posted December 02, 2009 06:47 PM         

Not even after West Point officer administrators told them before hand to applaud O'Bomber's speech did they applaud with enthusiasm.

Not once did O'Bomber say a word about "victory" by US forces in Afghanistan. Even though O'Bomber was bloviating about Afghanistan being the "war of necessity" when he and other brain dead demoscats were doing their best to throw the war in Iraq.

Some things never change. Leftists despise the US military and never miss an opportunity to try to hang a military loss on them and America.

In a related event, the idiot Chris Matthews of MSNBC said O'Bomber had "gone into the enemy camp". Imagine that, leftists are open about the US military being the enemy. I suppose with Matthews viewer numbers being in the toilet he figured no one was watching anyway.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzdhYTY0MDRiYTBlYjVkOTAwMjE2YWM5OGU5OTg1MDA=

posted December 02, 2009 07:10 PM         

This time, he picked the wrong guy to lie about. Taking on Donald Rumsfeld is not the best idea O'Bomber ever had. Rumsfeld hasn't had much to say since he entered private life but O'Bomber's blatant lie brought a quick scathing response and a call for Congress to investigate O'Bomber's allegation that military commanders in Afghanistan had been denied the force levels they repeatedly requested.

Then, the White House trotted out the press sec to say O'Bomber wasn't talking about Rumsfeld. That only leaves the current Sec Defense, Gates. So, we're to believe O'Bomber was ripping his own Sec Defense for denying requested military forces in Afghanistan? If so, why is Gates still calling the shots over at Defense? It's another obvious O'Bomber lie.

Best to leave Donald Rumsfeld alone. He's no pussycat.

Updated December 02, 2009
Rumsfeld Cries Foul on Obama Claim Troop Requests for Afghanistan Were Denied

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday lashed out at President Obama for claiming the Bush administration rebuffed commanders' repeated requests for more troops in Afghanistan.

In a rare break in his public silence since leaving the Pentagon, Rumsfeld rejected the claim as a "bald misstatement" and "disservice" that cannot go unanswered.

"Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response," Rumsfeld said in a written statement. "I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006."

The president leveled the charge in his speech Tuesday night outlining his plan to send 30,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan.

In his speech, Obama gave a detailed history of the Afghanistan war starting with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He argued that the Iraq war drew needed resources away from Afghanistan, allowing the situation to deteriorate since 2003.

"Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq," Obama said. "Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained Wednesday that Obama was referring to requests that came in during 2008, and suggested Rumsfeld was on thin ice with his criticism.

"I will let Secretary Rumsfeld explain ... whether he thinks that the effort in Afghanistan was sufficiently resourced during his tenure as secretary of defense," he said.

But if Obama were referring to the 2008 period, he would seem to have been pointing the finger at his own secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who served in the same position in the previous administration.

Rumsfeld said in his statement the White House should make public any such requests if they exist to back up the allegation.

"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," Rumsfeld said.

He urged Congress to review the claim in the upcoming debate to "determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied."

posted December 03, 2009 10:36 AM         

quote:

---

So, why are American troops in Afghanistan?

---

well, the former president announced to the world that:
"In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children.

Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force lead by the 82nd Airborne is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan.

America and our coalition will finish what we have begun."

full transcript of Mission Accomplished speech http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/

the obvious is to say that if we had taken care of business, instead of diverting resources to Iraq, this wouldn't be an issue now.
Doubtful we will ever know the full story.

posted December 03, 2009 02:42 PM         

They're all in their places with bright smiling faces.

Perhaps that's a consequence of O'Bomber decreeing captured terrorists...including bin Laden are to be read their rights.

One of those Cadets has the right take on bin Laden...as opposed to O'Bomber's approach of reading him his American Constitutional Rights. KILL HIM!

posted December 04, 2009 04:46 AM         

quote:

---

"In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained.

---

Oh, thanks Node. So the people in Afghanistan that were trained by the CIA who later became Taliban members, were of no use to the States anymore. So 'they' destroyed them. Politics is such a fickle career!

Do you think that if the States had not funded and trained Al Qaeda in the 1980's, 9/11 would not have happened?

posted December 04, 2009 02:07 PM         

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. But it will never happen.

posted December 05, 2009 03:59 AM         

I'm working out why the States went into Afghanistan in the first place. They didn't decide in one day to go. But the more I read, the more I can make links into American political thinking.

To talk of restoring hospitals and educating children, I believe, is a political strategy to keep American feet in the camp.

I did appreciate your answer and appreciate anyone's answer. History can also be Herstory and Theirstory. I really appreciate an American's point of view as there are a million points of view and I'd like to know some of them.

I saw pics of dead children in Afghanistan and wonder why they had to be killed in a move to keep a political interest in this area of the world.

Sarcasm? I don't mind being interpreted as that. My style of writing in LL does fluctuate. It's hard to be happy and light in Global unity

I did sincerely mean thanks to you Node

posted December 06, 2009 02:10 PM         

Any person that has enlisted into the Military after 9/11 would be a stupid jackass if they did not think a deployment was in their future.

I can also tell you this NO real Soldier "looks forward" to deploying. There are only two kinds of people that want to go to war, those that have never been and those that are stupid. The real Soldiers understand their own mortality and the service that they give to their country. Not one of them, that I know (and I live in an Army community overseas, am married to a Soldier and work for the Army) wants to die in a war.

You are always so bitter yet you have no practical knowledge of anything other than what has been spoon fed to you from the media.

Jwhop!! Awesome article / post. Bear and I cracked up at the pictures of the cadets reading while Obomber was speaking.

posted December 06, 2009 05:43 PM         

"i'll bet those kids are rubbing their hands together in glee at the prospect of being deployed..NOT! why on earth would they be wearing grins at an announcement like that?"

it was jwhop who cynically remarked that the cadets didn't look HAPPY at obama's announcement...and me who said that would be a silly thing to expect. your preconceptions are showing again, madeira! if you call me bitter it only shows you haven't really paid attention to what i've said. and obviously you have not noticed my repeated info that i have several family members in the military...that i don't listen to the "spoonfeeding" and that whatever i think of our military policies i know there are plenty of intelligent, honourable soldiers whose safety actually is a concern of mine!

the fact that i don't think we should be spending trillions perpetuating wars that a large part of the public (whose taxes pay for those wars) don't approve of has nothing to do with what i think of our troops. despite YOUR continued assertions that i am an idiot.