Obama Keeps Air-Raiding Villages And Killing Civilians

During the campaign, Obama attacked George Bush’s Afghanistan policy saying:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

So the question is, why is the man who demagogued George Bush for air-raiding villages and killing civilians air-raiding villages and killing civilians?

KABUL — American-led efforts to avert civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban suffered a new blow over the weekend when a NATO airstrike in southern Afghanistan killed about two dozen civilians.

U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the head of coalition forces in Afghanistan, sought to contain outrage Monday for the attack by delivering a personal apology to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He conceded, however, that the attack Sunday was likely to shake public confidence in his pledge to minimize civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

“We are extremely saddened by the tragic loss of innocent lives,” McChrystal’s statement said. “I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission. We will redouble our efforts to regain that trust.”

Sunday’s airstrike was the second in a week to kill Afghan civilians. A week earlier, U.S. Marines killed 12 Afghans during the ongoing offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in southern Afghanistan.

Sunday’s strike hit a three-vehicle convoy of civilians in a remote part of the country. There were conflicting estimates of the death toll. The Afghan Council of Ministers said that 27 civilians — including four women and a child — had been killed, while the local police chief said 21 had died. Two others were missing, he said.

The fact of the matter, for all of Obama’s demagogic rhetoric, is that civilians deaths are up significantly in Afghanistan since Mr. “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” took over the war.

Obama owes Bush a profound apology.

Obama is killing more civilians than Bush ever did in spite of the most perverse and self-defeating rules of engagement ever to be used by any military in the history of warfare:

MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

Obama is so concerned with preventing the possibility of civilian deaths that he is displaying what amounts to depraved indifferent to our own warriors’ lives.

Which explains why American causalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled, and will keep going up and up and up.

There’s a part of me that says, “Hey, we should support our president at war.  We should recognize that the fog of war makes tragic outcomes unavoidable, but trust that our warriors and war planners are doing the very best they can.”

And then there’s that part of me that recognizes that Democrats never once considered any of that while they were tearing President Bush apart day after day while they gleefully demagogued the war and deliberately eroded public opinion and public support.

I remember Democrats like Jack Murtha – and Barack Obama – accused our soldiers of war crimes.  I remember Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, “Now I believe this war is lost” while our troops were in the field fighting to secure the victory that those same Democrats are now hypocritically and despicably calling “this administration’s greatest achievement.”

I can’t be like the Democrats.  That would be utterly vile of me.

Unlike the Democrats, I actually want our troops to WIN:

July 30, 2007: [Democrat] “House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.”

Barack Obama: “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”  As opposed to Ronald Reagan’s view: “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.”

For the record, I have a dramatically different take on the Japanese surrender (Hirohito was not present; Obama is wrong as usual) to the United States.  I welcome it.  I liked it.  I’m thrilled we won and the Japanese lost.  I think the American victory over genuine totalitarian evil was a great thing.  I actually have the “audacity of hope” to WANT my country to win.

Crazy, I know.  Damned politically incorrect of me.

I support our troops.  I support their mission.  I support their courage and their dedication and their respect for the sanctity of civilian lives.

And unlike their current commander-in-chief, I always have.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Obama Keeps Air-Raiding Villages And Killing Civilians”

  1. Albert Says:

    President Obama was correct in criticizing the Bush-Cheney military strategy in Afghanistan which solely consisted of air-raiding villages and killing civilians. The Associated Press supported Obama’s claims when it said NATO and its allies were killing civilians at a faster pace than insurgents were. Obama has rolled back the airstrikes and surged NATO troops in Afghanistan. This has reduced Afghan civilian casualties considerably. Obama realizes (unlike Bush and Cheney) that strafing innocent Afghans at wedding parties was not an effective way to combat terrorism.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    You know something that nobody else knows, Albert.

    The Afghanis don’t know it. They were too busy rioting in the streets shouting “Death to Obama!” and burning Obama in effigy for his killing of civilians.

    And, oh my God, look at this news from December 2009:

    “The United Nations released figures this week showing that civilian deaths rose 10.8 percent in the first 10 months of 2009 to 2,038, up from 1,838 for the same period of 2008.”

    And oh, oh for your stupid theory:

    “KABUL — Civilian deaths in Afghanistan rose more than 10 percent in the first 10 months of 2009, UN figures showed Tuesday, amid anger over the alleged killing of children in a Western military operation.

    Figures released to AFP by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) put civilian deaths in the Afghan war at 2,038 for the first 10 months of 2009, up from 1,838 for the same period of 2008 — an increase of 10.8 percent.”

