Obama in Afghanistan dodging bullets

Where else  would he go to dodge the latest  bad news from a stalled economy.  Notice he didn't take a surprise trip when Michelle gave the ok for us all to eat pie.  Obama decides to make a surprise trip as  unemployment unexpectedly hits 9.8%  and just as news hits both manufacturing orders and durable goods were down  in October.  It's almost as if the economy sees Obama as the enemy.

Tweet

No Terms of Endearment from General McChrystal

It's funny how lines from certain movies always come to mind when describing the Obama administration.  No, I am not thinking of memorable Wizard of Oz quotes in this instance, though I am sure there must be one that is fitting.  Lately I have been reminded of the line from the movie "Terms of Endearment" when Emma, describes the difficult task of raising children, "As hard as you think it is, you end up wishing it were that easy."  A variation of that line comes to mind, as I often think when it comes to this administration as bad as I thought they were going to be I end up wishing they were that good.

The latest "flap" comes from an obviously discontented General McChrystal who has obviously become so frustrated with the group he let his hair down and dishes in a forthcoming issue of Rolling Stone Magazine:

An article out this week in “Rolling Stone” magazine depicts Gen. Stanley McChrystal as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration and unable to convince even some of his own soldiers that his strategy can win the war…

McChrystal himself is described by an aide as “disappointed” in his first Oval Office meeting with an unprepared President Barack Obama. The article says that although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops…

If Eikenberry had the same doubts [about McChrystal's strategy], McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute.

McChrystal said he felt “betrayed” and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover.

“Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books,” McChrystal told the magazine. “Now, if we fail, they can say ‘I told you so.”

That clatter you hear is the sound of all hell breaking loose at the White House. "Within hours after today's Rolling Stone story broke, McChrystal was called by the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were not happy."  I'll bet they were not happy.    McChrystal issued an apology post haste.  Though he didn't apologize for his poor judgment in voting for Obama, the apology was intended to assuage the bruised egos of "the national security adviser, Jim Jones, a retired general, a "clown" who is "stuck in 1985," as well as Vice President "Bite Me" Biden. Ouch.

McChrystal saved the bulk of his ire for Eikenberry as the two have a long history of trouble between them as Ambinder explains at length:

Eikenberry's beef with McChrystal goes back to the time when McChrystal was the Pope. The Pope is the head of the Joint Special Operations Command. The nickname goes back to an off-hand remark that Janet Reno made after failing to obtain information from JSOC after the raid at Waco. (JSOC operators were on the ground but did not assist in the raid itself.) She called JSOC the Vatican. And the head of the Vatican is ... the Pope.

At some point, I think in 2005, one of McChrystal's task-forces-that-didn't-really-exist did something in Afghanistan that angered Eikenberriy, who was in command of the region at the time. The two men exchanged words and built mutual mistrust. They have not worked well together ever since. McChrystal blames Eikenberry for trying to influence policy by leaking information and by impeding McChrystal's efforts to build better relationships with Afghanistan's fragile government.

During the strategy review, Eikenberry didn't think McChrystal's surge could work. He told the White House that contractors would have to pick up the slack for years to come. McChrystal insisted that he could execute his COIN strategy with a heavy presence of special operations forces ... and be out in 18 months (i.e, troops would begin to be drawn down). The White House ultimately sided with McChrystal.

But there were tensions. Even though McChrystal voted for Obama and told him so during their first meeting, he sensed that a number of senior White House aides didn't really believe that the former commander of the military's special missions unit during the Bush-Cheney years was suddenly on their side. National Security Adviser James Jones, who is a bit of cipher to McChrystal's team, may or may not have been one of these aides. No one in the West Wing bought all that liberal internet chatter about JSOC's alleged crimes -- but no one really didn't buy it, either.

What a mess.  Though McChrystal will surely take the heat for insubordination, one has to wonder what thought, if any, Obama and his cronies gave to carrying out this mission in Afghanistan.  The tensions between McChrystal and Eikenberry were deep and there was an obvious sense of mistrust towards McChrystal on the part of the new administration.  If Obama's aides doubted McChrystal's allegiance why was he given charge of what Obama called the "real war" in Afghanistan?  Bizarre.

