his crazy reasons for leaving the right side of the blogosphere.  Basically his reasons boils down to everyone on the right is racist, homophobic, anti-science, fascist and all the other favorite leftwing buzz words.

I have no problem with people changing their political stripes, it happens all the time (although I noticed that it is usually left to right), but Charles doesn’t just change stripes. He has to smear some good people as well by playing the guilt by association game. As one of Charles’ favorite smear targets, Robert Stacy McCain from The Other McCain explains LGF’s smear campaign in detail.

It is this smear campaign why I don’t link LGF. Two of Charles' favorite targets (Pam Geller from Atlas Shrugs and RS McCain from The Other McCain) have been people who have been very nice to Another Black Conservative.

Pam Geller and I both contribute to Ron Devito’s Sarah Palin’s Accomplishment Blog and in private emails within that group, I have found Pam Geller to be a warm and nice person, not the evil Eurofacist Charles likes to paint her as.

RS McCain literally put Another Black Conservative on the map. His blog was the first major blog to link ABC when I was getting less than 100 hits a day. Bringing a black voice to wider audience doesn’t strike me as the actions of the white supremacist label Charles smears McCain with.

LGF will enjoy a temporary increase in traffic from his newfound leftwing friends. However, in the end, just like Arlen Specter, Charles will end up the odd man out. LGF will have no currency with the right and will eventually become distrusted by the left, leaving LGF with an odd but tiny collection of followers.

Via: Memeorandum

Who are the deniers now? The White House scoffs at Climategate

From The Hill: 

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes "climate change is happening."

 "I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's press briefing.

SNIP

"I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this," responded Gibbs to questions about those scientists' credibility.

Talk about not in touch with reality. A read though of the email [all of them can be found here] shows a clear pattern of deception from the global warming scientist. Many on the left will try to sugar coat the emails, but any sane person reading them will say they scream deception. The dumping of the original data only makes things worse.

Before America borrows and spends billions if not trillions more on climate change, one would think we would want to make absolutely sure there is not fraud being perpetrated. After all we are spending the money of future generations.

What I also find surprising about Gibbs statement is that it shows complete deafness to criticisms of this administration’s own credibility. After promising that the stimulus would keep unemployment at 8%, the administration’s word is on shaky grounds with the American people. How will it look if this administration throws away billions on Cap and Trade only to find out that climate change was a fraud.

Via: The Hill