    And it is also worth noting that 2008 was Bush’s worst year for civilian deaths. Which is to say Obama broke the Bush record for “air raiding villages and killing civilians.” Which is to say that Obama air raided nearly 11% more villages and killed nearly 11% more civilians than Bush did during his worst year.

    The only reason demagogues like Obama succeed is because there are always people like Albert, who are ignorant enough to believe anything.

  3. Albert Says:

    Sheer nonsense! During President Obama’s presidency, most civilian deaths in Afghanistan were caused by insurgents. During President Bush’s presidency, most civilian deaths in Afghanistan were caused by NATO airstrikes:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081400950.html

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I looked at your article, and don’t see how it even begins to prove what you assert: that Bush air raided villages and killed civilians while Obama has somehow by comparison not air raided villages and killed civilians. For one thing, your WaPo article is from 2007 – and there is absolutely no comparative data regarding the Obama presidency whatsoever.

    Nobody with integrity demonizes someone for doing something, and then does the very thing he demonized his predecessor for doing. But Obama and you don’t worry too much about integrity, do you???

    The man who demonized Bush by saying “so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” began air-raiding villages and killing civilians almost immediately. Here’s a very partial listing that I was able to quickly document of civilian deaths due to airstrikes in Afghanistan under Obama:
    Feb 22, 2010: 33 civilians killed in airstrike, including a 9-year old girl.
    February 15, 2010: 5 civilians killed in airstrike; and February 13, 12 civilians were killed in an airstrike.
    May 20, 2009, 8 civilians killed in airstrike.
    May 8, 2009, 100 civilians killed in airstrike.
    June 5, 2009 dozens of civilians – including women and children – killed in airstrike.
    August 5, 2009, 4 civilians killed in airstrike.
    – August
    September 5, 2009, upwards of 90 civilians killed in airstrike.

    Now I could go on, but I’ve demonstrated and documented my point. The man who demonized George Bush for air raiding villages and killing civilians has done plenty of air raiding villages and killing civilians.

    And, for the record, every single one of those airstrikes killed civilians in AFGHANISTAN. I did not include the civilians he’s killed in drone attacks (which clearly counts as “air raiding”) in PAKISTAN. That really makes Obama look bad, as he has killed massively more civilians than Bush did there.

    Here’s a story from January 3, 2010 detailing the fact that Obama has massacred 708 Pakistani civilians while killing only a tiny number of al-Qaeda.

    I am absolute amazed at people like you. You are a naked ideologue. Obama demonizes George Bush for killing civilians, then becomes president, and kills hundreds and hundreds of civilians himself. But for some reason, you lack the moral ability to care about flagrant hypocrisy and double-standards. It’s like the truth doesn’t matter to you. It’s like you aren’t capable of admitting to even the very worst acts of hypocrisy.

    When Obama demonized and demagogued George Bush over the war, he was absolutely wrong. And his own record massacring civilians since proves it.

  5. Albert Says:

    Plenty of hypocrisy coming from your side as well. So, if President Bush strafes Afghan wedding parties it’s okay, but if President Obama inadvertently kills civilians (even though it results in the deaths of terrorists) he’s a war criminal? So you want to undermine Obama just like Obama undermined Bush. Give me a break! Obama’s new military strategy is bearing fruit and the surge is working. Plus, civilian casualties in Afghanistan have been drastically reduced:

    http://www.canada.com/news/NATO%20directive%20followed%20drop%20Afghan%20civilian%20deaths%20Data/1936350/story.html

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    This amounts to an IQ test for you, Albert: are you so intrinsically, pathologically stupid, and such a hard-core ideologue, that you actually “think” my position is that if Bush strafes wedding parties it’s okay, but if Obama (and here you demonstrate you truly ARE such an ideologue, because you have Bush more or less deliberately strafing wedding parties, whereas you pile on qualifiers of how it was an accident when Obama did it) does it it’s wrong???

    You’re really that stupid???

    This is what it boils down to: Democrats spent 8 unrelenting hateful years demonizing Bush as a warmonger and war criminal. People as hateful as you NEVER gave Bush the benefit of any good motivation gone wrong, or any recognition of the fog of war. You just spewed vile crap, and celebrated every death as a new reason to scream at Bush.

    Well, now the tables are turned, and we start to see the reality that hateful, vicious, evil Democrats didn’t want anyone to consider: that it’s HARD to govern, and HARD to be a president in time of war. And now you demand that we give your Fuhrer the support that you would NEVER have given George Bush.

    Now you say:

    So you want to undermine Obama just like Obama undermined Bush. Give me a break!

    Which amounts to an implicit acknowledgement that you are a truly vile human being, from the party of cockroaches, and you are saying, “Don’t be despicable like we were. You’re so much better than we are. You have to live up to your superior values and superior worldview. But vermin like us have no such limitations.”

