Barack Obama told supporters in 2007 that genocide was not an excuse to keep US troops in Iraq. He voted to surrender to Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi terrorists several times. His pride prevented him from admitting that the Bush Surge was one of the most successful military campaigns in US history.
Today the dithering and waffling White House attacked Cheney for failing in Afghanistan.
This is despite the fact that US troop deaths in Afghanistan will nearly double under Barack Obama’s leadership this year.
(ICasualties)
The Politico reported:
A day after former Vice President Cheney charged the Obama administration …
… with “dithering” over its strategy for the war in Afghanistan, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs returned fire with guns blazing.
“What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform,” Gibbs said Thursday. “I think we’ve all seen what happens when somebody doesn’t take that responsibility seriously.”
Calling Cheney’s comment “curious,” Gibbs attacked the Bush administration for allegedly taking years to provide the support necessary for the war effort in Afghanistan.
“I think it’s pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan,” Gibbs said. “Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president’s, for more than eight months.”
Sorry guys.
Your whiney excuses are wearing thin.
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:20 pm | #1
The arguments coming from the Obama White House are so juvenile and pathetic. “Bush and Cheney waited longer than 8 months, so the fact that we waited 8 months doesn’t matter since it’s less.” We’re not accountable for anything as long as we don’t take longer to do it / don’t do it worse than someone else, even if we could have gotten a jump on things and started sooner.
Plain and simple: the delay will continue until Barack Obama has his Nobel Peace Prize safely in-hand. Wait and see… nothing will be done, no decision will be made, until Obama has collected what he himself has admitted he hasn’t earned, but he wants it all the same. Only then will any military decision be made.
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:37 pm | #2
Mr. Gibbs is a loser.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:26 pm | #3
In the case of the prior administration, there was a reason that the Af-Pak theater didn’t get additional troops: they were being used for a higher priority task; Iraq. This was completely consistent with the approach taken when we gave up the two-regional-war scenario for force sizing. It used to be that our military forces were sized to fight and win two regional conflicts at the same time but we changed that to a win-hold-win strategy after the cold war ended. This meant that we sized our forces to be able to win one regional conflict while holding ground in another, then be able to pivot and win the second. Sound familiar? President Obama, the first conflict has been won (to the extent that forces are being freed up from Iraq) and it is time to step up and win the second conflict.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:38 pm | #4
How would Fibbs know what was on the White House desk more than 8 months when Rahm said Sunday no information was shared and they started from scratch.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:38 pm | #5
Obama has proven from day one that he is less competent when it comes to making a strategic military decision than Carter.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:47 pm | #6
Yeah, listen to the wisdom of Jean, that darn Obama, acting like Carter and sending more troops to Afghanistan. Heeeyyy, wait a minute, when Carter was in office it was the evil Commie-Soviets who were invading Afghanistan, right Jean?
Let’s see, Dick Cheney is a war criminal, Obama is president, I wonder who the nation and the world trusts more, the torturing war-monger or the man attempting to clean up the torturing war-mongers evil deeds.
Also,. you gotta love Skeptic’s “war lingo” up there, all af-pak this and that amazing victory over defenseless women and children in Iraq (at least the ones who weren’t murdered by American troops are forced into abysmal refugee camps by invading American troops.
I bet Skeptic still plays with those little green army men and re-reads his Clancy fantasies before jerking off to his poster of a half naked Marine.
Too bad Dick and that drunken fool of a sidekick who occupied the White House for 8 years will never have to answer for their crimes against humanity. I mean, wasn’t it T. Boone Pickens who just said we are owed that Iraqi oil? But we didn’t go there for the oil, right chickenhawks? No way! It’s about freedom fries and flag pins. What a gang of cowards you all are.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:51 pm | #7
I WILL SAVE THE DAY! http://www.LIVESHOT.cc
After all, I SERVED IN VIETNAM.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:52 pm | #8
Where’s all the healing of alliances that Obama promised?
Why aren’t other NATO countries gladly ponying up troops in response to Obama’s apologies and lofty rhetoric?
Bush managed to get dozens of countries to commit troops to the “unpopular” war in Iraq, securing some 50, 000 soldiers.
Here’s Obama, nine months in, and yet he hasn’t received a scintilla of support for the “war of necessity.”
Quite simply, they do not respect him, Cheney knows this, and so do we.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:53 pm | #9
Do I sense the common liberal mental disease…Bush & Cheney Derangement Syndrome? Yeah, those two guys who kept America safe for 2,688 days. When, if…Barky gets that much time behind him without us getting hit…then the left will have something to talk about. Not until then.
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:54 pm | #10
Concerning their foreign policies, I am probably the biggest Canadian fan of Cheney and Bush. Not so much on Bush financial liberal spending though… lol.
BTW, Bush is in Montreal today giving a speech organized by the Chamber of Commerce at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel.
I always looked up to these two men. I agree with every word Cheney said in his speech. But… because there is a “but” and a big one… it makes me wonder…
I wonder why men like Cheney and Bush can overthrow any dictators in the world, but can’t overthrow the Usurper Dictator sitting in the Oval Office?
SCOTUS, FBI, CIA and all officials of the present and past government know Obama is not the legal President. What’s going on out there? What is it with this general conspiracy of silence? What are they afraid of? Why is no one coming out in the open with that issue?
Are they afraid to be called “racists”? Is this why only Dr Alan Keyes came out with it… because he his black and that protects him from being called racist? That sounds so crazy that this is probably not the reason. So what is it?
Is there a threat so huge behind all that, that no one wants to be responsible of the disaster it would cause should they come out with it?
What’s going on here… and why are all these people (including Bush and Cheney) silent on that issue?
Obama will destroy your country, your Constituion and your freedom. I can’t believe that no one will stand up to this Usurper Dictator. There must be something they know that we don’t know… and that something must be really big, evil and ugly.
It makes you wonder…
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:56 pm | #11
Too bad Dick and that drunken fool of a sidekick who occupied the White House for 8 years will never have to answer for their crimes against humanity. I mean, wasn’t it T. Boone Pickens who just said we are owed that Iraqi oil? But we didn’t go there for the oil, right chickenhawks? No way! It’s about freedom fries and flag pins. What a gang of cowards you all are.
This is just pathological nonsense masquerading as thought.
In your string of ad hominems and non sequiturs, do you have anything meaningful to say?
Btw, gang of cowards huh? I have family members in Iraq and Afghanistan, pal; I highly doubt you even know a soldier, let alone one serving in theater.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:02 pm | #12
What a gang of cowards you all are.
Spoken like a true man from the safety of his mother’s basement.
As for the chickenhawk insult–I have a solution that brave ex-military such as yourself would support. Only ex-military are allowed to vote on decisions to go to war. Better yet, only ex-servicemen and women have earned the franchise and are allowed to vote. The rest of us have demonstrated too much selfishness and do not have that right.
Satisfied loon? It would mean that Barry couldn’t be POTUS, but that is a small price to pay for consistency.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #13
The result is the current situation where no progress is being made, nothing is being achieved, and the person supposed to be making the decisions isn’t deciding, especially when it seemed so clear to him before last November what the solution was.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:07 pm | #14
Oh my! It’s SO obvious that the strategies of the previous administration was a success! I mean, our focus in Afghanistan never wavered. We were not distracted at ALL by a country that had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda, a country that did NOT have weapons of mass destruction (EVERY other major nation’s intelligence report plainly told us that). No, Bush’s personal grudge match against Saddam Hussein is to BLAME for America not finishing the job we started in Afghanistan. There is NO reason why we should be there for EIGHT years. We need to either step up our maneuvers to include Pakistan into our military/economic/political strategy, or just get out. Throwing 40K troops with NO game plan is NOT the answer. Get used to the NEW way of doing things. Anything less would be a disservice to our men and women in uniform and this administration would be no better than the last. Obama was not my first choice as president of this current administration, but I’m glad that at least it’s being done right this time. Bush didn’t have enough foresight to see past his nose. You’re utterly obtuse for thinking that flying by the seat of our pants with no strategy will accomplish anything positive THIS time!
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:10 pm | #15
Whatever happened to the “Office of the President Elect” who was going to be ready from day one??? President Dither is “deciding” while service people are dying. It is no longer “Bush lied, people died”. It is now Barack is deciding and people are dying.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:17 pm | #16
JeansDirtyJeans
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:47 pm 6
What a gang of cowards you all are.
Look at what’s talking about “cowards”. Why don’t you tell us all about your service to your country – you sniveling little coward?
Tell us all about your adventures in the military. Regale us with stories of your heroism – craven little puke.
Snot-nosed punks like you aren’t fit to lick the horse manure from George Bush’s boots. And you certainly wouldn’t have the guts to say a word to Cheney’s face.
Just go take a bath, coward. The stench of your cowardice permeats the air. You’re foul.
btw, I’m sure your little tin god, obama, will make a decision just as soon as he comes down from his coke high and remembers where he is.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:24 pm | #17
“I wonder who the nation…trusts more…?”
You mean to keep us safe? Well, it sure ain’t Binky.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:25 pm | #18
Mike, put down the bong.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:33 pm | #19
a country that did NOT have weapons of mass destruction (EVERY other major nation’s intelligence report plainly told us that)
Opinions are one thing. But this is so wrong that it is likely you are just knowingly lying.
No, Bush’s personal grudge match against Saddam Hussein is to BLAME for America not finishing the job we started in Afghanistan.
Bill Clinton had the same grudge? Lieberman too? How about the 58% of Senate Democrats that voted for the Iraq War resolution, including Kerry? Ignorant or just lying again?
Throwing 40K troops with NO game plan is NOT the answer.
No game plan like the Surge? Going to fantasize some insult over McChrystal’s name (like BetrayUs)?
McChrystal–Barry’s hand-picked general for Afghanistan–along with General Petraeus (the victor in fighting the AQ/Iraqi insurgency) have provided the plan to President Present. But Barry can’t be distracted from the War on Fox News, nice dinners at the White House, hours spent with mindless shriekers like Olberman and Maddow, and fruitless visits for Olympic graft.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:41 pm | #20
Obamas disdain for a free and peaceful Iraq is disgusting, particularly coming from an African American who owes his own freedom to a war of liberation.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:42 pm | #21
Does anyone remember “Mad Max II: The Road Warrior”? This administration reminds me of the older lady that wanted to walk away from the oil refinery and just give it over to Lord Humungus.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:50 pm | #22
Mike
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:07 pm 14
I mean, our focus in Afghanistan never wavered. We were not distracted at ALL by a country that had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda, a country that did NOT have weapons of mass destruction (EVERY other major nation’s intelligence report plainly told us that).
Really? Name the countries whose intelligence reports plainly told us that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMD.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:56 pm | #23
JeansDirtyJeans
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:47 pm 6
Also,. you gotta love Skeptic’s “war lingo” up there, all af-pak this and that amazing victory over defenseless women and children in Iraq (at least the ones who weren’t murdered by American troops are forced into abysmal refugee camps by invading American troops.
What planet are you living on? All the refugee camps opened in Iraq’s neighbors were closed because there was no need for them. We didn’t force anyone into “abysmal refugee camps.” Large numbers of Sunnis–who supported Saddam and the insurgency–left Iraq, and there was some internal displacement, but a massive refugee problem never materialized.
No clue what you’re spewing about when you say we had a “victory over women and children.” We fought the Saddam Fedayeen, Syrians, amd other foreign fighters for the most part, as well as men of the Iraqi Republican Guard. Most regular army and reserve units didn’t fight.
Your version of events is demented and childish.
October 22nd, 2009 | 5:48 pm | #24
I can respect the administration reviewing the Strategy more closely, if and only if we are given an explantion soon. There really are only 2 choices. Either accept McChrystal’s reccomendations (more troops, commitment long term) or pack our troops up and bring them back home. There are no easy choices. I will give our comander in chief the benefit of the doubt until I hear what he will do. But I urge others, (however difficult it might be :), to also do the same. I remember when Bush was faced with the surge. I also remember that it was not a very popular decision, ecspecially with Democrat politicians. But also remember was only part of Petreus COIN strategy for Iraq (and thank you God for still granting us great men like him). Also, we negotiated with people who once were our enemies, buying some time (Both Al-Sadr’s malitias and Sunni tribes). So it is my hope that Obama does not only add troops, but also follows all of McChrystal’s suggestions (some of which he has done….see: increased drone attacks in Pak tribal areas).
October 22nd, 2009 | 6:12 pm | #25
You know, it seemed that obama had made a decision to prosecute the war back in May (?) – but now he’s getting all wobbly about it.
He had the start of an operations plan – based, in part, on the Bush admin report. He hand-picked the general who knows the most about COIN and told him to flesh out the plan. And people on the right gave him props at the time because he looked as though he was actually going to make good on a campaign speech.
And then McChrystal told him what it would take in terms of manpower and commitment; and, obama started listening to the amateurs and political people tell him their plans. People – like gibbs – who should have never even been in the war room. And they were telling him that he could work miracles with no investment of increased manpower; and that drones and “peace corps workers” would do the job.
So he started wavering in what had seemed, at first, to be a firm commitment to actually winning the war in Afghanistan
If obama would just make the decision to do what needs to be done, and make the commitment – the right would be so surprised that they’d cheer for him. And his left base would – for the most part – go along with him if he just went to them and explained, “this is what we have to do, and this is what it will take. Just hang with me and we’ll finish the job the right way.”
Of course, the far, far left (and the far, far ultra-right) would hate him and scream long and loud. But, who would care? There’s not enough of them to matter to anyone.
I’D even cheer the man on and give him props if he did that. Or, if he just said, “I’m not wasting another life there. We’re out.” And then pulled out completely (and bombed the s**t out of the whole place when the taliban came back in).
But he’s got to stop this waffling and trying to play both ends against the middle. All he’s doing is reaffirming our – and the world’s – opinion of him as a weak little man playing at being “president”.
October 22nd, 2009 | 6:29 pm | #26
Yah, when they see a surge helped in Iran, it should give this administration a clue that it could work in Afghanistan too, unless, of course, they haven’t come to the conclusion that a surge of troops actually did help in Iran.
October 22nd, 2009 | 6:29 pm | #27
++
OT..
Strong earthquake strikes Afghanistan and Pakistan
==
October 22nd, 2009 | 7:00 pm | #28
Three points:
1> Afghanistan was destined to be a different kind of war than Iraq, because of the physical and cultural terrain … a longer war, fought at a lower intensity level, to avoid the trap the Soviets fell into. So to assert that Mr. Bush “neglected” Afghanistan because there was more visible action in Iraq is a misperception.
2> The real problem is not “neglect” … it is the existence of safe havens in Pakistan, where our reach is limited out of respect for their sovereignty … though respect for a government that is apparently more interested in dispelling any perception that they are America’s puppet, than they are in interdicting clearly-evident threats to life and liberty, is of very limited value with respect to world peace.
3> Our actions in Iraq were justified (WMD or no WMD) because it had everything needed to become a high-tech, wealthy, unpredictable Afghanistan 2.0 under Saddam & Sons. al Quada isn’t the only terrorist group out there … stating that Iraq was a “needless war of choice” because it wasn’t deeply involved with AQ or the 911 attacks, is simply another variation of the “don’t hit unless you’re hit first” rule we all learned in kindergarten. Apparently, some of us haven’t grown up and learned that sometimes, hitting first when a thug regime is threatening your civilization with totalitarian expansion and support for terrorism is a justifiable act.
This ain’t kindergarten, y’know.
October 22nd, 2009 | 8:22 pm | #29
Gibbs is an idiot, but you almost have to feel sorry for him, having to consistently defend the indefensible and make excuses for why Afghanistan is burning and Obama is playing the fiddle.
Here’s the bitter truth. Obama isn’t up to some kind of master planning session or somehow carefully considering the implication of troop levels in Afghanistan…he’s weighing the political consquences. That’s it. End of story. The guy is more worried about his approval rating and getting re-elected in 2012, then he is with issues of national security.
Let me be clear, the notion that Obama is carefully thinking this out with genuine concern is a smoke screen.
October 22nd, 2009 | 9:58 pm | #30
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by rd1776: #whloves to blame Cheney for their failures in Afghanistan http://bit.ly/LuehQ #tcot #p2 #obamafail via @ConservativFeed…
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:14 pm | #31
Well Cheeny did fail in Afghanistan. Sorry, just the truth. He left a mess for Obama.
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:16 pm | #32
graham
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:14 pm 31
Well Cheeny did fail in Afghanistan. Sorry, just the truth. He left a mess for Obama.
You will, of course, be posting links to some sort of proof of this; rather than just your inconsequential opinion — won’t you?
October 22nd, 2009 | 10:56 pm | #33
Fully support the troops or bring them ALL home. There is no in between
October 22nd, 2009 | 11:18 pm | #34
“I mean, our focus in Afghanistan never wavered. We were not distracted at ALL by a country that had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda, a country that did NOT have weapons of mass destruction (EVERY other major nation’s intelligence report plainly told us that).”
Nope, that didn’t happen. Glad you noticed.
Oh wait, you’re just another parrot squawking teh Narrative, right? Oh well.
October 23rd, 2009 | 5:57 am | #35
Napoleon once told his Generals: “I can give you anything you want except time.” Time in warfare is a precious commodity and our fearless leader is wasting it as if it meant nothing. This is what happens when an inexperienced community organizer is suddenly made commander in chief of a military force at war. Bonus quote: Napoleon also said that in war, force is equal to the mass of an army times its VELOCITY. Soldiers sitting in a valley have a force of… ZERO. Whatever the “new” strategy is, it had better take Napoleon’s equation for force into account.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact