Navigation

DISSENT!

Defend Israel

The Patriots Call
The Black Robe Regiment - The Patriots Call

Democrats party of Racism
Racism of the Democrat Party
Herman Cain - The DNC has BRAINWASHED most of the Blacks of this Nation
Racism - the Nemesis of the Democrat Party
Democrats invented racism and democrats HATE all blacks
The Snooper Report articles on Democrat invention of racism

The March on DC
Callin’ All the Clans Together
Sick and tired - marching towards the Constitution of the United States
We. Are. Finished. With.  DC.
We. Are. Finished. With. DC. - Addendum Part 1

Civility: The Leftinistra Own None Of It
Civility: The Leftinistra Own None Of It Part 2(?)
Civility: Leftinistra Own None Part Three
Obama, Civility and The Clansmen of Dumb
Brain Dead Leftinistra: Their Stoic Civility
Libtards Have No Class - Civility Escapes Their Brain Deadness
The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare
War Is Coming: Blood On Our Own Streets - Thanks Democrats
Civil War…
We Are In The Midst of Chaos and Civil War
Live Free Or Die
Live Free Or Die Trying
State’s Sovereignty or Live Free Or Die
Live Free Or Die - The Movement Marches On
The Country Surrounds The City

When They Came
Is The Left Still “Proud To Be a Left-Wing Extremist”?
Be It Known - Attention Unconstitutional Congress
Obama: One Big Ass Mistake America
Do Birthers Rock and Roll or Stop and Drool?
Good vs Evil…It Is Your Choice
I Apologize For My Nation
Obama’s Civilian National Security Forces (CNSF)
Obama’s Brown Shirts - Civilian National Security Forces
What Is It About The American Liberal?
The Plan To Destroy America
Another Soldier Has Been Given the Haditha Treatment!
Callin’ All The Clans Together
Callin’ All The Clans Together Show
A History of the List of 45
Constitutionality: The Movement
Vindication: Iraq’s Saddam and Al Qaeda Links Revealed
Redefining The Center or the Moderate
The HIC (Hoax In Charge) Going To Copenhagen
We Didn’t Start This Goddamn War!

Copy Cat Frauds of the IAVA

Contract With America
Snooper’s Declaration of Independence
Thanks Obama

Contract From America

Timothy McVeigh
Thoughts To Ponder and Reflect Upon
Snooper Report Vindication: Al Qaeda, TWA Flight 800 and OKC Bombing
Clinton alludes to 1995 bombing, says words matter

Missing 13th Amendment
TITLES OF “NOBILITY” AND “HONOR” - The Missing 13th Amendment

The Coup
Military Coup Against Obama

The United States Constitution
Our founding document wasn’t set in stone for a reason

Deepwater Horizon
Did Hugo Chavez Sink the Deepwater Horizon Oil Platform?

MSLSD Lies
The New Right

Arizona Rising

Texas Wars

This is pretty much a bunch of crap, FYI.
Editor's Choice


REFERENCE MY NEW WEB SITE

Snooper Report dot org

CHRISTIAN WEB SITE





SEARCH HERE


Powered by Squarespace

1980

1984

Wake Up GOP

This is pretty much a bunch of CRAP, FYI HINT: “MOSTLY TRUE” is a “MOSTLY FALSE” deal which means “MOSTLY TRUE” is a LIE.

Entries in Can We Have Victory In Afghanistan (38)

Friday
Mar122010

Ammo Bridge

Micheal Yon has very interesting data that I didn't post yesterday...ill all day.  Anyway, here is Michael Yon.

The Bridge

Need Bullets? The shortest distance between South Carolina and Kandahar is about 7,500 miles. (As the rocket flies.)Shah Wali Kot, Afghanistan
11 March 2009

The military axiom that “amateurs talk strategy while professionals talk logistics” has special meaning in Afghanistan. During the Soviet war, though the Bear comprised Afghanistan’s entire northern border, the Afghan resistance was frequently able to block Soviet logistical operations, which were dependent on scant roads, tunnels and corridors. Captured Soviet logistics convoys often supplied the Mujahidin.

Logistics in landlocked Afghanistan are exceptionally tough because the country is a transportation nightmare of impassable mountains, barren deserts, and rugged landscape with only capillary roads and airports.

When we lose a bridge, we can’t just detour twenty miles to the next one, as we might on the plains of Europe.  In Afghanistan, there might not be another route for hundreds of miles. Conversely, Afghan fighters, who have used guerilla warfare tactics for decades—centuries even—lack our tanks, vehicles and massive supply lines, leaving them less dependent on infrastructure.  Most of the guerrillas we face are from the immediate area. Their corn comes from their own stalks; ours comes from other continents. [...]

Read it all.

The Snooper Report.
Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Tuesday
Dec082009

Congress Critters Hell Bent On Losing Another War

Glenn Kessler / Washington Post: Gates: 'We're in this thing to win'

So, while General McChrystal is in the USA to "give testimony", The Gates is in Afghanistan trying to reassure Karzai that says he doesn't have the money for Troops and Cops for at least 15 years.  So much for the Obama pull back theme.  Nothing like placating the Leftinistra eh Obama?

[...] In a surprise visit to Afghanistan, he aims to reassure troops, Karzai.  KABUL -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates arrived in this war-torn country Tuesday morning on an unannounced visit, prepared to offer U.S. troops a message from Washington after President Obama's decision to boost troop levels significantly: "We are in this thing to win." [...]

UHHUH.

[...] "A big piece of it, of my conversations especially with the soldiers, will be just to thank them for their service, for their sacrifice and to tell them we are in this thing to win," Gates, speaking to reporters traveling with him, said before his arrival here.

Gates, the first senior U.S. official to travel to Afghanistan since Obama's announcement, said he will stress to President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan officials that the United States will not abandon them as it did in 1989, when the Soviet Union left in defeat. The United States had backed forces fighting the Soviets, but ended its support after Moscow quit the war, paving the way for Taliban rule. [...]

AHA!  It was President Reagn and the first George Bush that did that!  I see.

Jules: Gates Uses The “W” Word

[...] Since then, messengers have been sent out with all kinds of messages. Withdrawal firm. No withdrawal. Its almost as if the sage, presidential-like strategic deliberations that started last February … in/out, win/lose, more/less, fight/surrender … continue. But I suspect that Gates has overreached with his extreme use of the “W” word and Gibbs or someone will need to walk that back a little or at least explain in more considered terms what is meant by “win.” Because I don’t think anyone thinks that kind of rash, simplistic language properly reflects the position of the Obama administration vis-à-vis “the war” perse. [END]

New York Times: Officials Try to Unite on Afghan Plan

WASHINGTON — On a seven-hour trip from Kabul to a NATO meeting in Brussels last week, the two men in Kabul most responsible for American policy in Afghanistan barely exchanged words, administration officials said, holing up in separate compartments on their military plane.

The quiet flight of the two officials, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and Karl W. Eikenberry, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, reflects a chill between the two men that officials said took hold even before they staked out conflicting positions in the debate over how many added American troops to send to Afghanistan.

When General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry sit down next to each other on Tuesday to testify before the House and Senate about President Obama’s new Afghan policy, they will have to work hard to project the image of lockstep unity so valued by this White House. [...]

And myself A Troop knows exactly what that means.  McChrystal is going to bury the libtard.  We'll see.

Pat Dollard: Gates In Kabul: “We’re In This Thing To Win….Really”

KABUL (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived late Monday in Afghanistan with plans to assure officials and American troops there that the United States is committed to winning the war despite plans to begin pulling forces out in 2011.

“We are in this thing to win,” Gates told reporters while traveling to Kabul, where he plans to meet privately with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and later with troops bearing the brunt of combat.

The secretary’s trip to Afghanistan is the first by a Cabinet member since President Barack Obama’s announcement last week that he will deploy 30,000 more troops with the intention of starting to bring them home in July 2011.

As Gates took his message abroad, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the overall military commander in Afghanistan, will try Tuesday to convince a skeptical Congress that more troops are needed to fight a growing enemy insurgency. More than 920 U.S. troops have died in the 8-year-old war.

McChrystal’s appearance before the House Armed Services Committee starts the first of three days of congressional Afghanistan hearings that are expected to draw hard questions from both anti-war Democrats and conservative Republicans about Obama’s stated intention to begin paring down the U.S. role in July 2011.

Gates and other administration officials have described the 2011 date as just the beginning, with the process likely take at least two or three years to complete. [...]

Pat Dollard: McChrystal Makes Nice With Last Obama Idiot In Line, Signalling His Exit From Obama’s Treason Of Politics And Its Legacy Of Dead Americans

WASHINGTON — The two ranking Americans in Afghanistan, a soldier and a diplomat, publicly put aside their differences and told Congress on Tuesday that they fully supported President Obama’s new strategy to add 30,000 troops there to reverse Taliban gains and prepare Afghans to better control their own country.

The officials, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in the country, and Karl W. Eikenberry, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, began a full day of hearings before the House and Senate cautioning lawmakers of the high costs — in lives as well as dollars — still to come in a war already eight years old, but expressed faith in the new battle plan that Mr. Obama announced last week after a three month review.

“The decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach,” General McChrystal said in his prepared remarks. “The mission is not only important; it is also achievable. We can and will accomplish this mission.”

Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general and former commander in Afghanistan himself, said that that administration for the first time was providing adequate resources and attention to non-military goals — governance and development — that ultimately would gauge the mission’s success.

“Our overarching goal is to encourage good governance, free from corruption, so Afghans see the benefits of supporting the legitimate government, and the insurgency loses support,” Ambassador Eikenberry said in his prepare remarks.