This is bound to make the headlines over the next few days as the Rolling Stone article hasn't even hit the newstands yet.  Fasten your seat belts, this one doesn't appear to have a happy ending coming any time soon.

H/T: Hot Air

Jon Stewart Sees a Bit of Deja Vu in the Afghanistan Speech

It's not often I would post a Jon Stewart clip two days in a row, but this is a good one. Stewart is not only one of the few comedians who finds humor in criticism of the Obama administration, he is one of the few willing to be critical at all. Stewart compares Obama's speech to Bush's speech 2007 and finds a few similarities. The difference, in my opinion, is Bush believed in the mission and wasn't signaling anything less than full commitment when he sent our military to battle. Stewart doesn't see that same resolve, "Our resolve is unwavering, but it turns out our Discover card is over the limit."

This is a bit long but funny and to the point, no one really liked Obama's Afghanistan speech:

"Obama's Magic No Longer Works"

Via Twitter
Gabor Steingart delivers a blistering review of Obama's Afghanistan speech in an editorial at Der Spiegel.  Here is just a sample of the often eloquent but thoroughly devastating treatise that targets Obama the leader as  pointedly as his speech:

Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.

The New York Times does its' level best, however, to put the best possible face on the dueling messages:

If the contrasting messages seemed jarring at first, they reflect the obstacles Mr. Obama faces in rallying an increasingly polarized country that itself is of two minds about what to do in Afghanistan. For those who still support the war, he is sending more troops. For those against it, he is offering the assurance of the exit ramp.

 Buried at the bottom, the Times quotes Peter D. Fever, a Duke University specialist on wartime public opinion and former Bush advisor on the futility of the effort to assuage his base with promises of an exit ramp:

His message is “heavily laced with language aimed at mollifying his base, which is strongly antiwar, rather than reassuring the middle and those who support the war now,” said Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University specialist on wartime public opinion and a former Bush adviser. “It’s a triangulation heavy on trying to win over the people who probably can’t be won over. And a lot of that messaging could sow doubts.”

H/T: Memeorandum

Rove Corrects Matt Lauer's Revisionist History on Afghanistan

Jake Tapper points out two direct references to failures of the Bush/Cheney administration made directly and indirectly in tonight's Afghanistan speech:

1) President Obama said starting in early 2003 and "for the next six years the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world." And "while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated."

2) In his 3rd graph the president made a reference to the Taliban as "a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

One might say "Blame Bush," is the only consistent strategy this administration has at its disposal.  Obama's "Blame Bush" approach to the presidency frequently involves a lot of revisionist history rarely if ever challenged by the adoring media.  Matt Lauer set the stage for this early in the day as he attempts to blame the need for Obama to send additional troops to Afghanistan on the above mentioned "failures" of the Bush administration.  Unfortunately for Lauer, he attempted to rewrite history during an interview with Karl Rove.  Rove sets the record and Lauer straight, leaving Lauer fumbling for an alternate strategy to have his "gotcha" moment with Rove.  Matt should know by now there are no "gotcha" moments with Rove who can outwit the likes of Lauer with one hand tied behind his back.

This is the highlight from the following clip which shows just a portion of the interview:

ROVE: Well look, first of all, they, resources were sent as they were needed, but I would remind you this, President Obama is in no position whatsoever to criticize what President Bush did. Because in 2007, President Obama, then a member of the United States Senate, voted against war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If this was so vital, then why did he not speak out? He was chairman of a committee overseeing NATO. He could have easily called a hearing to say, "I'm concerned about this issue." He did not. The Foreign Relations committee had three hearings on Afghanistan. He bothered to show up at one, and I can find no evidence he raised a single point or asked a single question. So President Obama is not in a place to be critical of, of this. He can look back and rewrite history, whatever, but at the time, he didn't speak out on this.

Read the entire transcript below the jump.
H/T: Yid with Lid

Krauthammer, Stoddard and Hayes Critical of Obama's Speech

Following Obama's speech on Afghanistan Bret Baier gets reactions from Charles Krauthammer, A.B. Stoddard and Steve Hayes who seems to agree Obama's speech was weak. Hayes begins by describing the importance of the role of Commander in Chief and goes on to say "this speech felt very small to me." Hayes is critical of Obama's urging the common security of the world is at stake and then in the next sentence says we are going to leave. This is no exaggeration as it is quite literally the next sentence from the transcript:

“Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.”

“Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.

Finally a Decision on Afghanistan, sort of

McClatchy  reports Obama met with his national security team on Monday night and has decided to commit 34,000 troops to Afghanistan.  Of course, Obama is not one to be rushed on such matters so he will wait a week to make the announcement:

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House.

Is it me, or is that last portion quoted the strangest comment on leaks, well this week anyway.  How many articles on important issues and policy from this administration have not a single named source, there seems to be a leak epidemic.

The leaker continues to report that General McChrystal could arrive in  Washington as early as Sunday to help roll out the plan as well as appear before congressional committees toward the end of the week.   After months of dithering on McChrystal's request, Obama has agreed to the additional troops but has given a 6 month timeframe to demonstrate improvement:

 The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if presidential elections came with "off-ramps"?   I would have begun looking at an exit strategy before the inauguration but I suspect Independent voters crossed that point just this past summer.  Obama was wise to follow McChrystal's request but looking after 6 months for a very quick exit seems to suggest the full commitment of the administration is lacking a bit.  Still, Obama seems to have had something of a wake up call upon his return from Asia.  No doubt falling poll numbers and increased criticism were the stick that whipped the administration into motion.  Unfortunately the same stick doesn't appear to matter much on health care.  His priorities are astounding as usual.

H/T: Memeorandum

Scozzafava isn't the only one Withdrawing from Elections

Via Memeorandum, BBC News reports Dr. Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the forthcoming election against rival Hamid Karzai. Abdullah does not believe his demands for a fraud free election have been met:

"I will not participate in the election," Dr Abdullah told supporters, saying his demands for ensuring a fraud-free election had not been met.
But he stopped short of calling for a boycott of next Saturday's vote.
Mr Karzai had rejected his demand that election officials who presided over the first round should be dismissed.

While this leaves the future of this election somewhat in turmoil, Secretary of State Clinton evidently sees no problem:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in the United Arab Emirates: "We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward."

Looks as though Kerry will need to go and empathize with Karzai just a wee bit more.  

Cheney Rips Obama Administration on Afghanistan - There's a Pattern Here

Via Hot Air Dick Cheney gave a speech last night that laid into the Obama administration for "dithering" on Afghanistan. Here is a key portion of the speech:

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

The Bush team assembles a team to focus on what needed to be done in Afghanistan, the Obama team was briefed fully and a strategy was implemented with the agreement of the Obama team.  When the Obama administration is plagued with indecision when they actually have to govern, they claim the Bush administration left them in a position to start from scratch.  Obviously this is a lie, an outright lie.

This is the second time I have noticed someone from the Bush administration calling the Obama administration out for outright lying about what happened in the transition and laying blame on Bush for their own inability to govern.  In a post back in June Keith Hennessey called out Dr. Austen Goolsbee for incorrect and inflammatory statements on what occurred during the transition with respect to loans to the auto industry:
Hennessey cited a portion of Goolsbee's statements from an appearance on Chris Wallace's show back when the administration actually appeared on Fox programs:

The President made totally clear in his remarks, and he specifically said we are not going to be in the business of telling General Motors or anybody else what kind of cars to make, where they should open their plants, or anything of the sort.  The President made clear we want to get out of this as quickly as possible.  We are only in this situation because somebody else kicked the can down the road, and that’s really an understatement.  They shook up the can, they opened the can, and handed to us in our laps.  Senator Shelby knows that to be true.  When George Bush put money in to General Motors, almost explicitly with the purpose, how many dollars do they need to stay alive until January 20th, 2009?  There was no commitment to restructuring, to making these viable enterprises of any kind. They made none of the serious sacrifices.  And Republicans in the Senate attached a list of conditions, they opposed George Bush’s intervention, because they said the unions had not made the following sacrifices.  In the Obama plan, it asked more and received more from the unions and from the other stakeholders than the people that objected to the bailout last November asked for.  So we have finally put them on that path.

