commander in chief

Home » commander in chief

Ex-Navy Seal Crosses the Line

So, there’s a book coming out tomorrow that is an ex-Navy Seal’s account of exactly what happened when we took out Osama bin Laden. Personally, I will not read this book. I figure that this book will be very similar to the extremely successful, famous and distorted book, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Remember, they published basically a pack of lies about John Kerry. This author, in my opinion, is clearly writing a partisan textbook that is designed not to illuminate what happened, but instead to attack the president. Let me make a few predictions – Rush Limbaugh will hail this book as some sort of thoughtful breakthrough. Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich will try to paint this guy as some hero (for writing this book) and somehow degrade or, better yet, denigrate President Obama’s decision to go with the mission.

I found the following comment to be extremely illuminating:

This guy is a bum for using his uniform for political purposes. I served in a rapid deployment force under President Clinton. We had a dislike for him because democrats are “soft on military” and the “Don’t ask Don’t tell” but we never divided our ranks in front of the American People. You can’t do that. Its an unwritten code that you respect rank and that includes The Commander In Chief, despite what your personal feelings are. The uniform must be greater than partisan politics. The American public can not see soldiers as 1/2 are democrats, 1/2 republican. It would destroy morale and what makes our troops the best in the world.

The guy writing this book, releasing it on 9/11 and keeping the profits, while betraying his chain of command is a scum bag. He is also a confirmed “birther”, so that tells you about his intelligence. Just another attempt to “swiftboat” an opponent over politics. Its a shame because America needs to come together to solve big challenges.

By |2012-09-03T21:05:33-04:00September 3rd, 2012|Bin Laden, Party Politics|2 Comments

Obama in Afghanistan

Part of the transcript:
We can’t forget why we’re here. We did not choose this war. This was not an act of America wanting to expand its influence; of us wanting to meddle in somebody else’s business. We were attacked viciously on 9/11. Thousands of our fellow countrymen and women were killed. And this is the region where the perpetrators of that crime, al Qaeda, still base their leadership. Plots against our homeland, plots against our allies, plots against the Afghan and Pakistani people are taking place as we speak right here. And if this region slides backwards, if the Taliban retakes this country and al Qaeda can operate with impunity, then more American lives will be at stake. The Afghan people will lose their chance at progress and prosperity. And the world will be significantly less secure.

And as long as I’m your Commander-in-Chief, I am not going to let that happen. That’s why you are here. I’ve made a promise to all of you who serve. I will never send you into harm’s way unless it’s absolutely necessary. I anguish in thinking about the sacrifices that so many of you make. That’s why I promise I will never send you out unless it is necessary.

But that’s only part of the promise, because the other part of the promise is that when it is absolutely necessary, you will be backed up by a clear mission and the right strategy to finish the job, to get the job done. And I am confident all of you are going to get the job done right here in Afghanistan. I am confident of that. (Applause.)

That’s why I ordered more troops and civilians here into Afghanistan shortly after taking office. That’s why we took a hard look and forged a new strategy and committed more resources in December. That’s why we pushed our friends and allies and partners to pony up more resources themselves, more commitments of aid, and additional forces and trainers.

Our broad mission is clear: We are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. That is our mission. And to accomplish that goal, our objectives here in Afghanistan are also clear: We’re going to deny al Qaeda safe haven. We’re going to reverse the Taliban’s momentum. We’re going to strengthen the capacity of Afghan security forces and the Afghan government so that they can begin taking responsibility and gain confidence of the Afghan people.

And our strategy includes a military effort that takes the fight to the Taliban while creating the conditions for greater security and a transition to the Afghans; but also a civilian effort that improves the daily lives of the Afghan people, and combats corruption; and a partnership with Pakistan and its people, because we can’t uproot extremists and advance security and opportunity unless we succeed on both sides of the border. Most of you understand that.

By |2010-03-29T11:22:01-04:00March 29th, 2010|Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Military, Obama administration|Comments Off on Obama in Afghanistan

A few things about Afghanistan

From Poltical Animal:

Time will tell what President Obama decides about the future of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, but at this point, Greg Sargent reports that the Republican Attack Machine is already gearing up to blast the Commander in Chief — if the president decides to go with additional deployments that fall short of 40,000.

Republicans have repeatedly called on Obama to follow the advice of [Gen. Stanley McChrystal], who has reportedly sought 40,000 additional troops. With some of Obama’s top advisers coalescing around a plan to send around 30,000 more troops, GOP leaders are laying the groundwork to criticize anything short of 40,000 as a failure to give his commander the resources he said he needed, the GOP aide tells me.

“There better be a hell of a compelling reason for ignoring the advice of our generals on the ground or Republicans will ensure that this Administration spend the next few years explaining to the American people how dismissing our military’s advice has made our troops and our country safer,” the aide says.

A few things to keep in mind.

First, it’s very likely that McChrystal will endorse the president’s policy, which will leave Republicans throwing a fit by themselves.

Second, the GOP ought to watch that “ignoring the advice of our generals” talk — Bush/Cheney only listened to the generals when they agreed, and I don’t remember congressional Republicans whining about it.

Third, Obama may send thousands of additional troops, but not the full 40,000, leaving Republicans to complain bitter over a brigade or two. As Spencer Ackerman noted, “[L]et’s say that McClatchy is right and Obama goes with 34,000 new troops. Is the Republican Party really going to say that 6,000 troops — basically one to two Army combat brigades — are the difference between success and failure? That’s, well … that just doesn’t make sense.”

The truth is, the GOP officials gearing up to attack the president are, once again, playing a shallow political game. That’s not unexpected — it’s easier than thinking — but that doesn’t make it any less absurd. Indeed, if Obama agrees to an escalation under 40,000 troops, Republicans will attack for coming up short. If Obama agrees to an escalation of exactly 40,000 troops, Republicans will attack for taking too long to come to the decision. Either way, it’s just craven partisanship.

Kevin Drum, however, asks the question that shouldn’t go overlooked: “[H]ow seriously will the media take this when it happens? Will they give plenty of coverage to criticism that’s so patently contrived that a five-year-old would see though it? Or will they treat it as if it’s a serious national security debate?”

I have a hunch we know what to expect.

By |2009-11-12T00:03:45-04:00November 12th, 2009|Afghanistan|Comments Off on A few things about Afghanistan
Go to Top