Their testimony came as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates began a visit to Kabul, the first by a member of Mr. Obama’s national security team since the president announced his new strategy. [...]

I heard some of this testimony today and General McChrystal told the congress critters that he made no intention of the 2011 draw down.  OOPS!  The draw down in 18 months was another's tomfoolery, that being The Obama.

[...] Though General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry were said to have become rivals as they staked out conflicting positions on the war’s course, they sought to defuse any awkward tension as they sat side by side before a battery of cameras at the hearing. They called each other “old friends,” even though colleagues say they’ve been anything but in recent days.

“General McChrystal and I are united in a joint effort in which civilian and military personnel work together every day, often literally side-by-side with our Afghan partners and allies,” Ambassador Eikenberry said in his statement.

In fact, neither man got exactly what he wanted from Mr. Obama’s review, at least in terms of troops. General McChrystal favored as many as an additional 40,000 forces, while Ambassador Eikenberry, according to people who read the classified diplomatic cables he sent back to Washington, opposed any significant increase until the Afghan government aggressively demonstrated its seriousness in tackling governance, corruption and development problems.

In Tuesday morning’s hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, both officials aimed to put the expansion to 100,000 American troops by late next year in the context of three decades of civil war in Afghanistan. A hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee was to follow.

“While U.S. forces have been at war in Afghanistan for eight years, the Afghans have been at it for more than 30,” General McChrystal said in his remarks. “They are frustrated with international efforts that have failed to meet their expectations, confronting us with a crisis of confidence among Afghans who view the international effort as insufficient and their government as corrupt or, at the very least, inconsequential.”

That said, Ambassador Eikenberry noted that the government of President Hamid Karzai must aggressively fight corruption and work closely with the United States to build able governance and competent Afghan security forces that eventually can take over the fight against the Taliban. [...]

General McChrystal had originally asked for 60,000 Troops, Eikenberry.  Remember, McChrystal originally reported to Obama back in June but was told to "adjust it some" because Obama didn't know what was what.

Here we go on all of that nonsense...

Democrats Campaign For Defeat In Afghanistan

Boston (AP) - -President Obama’s Afghanistan surge is proving to be good politics - if you’re a Democrat who’s against it.

In Massachusetts, all of the Democrats running in a special primary to fill Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat oppose the surge, as do the two top Democrats fighting for the nomination for Ohio’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010.

“I think we all agree this is wrong,” said Rep. Michael E. Capuano, one of the four Massachusetts Democrats who squared off in a debate last week heading into Tuesday’s primary.

Even in conservative-leaning Kentucky, Jack Conway, the leading Democratic candidate for the 2010 Senate race, said Mr. Obama’s plans fall short.

“I do not feel President Obama has adequately explained how he will get Pakistan involved in the effort to combat al Qaeda,” Mr. Conway said.

Mr. Obama last week announced plans to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, with a hazy timetable for them to withdraw beginning 18 months from now. That is six months after the congressional elections.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration understands the differing views.

“The president would be the first to tell you that people can look at the situation and come to different conclusions on both the Democratic and Republican side,” he said. “I think that was in some ways obviously true for Iraq.”

Even before next year’s elections, the issue will come to a head when Congress takes up its next spending bills.

Top members of Congress say the White House will have to send up a special war-funding bill, though the White House was noncommittal on whether it will do that.

Vexing BHO, Jihadis Fail To Set Date For Withdrawal

There's always a problem with draw downs.  Draw downs are good in my respect but the problem is getting the other side to comply.  One sided draw downs only work for libtards.

Molly K. Hooper / The Hill: President Obama told me to stop ‘demeaning’ him, says Rep. Conyers

President Barack Obama recently called Rep. John Conyers Jr. to express his frustrations with the Judiciary Committee chairman’s criticism.

In an interview with The Hill, Conyers said his opinions of Obama’s policies on healthcare reform and the war in Afghanistan have not sat well with the president.

According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to  find out why  Conyers was “demeaning” him.

Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism the president has taken on the left. Conyers’s critical remarks, many of which have been reported on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, appear to have irritated the president, known for his calm demeanor.

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’” [...]

Right.  Let's talk about it.

CONYERS SUGGESTS GENERALS OUGHT NOT BE CONSULTED ON TROOP DEPLOYMENT DECISIONS

[...] The Left would like to take Military decisions out of the hands of the Military.

But, who should we give such decision-making powers to?

How about the EPA. [END]

Conyers: Obama doesn’t care what’s in or out of ObamaCare

Michael O'Brien / The Hill: Sen. Nelson introduces war bonds bill to finance military in Iraq and Afghanistan

The United States would begin financing its military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan with war bonds under new legislation introduced Tuesday.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) unveiled the "United States War Bonds Act of 2009" early this afternoon, which would authorize the Treasury Department to begin selling bonds to fund the wars.

The bonds, Nelson said, would be purposed with helping to pay for the military efforts, in particular the surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, without having to resort to the "war surtax" that has been discussed by some liberals in the House and Senate. [...]

Obama To Conyers: Why You Be Disrespectin' Me, Man?

[...] For all the bluster, thugs tend to feel inferior and insecure inside. That's why the slightest criticism tends to get under their skin so much. The skin can be black, or white. Obama is a guy with some personal issues. My real fear is that the same inferiority he feels inside likely drives his political thugism, too. This is a guy it can be impossible to reason with. He convinces himself he's right on everything and can't deal very well with being wrong. His ego simply can't withstand the slight.

Scratch inexperienced. We have a very immature potus. And that ain't good. [...]

And that settles all of that.  So, what's Obama's plans?  I can hardly wait for more of the McChrystal grilling of the congress critters that are hell bent on losing another war.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Sunday
Dec062009

The War Is Lost In Iraq But We'll Use Iraqi COIN To Win Afghanistan

Back in 2007 the defeatocrats and their hordes of followers within the DIDs tried to lose the war in Iraq 45 times.  45 times.  Make that 45 times just in case you have never heard of such a thing.  However, Obama says that we must take what we did in Iraq, after the much failed and politically incorrect war in Iraq to Afghanistan.  Barack was all about losing in Iraq.  Him and his hordes of do nothings said we didn't need to be in Iraq even though the terrorists were there in Iraq way before we ever went in.  So, because we lost in Iraq, Obama says we should duplicate what we did in Iraq and take it to Afghanistan.  Now, I have listened to Obama's speech at West Point three times now and I still don't get that.  Someone explain it to me.  Please.

Jim Hoft: Barack Looked at Iraq Surge Plan That He Was Against & Said Failed to Plan Afghan Strategy

OK.  here we go again.

[...] But today his top general said he looked at the successful Iraq Surge to plan his Afghanistan strategy. [...]

Like I said many times...I just don't get it and his hordes of idiots do.  I guess that explains their deadness between their cranial apertures.

Reid may never live this one down...and Obama will never live this one down...

Any explanations coming my way yet?

[...]  So does that mean Obama will apologize to Bush and the troops now? [END]

Ummm, no.

From Pat Dollard: “Cobra’s Anger” Kicks Some Afghani Ass

[...] “We can’t be here for another eight years,” David Cameron told the British Broadcasting Corp. after touring a public market in Nad Ali, well south of Friday’s fighting. “I think following President Obama’s speech and the increase in American and British forces we have a chance, probably our last chance, to get it right, but we do have a chance.” [...]

Doesn't sound all that promising, does it?  This story came from the reports on the first Afghan Troop Surge much before the Troops arrive.  We have a chance?  I guess they are getting ready.  God Bless Them All.  And screw Obama.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Sunday
Dec062009

Afghanistan, The Troops and The Idiot Obama

I have four posts from Memeorandum today in this episode of Afghanistan...

I need you all to read these posts and determine just what in the hell Obama is doing...and why.  Does he know what's going on or not?  Does he know he is sending the Troops over just because he got caught in campaigning and the facrt that he wants to give the Taliban Afghanistan?  Remember what he said one week after 91101?  I do.  So, you tell me what Obama is up to.

I know this is a long post but sometimes the longer the better to get a good feel at what is coming our way.

Scott Shane / New York Times: C.I.A. Authorized to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan

WASHINGTON — Two weeks ago in Pakistan, Central Intelligence Agency sharpshooters killed eight people suspected of being militants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and wounded two others in a compound that was said to be used for terrorist training. [...]

I don't know why this is a big story other than the fact that Obama is an idiot and some idiot thinks this is news.  It's been going on for almost forever.  Rememeber all the libtards that have been whining about it all...since when Iraq was being lost?

New York Times: NATO Pledges 7,000 More Troops for Afghanistan

BRUSSELS — After months of anguished debate in the United States over how many new troops to send to Afghanistan, the numbers game switched to Europe on Friday, with NATO announcing that it planned to commit an additional 7,000 soldiers to the coalition in Afghanistan. [...]

Charles Krauthammer / Washington Post: Obama's hollow speech on Afghanistanor, Uncertain trumpet...

We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills -- for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.

We shall never surrender -- unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on "the need to maintain balance in and among national programs" and then insist that "we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."

The quotes are from President Obama's West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was -- a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive. [...]

With the Obama Disadministration working on Karzai to negotiate with the Taliban, why are we sending Troops over seas to fight the very group that Karzai is going to talk to?  Which sections of Afghaistan will be allocated to go to the Taliban as the Taliban are brought back into the government of the very Nation I and many others liike myself kicked OUT of Afghanistan?  Even in the AP, Karzai said that without the help of America and other leaders, his negotiating won't work.

So with The Taliban's Response to Obama Afghanistan Policy, what's to make Karzai's work, work?

