“Obviously what happened this weekend was absolutely tragic and heartbreaking, but when you look at what hundreds of thousands of our military personnel have, have achieved under enormous strain, you can’t help but be proud generally and I think it’s important for us to make sure we are not in Afghanistan longer than we need to be,” President Obama said to Karen Leigh from KCNC-TV, a local CBS affiliate in Denver.
Tell that to your wife – “I love you generally, dear” – and I’ll bet you’re sleeping on the couch for a while.
The other thing about this weird remark that is fascinating is that Obama has been fighting this war – and committing hundreds of thousands of troops after the surge that HE demanded – and all the while he’s driving along looking for the first exit.
Bush sustained 532 American troops KIA during his eight years in Afghanistan; Obama has given us another 1281 body bags in just over three years. Which is to say that Obama has given us nearly 2/3rds of the casualties in Afghanistan in well under half the time. And that is all you need to know to understand whose war this is.
Obama is LBJ, the guy who massively expanded a bad war. And the only difference is that LBJ had the basic decency to take personal responsibility for Vietnam. Obama has given ONE speech on Afghanistan and – like I said – has been trying to cut and run since he ordered all those troops to commit their lives to a mission he has never yet bothered to commit anything to.
You wait and see: when Obama cuts and runs from Afghanistan, he’s going to frame it as his courageously getting us out of the last of “Bush’s wars.” When Obama massively expanded America’s involvement in Afghanistan and very obviously used Afghanistan as a political device to give Obama a cover from charges that he was a cut and run coward:
As I pointed out before, Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:
Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq. In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.
What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.
Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.
And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.
And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.
Afghanistan was just a way to demagogue Bush in Iraq by describing Afghanistan – where Obama is failing so badly – as “the good war” and Iraq – where Bush won so triumphantly – as “the bad war.” It was beyond cynical; it was flat-out treasonous.
There’s more about how the Democrats – including Democrat voters – did a “cut and run” on their “good war” here.
And now Obama doesn’t have the first clue about what to do with his “good war” that he surged us so massively into. His only strategy is to continue to be the irresponsible “the buck stops anywhere but me” failed leader who will try to say it’s all Bush’s fault.
On February 11, 2010 Vice President Biden tried to claim credit for the success that Bush had won in Iraq:
“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.”
After years of demonizing everything Bush did in Iraq, Obama-Biden had the naked hypocrisy to take credit for its success.
So now just you watch the same slimeball weasels try to make the same Bush guilty for their failure.
There’s another point I’ve made before about the difference between Bush as honorable and courageous and Obama as a cynical leftist political weasel via a blogger who commented on why the media never holds Obama responsible for any bad news that might come out of the American military:
Bush supported the troops. If the troops did something bad, it reflected on Bush and made him look bad. They were all in this together.
Obama despises the troops and keeps them at arm’s length. If the troops do something bad, it justifies Obama’s disdain and proves him to be correct in his policies.
Doesn’t that work out swell for the Left?
Barack Obama is an abject disgrace. And the sooner the American people realize that and vote accordingly, the less our troops will suffer under this despicable commander-in-chief.
I’ll close with a gem: in the aftermath of the troubled soldier who may well have acted at least partially due to a previous serious head injury, the Obama administration showed its “trust” of more than 200 Marines by demanding that they disarm before being able to meet with Defense Secretary Panetta.