|
Of
the excerpts I've seen from Bob Woodward's "Obama's Wars,"
I thought
this quote captured not just Obama, but all Democrat's and their
priorities when it comes to fighting wars.
| “... he set a
withdrawal timetable because, “I
can’t
lose the whole Democratic Party.” |
Winning is not a priority. Not losing the country's support; always
critical during wars, is not the priority. No, the priority is
not losing
the Democrat Party.
An
organization where Code Pink holds more sway than the Boy Scouts of
America, and I'm not making that up. Oh, yes, genuflect to
this anti-American constituency; do worry about what Moveon.org
thinks. And get this! The White House is pleased with Woodard's
characterization of a confused and, conflicted Obama's Afghanistan
direction. And why is this?
| “
|
Since
Americans are conflicted about the Afghan war, won't they be reassured
to know that the commander in chief is conflicted as well?
|
|
In The
reluctant commander in chief Michael
Gerson makes some head-exploding
statements like; "Woodward's book appears to be genuinely reassuring
about Obama in some areas," [like] "his general commitment to fighting
terrorism," and "his focus on the possibility of nuclear terrorism." (I
said head exploding). But he also has the good sense to recognize a
real problem.
| “
|
But
a president has a number of audiences, including American troops, the
allies who fight at our side and enemies who constantly take the
measure of our resolve. None of those groups is likely to be impressed
by America's reluctant warrior.
|
|
His final words are really all he, or I for that matter,
should have to say on the matter.
| “
|
Yes, President Obama has sent more skilled,
well-led troops to Afghanistan. But he has also created a strategic
challenge for America. Our enemy is patient and determined. Our
president, by his own account, is neither.
|
|
Haven't we been here before? With this same ugly crowd?
|
|