President Obama's speech this week to the nation about his "plan" for the war in Afghanistan doesn't please very many in this country. Apparently, it doesn't impress the enemy either.

It took a day to get the translation done, but the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban) now has a response. It is a warning for America:
Get ready to die.

Here is the Obama "plan" as outlined Tuesday evening:

  1. Rather than 40,000 troops surged to the war zone as his general recommends, Obama will "dribble" in 30,000 over the next twelve months.   Why only 30,000? We weren't told.
  2. As soon as the 30,000 extra troops are finally on the ground in Afghanistan next year, Obama intends to begin withdrawing them. Why? Because he says so.

Obama's plan to increase troop levels in Afghanistan has withering support from dithering Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Anna Eshoo, and certainly not from foaming-at-the-mouth antiwar groups like Code Pink. Many Republicans fret that the "plan" is yet another half-gassed, half-a****-war à la Bush-1 and Bush-2. [...]

This is what happens when those that do not understand Islamofascists and think that using American "theory" is going to work against a Caliphate destined and determined to kill all infidels or at least try and nationalize them all.  Oama is insane.  Let's send Troops over seas to get them killed while Karzai tries to give his country away.  It is all incredible.  There's more...

[...] The non-profit counterterrorism organization "Nine-Eleven Finding Answers" Foundation (NEFA Foundation) has obtained, translated, and transcribed a statement from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which has been issued in response to President Obama's directive on the Afghanistan war.

The unsigned statement is chillingly insightful and threatening. Full text here.

Here are some excerpts:
The essence of the strategy shows that the needs and wants of the American people have been overlooked during the framing of this strategy and it has been formulated under the pressure of (Army) Generals in the Pentagon, the American Neo-conservatives and the wealthiest few in America and for the protection of their interests. Hence it is a strategy of colonialism....

He wants to lessen the sensitivities of the Afghans about the surge of 30,000 troops through the ploy of ostensibly starting troops' withdrawal in 2011. He also intends to decrease the opposition of the American public (to the troops surge) and encourage his international Allies to send more troops. But this stratagem will not pay off.  

1. The reinforcement will result in (their) fatalities....

2. Throughout the history of Afghanistan, the Afghans have not been subjugated through deceits, ploys, materials power, troop reinforcement and military might of the foreigners. Therefore, the reinforcement of the American troops and other tactics will not have impact on the status quo. But the reinforcements will provide better opportunities for the Mujahedeen to launch offensives. On the other hand, it will deepen the crisis of the American economy which is already in shambles.

3. Obama's assertion to increase and train more soldiers and police for the Kabul Administration is pointless and not result-oriented....

4. We neither have bases in Pakistan nor do we need such bases outside Afghanistan. We have control over vast swathes of land in the country and do not face any problem about our activities and residence...

5. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has frequently said that we have no intention of harming any one. Therefore, the presence of foreign invading forces in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the security of the world. Obama sometimes calls this war, a war of necessity; sometimes he calls it a war for the defense of the West and some times, a war being waged for the security of the world.

They raise the issue of our residing in Pakistan in order to distract the attention (of the world) from our capability and strong resistance in Afghanistan...."

6. The Mujahedeen of the Islamic Emirate have worked out a vast strategy and prepared for strong resistance ....The Mujahedeen have high morale and complete readiness and believe that Obama's new strategy will fail like it did previously. It will face fiasco.

We deem it necessary to remind the American rulers if you persist in your aggressive policy, America will end up being disintegrated itself, instead of maintaining the occupation in Afghanistan....

We want to point out that the Muslim people of Afghanistan want to lay down their lives and properties willingly but are never ready to give up their faith and freedom.... you must wait a more severe reaction in the years to come.

It does seem our enemies in Afghanistan understand us much better than we understand them. [...]

Have I said "this is incredible" yet?  So what does Obama think he is doing?  As for me, Obama is clueless.  The Taliban does understand Obama and his panty waste cranial disturbances.

Associated Press: Gates Expects 2-4 Years of Big Afghan Role for U.S.

Somebody lied the other day at West Point and one can tell by the crowd at West Point that everyone KNEW Obama was lying to them all.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Osama bin Laden may be slipping back and forth from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Or the U.S. might not have a clue, more than eight years after the al-Qaida leader masterminded the terrorist attacks on America.

Given a chance Sunday to clear away some of the mystery surrounding the whereabouts of the world's most wanted terrorist, Obama administration officials seemed to add to it with what appeared to be conflicting assessments.

President Barack Obama's national security adviser, James Jones, said bin Laden, believed hiding mainly in a rugged area of western Pakistan, may be periodically slipping back into Afghanistan. But Obama's Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, said the U.S. has lacked good intelligence on bin Laden for a long time -- ''I think it has been years'' -- and did not confirm that he'd slipped into Afghanistan.

The failed hunt for bin Laden has been one of the signature frustrations of the global war on terrorism that former President George W. Bush launched after the Sept. 11 attacks. The main explanation given by both the Bush and Obama administrations for not getting bin Laden is that they simply don't know where he is.

''If we did, we'd go get him,'' Gates said. [...]

But, what did Obama say at West Point?

[...] This review is now complete. And as commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. [...]

[...] We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010, the fastest possible pace, so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They’ll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. [...]

And that, for the most part is what Obama said.  Right?  Then what in the hell is Gates saying?  Something different?

Ed at Hot Air explains that Gates watered the draw down even further in an attempt to make it all sound better...

Gates: July 2011 would only be “beginning” of drawdown

Robert Gates tried again to clarify what Obama meant by his 2011 deadline on the war in Afghanistan, but in the process watered it down even further.  He told Congress yesterday that the drawdown of troops would only begin in July 2011, but that US troops would take as long as three years to leave Afghanistan once ordered out — assuming, of course, that they are ordered to begin leaving in summer of 2011, which Gates said may or may not happen.  And the Pentagon also “clarified” that the additional troops will take longer to get in place than Obama implied: [...]

Ed explains the elongated abstractions.  Odd?  Obviously.

Here's Ed at Hot Air again: Video: Gates says “no deadline” on war in Afghanistan

Well, someone’s confused. Four days ago, Barack Obama said that July 2011 was “locked in” as the withdrawal date for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells CBS that “there is no deadline,” and that the 18-month date is when Americans will start transferring security responsibilities to the Afghans — and then only when they can handle it. Maybe the Commander in Chief needs to get some clarity on what has become a complete muddle: [...]

So, who lied and who lied to whom?


Watch CBS News Videos Online

[...] It appears that President Obama spent the better part of four months vacillating on policy, only to have reached a conclusion that what he needed was … more vacillation. One has to hope that Gates has this right and everyone else wrong, but that seems rather unlikely. It sounds more like Gates is playing to the conservatives, Obama is playing to the Left, and Hillary isn’t sure what which side she’s supposed to be courting. As politics, it’s particularly inept, and as war management, it’s worse.  [END]

So, now, we have this little bit of data to decipher from Pat Dollard: Fresh Offensive Kicks Off In Afghanistan

KABUL — U.S. Marines and Afghan troops, conducting the first offensive since the new American war plan was announced, met little resistance from insurgents Saturday as they worked to disrupt Taliban supply and communications lines in a key valley in southern Afghanistan.

About 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops are taking part in “Operation Cobra’s Anger” in the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province, the scene of heavy fighting last summer.

On Friday, helicopters and MV-22 Osprey aircraft dropped hundreds of troops behind Taliban lines in the northern end of the valley in the first offensive since President Barack Obama announced a troop buildup. A second, larger Marine force pushed northward from the Marines’ main base.

“We’re not taking for granted the low level of contact,” Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier said Saturday. “Just because it’s quiet now doesn’t mean it will be in 24 hours. Part of the operation is to have a disruptive effect on the Taliban resupply activities. The Marines and Afghan forces are continuing the clearing operation, continuing to move through the valley.” [...]

So, it all starts.  Been there and done this many times.  So, what does General McChrystal say?

The Washington Post: Obama pressed for faster surge

[...] In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a PowerPoint slide: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”

“Is that really what you think your mission is?” one of the participants asked.

In the first place, it was impossible — the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a major part of the population. “We don’t need to do that,” Gates said, according to one participant. “That’s an open-ended, forever commitment.”

But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan — the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.

“I wouldn’t say there was quite a ‘whoa’ moment,” a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. “It was just sort of a recognition that, ‘Duh, that’s what in effect the commander understands he’s been told to do.’ Everybody said, ‘He’s right.’”

“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what he created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger, and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.” [...]

and then

[...] On Oct. 9, after awaking to the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama listened to McChrystal’s presentation. The “mission” slide included the same words: “Defeat the Taliban.” But a red box had been added beside it, saying that the mission was being redefined, Jones said. Another participant recalled that the word “degrade” had been proposed to replace “defeat.”

Already briefed on the previous day’s discussion, the president “looked at it and said, ‘To be fair, this is what we told the commander to do. Now, the question is, have we directed him to do more than what is realistic? Should there be a sharpening . . . a refinement?’ ” one participant recalled. [...]

and then

[...] Obama then went around the room asking one question: Do you support the strategy?

"If they didn't support the decision, he was going to issue another decision" until there was unanimity, a senior administration official said. "But it was his assessment that everyone could and should get behind it."

Each of them did. Obama then walked downstairs to the Situation Room to brief Eikenberry and McChrystal by secure videoconference. Later that night, he took a first draft of his nationwide address, planned for two days later, back with him to the White House residence.

On a chilly evening at West Point, Obama addressed a hall full of subdued cadets, some destined for harm's way under the strategy he outlined.

"As president," he said, "I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests." [END]

So, does Obama know what he is doing?  No, he doesn't.

In Jihad Watch via Weasel Zippers, we have this according to the WaPo...

[...] "Defeat" = "kill every last member"? [...]

American or Taliban?

So, again in the "now", we have this one from Pat Dollard: Bin Laden "Seen In Afghanistan In Early 2009"

From the BBC:

A Taliban detainee in Pakistan claims to have information about Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts in January or February of this year.

His claims cannot be verified, but a leading American expert says his account should be investigated.

The detainee claims to have met Osama Bin Laden numerous times before 9/11.

He claims that in January or February he met a trusted contact who had seen Bin Laden about 15 to 20 days earlier in Afghanistan.

“In 2009, in January or February I met this friend of mine. He said he had come from meeting Sheikh Osama, and he could arrange for me to meet him,” he said.

“He helps al-Qaeda people coming from other countries to get to the sheikh, so he can advise them on whatever they are planning for Europe or other places.

“The sheikh doesn’t stay in any one place. That guy came from Ghazni, so I think that’s where the sheikh was.” [...]

And with all of the above, we now end this all with two retarded posts from two very retarded outfits.  One of them is Crooks and Liars and the other is Code Pink.

From the Crooked and the Liars via Donald Douglas: Crooks and Liars' Disgusting Moral Equivalence

Is there snything worse than that sad sack of a story?  And these thugs supported Obama and I hope they were thinking that they could arrange the killing of our Troops the hard way...or the easy way?  Making a very sad comparison of America with the Russian travesty of Afghanistan is something to behold.  Without the Troops we are holding our own currently and kicked the hell out of the Taliban many moons ago.  Russia ran away.  Period.  The Crooked and Liars...Code Slut wannabes.

The next one is Code Slut, I mean Code Pink from the Purple Avenger at Ace: CodePink is not happy

 Code Whores...anti-Americanists all.  And no, I do not believe in the communist political correctness that so many are guilty of.

Another Memeorandum piece here...

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Thursday
Dec032009

Afghanistan and American Corruption

Eliot A. Cohen / Wall Street Journal: A Wartime President

When it comes to President Barack Obama's long-awaited decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, there are three main points to consider: the decision itself, the manner in which he made it, and the way in which he sold it.

He could not, in the end, have decided on a very different course of action. Having replaced the previous commander in Afghanistan with one of the outstanding soldiers of this generation, how could he deny Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for some 40,000 troops? To do so would tell the world that Mr. Obama had no confidence in his new commander, a tried veteran of our post 9/11 wars.

However, the White House's decision to send only 30,000 troops, while calling upon our allies for thousands more—perhaps as many as 10,000—makes little sense. The Europeans have repeatedly revealed their aversion to combat. Only accounting tricks will let the administration claim that they have met these targets, and then only by bringing in inferior forces mostly constrained from real fighting by anxious governments. Should the scheme fail altogether, add one more to a list of occasions upon which America's allies have stiffed this president with impunity.

Moreover, the president's protracted deliberations about the war undermined his chosen course of action. On March 27, he proclaimed "a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." But when Gen. McChrystal presented the manpower bill for the strategy, it seemed to all the world that the president and his advisers got a bad case of nerves. [...]

Good job, Czarboe.  He is, in fact, an ASSHAT!  Let's just placate all there is to placate and piss everybody off!  Good job.  Moron.  And, about that Afghanistan corruption thing.

What does ACORN have to do with voter fraud?  What does ACORN have to do with bribing college students for votes?  How many ACORNers are either on trial or going to jail for voter fraud in this Nation and for howe long has this been going on?

Andrew Malcolm / Top of the Ticket: Did you hear the one about Washington lecturing Afghans on corruption?

President Obama, who with his latest troop moves has taken ownership of the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan, has based at least part of his ongoing support on the government there erasing corruption as a condition for such expensive American aid.

Good luck with that.

Obama -- remember, he's out of the Chicago Democratic political machine -- cited corruption in his March troop-surge speech. We then had the presidential election fraud over there. Obama cited the Afghan corruption problem again last night in his address to Army cadets at West Point. (See link below).

Those words will no doubt give a real heart attack to Afghanistan's thriving opium business.

Now comes Zbigniew Brzezinski, an outspoken fellow Democrat and former White House national security adviser, to remind Obama  -- and us -- that we have some mustard on our chin too.

Brzezinski tells Sam Stein over on HuffPo:

[...] Who are we to seriously be preaching [such] a crusade? We have a financial sector that is voraciously greedy and exploitative, to put it mildly.

We have a Congress which is not immune to special interests. And we have an electoral system that is based largely on private donations which precipitate expectations of rewards.

The notion of us going to the Afghans and preaching purity is comical... I think we should just quit that stuff. [...]

Americans, of course, hate hypocrisy -- by everyone else. It is, for instance, just terrible corruption in Afghanistan when someone must slip extra currency under the counter for government services or to drive safely on an isolated public country road.

However, business people and lawyers handing over $30,400 to Democratic President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco back on Oct. 16 seems just hunky-dory because it's allegedly to have "dinner" with them and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with assuring returned phone calls and access to party officials and elected members later. [...]

It is pretty nice for democrats to be talking about our own corruption in this Nation.  The bribes going on within our defective Congress is atrocious and the bribery is rampant, especially among those that claim corruption elsewhere in the world.  And, we cannot let the republicans get away with it either.  Why?  Because they do the same thing...bribes for votes.  Since when is this in the United States Constitution?

American Congress Critters.  Be gone with all of you!

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Wednesday
Dec022009

Obama's Silly Little Rant

Peter Wehner / Commentary: A Fighting Chance

The decision President Obama made was better than the speech he gave. What will matter, long after his address is forgotten, is that Barack Obama gave Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, two of our greatest military minds, the troops (30,000, plus additional allied troops) and strategy (counterinsurgency) they need to prevail in Afghanistan.

To the president’s credit, this is the second wave of troops he has sent to Afghanistan (in February, he approved sending 17,000). Mr. Obama, in siding with McChrystal and Petraeus, wisely ignored the counsel of his vice president, Joe Biden, whose 35-year track record on national-security matters is an almost unbroken string of unwise decisions. And the president made a decision that puts him at odds with his liberal/left-wing base, which seems as eager to lose in Afghanistan as it was eager to lose in Iraq. [...]

Whatever.  Giving General McChrystal HALF of what was required, I suppose, is a fighting chance.  Giving General McChrystal exactly what is needed would have placed Obama in a tight squeeze with his idiot base.  So, where's the Fighting Chance?

Obama pissed off the Right and the Left last night.  Obama is in fact an effete futz.  Period.

JAG at JWF:  Gen McChrystal Identifies The Enemy

Riding Out the Obama Surge

Senator John McCain is among many to have expressed the obvious with regard to Obama’s pending Afghanistan surge: A rapid deployment of 30 thousand troops with a concrete withdraw date shortly thereafter sends a mixed message to the world.

To the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces the Obama plan sends a singular message: Now is a good time for a vacation. What fool would engage the surge troops when he has the option of riding out the surge? Now may be the perfect time for that winter vacation in sunny Dubai. Terrorists may be many things, but they are not stupid.

Based on their stated goals and years spent planning the attack on 9/11 it’s apparent that the Islamist terrorists do not share America’s “fast food” mindset in their quest to overthrow the West. [...]

A military mother's take on the president's speech

[...] "Somewhere out there a man died for me today, that I might live free. And I must ask and answer, 'Am I worth dying for?'"

I remember sitting in my seat, riveted by reading the words, and the impact they made on my heart, lasts even still today. And I wonder about all those in the field of battle today and for our children, whose hearts are as cold as stone over the course that lies ahead. I wonder, has our President ever thought of the price of duty that he asks of us today, with no end game or victory in sight, and whether anyone serving wants to give a life so cheaply? For if we are not in this war to win, and see to it that our enemies are clear about the cost of attacking the freedom of our nation, then we would be much better off not having begun the battle. And yet as I write those words I think of all who purchased my freedom and how I desire that my children and grandchildren live in freedom.

You see, Mr. President, that is why we serve. We only ask that you do not see our children and our family members as good photo op! [END]

Video Wrap of Opinion of Obama’s Afghan Speech

A Disservice to the Truth

[...] "In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that ‘Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.'  Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response.

"I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006.  If any such requests occurred, ‘repeated' or not, the White House should promptly make them public.  The President's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.

"In the interest of better understanding the President's announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the President's assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied. [...]

That was Donald Rumsfeld.  In other words...bite me Czarboe.

Pusillanimous Lack of Leadership by President Obama at West Point

Last night at West Point, President Obama had a golden opportunity to demonstrate that the world’s only superpower is lead by a tough, determined, world leader, able to make difficult decisions. Instead, President Obama chose to take a hedged, triangulated position between those in America that support the war in Afghanistan and those that oppose it. There was more nuance in the President’s address than there was determination and resolve, which is unfortunate for America and for international security around the globe.

There really are no good options for America and the situation in Afghanistan. Looking backwards into the rearview mirror does us no good; we are where we are and fair or not, the President is forced to look ahead and play the hand he has been dealt. As evidenced by the delay and lengthy deliberation regarding additional troop commitments, President Obama is learning that it is more difficult to actually lead a nation than it is to merely campaign to lead a nation. [...]

Fred Kaplan / Slate: But where does it end?

In the real world, the fight ends when one side has won the war.  In the libtard world, there is no winning because someone else might get their feelings hurt.

