Is General Betray Us a Liar or Not?

Enquiring minds want to know. Back when George W. Bush charge General Petraeus with turning around the war in Iraq, Democrats of all sorts called him a liar and accused him of not doing the things he claimed.

But now, Obama's putting Petraeus in the driver's seat in Afghanistan and we're supposed to forget Hillary Clinton's language butchering accusation.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief."

That was sooo 2007. Now, Petraeus can save Obama's a-s-s in Afghanistan. Well, maybe. But, apparently, he's the best Teh One could find to replace the last guy he said was best for the job.

NY Terrorist Wanted Revenge for Drone Attacks

As Allahpundit says, do we go with the "it's all Bush's fault" meme or do we blame President Obama?

He’s not lamenting civilian casualties caused by the drone strikes, he’s lamenting the fact that they’ve been too darned successful in decapitating the jihadist hydra in the area.

What this says to me is that the drone attacks are a good thing, even though ramping up the war in Afghanistan is surely a burr under the Democrats' saddle.

History Will Thank Him

Cheney: Obama should thank George W. Bush

If [the administration is] going to take credit for [Iraq's success], fair enough ... but it ought to come with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush' up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations with respect to prosecuting that war were just dead wrong," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

30,000 or Nothing?

I've heard some carping about President Obama's speech last night and his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, with a proposed drawn down of our troops beginning in 2011.

First of all, I am happy President Obama has decided to send 30,000 more troops. General McChrystal requested 40,000, true, but the POTUS' decision to send slightly less doesn't make it nothing, which is a charge I've heard on the radio and read on the internet. It's still a significant number, and shows the president has some commitment to the war.

I am troubled at the timetable for withdrawal Obama set, but he has to give some bone to the liberals in his party, given that they are batshit crazy that he hasn't beaten a hasty retreat already.

I guess what I'm saying is that this proposal is better than I expected from a liberal Democrat president. If there's only half the amount of milk in the glass, I'm looking at it as half full.

Victor Davis Hanson sums it up nicely.

UPDATE: Or Even better:

Last night, President Obama delivered an historic speech to the nation and to the world on his plans for Afghanistan. Here, in sum, is what the president said:

I really don't want to be commander-in-chief, but I'll do it if I have to -- at least for a little while, and then we'll see. Just so long as it doesn't cost too much, or take too long, or interfere with my plans to nationalize healthcare and fundamentally change America.

It's All About Him

President Obama's speech on Afghanistan to pre-empt A Charlie Brown Christmas.

What is up with this guy? Has he no shame???

I am, of course, only half joking here. Certainly, the president's speech is important, but the timing couldn't be worse.

Obama: Give me 34,000 More Troops for the "Necessary War," But Just Till I Can Blame Someone Else for Retreat

That's the impression one gets from President Obama's proposal, to be announced next week, to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan...but with "off ramps" to allow the POTUS to retreat but still blame someone else for his decision to bug out.

This is really quite distressing. Barack Obama and the Democrats running Congress spent the last 2 years telling us that Iraq was the "wrong war" and Afghanistan was the "necessary war," that we needed to provide more troops and give more support to our allies in Afghanistan to win the "real" war. Now, that appears to all have been a sham. Of course, the cynics among us (raises her hand) knew Democrats weren't serious about fighting any war, and that the real reason they disliked Iraq so much had nothing to do with sympathy for embattled Iraqis or concern for the budget, but rather, they hated the war in Iraq because we're winning there. We ousted a ruthless dictator, helped create democratic elections and have built and rebuilt much of the country's infrastructure.

But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were never about winning for the Democrats. They were merely propaganda tools to bash Republicans for the tiny number of American deaths in the Middle East, multiple deployments of our troops and the inconveniences that come with such things.