    Now, after making that ackowledgement, you proceed to offer evidence for why it is absolutely true.

    You say:

    Give me a break! Obama’s new military strategy is bearing fruit and the surge is working.

    Well, let’s look at what your messiah said when it was BUSH’S surge:

    I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal…. I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he’s wrong.

    Here he is saying those words on video.

    And here’s another quote from Obama demonizing the surge just because it was BUSH’S surge:

    Obama says there’s no reason to give the president’s troop surge more time.

    Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan.”

    So your messiah had no reason demonizing the surge when he was trying to demagogue his way into Bush’s job. But now that Obama is the president, how dare anyone criticize HIS surge. You make me sick.

    Here’s the proof in the pudding that Obama couldn’t have been more wrong when he demagogued Bush and demonized the surge. From the lips of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden:

    I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

    I mean, hey wow: Bush wins in Iraq, and after continually demonizing everything he did to win, the Obama administration takes credit for it. Because Democrats are just vile people, and that’s how they roll.

    Just for the record, I haven’t demonized Obama’s surge strategy the way you demonized Bush’s, you vermin: I merely pointed out what a gigantic and colossal hypocrite Obama is to his very core. And you trot out to show that you are as vile a hypocrite as he is. I’ve been consistent all along: we have troops in the field, and we need to do everything we can to support those troops and win. I’m not like Democrats: I’m not calling innocent Marines war criminals and murderers the way your guy Jack Murtha did. I’m not declaring defeat and announcing surrender while our troops are fighting and dying to secure victory the way your Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did. I’m not saying that all our troops are doing is air raiding villages and killing civilians the way your messiah did.

    That’s what YOUR people do, not mine.

    Now, as for your statement about the civilian deaths being down since McChrystal took over, here’s the strategy he’s using, and how our troops feel about it:

    MARJAH, Afghanistan (AP) — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

    Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

    “I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

    If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

    What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

    It’s nice that Obama is killing fewer civilians now in Afghanistan. But on the down side, Obama’s policies led to very nearly double the deaths of U.S. soldiers than Bush’s did. I guess dead U.S. soldiers and Marines don’t factor in for you, though.

    And your bogus claim that Obama has civilian casualties way down doesn’t include the now well over 700 he’s slaughtered in Pakistan.

    I guess slaughtered Pakistani civilians don’t count in your book, though, do they, you hypocrite???

  7. Albert Says:

    Listen, Pakistan has given its tacit approval for NATO to strike at terrorist sanctuaries in the NWFP. These attacks have resulted in the elimination of scores of terrorists. President Bush utterly failed to deal with those terrorist safe havens in Pakistan like President Obama has. And as any credible observer can see, American casualties in Afghanistan have dropped DRAMATICALLY in the past couple of months because of NATO’s latest ground offensive against Afghan insurgents (ground troops that were denied to NATO by President Bush because he wanted to rely on a military policy of just air-raiding villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan). A reduction of Afghan civilian casualties is critical for the NATO war effort in Afghanistan. It appears to me that you still want to endorse President Bush’s military policy of just air-raiding villages and killing civilians regardless of the hatred such attacks foster in the Muslim world.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m done debating you, Albert. You are a hypocrite to your core, just like your messiah is.

    First of all, I have demonstrated my contention: Barry Hussein demonized George Bush for “air raiding villages and killing civilians,” and then proceeded to do the very thing that he demonized George Bush for doing.

    That’s blatantly hypocrisy such that any fool can readily see. The fact that you cannot see it merely confirms my hypothesis about you.

    Here again is a quick documentation that Obama air raided villages and killed civilians, which he demonized Bush for doing:
    Feb 22, 2010: 33 civilians killed in airstrike, including a 9-year old girl.
    February 15, 2010: 5 civilians killed in airstrike; and February 13, 12 civilians were killed in an airstrike.
    May 20, 2009, 8 civilians killed in airstrike.
    May 8, 2009, 100 civilians killed in airstrike.
    June 5, 2009 dozens of civilians – including women and children – killed in airstrike.
    August 5, 2009, 4 civilians killed in airstrike.
    – August
    September 5, 2009, upwards of 90 civilians killed in airstrike.

    And here’s the story from January 3, 2010 detailing the fact that Obama has massacred 708 Pakistani civilians while killing only a tiny number of al-Qaeda.

    My case is confirmed. Except to fools. And I’m not going to keep bothering with fools.

    You tell me that Obama has magically erased the Muslim anger re: killing civilians. But again, you’re either a liar, a fool, or both. As I already documented:

    The Afghanis don’t know it. They were too busy rioting in the streets shouting “Death to Obama!” and burning Obama in effigy for his killing of civilians.

    Now, as for your asinine final straw man claim that “It appears to you that I still want to endorse President Bush’s military policy of just air-raiding villages and killing civilians regardless of the hatred such attacks foster in the Muslim world,” all I can say is that you conclude with still more ravings of an idiot.

    I don’t “endorse” the killing of civilians, you abject turd. But unlike your messiah, I recognize that it is an inevitable consequence of war. You can’t seem to recognize anything beyond your stupid little points, but my condemnation of Barack Obama is that he demonized Bush for doing something that any fool (present company excluded) should have immediately known that he himself would have on HIM if he were ever to become president. Obama demonized Bush for killing civilians, and then invariably started killing civilians.

    And some fool is criticizing me for pointing out the obvious.

    What we really have is a case of you still blaming Bush for his killing of civilians, but giving Obama a total pass for HIS killing of civilians. And to whatever extent he’s reduced the killing of civilians in Afghanistan, he’s more than made up for in Pakistan. In Pakistan, Obama is “killing five key Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of over 700 innocent civilians.”

    You’re defending Obama’s massive civilian body count in Pakistan, which means you’re both a fool AND a hypocrite.

    Please get this through your skull: had Obama not demonized Bush, I would not have said ANYTHING about civilians deaths. Had Obama not demonized Bush’s surge strategy, I wouldn’t have said ANYTHING about Obama’s surge strategy. But he did. Obama demonized Bush for killing civilians, but Obama is now killing civilians. And he demonized Bush for his surge, when Obama is now surging.

    And you are a total whopping dumb ass for not being able to comprehend that simple fact.

    Now begone, you waste of time.

  9. Albert Says:

    I will also conclude by saying that people of your ilk are just sore that President Obama’s military efforts in Afghanistan are currently succeeding while President Bush’s claims to have “destroyed the Taliban” were just a bunch of hogwash.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    “Currently succeeding”???

    You really are a dumbass. Go ahead and plant your “Mission accomplished” banner, you moron. Everybody but you knows better. I have to mock you: you decry Bush for a “destroyed the Taliban” remark, but then you blow your horn to the same tune (“Obama’s military efforts in Afghanistan are currently succeeding.”).

    Again and again, Albert, you have demonstrated that you passionately believe the ideology that the left has every right to hypocrisy, and to demonize, but how dare the right.

    Again, for the record, since Albert is both too pathetically stupid and too full of deceit to know better, I have NEVER rooted against our troops. That was what top Democrats like Harry Reid (who literally declared surrender while our troops were fighting to win, saying, “this war is lost,” and like Jack Murtha, who called our innocent Marines war criminals and murderers, and like Dick Durbin, who compared our troops to Nazis and Soviet thugs. It was House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn who said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.

    From the Washington Post:

    House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

    Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

    Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

    I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said.

    Now, that SAME WAR to which good news amounted to a problem is seeing Democrats declaring victory for themselves. The war that Bush won while Democrats whined and screamed and declared surrender and tried to stop the surge and hoped for bad news is now met with this from Democrats:

    I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.

    You people make me sick.

    I hope for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan today as much as I did under Bush. Which makes me so much better than you that it is positively unreal.

    I have done 2 things consistently: 1) I have pointed out that Obama was a hypocrite for demonizing Bush. And he owes this nation an apology. Obama has split this nation apart with his constant lies and demagoguery. 2) I have criticized Obama for delaying his surge for nearly 4 months after receiving the urgent request for more troops from our military commanders, and for putting a timetable for a withdrawal in 18 months that will embolden our enemies – whom I assure you will still be there when Obama pulls out for all of your “currently succeeding” crap. 3) I have criticized Obama for refusing to think in terms of victory. I’ll provide the contrast between the wrong and the right way to look at war:

    “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur” — Barack Hussien Obama

    “WE WIN AND THEY LOSE: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?” — Ronald Wilson Reagan

    I’m with our troops, and against Obama. I actually want VICTORY.

    Unlike your Democrat vermin, I have NEVER criticized our troops or their conduct in the field, Albert, you liar. Nor have I EVER criticized their mission, or the righteousness of its cause, like YOUR side did repeatedly for six years.

    As a former infantry soldier myself, I will NEVER be “sore” over any success our soldiers have. I pray for their safety and for their victory every single day. I have been doing so for nearly nine years now.

    Which is why I’m going to go ahead and just block you now. You can say a lot of things about me, but I’m not going to tolerate a liar who says I don’t support my troops.

    As a P.S., here’s a video showing the difference between how our troops felt about George Bush, versus how they feel now about Obama.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: