Posted on 11/30/2009 9:07:35 AM PST by kristinn
hope he got a permission slip first /sarc
So typical. Don’t give the military what they need or what they ask for-—give them enough to make it look like you’re “doing something” so that you can blame it on the military.
Lets hope he didn’t have a meeting with Fat Jack Murtha regarding redeployment, the two of them are about equal when it comes to war planning.
Someone could make a lot of money with an Obama doll that says "Being president is tough!" when his string is pulled.
Did the Moron in Chief send them via regular mail or did he use FEDEX?
Did the Moron in Chief send them via regular mail or did he use FEDEX?
LOL. “Can’t I just go on a date with Michelle . . . or . . . whoever?”
His half-measures could bring about the Indo-Pak war that previous administrations diligently worked to stave off.
The Taliban know Obama's heart is not in this fight and therefore the support of the American people is soft. By the time the Obama surge is implemented the Taliban will try to do in Af-Pak what al Qaeda in Iraq tried in 2006. If they succeed India may feel bound to intervene in Pakistan.
The perception of weakness invites trouble. One only has to look to JFK and Carter's presidencies to see what troubles may lie ahead.
Barack to McChristol: NUTS!
The Plan? I bet it will be a plan to community organize the Taliban to death, just like Obama is doing to America.
Problem:The Taliban shoot people , torture people, execute people and blow people up. ( Does Obama get it?......Nah!)
Although the comparisons aren’t exact, it’s typical of government: in the 1890s, to appease the silver lobby, Congress passed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, requiring the government to buy all silver at the price of 16 1/2:1 relative to gold-—but the market price was 17:1, and the silver advocates wanted 16:1. Typical halfmeasure, that led to an economic collapse-—one of the worst of the 19th century.
You could alternate it with “I won!” or “I never know what I am allowed to do” Those would work too!
Unprecedented.
We’ve seen this story before - opting to listen to the politicians instead of the generals.
“I would say that what’s been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence.” - General Shinseki, February 25, 2003
“There has been a good deal of comment — some of it quite outlandish — about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army — hard to imagine.” - Paul Wolfowitz, February 27, 2003
“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” – Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003
“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question “– Donald Rumsfeld, January 19, 2003
“”There’s a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.