From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

The increase in troops is a good decision, but the off-ramps almost completely undermine it. The point in extending our footprint is to win the trust of the local communities and prove our reliability in providing them security, which is the central thrust of McChrystal’s COIN strategy. By getting them to trust our commitment, we can get them to help fight the Taliban themselves, as we did with the Anbar Awakening in Iraq against al-Qaeda, and greatly improve the intel we get from the locals. If we send 34,000 more troops but give ourselves a six-month time frame for success or bug-out, the locals will very quickly come to the realization that allying with us will be suicide. The COIN strategy only worked in Iraq because George W. Bush was adamant that we would stay until we won.
A Commander in Chief doesn’t need “off-ramps.” Any President can call an end to a deployment based on his own judgment. Putting these conditions into the American strategy signals weakness — a desire to pull out without getting blamed for the decision. Obama wants to be off the hook for an eventual withdrawal by claiming that he’s forced to do it because of these benchmark failures. And if Obama’s that keen to retreat, he should just do it now.

Question: When will the Democrats impose the war tax, then tell us there was nothing else they could do?

The Non-Partisan War in Afghanistan

I wasn't going to say anything about President Obama photo-opping visiting the military dead in Delaware where the bodies are returned from Afghanistan. I thought the skepticism might be too, shall I say, political.

But that was before the liberal idiots decided it was one more chance to try to slime President George W. Bush.

Puh-lease. President Bush met with families in private without cameras. He didn't attend funerals or pose for pics because it distracted from the person these events are supposed to be about. Namely, the soldier.

But liberals think snapping a salute for a camera makes President Obama look serious or presidential or something. I'd rather he took seriously the casualties of the necessary war, the casualties that mount as he hems and haws.

Instead, we're treated to Firedoglake, of all jerks, trying to sound all jingoistic or something.

UPDATE: Blackfive says it better than I ever could.

I Remember When War Casualties Were Terrible

Back in 2005, it seemed like the New York Times, Washington Post and every leftwing blogger was horrified at the casualties our troops suffered in Iraq. It was part of the "We support the troops but not the war" shtick, which was difficult to swallow, but they kept insisting that they were really, really concerned about troop casualties, and that's why they wanted to end the war!

Yeah,I didn't buy it either, and I sure don't buy it now that casualties are rising dramatically in Afghanistan and the left seems way more concerned with Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the public option than the lives of our soldiers.

Obama has simply failed to act on Afghanistan and as a result more troops have died than in any other year of the war. Obama criticized Bush for not being aggressive enough in Afghanistan, but when it is his turn to get tough he can't make up his mind.

Dana has a nice post posing the question, Is President Obama’s foreign policy making a difference yet? I would say, yes, it is making a difference, but not a difference for the better. We're seeing more casualties and chaos. Shouldn't the Left, who argued repeatedly over the last four years that Afghanistan is the "necessary war," be putting more pressure on President Obama to win?

McChrystal: Give Us More Troops Or We Lose in a Year

From the Washington Post comes some tough love about the "good war" in Afghanistan:

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

President Obama argued during the campaign that we should leave Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan, the war he thought we should have been fighting. As president, Barack Obama has continued backing our efforts with the Afghans, much to the chagrin of the Left and the applause of the Right. But Obama isn't know for sticking his neck out for a cause (well, unless it's killing babies before or after birth). As Ed Morrissey notes, it leaves Teh One in an untenable situation.

The left wing of his party wants to retreat from both Afghanistan and Iraq, and this report gives them the bright line in the sand they need. The GOP have been very supportive on Afghanistan, with a few notable exceptions (George Will being the most prominent). The center bought Obama as something other than a typical liberal shrinking violet on American power based on his campaign pledges to fight and win in Afghanistan. A retreat might lose the GOP, which he never had except on this issue, and win back his left wing, but it will absolutely undermine his credibility with the center and further erode his political standing.

Morrissey argues that Obama will probably continue to do little more than give lip service to the war in Afghanistan, hoping that somehow, the situation will just fix itself. I doubt this approach will satisfy either end of his support: the Left will begin screaming about body bags and counts and the Right will argue about the futility of half-assedly fighting a war. And don't even bother with the center, many of whom want us to win without the commitment needed. This isn't even discussing the costs of escalating the war at a time when Democrats are calling the credit cards trying to get increased spending limits for goodies we can't afford and a sizable portion of us don't want.

In short, Obama has the worst of worlds here. If he were smart, he would hope McChrystal can be the new General Petraeus, figuring out how to solve the Afghan problem and settling things down within a few months. But Obama's never shown any ambition for such gambling, and the leftwing nuts leading his party are unlikely to support doing much more than we are already doing. Could Afghanistan be Obama's Waterloo?