Hennessey then laid out what actually happened during the transition which was quite different than Goolsbee's recollection.  A meeting was held on November 30, 2008 at the request of the Bush administration, with members of the Bush and Obama teams in attendance to establish a plan to deal with looming failures of the auto industry.   The Obama team listened to the plan yet never responded or offered alternative suggestions for dealing with the crisis.  Left without guidance on how the incoming administration wanted to proceed, the Bush team worked with the Democratic Congress to enact legislation to make funds available to firms that could be economically viable.  The Congress left for Christmas without having addressed the issue.  Rather than leaving the incoming President with an economic situation made worse by failing auto industry Bush chose to make the loans to the auto industry.

As Hennessey points out this was a politically unpopular decision and reasonable people can take issue with Bush's actions in the absence of input from the incoming administration.  In the case Cheney points out, the Obama administration was responsive to the Bush teams strategy but still fails to follow through when faced with the responsibility of governing.  In Hennessey's case the Obama team was completely unresponsive yet ended up following the plan suggested by the Bush administration though Bush had no intentions of implementing government ownership of GM.  In both cases they blame the Bush administration and deliberately distort their own involvement or lack thereof to deal with important issues.  This is both childish and dishonest.  While it may have served some political purpose initially, the blame Bush strategy of governing is worn out.  Continued calls to grap a mop when the President seems completely unaware of what to do with one when it is placed in his hands, show this President for what he is, all talk -  no action.

Here is the full speech Cheney delivered last night, it is well worth watching.

Zsa Zsa thinks Biden Should Resign

Zsa Zsa Huffington  has taken to advising the VP on the war in Afghanistan.  Her advice to Biden is priceless, she believes he should resign in protest if Obama decides to escalate the war:

Being Greek, I'm partial to Biden's classic use of the Socratic method -- skillfully eliciting facts in a way that lets people connect the dots that show how misguided our involvement in Afghanistan has become.

It's been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal's desire for a big escalation of our forces there -- the New York Times reported last month that he has "deep reservations" about it. So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

Am I the only one who gets whiplash following Arianna's train of thought?  Hilarity ensues right from the outset with this one.   Biden's use of the socratic method?  Oh my, but wait there's more:

Obama may be no drama, but Biden loves drama. And what could more dramatic than resigning the vice presidency on principle? And what principle could be more honorable than refusing to go along with a policy of unnecessarily risking American blood and treasure -- and America's national security? Now that would be a Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment for the McChrystal crowd -- one that would be a lot more significant than some lame, after-the-fact apology delivered in a too-late-to-matter book.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-joe-biden-should-resi_b_320929.html

 Here's a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment for Arianna.  Didn't the President run on the premise the war in  Iraq distracted from the real war that needed to be finished in Afghanistan?  Didn't her "news" organization tout this President's every thought and word that would surely lead to healing planets and parting seas etc?   Now Biden, who agreed to be the running mate of a man who made this claim at every single stop across the country in the campaign, should suddenly turn around and resign in protest if the President ever manages to follow through on his promise to finish the job in Afghanistan.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot indeed.

H/T: Memeorandum

Pelosi Opines on Afghanistan and McChrystal on Charlie Rose

H/T: Memeorandum
Politico  reports the Dems are outrageously outraged over an NRCC statement urging McChrystal to put Nancy Pelosi "in her place" for weighing in on Afghanistan:

"If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz goes on a tirade:

"I think the place for a woman is at the top of the House of Representatives," said Wasserman Schultz.

"It's evidence they long for the days when a woman's place was in the kitchen. Now a woman is third in line for the presidency... But it's not surprising, coming from a party that's 80 percent male and 100 percent white," she added, referring to the composition of the House GOP conference.

Politico reports the reaction from the NRCC spokesman:

  NRCC Spokesman Ken Spain was unrepentant, telling POLITICO that Pelosi is "playing out of her league," and questioned the reluctance of Democrats to call for McChrystal to testify in a hearing on the war.

Here is the clip of Pelosi's interview on the Rose Show.  Considering she is as Wasserman Schultz points out third in line for the presidency, judge for yourself whether she is playing out of her league:



Do I really need to add the obligatory what if Sarah Palin had said what Pelosi says here? Funny how Wasserman Schultz never got so outraged when her own party tore Palin from limb to limb.