[...] This complaint misreads the policy. The key word in Obama's speech was that in July 2011, the United States will "begin" to transfer responsibility for security to the Afghan forces. The pace of this transfer—how quickly we will continue to withdraw and at what point we'll get out altogether—will be determined by "conditions on the ground." (Obama may not have underscored this phrase, but in a background press briefing earlier in the day, "senior officials" emphasized it strongly; one predicted that it would be the most misunderstood and misreported part of the speech.) [END]

If that is the case, than the asshole should have said that in the speech at West Point.  Period.  Why leacve everything up in the air?  Did he not think that the libtards were watching the speech.  I know Freddie was.

[...] Clearly, the president was in a tight spot when writing this speech. He had to assure the American people that the war is not an "open-ended" commitment; yet at the same time, he had to assure the Afghans and Pakistanis that he'll be with them for as long as necessary. He handled the tension as agilely as anyone might have; but the resulting suspicions, on both sides, suggest that there may be no real way to resolve the contradiction. The politics of this war will be a balancing act from start to finish. [...]

Bullshit.  Leave the politics OUT of the war and the war will be won.  End of discussion.  I hate politicians.  Really.  I do.

Michael Crowley / The New Republic: The Day After: A Hollow Withdrawal Pledge Comes Into Focus

[...] And then there was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who in her testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning, was asked by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham whether the July 2011 had "locked us in" to a withdrawal. "I do not believe we have locked ourselves in to leaving," Clinton responded, before repeating the core administration talking point: "By July 2011 there can be the beginning of a responsible transition that will of course be based on conditions." But "the beginning of a responsible transition" can mean almost anything. In theory it can be nothing more than a changing-of-the-guard ceremony at the airport.

Or it can mean something like what Defense Secretary Robert Gates described this morning at that Senate hearing. Asked by John McCain whether July 2011 amounts to an "an arbitrary date" to begin a transition. Gates replied that the national security team concluded "that we would be in a position, particularly in uncontested areas, where we would be able to begin that transition." Note the emphasis: particularly in uncontested areas. Yes, one would certainly hope that America can withdraw from areas the Taliban aren't even contesting within eighteen months. But there won't be many American troops in those places to begin with. People hoping that this war will come to a swift end beginning in the summer of 2011 would do well to understand that now, or risk severe disappointment down the road. [...]

Shut the fuck up Michael.  Are we going to win the war or are we to listen to libtards whine and bitch?

Pat Dollard: Gates: Obama Was Lying As Usual When He Said There Was A Withdrawal Date

Pat Dollard: White House: “We Promise We’ll Leave Afghanistan No Matter What In July 2011"

Pamela Geller: After the coup ............ Rumsfeld speaketh!

Dan Riehl: Did Obama Lie To McCain, Or CBS?

The Afghani Wasteland: Psychopaths Will Rule The Land That Perpetually Sucks

“The United States and Russia do not intend to, and cannot, create the future government of Afghanistan. It is up to the Afghans themselves to determine their future.” – Joint US/Russia release on Afghanistan – November 13th 2001

Doctor Zero: The rhetoric of failure

Obama’s Afghanistan speech last night would have been adequate for a department store manager, informing the staff that extra help would be hired for the big Going Out of Business sale next year. It wasn’t very inspiring as a war speech. Inspiration is very important in warfare. As a modern liberal with an academic background, Obama sees military operations as unpleasant administrative chores, to be resolved rather than won… but Afghanistan is more than a distraction from the fun industry-nationalizing, trillion-dollar aspects of the President’s job, and resolution is never as inspiring as victory.

All military engagements boil down to questions of morale. Superior forces and technology are useful when they help to break the enemy’s morale. Wars are not won by killing every single member of the opposing army… especially when that “army” consists of raiding parties scattered through the civilian population, or terrorist sharks lurking in the calm waters of the American homeland. Even killing the enemy’s leadership does not bring automatic victory, because a motivated enemy who isn’t ready to surrender can always find new leadership. [...]

[...] I doubt the cadets suffering through Obama’s speech at West Point will have their spirits broken by the experience, but their parents – and the enemies of America – heard no talk of victory, and in wartime the only alternative to victory is defeat. Both at home and abroad, the argument that people should do their best, even though they can’t possibly win, will never be compelling or inspirational. A nation that still has fire coursing through its veins is hungry for inspiration, and will have to starve a little longer. [END]

I brought all of the above to your attention to tell you all, in the end of this article, that I hate Barack Hussein Obama.  There is nothing that this "man"(?) does that is constitutional.  Nothing.  He is sending men to Afghanistan because we have to because they atacked us.  Well?  Using the libtard approach here, all those people are dead now.  They died in NYC, the Pentagon and PA.

Anyway, sending half the Troops required by General McChrystal isn't good enough.  I fought there.  I got blown up there.  I came home in 2004, crippled.  I know what the enemy there is like and they are the same enemies we have everywhere else.  They suck so are we going to win or what?  Why didn't Obama use the word "victory" in his pathetic little whining ass rant at West Point?

Obama.  ASSHAT!

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Tuesday
Dec012009

Time Lines, Benchmarks and Obama's Stupidity

Remember the Iraqi "benchmarks" that were designed to "fail" but the Iraqi government made them work?  I wonder what kind of Afghanistan Benchmarks are going to be strutted upon this time.

And time lines?  Let's add some "timelines" so the terrorists can just "wait it all out", America withdraws and then they can just step in with a multitude of Jihadi scum.  That's a GREAT idea our Rezident Jihadi has in store, right?

Obama's stupidity?  well, take the teleprompter away and you can hear the utter stupidity rolling from his hinder parts because that's what Obama sounds like with no teleprompter.

CNN: Obama wants to end Afghan war in 3 years, officials say

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan but has a goal of concluding the war and withdrawing most U.S. service members within three years, senior administration officials told CNN Tuesday.

The president is ordering military officials to get the reinforcements to Afghanistan within six months, White House officials said.

Obama will travel to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, later Tuesday to officially announce his plans. It would be his second escalation of U.S. forces in the war-torn Islamic country since he came to power in January.

The president also is seeking further troop commitments from NATO allies as part of a counterinsurgency strategy aimed at wiping out al Qaeda elements and stabilizing the country while training Afghan forces.

The expected new troop deployment would increase the total U.S. commitment to roughly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, bolstered by about 45,000 NATO forces. [...]

Pat Dollard: Murtha Says Afghanistan Is Lost - With Video

Murtha is now the new Harry "Dingy" Reid?  From the Politico: Democrats 'nervous' about Afghanistan plan

Democratic Rep. John Murtha — just back from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan — said Monday that he never got a clear definition of what constitutes an “achievable victory” for the United States and fears that American commanders are assuming more time for the war effort than voters at home will allow.

“I am still very nervous about this whole thing,” Murtha told POLITICO. “If you had 10 years, it might work; if you had five, you could make a difference. But you don’t have that long.”

A top Democrat on military matters, the Pennsylvania lawmaker captures the skepticism facing the White House as President Barack Obama prepares to commit up to 35,000 more troops to the war effort. Obama has chosen a military forum, West Point, for his nationally televised speech Tuesday night, but Congress is the real test and a better reflection of the unease among everyday Americans.

Murtha, who chairs the defense appropriations panel in the House, is among the senior lawmakers slated to meet with the president at the White House on Tuesday. A Marine veteran of the Vietnam War and close ally of House SpeakerNancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Pennsylvanian has worked closely with retired Marine Gen. James Jones, Obama’s national security adviser, who also served in Vietnam.  [...]

WTFO?  Where's the change, Buckwheat?

#@!^^%*&#&@**&^#$@ and Bits!  What a waste of tax payers' money that clown is.

The Lid: Obama To Announce US Troops Will Start Leaving Afghanistan by July 2011

[...] Afghan Chieftains will be reluctant to side with US troops if they don't trust that we will be there to "finish the job."
 
Some the Muslim tradition, includes a sense of history and being able to lie in wait for your revenge. That's why you Islamists refer to Western Governments as Crusaders, or talk about Spain being Muslim territory.  If the terrorists are able to wait over a thousand years and still talk about taking back Spain, they will be able to "wait out" a weak American President for 18 months. Our war against Islamic terrorism is in big trouble, which means our troops and our families have been put in danger by Barack Obama's cut and run announcement. [END]

Selah.

Even the timing for this Afghanistan debacle of Obama is in question...

Bob / Capitol Ideas with John L. Micek: The Worst Kind Of Scheduling Conflict

[...] That's because ABC-TV was scheduled to present its annual screening of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" at 8 p.m. tomorrow night. And we don't know about you, but that show is pretty sacrosanct around our house and not to be trifled with lightly. [...]

I have been watching the Charlie Brown deal on DVD so this doesn't bother me but it will bother millions.  Maybe that's why he chose this night because some will watch the Charlie Brown deal and catch the news tomorrow on Afghanistan.

Chicago Ray: As The World Waits On Obama & TOTUS West Polnt Appearance, Cheney Weighs In & Pundits Speculate....(video).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


 

 

 

Get ready for this sham tonight.  I am.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

 

Tuesday
Dec012009

The West Point Photo Op Tonight, Part 2

Obama Speech Preview: Retreat Dates Are Already Set

Yes, the Left is so in love with the idea of a second Vietnam War that the President cannot be dissuaded from announcing dates for the end-game in Afghanistan in his speech tonight.

And don't even bother trying to ask Robert "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs about whether it might not be such a good idea for the President to alert our enemies as to the moment he's decided it will be politically feasible to retreat. He doesn't get it: [...]

Just call him Gibbles and Bits and be done with the ass.

Byron York / Washington Examiner: Obama keeps his Afghan promise, but Dems crumble

At West Point tonight, when Barack Obama formally announces he is sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan, he’ll be doing so against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party.  Sending more troops will fulfill a key Obama campaign pledge, but it will also expose a deep rift in the party — and highlight its habit of dissembling on the war.

A Gallup poll last week asked Americans about four possible options in Afghanistan.  Would they prefer to see the number of U.S. troops increased by 40,000, as top military commanders proposed?

Would they prefer to see the number increased, but by some smaller amount?  Would they prefer the number remain unchanged?  Or would they like to see the United States begin to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan?

Fifty-seven percent of Democrats want to reduce the number of troops, and another 10 percent want to see troop levels remain the same.  That’s 67 percent — two-thirds — of Democrats who want the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to go down, or at least go no higher.  Which means two-thirds of Democrats likely oppose the president’s decision to send more troops.

And yet, in the 2008 presidential season, from the Democratic primaries to the general election, Democrats felt required to promise to step up the war in Afghanistan.  Was it because the Democratic base that now opposes escalation supported it back then?  No. A Gallup poll in August 2007 — in the midst of the Democratic primary race — found that just 41 percent of Democrats supported sending more U.S. troops to fight in Afghanistan. [...]

Actually, Mr York, the democrats lied their eyes out just to get elected.  That's the problem and they have painted themselves into a hole in which there is no way out...they can't blame Bush for everything their entire life, can they?  Well, yes, they can but we all know better now, right?  There's more at Memeorandum but I have some thoughts about this flake called The Amateur...

Obama is, like I have said many times before now, is sending half of what his General's Boots On The Ground has so stated he needs and Obama, actually listening to the boots on the ground like he said Bush didn't do, is NOT doing what the boots on the ground is asking.  Obama will get more men and women killed in battle and terrorist strikes.

Obama has asked the Taliban to take 5 areas of Afghanistan so this is why he is only sending half of the required Troops.  BRING THEM HOME NOW YOU EFFETE FUTZ BASTARD.  But, he won;t because they are all in his way and the more Troops KIA the fewer he has to deal with.

[...] It's his inexperience again that's the root of the problem. Everyone knows that we're not going to be in Afghanistan forever; that our commitment cannot be open-ended. But there's no reason he has to tell our enemies ever freakin' detail of the plan. The only reason he's announcing withdrawal dates now is because his political advisors are telling him he has to throw a bone to Michael Moore and the Far Left.

Obama does not have the courage or the will to put winning the war above Rahm Emanuel's political ambitions. [END]

AMEN Gabriel.  AMEN!

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Tuesday
Dec012009

The West Point Photo Op Tonight!

The Politico: Cheney slams Obama for projecting ‘weakness’

MCLEAN, Va. — On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?” [...]

Jim Hoft: Hero Dick Cheney: Obama Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

Obama's Afganistan speech before the 'Long Gray Line'

As the country gears up for President Obama's long-awaited decision on Afghanistan, Helene Cooper's New York Times story-headline of November 25th trumpeted, "Obama Will Use West Point as Backdrop to Present Afghan Strategy."

The operative word here is "use." Yes, Obama will use--as in exploit and manipulate--the United States Military Academy and its future 2nd Lieutenants in order to promote the illusion that he is a president who can identify with the soldiers of whom he is Commander-In-Chief, and that he understands their mission.

No matter that he hasn't had much time to speak to their General or that he probably won't find himself able to approve an increase in their budget. One wonders how Obama will even talk about the mission when his administration has whitewashed war talk from its vocabulary.

Obama must be counting on these facts receding into the background as his backdrop provides the necessary visual to persuade the American public that Obama knows how to be a wartime, or is that an Overseas Contingency Operation, president.

Does he? [...]

Does he?  That sounds like a stupid question but, is it?  He had better give at least a half-assed salute when he is at West Point and the officers there will take note.  They.  Will.  Take.  Note.  I will be.

Tuesday Open Thread: West Point Edition

Most excellent picture...

Today, President Obama travels to West Point, the United States Military Academy, to announce his absolute, final, this is really it, no mistake about it, really serious decision on Afghanistan.

Talk to me, Goose!

Obama.  Asshat.

Obama To Add Troops To Afghanistan

Finally, a decision. Troops have been dying in need of more personnel, and more supplies, and somewhere between golf games, parties at the White House, and gallivanting around Europe apologizing for America's exceptionalism, Obama finally decided to add personnel. My question, however, is whether he is adding infantry divisions, support, or a mix?

Oh, wait, Liberals might not understand that military stuff. [...]

Right.  Talk to Medea Benjamin the Code Slut whore beotch...she doesn't get it either.  I saw the bitch on Fox News today and she came right out and said that she knew what Obama's "plans" for Afghanistan were but she voted for the Peace President.  Code Slut.  Morons all.  Remember: We Live In Upside Down Land.

For a list of articles to read on Afghanistan, I have over 600 articles to look through.  Have fun.

There is a sense of stupidity from a dude named Bob Herbert at the New York Slimes at Memeorandum...where as Mr Herbert is in fact a libtard, David Brooks offers another take, almost an Obamatard, not quite naturally, but has some very interesting things to say.  More from him at Memeorandum...

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Monday
Nov302009

The Troops, The Troops and Obama Could Care Less

Fred Kaplan / Slate: My mixed feelings about the war in Afghanistan

Columnists are supposed to have firm views and express them with steadfast certainty. Since I write a column called "War Stories," the least a reader might expect from me is a clear opinion on whether the United States should escalate or pull out of the war in Afghanistan.

Recently, a friend told me that he couldn't quite figure out where I stood on the issue. I replied that I couldn't quite figure it out, either.

My columns, I confess, have hedged, hemmed, and hawed around the question. When I've proposed or endorsed a specific strategy, I've carefully noted that it's an approach the president should take if he decides to deepen U.S. involvement in the war. Sometimes, I've ended the piece with a caveat or a pointed question that suggests deeper involvement might not be such a good idea. Yet I've stopped short of taking a stance on whether he should or shouldn't send more troops or whether doing so is or isn't a good idea. [...]

Sheryl Gay Stolberg / New York Times: Obama Issues Order for More Troops in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — The White House said Monday that President Obama had issued orders to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan, relaying his decision to military leaders late Sunday afternoon during a meeting in the Oval Office.

Mr. Obama spent Monday telephoning his foreign counterparts — including the leaders of Britain, France and Russia — informing them of details that he will announce in a nationally televised address on Tuesday night from the United States Military Academy at West Point.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, declined to say how many additional American troops Mr. Obama had approved, but senior administration officials have said that about 30,000 would be sent in phased deployments over the next 12 to 18 months, bringing the total American presence in Afghanistan to around 100,000. [...]

Pat Dollard via Fox News: Anti-War Left Launches Counteroffensive Against Obama

We saw something like this from Code Slut yesterday.

The anti-war left is turning on the president it helped put into office, launching a counteroffensive against President Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Activist groups are joining liberal members of Congress in condemning the president’s expected announcement on Tuesday that he will order roughly 30,000 more troops to the war zone as part of an overhauled strategy to finish what President Bush started eight years ago. Some are urging him not to go through with it — though the strategy apparently is set in stone, with Obama having issued his final orders to his generals Sunday evening.

“I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do,” documentary filmmaker Michael Moore said in an open letter to Obama posted on his Web site. Moore warned that Obama would tarnish his legacy, turn away his supporters and effectively crown himself the new “war president” by escalating the war in Afghanistan. [...]

And, to wonder about the far, far left in this Nation going berzerk about the war, we now have this?

Pat Dollard: Other Muslims Starting To Find Obama Annoying

So, once again, democrats, DIDs and terrorists are claiming what?  Obama sucks too?

According to the WSJ:  "‘He talks too much,” a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America’s 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not “unclenched their fist,” nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest. [...]"

So, we have pissed off terrorists and pissed off terrorist enablers now known as anti-Americanists saying the same thing.  Curious how all of that works out, right?

lawhawk: Obama Already Backing Away From Afghan Troop Level Commitments

[...] Why did the troop level decline over the extended weekend? Facts on the ground didn't change, but this once again signals a dithering from the Administration on a key issue.

Moreover, there may be an inordinate focus on exit strategies from Afghanistan, rather than fulfilling the mission and denying the Taliban and al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan and along the Afghan-Pakistani border. [END]

Michael Moore: Turn Afghanistan Over to Taliban

I have reported on Michael Moore's pathetic hand driveling to Obama but the opening paragraph is quite interesting:

Below are the first few paragraphs, but Moore’s closing plea — a  purely symbolic hand-wringing of concern for the Afghan people — is odd considering he wants President Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan, which can only mean turning 25 million innocent people over to brutal Islamics. Oh, well, being a Leftist means never having to make sense ...

Tha's right.  Libtards never make any sense at all to anyone including themselves.

Pat Dollard: Obama Finally Informs McChrystal Of Plan

Via the Politico: POTUS tells McChrystal of plan

President Barack Obama issued new orders for the war in Afghanistan from the Oval Office Sunday night, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday.

Obama finalized the orders during a meeting with advisers including Adm. Mike Mullen, Gens. James Cartwright and David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Immediately afterward, Obama spoke with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. civilian leader there, via secure video conference in the Situation Room.

“The president communicated his final decision on the strategy in the Oval Office and issued orders on the strategy’s implementation,” Gibbs said, adding that those orders are now being applied. “The commander-in-chief issued the orders.”

The president also spoke Sunday afternoon with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to Gibbs. Clinton plans to travel to Europe later this week to meet with NATO leaders during a previously scheduled conference. [...]

So, Obama is now "sending" half of what was needed as stated by "his boots on the ground General".  General McChrystal had asked for 60,000 additional Troops to win the war and Obama is sending 30,000.  That's HALF the additional Troops needed.  So, why?

A War Tax? Are You Fucking Kidding Me? from the Washington Times: Democrats push new war tax.

After years of putting the cost of war on the nation’s credit card, liberal members of Congress say the time has come to impose a new war tax and drive home to average Americans how expensive it is to keep fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The call for a tax on high-income earners, coming from top Democrats in the House and Senate, signals a deep level of concern in President Obama’s own party about his plans to escalate the battle in Afghanistan.

“The only people who’ve paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families,” three top House Democrats, led by Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey of Wisconsin, said in announcing their proposal last month. “We believe that if this war is to be fought, it’s only fair that everyone share the burden.” [...]

The problem with taxing the American people is that it will stifle the outcome.  Now, the United States Constitution calls for supporting the war effort no matter where that war is and the other spending that we do isn't constitution by at least 85% to 95% of the monies spent on "entitlements" that we are not entitled to by the united States Constutution.  So, why tax a war effort?  What if we were to take advantage of the BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars spent on unconstitutional federal spending, place that or those opportunites back to the States and allow Congress to constitutionally finance a war?  What's wrong with that?  The anti-Americanists and the Marxist-sociopaths is what's wrong with that.  They surely do not know what the Constitution says because they are totally against any such thing.

The other issue is the old news issue that we talked about earlier...

Pat Dollard: Dem:  Bush Intentionally Let Osama Escape To Justify Iraq War

Rep. Hinchey a democrat is a collective asshat just like his Obamatard lord and saviour.  We spoke of this issue and that article is here:  Here We Go Again: BUSH DID IT!  So, now, Afghanistan is a mirror image of Iraq so Obama won;t send the required Troops to wiin the damn war.  Very nice asshats.

Duane Lester: Kerry Blames Bush for Not Getting bin Laden, Sets Up Supportive Position on Afghan Troop Increase

[...] So, a bunch of Democrats looked at the past and came to the conclusion that the Republicans in charge didn’t fight the war correctly. That’s a surprise. This from the same man who concluded the Surge in Iraq was a failure while trying to justify his party’s stance against the war in Iraq. It wasn’t a stance against the war so much as it was a stance against anything Bush.

Which is what this report is.

What’s even more interesting is now Kerry is producing reports to justify an increase in troops in Afghanistan: [...]

Kerry is kidding who?  The moronic 30,000 additoinal troops to appease the far far left anti-Americanists and half way meet the requirements in Afghanistan.  Figures, doesn't it?  So, winning in Iraq is the same as losing in Afghanistan?  Libtards.  Who needs them?

Remember when Obama made the claim that he was going to bomb the hell out of Pakistan because Afghanistan was The War to fight?

Pat Dollard: US Offers New Role To Pakistan via WaPo: U.S. offers new role for Pakistan

President Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals "cannot continue."

The offer, including an effort to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, was contained in a two-page letter delivered to President Asif Ali Zardari this month by Obama national security adviser James L. Jones. It was accompanied by assurances from Jones that the United States will increase its military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan and that it plans no early withdrawal.

Obama's speech Tuesday night at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., will address primarily the Afghanistan aspects of the strategy. But despite the public and political attention focused on the number of new troops, Pakistan has been the hot core of the months-long strategy review. The long-term consequences of failure there, the review concluded, far outweigh those in Afghanistan. [...]

WOW!  More "stuff" to fall into the hands of Obama's Jihadi counterballers so the USA can lose in Afghanistan?  Yep.  Obama is in fact a Jihadi scum bag.

I fought in Afghanistan and I know what's up there and Obama and his gaggle of turtle turd lickers do not.  Obama could care less about our Troops.  Bring.  Them.  Home.  Now.  They won and Obama is going to turn the country back to the Taliban because they have been severely hammered.  Just remember, the honeymoon is on fact over for Obama.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Monday
Nov302009

Nobama To Speak On Afghanistan Today ... Civil War In America Is Coming

New York Times: Obama's Speech on Afghanistan to Envision Exit

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to lay out a timeframe for ultimately winding down the American involvement in the war in Afghanistan when he announces his decision this week to send more forces, senior administration officials said Sunday. [...]

Pat Dollard: Obama Against Plan To Increase Size Of Afghan Army

The Obama administration has soured on a call from its top commander to double the size of the Afghan police and army, reflecting the White House’s continued skepticism about the Afghan government even as the U.S. prepares a surge of troops into the country, people familiar with the matter say.

At an address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday, President Barack Obama is expected to announce that he will send roughly 30,000 American reinforcements to Afghanistan in addition to the 21,000 he deployed early in his administration. The escalation would bring total U.S. forces to some 100,000, the largest American troop deployment to Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion that toppled the Taliban government. [...]

Obama Discusses Afghanistan

 

Do you see that POS salute?  Figures.  Damned community organizers.

At least in Iraq the people knew they were getting the”All Saddam All The Time” channel.  That’s how dictatorships work.  I can’t imagine that “Guilters” (the “white guilt” constituency who elected Obama) believed they were going to get this much of “His Half-Blackness” on their TV sets…all the time!

Because Obama believes he has a mandate from the Guilters, we are treated to “All Obama All The Time” news, the only difference being that he warns us when something is really important, by telling us about it in advance. [...]

GOP Cut-and-Runner Wants Troops Home Now From Afghanistan

Freshman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) wants the US to cut-and-run from Afghanistan.  He will give a speech later today urging the US to bring the troops home.  What a loon. [...]

The Politico: Jason Chaffetz: Bring home Afghan troops

[...] “I can take pot shots at [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] all day long, and I’m good at it,” Chaffetz said. “But even though I am probably going against where the party is on this traditionally, I just think we need to stand up and support the notion that it is time to bring our soldiers home.” [...]

Another moron that seems to think it is The Party that will "suffer".  In the Jason Chaffetz rant, he doesn't mention Victory that is soon at hand.  Everyone needs to evict this squeamish turtle turd.

Perhaps if Nobama does what many seem to think he is going to do, perhaps we should look at this article that Dean sent to me the other day and what Macsmind also addresses:

Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops To "Prepare For Civil War"

Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops to Prepare for Civil War

[...] And to Obama’s “last ditch gambit”, these reports continue, he is to announce in a nationwide address to his people this coming week that he is going to expand the level of US Military Forces in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of troops, while at the same time using the deployment of these soldiers as a “cover” for returning to the United States over 200,000 additional American soldiers from the over 800 bases in over 39 countries they have stationed around the Globe bringing the level of these forces in America to over 1 million, a number the US Military believes will be able to contain the “explosion of violence” expected to roil these peoples when they learn their economy has been bankrupted. [...]

Remember...I have been mentioning this for at least since the year 2000 and I have been talking of such a thing for at least 30 years.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Friday
Nov272009

Financing The War

We have been at war with the Jihadists since the early 1970s and some would say since around 1800.  No matter when the current war started and more than likely 2001, it is the responsibility of the United States Congres to apply the United States Constitution and finance the War.  Why?  Because it is inside the Constitution.

I have been hearing that Obama will be spanked by the libtards that wholly do not understand the United States Constitution and even if they did, they hate it, so why bother?  Name me one libtard that understanhds the United States Constitution.  Show me.  And, I am not saying to cite a particular section...I mean explain it.

So, as Congress decides to let Obama decide on the Afghanistan decision, let's just see where the money will come from.  If there is no money, cut all federal spending - the unconstitutional federal spending - and apply the federal monies to finance the war.  We don't need any "taxes" to pay for the war.  We do need the federal government to stop the unconstitutional federal spending on Marxist-sociopathic stupidity.

Why should the Terrorists Gaining Upper Hand Against Troops Due to Obama's "Fundamental Change" of America?  What in the "oh for Heavens' sake" does that mean?  Giving the enemy an upper hand?  Isn't that abetting the enemy?  Isn't that either a treasonous act or an act that requires impeachment?

However, Obama's Afghan plan will be a political gambit and we all now it.  It is a placating event and he will try to make every body happy and will make no one happy.  So, what good is the act of appeasement?  Well, unloess he likes to get "spanked".

The United States won't finish the job in Afghanistan because the job that it should finish and the job in President Obama's mind are two different things.

The job of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan is to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and remove their ability to sow terror in the U.S. and other western nations. The job in Obama's mind is to get the United States out of the country as soon as he possibly can with the least amount of political damage to himself.

President Obama is a politician in the worst sense of the word and doesn't have the mindset to bring the war in Afghanistan to a successful conclusion. That would require him to be resolute and strong with a clear understanding of why the U.S. and NATO are there in the first place. It would require him to make a long term military commitment on the part of the United States regardless of what other NATO nations do, and regardless of the political consequences at home. He would have to place his anti war mentality aside, exercise real leadership and vision and be a true war time President. There is nothing in his record that he will ever be willing or able to do any of this and that is why the Taliban and Al-Qaeda won't be defeated in Afghanistan or anywhere else as long as he is in office. [...]

So, when is this impeachment thing coming to a fray?

More at Memeorandum as follows...

Yaroslav Trofimov / Wall Street Journal: Soviets' Afghan War Informs Surge Debate

KABUL -- The future of the war in Afghanistan was on the line as Gen. Stanley McChrystal met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a secret rendezvous at a Belgian airbase in August.

Gen. McChrystal, the top Western commander in Afghanistan, pushed for more U.S. troops to roll back the spreading Taliban-led insurgency. Mr. Gates, officials say, was skeptical.

A quarter-century ago, he was a top Central Intelligence Agency officer aiding the anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan, and he remembered how a 1985 decision by the Soviet Union to widen that earlier war had failed to turn the tide. [...]

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Friday
Nov272009

Obama Doesn't Care But We Do

Found at PP

My feelings, as a mother of a U.S. soldier, about President Obama's indecision and procrastination towards sending more troops to Afghanistan to reinforce those now fighting there.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Wednesday
Nov252009

Where Oh Where Is The Obama?

Here are some things Obama needs to know...he needs to let loose on the 25% of America he seems to agree with.

Beck Unleashes Holy Hell on Obama, Murtha & Company Over Lack of Support for Our Troops (VIDEO)

Be sure to read MsUnderestimated's commentary but here's the video...

Dismiss General Casey

[...] He said that if diversity were a "casualty," then it would be an even greater tragedy than the murders of fourteen innocent Americans.

If we want to know how such an obvious terror threat was ignored, how such a mass killer was enabled, we need look no further than the command climate created by Gen. Casey and his politically correct subordinates.

If you are serving in a forward unit of the Army today, can you have confidence that your fellow soldier can be trusted to "have your back"? Can you sleep soundly in an Army barracks wondering whether your bunkmate might be a jihadist?

Unit cohesion is essential to any effective fighting force. Troops must trust one another when their lives are on the line. By winking at treason, Gen. Casey and his subordinates allowed Major Nidal Hasan's conduct to taint every Muslim currently serving in the U.S. military.

No one has a right to serve. Service is an honor and a privilege, but it is not a right. Colorblind people and people with heart murmurs are perfectly loyal Americans. It casts no aspersion on them or their families to be excluded from military service. [...]

Diversity...the politically correct way of saying "we surrender" to the Marxist-sociopaths.

Here's a good one...

9/11 Victims on the Mohammed Jury?

[...] Eric Holder recently admitted, “I know that we are at war.” That’s an interesting admission in light of “his” decision to try those having committed war crimes in civilian court. Those non-uniformed combatants do not even qualify for the protections of the Geneva Convention; and especially do not come under the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

In their quest to fundamentally transform America, Obama and Holder apparently have no problem making a mockery of our cherished rights for which many brave patriots have died.

We are at war and no impartial jury could ever be found in the U.S. to try the Islamist combatants. No juror can overcome the inherent conflict of interest. Ethically and legally, a victim cannot be seated on her perpetrator’s jury.

Islamist terrorists must be tried by military commissions without show and constitutional rights. Ironically, that’s the venue in which Mohammed wanted to plead guilty and accept the penalty of death. [END]

Islamis on the jury.  Yeah.  We'll just see how "modeate" they really are.

KSM Sings “New York, New York” On Rush Limbaugh

9/11 Never Forget Coalition Press Conference: "This is legal jihad in the Courtroom"

Note to viewers...Obama/Holder don't give a damn...

Check the pictures at Atlas Shrugs

A message for the president

A message to who?  We have one of those?

[...] President Obama has waffled for over 80 days on a report that took General McChrystal only 60 days to author.  At President Karzai's recent inauguration, Obama confessed he remains concerned with, "how we are going to succeed... and most importantly what's the endgame on this thing."  This ‘thing'?  Could it be that President Obama still views Afghanistan as a campaign issue and not... a war?  Like any other challenge in life, war isn't won simply with a brilliant plan.  We also need resolve-the same perseverance once expressed to me in a letter from a young student in Florida.

President Obama, "Go Get Them." [...]

Yeah.  Right.  Go get who for what?

  9/11 Suspects To Plead Not Guilty

Welcome to New York, New York, where soon we will see the circus that will be the biggest embarrassment for the Obama Administration. Yes, I know they embarrass themselves daily with their stupidity, but the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, and his partners in terror, in civilian federal court may be the worst decision in the history of this country.

Surprise, surprise, the lawyers of the suspects are indicating they will plead "Not Guilty."

As expected by conservatives like me, this is only the first step towards dismissal of the cases, and a manipulation of American Politics and the Judiciary of the likes we have never seen before. [...]

 9/11 Terrorist Defense Attorney: "I'm Proud and Honored" to Defend Them

As deference to Amy, I will not place on this particular blog post what I really think...paint a picture for me.

The KSM Show Trial

AG Eric Holder's statement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will remain in custody no matter the verdict in his upcoming Manhattan trial coupled with Obama's instructions to the jury that KSM be "convicted and executed" reveals the entire exercise as a show trial -- a ritual effort intended not to achieve justice, but to make a public political point. The question is, what could that point possibly be? [...]

Terrorist Attorney Refuses to Say Innocent Americans Were Murdered – Says 9-11 Killers Will Put US Foreign Policy on Trial (Video)

Where in the hell is Obama?  I would tell you but it stinks up there so I'll just let it go.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Wednesday
Nov252009

If Obama Says So It Must Not Be True

Obama is always stumbling to the left.  Why is that?  Only 25% of the people in this Nation think like him.

New York Times: Obama Says He Intends to ‘Finish the Job’ in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Tuesday that he was determined to “finish the job” in Afghanistan, and his aides signaled to allies that he would send as many as 25,000 to 30,000 additional troops there even as they cautioned that the final number remained in flux. [...]

I have your flux right here between my legs.  How's he going to "finish the job" with only half of what McChrystal needed?  Yeah.  I know.  McChrystal is happy just because Troops are coming and perhaps he'll get more later after the leftinistra have their heart attacks and get over their self-induced idiocy.

25,000 to 30,000 or maybe that's about 10,000 just to see if the libtards get all hung up.  And December 1st?  When did President Bush ever put anything off like this?  Since August.  Community organizers.  Who needs that kind of "leadership"(?).

I think Obama needs to pay attention to reality...from Chicago Ray.

Then again, the leftinistra seems to think that The One is doomed.  He is.  Just look at the "opinion polls".

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Tuesday
Nov242009

We Didn't Start This Goddamn War

Mike Allen / The Politico: Obama to address nation next week

President Obama is expected to announce his Afghanistan policy with an address to the nation next Tuesday, Dec. 1, likely in prime time, officials told POLITICO.  —  Obama held his ninth formal Afghanistan strategy session in the Situation Room on Monday night. [...]

McClatchy Washington Bureau: Obama plans to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called “a war of necessity” in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy. [...]

McClatchy offers the most ignorant of ignorant things to deal with.  Read that article and you just let me know.  OK?

Who in the hell are we fighting?  We are fighting a Global Jihad bent on the destruction of everything "western".  They want and demand a Calphate.  That's their goal and due process of life and death.  It is in their gene pools.  Now, we have Jihadis in Minnesota running off to Somalia.

Feds charge 20 "young Americans" with joining Al-Qaeda-linked Somali jihad group

That is al Qeada in America ladies and gentlemen and I don't give a damn about any libtard moron that says any different.  al Qeada is in the USA and they have been here for decades.  I fought my first one here in 1971.  That's a long time ago.

Who are we fighting in Afghanistan & Pakistan?

That's easy.  It is the Global Jihad.

[...] The Warrior Legacy Institute announces the release of it's third paper "Who are we fighting in Afghanistan & Pakistan?" as well as an accompanying video. This complements the previous papers and videos on "A Population-Centric Counterinsurgency Primer" and "Counterterror as Strategy for the Af/Pak Theater".  All of these are written so they can be understood by and educate all Americans regardless of their knowledge about military topics. Our hope is that this will allow them to follow the debate about this vital subject from an informed perspective. [...]

We didn't start this war.  We have it pretty much finished in Iraq.  Now, Obama wants us to lose in Afghanistan that was once upon a time the war to fight if there ever was a war, according to The Obama.  Obama?  Liar.  Get over it.  You elected the moron and you can have the bastard.  Keep him in your closet for a nice rainy day.

Nothing like backing yourself into a corner.  Right?  As far as amny that know me know this.  Many times I have said that the Defeatocrats are backing themselves into a hole claiming that the Republicans did it.  Obama cannot lay that one out this time.

Obama To Hold Another Prime Timer To Explain Our Afghanistan Strategy To Islamic Extremists

Obama is waiting until next Tuesday when "V" is on, that tramples The One's subject matter, to deliever a Nation Wide Obamagang tripper.

[...] Holding off till Tuesday also apparently will allow Obama to get in touch with Democrat leaders and his unhinged ObamaZombie base to explain why he would send more troops. They all knew his campaign promise was a lie, but, he kinda backed himself into a corner. [END]

Get out of that corner, Asshat.

Obama’s decision: 34,000 troops to Afghanistan

A far cry from the 60,000 General McChrystal said he needed to win the damn war, eh, Czarboe?

So, Czarboe is sending 34,000 to the areas where he isn't giving Afghanistan land to who?

Full-throttle appeasement: US offers Taliban control of five provinces in return for halt to missile attacks

Maybe Obama is hoping that those chimerical "moderate Taliban" of whom he is so fond will end up running these provinces, and give up their desire to win the rest. "Afghan Source: The U.S. Has Offered the Taliban Control in Return for Quiet," from MEMRI, November 22:

Go read that one, again.  I know I keep telling you all about this but someone needs to understand that Obama is in fact a Jiahdi clown.

Amid Growing Pressure, Obama to Back McChrystal's Troops Surge in Afghanistan

No he isn't.  34,000 Troops is NOT the 60,000 Troops requested.

Obama hates this Nation.  Obama hates Conservatives and any other alleged and pretend "moderate".  He hates the US Military because the military is in the way.  So, I hate Obama and I sure do hope that this quack of an illegal rezident gets impeached soon enough.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly