Never mind the fact that Dick Cheney was once again only responding to vicious attacks by the Obama White House when he spoke out this week.
Never mind the fact that the White House spread absolute lies about the Bush Administration’s Afghan policy after the previous administration graciously offered them classified advice on the situation.
Never mind the fact that not one Pentagon strategist will sign off on Joe Biden’s crazy Afghan plan.
And, never mind that the opposition leader in Afghanistan supports General McChrystal’s plan.
The state-run media cheerleaders don’t want to hear about it.
Laura Ingraham took on the ABC Obama cheerleaders today on “This Week.”
Related… Kristofer Harrison, who served as the Chief of Staff to the Counselor of the Secretary of State during the Bush administration, commented on the Obama administration’s Chicago-style politics at Power Line:
The Chicago mob’s behavior is unbelievably unseemly. Here they were given an immense amount of material, a complete strategic review and plan with the author’s heading left blank. President Bush felt it was his duty to do so. And all Obama can do is smear president Bush, even after he filled his own name into the author’s column.
Obama seems not to understand that it is not President Bush who is suffering here. Rather, it is our under-resourced soldiers in Afghanistan who are suffering. Obama has had his hands on this plan for a full year now, and he’s done virtually nothing except play politics. He needs to give our soldiers the resources to succeed, and then help create the political atmosphere so that they have time to succeed. It seems he has the intestinal fortitude to do neither. Weak, weak, weak.
October 25th, 2009 | 4:55 pm | #1
Bozo: Republicans are all failures. I’m always correct.
October 25th, 2009 | 5:03 pm | #2
Liberal propaganda is destroying our country.
October 25th, 2009 | 5:05 pm | #3
Oh how I hate the bit*h from the AJC. She never mentioned that the troops were pushed into Iraq for the surge that WORKED. It is time for the same in OEF but where is the Pres?? Voting present thats where.
October 25th, 2009 | 5:09 pm | #4
Afghanistan is a lost cause. Bush and Obama refuse to fight for victory. The US military isn’t design as a peacekeeping force. Right now the soldiers/Marines are losing due the rules of engagement.
I’m pro-war but only if we are in it to win. Cheney is more trustworthy than all the democrats combine, but did he advocate more troops to afghanistan during the Bush whitehouse?
For people that have never served in the miltary “the mainstream media” sure is very hostile to the military.
October 25th, 2009 | 5:24 pm | #5
The gov’t just want’s to protect the poppy fields and make few corporations and politicians rich.
October 25th, 2009 | 5:27 pm | #6
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Najahaje, Michael Lockwood. Michael Lockwood said: Laura Ingraham Takes On ABC Obama Cheerleaders on Afghanistan (Video) http://bit.ly/4iz2BO [...]
October 25th, 2009 | 5:33 pm | #7
K Reactor
October 25th, 2009 | 5:24 pm | #5
The gov’t just want’s to protect the poppy fields and make few corporations and politicians rich.
.
You will, of course, offer some proof (with reliable links) to something to substantiate your assertion, won’t you? Soon, if you don’t mind.
Leftist talking points and your own inconsequential opinion mean nothing in a discussion of this nature.
October 25th, 2009 | 6:13 pm | #8
I have alot of respect for Laura, imagine sitting at a table with those slugs and NOT smacking them upside thier heads.!
October 25th, 2009 | 6:16 pm | #9
K ReactorNo Gravatar
October 25th, 2009 | 5:24 pm | #5
No! The taliban/Al Qaeda will kill every farmer and Afghan peasant if the USA destroys those fields. It is the only source of local income for the peasantry so they do not die. The Taliban hold the government controls and send in terrorist jihader troops to kill peasants if they do not hand over opium poppies so the terrorist get money to buy weapons. The US simple doesn’t have the troop strength to stop the genocide of the Taliban/Al Qaedas. Bozo is about as smart as a pile of rocks.
October 25th, 2009 | 6:24 pm | #10
We Are The Dopplegangers We’ve Been Waiting For
Victor Davis Hanson asks, “Whom is Barack Obama Afraid of? — Another Barack Obama:”
One of the reasons why President Obama may be hesitating to commit fully to a renewed Afghan front is that he is worried that political opportunists might seek to gain advantage by loud rhetoric that unfairly simplifies the bad and worse choices, that he, like all other presidents in time of war, are confronted with.
In other words, he fears someone very much like an on-the-rise Barack Obama himself—who in 2007 in loud fashion demanded that all combat brigades leave Iraq by March 2008 and then flat-out declared to the nation that “the surge is not working” (a mantra for months posted on his website until Trotskyized in summer 2008). Ditto all that with Guantanamo, elements of homeland security, and Iran—and one can see that Obama knows first-hand the opportunities for demagogic and unprincipled political ankle-biting that a decisive wartime President invites. After all, what President, after making a tough decision to surge into Afghanistan, wants a young charismatic rival barnstorming the nation, without evidence assuring the public that “the surge is not working!”
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/10/25/we-are-the-we-are-the-dopplegangers/
October 25th, 2009 | 6:52 pm | #11
This canard about Bush not doing enough in Afghanistan needs to be challenged. After the Taliban were routed out of power, doesn’t anyone remember the first elections, the purple fingers?
Afghanistan was relatively stable for a couple of years. It did begin to destabilize later on, but in the position Bush was, it was not prudent to make a major committment going into the last year of his term. Most of the escalation by the Taliban has occurred under Obama’s watch, although it doesn’t appear as if he is watching. They are, and they see weakness.
October 25th, 2009 | 6:57 pm | #12
As for Cheney, every time he speaks he illustrates the weakness of Obama, and what ineffective fools they are, in both parties.
October 25th, 2009 | 7:12 pm | #13
Robert 6:57 pm
You are so right.
And I would like to add…who is more credible? Dick Cheney or Joe Biden?
That really is not a difficult choice. Give me Cheney any day over Joe.
October 25th, 2009 | 7:42 pm | #14
n the position Bush was, it was not prudent to make a major committment going into the last year of his term.
The position being the fact that we needed troops for the effort in Iraq, which he very badly mismanaged. Read Thomas Rick’s “Fiasco” and other such accounts, and don’t give me that nonsense about them being biased.
October 25th, 2009 | 7:49 pm | #15
Never mind the fact that Dick Cheney was once again only responding to vicious attacks by the Obama White House when he spoke out this week.
Of course, that didn’t stop ABC from putting up that “Cheney’s war on the White House” crap up.
Poor Obie, always the victim….
October 25th, 2009 | 7:50 pm | #16
And Robert, did the Russians also fail in Afghanistan because of too few troops? Forget Cutis LeMay, the battle there and the battle against terrorism is for hearts and minds. Ain’t it just like a guy with a hammer to see every problem as a nail? But the problem is, we have no good options.
October 25th, 2009 | 7:52 pm | #17
Can we impeach Ogabe and bring back Bush. Bush/Cheney knoew how to win wars, look at Iraq.
October 25th, 2009 | 7:57 pm | #18
Its funny to see all the pant pissers trot out the same, tired, failed arguments about why we will never win in Afghanistan they they tried in Iraq just before we won there. Dopes.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:01 pm | #19
Its funny to see all the pant pissers trot out the same, tired, failed arguments about why we will never win in Afghanistan they they tried in Iraq just before we won there. Dopes.
From today’s NY Times: “Two synchronized bombings killed at least 132 people in Baghdad on Sunday, as insurgents continued to direct their attacks on vital government operations.”
And of you think the surge alone was responsible for the progress we have made, read your history. It was one of at least 4 factors, 2 of which we had nothing to do with. We were lucky.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:03 pm | #20
Ken
October 25th, 2009 | 7:42 pm | #14
.
If you knew anything at all about what you were talking about, it would be refreshing.
Who would you suggest could have done a better job? Algore? That’s a laugh. John (the traitor)kerry? Sure. A proven traitor, coward, and troop-hater to be CinC.
Do offer a suggestion. Perhaps harry (the war is loooost)reid.
Bush ran the wars according to the win-hold-win doctrine forced on our military by the klinton cuts (peace dividend, you know); and, while there were some rough patches in Iraq, we DID prevail, and the country is better for it.
And, we can prevail in A-stan, too – if the troops are commited and the ROE changed to reflect reality. (I do not, however, agree entirely with McChrystal that a COIN op is going to do the job.)
Let’s see what obama does with the plate he’s been handed. One of these days, he’s bound to stop dithering and make a decision – and, there are only two he can make: Commit the required troops and get the job done; or get the hell out and stop wasting American lives in a war he hasn’t got the balls to prosecute. (He can call it a moral victory, and apologize to everyone in the region.)
October 25th, 2009 | 8:11 pm | #21
And, ken, ricks is just another leftist reporter for a leftist paper. As an analyst, he sucks.
And, given that the book was written pre-surge, it’s sort of incomplete and irrelevant to today’s situation, don’t you think?
October 25th, 2009 | 8:13 pm | #22
“From today’s NY Times: “Two synchronized bombings killed at least 132 people in Baghdad on Sunday, as insurgents continued to direct their attacks on vital government operations.””
Yeah, like a suicide attack that kills 132 civilians is going to topple Iraqs democracy. To win an insurgeny you have to have the support of the populace. Al-Qaida/Saddamists just put two smoking holes in their feet.
“We were lucky.”
Indeed, to have a smart, tough, stubborn, Churchillian presiden in Bush. Now we are very unlucky to have a weak fool in the white house whoes default position is prostrate and kissing at the feet of our enemies.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:19 pm | #23
Solaratov, Gore would not have taken us into Iraq in the first place,and John the supposed traitor deserves our gratitude by voluntarily serving in Vietnam. Rumsfeld’s light footprint strategy was strategical in the largest sense of the word, not a response to Clinton. He really believed we could win with a relatively few troops, and “they will welcome us” Cheney did too, and they convinced Bush. Listen, I think they all did what they honestly believed was right. I don’t call them bad men for bad decisions. But they were wrong, and they placed Obama in an extremely tough situation that he is right to take his time evaluating.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:25 pm | #24
FYI, here is what happens when you launch terror attacks against a free people (eg AQI against Iraqis).
From iraqthemodel
Unknown gunmen assassinated 30 Mahdi Army commanders in the Syrian capital Damascus. The killings, made in the past few weeks, were all made “quietly, inside the victims apartments”, said an unnamed source in the Sadr movement. The source added that among those assassinated was Laith al-Ka’bi, who commanded the Mahdi Army in the Palestine Street neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. The report adds that large numbers of Mahdi Army operatives left to Iran out of fear the assassinations wave could expand to target them.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:28 pm | #25
deathstar, what you call Churchillian, insiders have called merely stubborn and relatively complacent intellectually. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Solaratov, like I said, the surge was one of several factors, and we weren’t responsible for them all. But Iraq, as fractured as it is religiously and tribally, is much more culturally cohesive than Afghanistan, and as such is the lesser challenge. I don’t know what the best decision is there. But I know that any scholar of the region will tell you that the best decision is still just the best guess.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:29 pm | #26
deathstar
October 25th, 2009 | 8:13 pm | #22
Now we are very unlucky to have a weak fool in the white house whoes default position is prostrate and kissing at the feet of our enemies.
.
But he does do a lovely, groveling bow to his master:
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/4b025f42.jpg
October 25th, 2009 | 8:30 pm | #27
“John the supposed traitor deserves our gratitude by voluntarily serving in Vietnam”
John Kerry deserves contempt for being a weak cowardly traitor. He was in vietnam for a few weeks before fear drove him to shot himself in the ass to get a purple heart and a trip home. The he regailed evey one with fake stories of his daring (bad) and his comrads war crimes (inexcusable). Perfect senator for the dems!
October 25th, 2009 | 8:36 pm | #28
Now we are very unlucky to have a weak fool in the white house whoes default position is prostrate and kissing at the feet of our enemies.
Jesus was a trash talking, “quick Peter, slash the guy’s ear off” kind of a guy, was he?
Paul called himself the chief of sinners. What about you? Ever sin and hurt anyone and owed them an apology? Ever met anyone who hasn’t? How could any nation, being composed of sinners, be any better?
Yes, America has done much good. And the more we acknowledge our wrongs, the more likely the rest of the world is to acknowledge that.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:40 pm | #29
deathstar, so that I can better understand where you’re coming from, would you mind telling me if you’re a Christian and, if you are, explaining what being a Christian means to you? Because you sound like a pretty slash and burn kind of a guy.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:46 pm | #30
Dippidey Doo Ken/Barbie,
You’re off topic….AGAIN!
Bad troll. No cookie!
October 25th, 2009 | 8:47 pm | #31
Yes, America has done much good. And the more we acknowledge our wrongs, the more likely the rest of the world is to acknowledge that.
Yep, like liberate 30 million peole in Iraq against the wishes of the racist, anti-war left in europe and the dem party.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:49 pm | #32
” would you mind telling me if you’re a Christian and, if you are, explaining what being a Christian means to you?”
Har, har. KMA
Jesus would have liberated Iraq.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:49 pm | #33
” would you mind telling me if you’re a Christian and, if you are, explaining what being a Christian means to you?”
Har, har. KMA
Jesus would have liberated Iraq.
October 25th, 2009 | 8:57 pm | #34
I think Obama is putting off making this decision (on Afghanistan) until he knows where the health care issue is going.
Didn’t they say he would be coming up with a decision right about now? And yet here we are, weeks later, and not a hint of a decision being made.
He is stalling. He is afraid to make the one decision without a favorable outcome on the other to give himself confidence and political cover.
October 25th, 2009 | 9:35 pm | #35
Ken,
Jesus would’ve called you immoral for abandoning the Iraqis and Afghans to the barbaric thugs that call themselves jihadis.
October 25th, 2009 | 9:53 pm | #36
You really do want to be careful of some of the better Veeps (and veep candidates)
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/assassination2.jpg
October 25th, 2009 | 9:57 pm | #37
PSG, the debate is in part over how to best serve te Iraqis and Afghans: remain a powerful but complicating presence or withdraw and let them sort things out without the complication?
October 25th, 2009 | 10:09 pm | #38
Ken
October 25th, 2009 | 8:19 pm | #23
My family knew the gores in Wash.,DC. They were, are and always will be thieving trash. There isn’t an honest bone in the whole pack of them.
I personally knew john(the traitor)kerry in Washington, when he was betraying his fellow soldiers. Sure, he volunteered to go to VN – but then found out that he wasn’t really John Wayne. He was bounced out of there because he was a freakin’ coward and almost got a bunch of his men killed. It always amazed me that a termination order never came down for him.
And, you have absolutely NO idea what the “win-hold-win” strategy refers to, do you? You – in your ignorance – think I was talking about Bush and Rumsfeld somehow “responding” to klinton.
You’re out of your depth, barbie doll. You have no idea – beyond leftist talking points – what you’re talking about. You don’t even have the basic concepts and terminology down enough to intelligently discuss what happened in Iraq or in Afghanistan.
All you know is what you read by leftist flacks and are told by leftist non-warriors. You’ve got the anti-war, anti-military, anti-American part of it down pat — but you don’t know squat about it.
October 25th, 2009 | 10:17 pm | #39
Ken
October 25th, 2009 | 9:57 pm | #37
PSG, the debate is in part over how to best serve te Iraqis and Afghans: remain a powerful but complicating presence or withdraw and let them sort things out without the complication?
.
There’s one of your big mistakes, barbie. We are NOT there to “serve” the Iraqis or Afghans.
We entered both countries as CONQUERORS. Because we are Americans, and because Americans are more benevolent than most conquerors, we are now trying to better their lives. If we do that, it will create stable countries who may – in time – be allies. It increases and serves our national security interest.
When the operations cease to serve the interests of America – we should walk away.
And if “president” pantywaist continues to play silly political games with the military, the troops should be withdrawn.
October 25th, 2009 | 10:42 pm | #40
When the operations cease to serve the interests of America – we should walk away.
How does this opinion derive from your reading of Scripture? Also, how do you justify your contempt for Obama with Jesus’ injunction to love your neighbors?
October 25th, 2009 | 10:43 pm | #41
ABC is softening. They don’t want to appear to be walking away deliberately from the Obama train wreck, but they are letting intelligent and eloquent guests speak the truth on their airtime. It looks like the ABC gang might wanna be real journalists again, but they are segueing via guest appearances.
That’s a Hopeful Change.
October 25th, 2009 | 11:04 pm | #42
Ken
October 25th, 2009 | 10:42 pm | #40
You’re a smarmy, sanctimonious, self-rightious little quibbler.
.
Jesus gave no quarter to evil.
October 25th, 2009 | 11:11 pm | #43
Jesus gave no quarter to evil.
You’re right. He died to save you from the consequences of your evil deeds, and to save me from the consequences of mine. He loved us despite our sin, and he told us to love each other, not to spew insults.
October 26th, 2009 | 3:51 am | #44
[...] Additional: The Snooper Report: Laura Ingraham: HOT HOT HOT Gateway Pundit: Laura Ingraham Takes On ABC Obama Cheerleaders on Afghanistan (Video) [...]
October 26th, 2009 | 4:22 am | #45
Ken, this thread was about Afghanistan, not Iraq. And claiming that Al Gore would not have taken us into Iraq is all speculation. BTW, who said, “There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbors?” And who was it that was all for extraordinary rendition stating, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.” Why it was Al Gore. So, before you instruct others about history, maybe you should read a little of it yourself. Governing is much harder than sitting on the sidelines spewing platitudes during a campaign, as our cic is finding out.
October 26th, 2009 | 6:20 am | #46
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by World_Policy: Laura Ingraham Takes On ABC Obama Cheerleaders on Afghanistan (Video): Never mind the fact that Dick Cheney was.. http://bit.ly/19v4eJ...
October 26th, 2009 | 8:06 am | #47
Politically-desperate thuglet Rahm Emanuel just couldn’t resist taking yet another cheap shot on the Bush Administration… no matter how much it makes him look a liar… or a fool.
Of course, this latest catapult-load of BS was launched by the same Alinskyite weasel who’s been leading the charge against the credibility of Fox News… I guess we’ll just get our info from Rahmbo instead- he seems like a nice guy, LOL
November 3rd, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #48
[...] the Pulpit Big Hollywood: Dennis Miller: Ahem…All Not So Quiet on the Cable Front Gateway Pundit: Laura Ingraham Takes On ABC Obama Cheerleaders on Afghanistan (Video) National Post, Sheldon Alberts: Obama’s Nixonian attitude to enemies Start Thinking Right: [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact