Sunday, September 26, 2010

Save Democrat support, risk our troops?

Remember that Bob Woodward has written a book about Obama and war and he talked about how Obama said he's making decisions about the war based on his political party and how he "can't lose the whole Democratic Party?"  What ever happened with that story?   Do you see how the media shut it down by not playing it for more than the probably five minutes FOX spent on it?  Maybe some TalkRadio told the truth, too, but I didn't hear it on any radio I listen to.  Here's part of THIS STORY from US News and World Report:

 BY Aliyah Shahid
President Obama wanted out of Afghanistan last year.
And although the president agreed to triple troop levels in the embattled country, some in Obama's national security team doubt that his strategy in Afghanistan will even be successful, according to a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.
Click here to find out more!
The book, Obama's Wars, details how the Obama Administration was -- and is -- extremely divided over strategy in Afghanistan. According to the book, the president said "I have two years with the public on this" and asked his advisers how to avoid a big escalation in the nine-year, U.S.-led Afghanistan war, The Associated Press reported.
Obama also told advisers "I want an exit strategy" and privately told Vice President Joe Biden to push his plan against the sending of additional troops.
While the president ultimately rejected that plan and decided to send in an additional 30,000 troops (the military wanted 40,000) the book says Obama was at odds several aides and set a withdrawal timeframe because "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

I would have thought  Americans would be up at arms at a president making decisions involving the lives of our troops based on HIS PARTY and HIS CAREER............yet, who ever discussed this, who ever brought this into the mainstream media?

Nobody, that's who.  Do you think it should have been?
For the record, I just heard Chris Wallace cover this on FOX...darn.  I got there FIRST :-)  I didn't see its earlier broadcast, I'm listening to it in the other room now on rerun! 



Leticia said...

The thing is if Obama and his pathetic administration would just allow the military to do their jobs like they were trained to do, this discussion would be mute. But no, our military personnel are being forced to fight with both hands tied behind their backs.

Our men and women can get the job done, if Obama just stepped out of the way.

Anonymous said...

Also interesting is that the government is taking to the idea of burning books — the entire first run publication of a book "Operation Dark Heart" by Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.

Officially for "national security" and he's also the individual who pointed out to the 911 Commission some information about Mohammad Atta, who was considered to be a danger BEFORE 911. His information about that never became part of the "official" 911 Commission report.

Funny how the supposed "burning of korans" became a national crisis and this book burning is mostly ignored.


Z said...

Leticia, I agree with you; get the leftwing "war is not the answer" administration out and let our trained soldiers do what they have to do. Of course, the Obama types think it's not war that terrorists respect, it's acquiescence and capitulation; that's the scariest thing. Gee, Obama can't lose his Democrat support, he'd better let our guys go in short handed, right? (man)

Waylon; tell me more about OPERATION DARK HEART, please.....
I am not one for blowing national security in the name of transparency but something tells me you're not advocating that and neither was Shaffer...wassup?

Chuck said...

Wonder if it would have been a problem if Bush were to do this?

Z said... PROBLEM! They'd have just piled it on him, exaggerating, twisting, lying..they were aces at that by the time he was out of office; NO PROBLEM..EASY :-)
Meanwhile, Woodward, whose book information is frequently quoted on networks, CNN, etc., is getting VERY little air time on this book. SURPRISE :-)

Always On Watch said...

According to the book, the president said "I have two years with the public on this"

In BHO's eyes, everything is all about him.

I suppose that a lot of BHO's "war strategy" plays well with pacifists, however.

I would have thought Americans would be up at arms at a president making decisions involving the lives of our troops based on HIS PARTY and HIS CAREER............

Not during an economic crisis. A lot of my usually-vocal friends are too busy trying to survive financially.

Besides, what can WE THE PEOPLE do except go to the ballot box again?

Susannah said...

AOW~ "Not during an economic crisis..."
Yes; an orchestrated one @ that.

Please, please see an article I just posted re: BHO's plan for 'overwhelming the system.' It has made some email rounds, but so many more need to see it...

As for Afghanistan/Iraq, etc. imo, we didn't go into this resolutely enough from the very beginning - as much as I appreciate GWB for leading our country @ the time...Seems we started this thing not to win, but to not-lose 'public opinion.' Our own media has been our worst enemy in that regard...forcing our personnel to "fight with both hands tied behind their backs."

Randy said...

Unfortunately, the probable scenario is that's what happens when you no longer live in a democratic (free, unoppressed) society.

History proves that before any extreme political oppression occurs there is a silencing of the people (subjects). Sort of reduces insurrections. First the guns, then the voices. Scary isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Z, here's an interview with the author discussing the issue. He's not specific on exactly why the books were bought and burned and says that he's limited on the comments he can make about this.

He does say that there was information on Mohammad Atta being identified as a threat before 911, that he informed the 911 Commission about this and that information was not part of the "official" 911 report.

Maybe it's just part of squelching conspiracy theories about 911 and about making the "official" version the only version that can be considered for "rational" discussion. After all who would ant to be identified as a "truther" questioning the authority of government officials ... who would want to dare bring down the wrath of government officialdom with the denigrating labels of "conspiracy theorist" and "truther"? Seems like a solid way to avoid questions if you can attack the messenger.


Uncle Ned said...

Scuze me but I’d like to say a cupple of wurds bout that thar Obamer feller. Whut kinda sense does that make, him a wantin to trade out all them soldiers for a party. I had a bunch of pigs wunst that got themselves in a big pit of quicksand. I didn’t thank about letting them thar pigs die just so I could stay outa that thar quicksand and not get that nasty ole skwishy stuff betwixt my toes. Nosiree, I tied a rope around ole Sally (that’s my mule-I got a pitcher of her on that thar sight that I writes on) and I held onto the other end of that thar rope and I waded my fat but into that stuff and I’m prowed to say I saved evry one. I know all them thar soldiers are worth more than them thar pigs. Whut the hell is rong with that thar Obamer feller?

I didn’t even thank bout no party. Sides don’t want a buncha people comin over and drinkin all my shine. Stinky (he’s my nefew, hisn pitcher is jest above ole Sally‘s) jest came in so I gotta go open the winders.

Bye fer now!

Z said...

Uncle Ned, if yer'd lahk to know whut's wrong with the feller, stick around here :-)

Waylon, I actually saw that interview when it was on....
The Atta thing can't be the's not like nobody knows it was rumored that planes might hit us like they did (what cracked me up was when leftwingers did, and still do, blame Bush as if he's supposed to ground ALL planes forever just in case based on the limited info they had)
My problem with this story is that, if there IS something subtle that we're missing and which could be picked up by people who mean us harm, then we should SHUT UP about it and stop slamming the Pentagon as if they're Germans burning intellectual's books before WWII, you know?

Anonymous said...

I agree, Z, that this about Atta was said before. Like most things which are considered secret the enemy does know these things anyway, so I doubt there would be anything in the book in matters of security that they don't already know. Maybe they'd have reacted differently if the information was released in the New York Times instead of by an individual in book form. Anyway the writer has agreed to remove the things considered to offend the authorities.