- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
by FOXNews.com
Senior administration officials told the New York Times that the financial implications of more troops has become a volatile issue as the president works to push a costly health care plan through Congress and the government budget deficit is soaring.
Concerns over funding additional forces in Afghanistan are adding pressure to President Obama as he weighs plans to move forward in the region, the New York Times reported.
Senior administration officials told the Times that the financial implications of more troops has become a volatile issue as the president works to push a costly health care plan through Congress and the government budget deficit is soaring.
The cost estimates of adding 40,000 U.S. forces and increasing Afghan security are $40 to $54 billion a year according to officials, and even if less troops are sent, the White House formula would remain constant at about $1 million per soldier.
Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision - FOXNews.com
So let me see if I have this straight....Billions in bail out funds for those who demo's are now painting as 'greedy', and unworthy. More than a Trillion for a stimulus package that was really little more than a boon of pork, and a thousand pages. And now considering a 2 thousand page 'Health care' package that costs over a Trillion that is nothing but a hammer of control over peoples lives.
All the while Obama travels the globe on his never ending apology tour, bowing to emperors, and Saudi Kings, and never addressing a direct question on whether or not he thinks that the decision to use 'the bomb' in WWII, ultimately saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run, was a good one.
This man is feckless, and a coward in my estimation, and the world sees it. Coming up on a year, and no accomplishments, other than spending this country into a grave, and transforming America into a laughing stock while emboldening our enemies, and giving rise to one world control through the UN.
What say you Charles?
Charles Krauthammer said:The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious -- particularly about things like war, about which until Jan. 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.
When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.
"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."
Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.
Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq war bad, Afghan war good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.
So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?
Perhaps provide the resources to win it?
You would think so. And that's exactly what Obama's handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 -- a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.
That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don't commit troops before you decide on a strategy.
No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."
Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.
snip
Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?
Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?
Charles Krauthammer - Obama Indecisive About Afghan Strategy - washingtonpost.com
Hear, hear Charles.
We live in sad times for this country my fellow countrymen.
j-mac