OBAMA’S HEART IS NOT WITH AMERI CA
’S TROOPS,
BECAUSE HIS HEART IS WITH STAYING IN POWER,
AND HE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE DEMOCRATS,
BUT CAN AFFORD TO LOSE AMERICAN TROOPS
BY ANNOUNCING THEIR WITHDRAWAL DATES.
HE HAS A POLITICAL HEART FOR NUMBER 1!
HIS HEART SEEKS AN EXIT FALSE VICTORY
THAT WILL ALLOW HIM TO KEEP POWER
AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICAN LIVES!
KRAUTHAMMER SQUARELY NAILS IT!
October 5, 2010
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Matthew 15:18 – But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the hear
t; and they defile the man.
Proverbs 6:13-18 – He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; [14] Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. [15] Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. [16] These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: [17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, [18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Begin Excerpt from THE JERUSALEM POST via THE WASHINGTON POST
His heart isn’t in it
By C. KRAUTHAMMER
10/03/2010
Barack Obama has been looking for an exit strategy from Afghanistan – as drawn in Bob Woodward’s new book – so what exactly was the surge in troops for?
From the beginning,
the call to arms was highly uncertain. On December 1, 2009, commander-in-chief Barack Obama orders 30,000 more Americans into battle in Afghanistan. But in the very next sentence, he announces that a US withdrawal will begin after 18 months.
Astonishing. A surge of troops – overall, Obama has tripled our Afghan force – with a declaration not of war but of ambivalence. Nine months later, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that this decision was “probably giving our enemy sustenance.”
This wasn’t conjecture, he insisted, but the stuff of intercepted Taliban communications testifying to their relief that they simply had to wait out the Americans.
What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war after announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn’t have his heart in it. One who doesn’t really want to win, but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground – meaning, the political cover – for failure.
Until now, the above was just inference from the president’s public rhetoric.
No longer. Now we have the private quotes.
Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s Wars drawing on classified memos and interviews with scores of national security officials, has Obama telling his advisers: “I want an exit strategy.”
He tells the country publicly that Afghanistan is a “vital national interest,” but tells his generals that he will not do the kind of patient institution-building that is
the very essence of the counterinsurgency strategy that Gens.
McChrystal and Petraeus crafted and that he – Obama – adopted.
Moreover, he must find an exit because “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”
This admission is the most crushing of all.
First, isn’t this the party that in two consecutive presidential campaigns – John Kerry’s and then Obama’s – argued vociferously that Afghanistan is the good war, the right war, the war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror? Now, after being given charge of that very war, Obama confides that he must retreat lest that very same party abandon him. What happened in the interim? Did it suddenly develop a faint heart? Or was the party disingenuous about the Afghan war all along, using it as a convenient club with which to attack George W. Bush over Iraq, while protecting Democrats from the charge of being reflexively antiwar?
WHATEVER THE reason, is it not Obama’s job as president and party leader to bring the party with him? This is the man who made Berlin coo, America swoon and the Nobel committee lose its mind. Yet he cannot get his own party to follow him on what he insists is a matter of vital national interest
?
Did he even try? Obama spent endless hours cajoling and persuading individual members of Congress to garner every last vote for health care reform. Has he done a fraction of that for Afghanistan – argued, pleaded, horse-traded, twisted even a single arm
?
And what about persuading the country at large
?
Every war is arduous and requires continual presidential explication, inspiration and encouragement. This has been true from Lincoln through FDR through Bush.
Since announcing his Afghan surge, Obama’s only major speech that featured Afghanistan was an Oval Office address about America leaving Iraq – the Afghan part being sandwiched along with a long-winded plea for his economic policies.
“He was looking for choices that would limit US involvement and provide a way out,” writes Woodward.
One can only conclude that Obama now thinks Afghanistan is a mistake. Maybe he thought so from the very beginning. More charitably and more likely, he is simply a foreign policy novice who didn’t understand what this war was about until being given the authority and duty to conduct it – and then decided it was all a mistake.
Fair enough. But in that case, what is he doing escalating it? Sen. Kerry, now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, once asked: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Perhaps Kerry should ask that of Obama.
“He is out of Afghanistan psychologically,” says Woodward of Obama.
Well, he may be out, but the soldiers he ordered to Afghanistan are in.
Some will not come home.
The Washington Post
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107
of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.