Obama’s War – Who Do You Trust On Afghanistan?

Update: Obama’s short, limp, weak, speech is over. Short version of the speech (which had no details – what did Obama do for three months?) is: “we’re accelerating in to accelerate out”.

A pictorial representation of the speech is here:

Push-Me-Pull-You

—————————————————————————————————–

If you elect a boob, expect boobery. A while back we made our “Julia Child” analogy regarding universal health care. The “Julia Child” analogy is also apt for the situation in Afghanistan:

Think of it this way: A hungry person gets two invitations for dinner. The first invitation is from Julia Child. The second invitation is from Jeffrey Dahmer.

With the first invitation from Julia Child (a.k.a. Hillary Clinton) the hungry person is sure to get a delicious nutritious dinner from an experienced and knowledgeable and trustworthy cook who knows the pitfalls of the kitchen. With the second invitation from Jeffrey Dahmer (a.k.a. Barack Obama) the hungry person will be on the table as the dinner.

The above was from Obama Holds Press Conference At Waterloo. That was the presser that ended with Obama insulting the Cambridge Police Department. That press conference was supposed to force the U.S. Senate to vote on health care before the August recess. That press conference was a failure.

Tonight we have yet another Obama publicity stunt. The stage props tonight will be cadets at West Point Academy.

We’ll wait patiently for the publicity stunt words to roll out of Obama’s mouth tonight. But we don’t think things will go well. If you elect a boob, expect boobery.

* * * * *

There is a reason why Americans are so concerned about the White House “party crashers”. The story is interesting not because of people sneaking into a state dinner. It’s not even about all the misspellings on the White House menu for a state dinner. It’s about the disarray people sense and things unraveling.

Many Americans are upset at the lavish Obama party spending in the face of so much economic dislocation. Even so, with all the assistants Michelle Obama has hired to keep her high on the hog, with all the employees dedicated to state dinner jobs, how do such “mishaps” happen? What do the little things say about the big things?

A little noticed Newsweek story clues us in to the fact that the Secret Service is taking all the blame when clearly something else is going on:

The White House staff member whose job was to supervise the guest list for state dinners and clear invitees into the events says she was stripped of most of her responsibilities earlier this year, prompting her to resign last June.

The account of Cathy Hargraves, who formerly served as White House “assistant for arrangements,” raises new questions about whether changes that she says were made by President Obama’s social secretary, Desiree Rogers, may have contributed to the security lapses that permitted Virginia socialites Michaele and Tareq Salahi to crash the state dinner for India’s prime minister last week and get themselves photographed with the president.

Hargraves tells Declassified in an exclusive interview that although she had originally been hired as a White House political appointee in 2001, she landed a new position on the White House residence staff in 2006 and was specifically detailed to the social office to work on state dinners.

Her job duties included overseeing the invitations for guests at state dinners and keeping track of RSVPs, she says. On the evening of state dinners, she says, she physically stood at the East Gate portico entrance and greeted each of the guests as they arrived, checking their names off a computerized printout of those who had been invited.

But when she met with Rogers last February and went over her job responsibilities, she says, the new social secretary told her, “We don’t feel we have a need for that anymore.” Rogers’s explanation, according to Hargraves: “In these economic times, I don’t think we’re going to have very many lavish expensive dinners. It wouldn’t look very good.

Yet the lavish Marie Antoinette entertainments flourished with sleeveless Michelle presiding.

The lavish wit of yesteryear, Dorothy Parker, was once asked to use the word “horticulture” in a sentence. Parker replied, “You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.” In the same way you can give Obama a perfect plan but it won’t work. You can give Obama a Julia Child recipe but what he produces will not be edible. Obama may or may not have a perfect plan for Afghanistan, but boobery will ensue.

Think of it this way: In any Three Stooges short film, the Stooges might be wealthy and dressed in Tuxedos, but the end result will be the same – a pie fight will ensue. Larry’s hair will eventually be yanked by the fistful, and Curley is sure to have a hammer clammer on his head.



It does not matter what Obama does or says at 8:00 p.m. tonight. Expect boobery.

Obama’s post-dither speech tonight will not exude the resolve nor the patience to inspire American troops in the field. We expect Obama will announce a “surge” of troops to Afghanistan, while focusing on withdrawal. It will be a double message which will not radiate confidence. There will be promises a plenty too. We don’t expect the latest Guantanamo-style promises on Afghanistan to be kept.

Later this week there will be yet another Obama publicity stunt. That one will be about job creation. Expect lots of flowery words and boobery, but no results

The Dimocrats who enabled all this boobery will continue to make excuses for Obama. When a vote for funding of Obama’s War comes to a vote we hope Republicans will stay in their seats and not vote until the Dimocrats who called Hillary a “war-monger” are forced to produce the votes all by themselves to fund Obama’s War. Only then should Republicans get up off their seats to vote.

Elections have consequences and only now will Dimocrats begin to understand the boobery they have enabled and inflicted on the nation. Unfortunately those troops that will put their lives on the line will be the ones to suffer.

On land, on sea, in the air, the consequences of tonight’s speech will be made manifest.



This Christmas season, we’ll just have to muddle through somehow. We could have had a real commander-in-chief who knew what she was doing.

Share

163 thoughts on “Obama’s War – Who Do You Trust On Afghanistan?

  1. Dec. 1, 2009

    Chelsea Clinton to Wed Next Summer

    Former First Daughter to Wed Longtime Beau Mark Mezvinksy, Hillary Clinton Confirms Engagement to CBS News’ Michelle Miller

    Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton has announced she’s engaged to her longtime beau Mark Mezvinsky, and plans to wed next summer.

    =====================

    LOL! At first reading I thought she was engaged to Michelle Miller!

  2. Sorry no time today but wasn’t Hillary quoted not long ago as saying she was Goldilocks bewteen extremes on Afganistan troop requests and did she mention the figure 30,000 instead of what the extremes wanted???????

  3. We could have had a real commander-in-chief who knew what she was doing.

    No kidding. Eagleburger on Cavuto called Obama and his advisers amateurs but made a special exception to SoS. There was another article by Faoud Azami in WSJ that showed Obama’s boobery especially how he on his apeasement tour has failed to impress the Arabs — they don’t like a guy who bad mouths his own.
    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558300500152682.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

  4. Hillary has played it very smart by not publicly discussing exact numbers. She understands that the far left already will blame her as a “bad influence” and applaud Biden who was ready to leave and declare victory. We should have been in Afghanistan in large numbers from the beginning as this is where those savages plotted and trained for 9/11. Obama even claimed it was a “war of necessity”. He simply wanted ample cover and time to cover himself for a decision that was by and large already made before Gen. McCrystal’s request. This whole “deep” thought process is a crock of shit. Many soldiers died while Obama , more or less, voted once again “present” and had to let other make the argument for him.

  5. Here is a cleaner link for the WSJ Azami article (I like this guy and have referenced his article in my NQ post — Obama’s Summer of Wee Wee):

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558300500152682.html

  6. simply put

    2 Sayings modified…..

    “An asshole never changes his spots”

    or

    “Once a moron always a moron”

    Amazing both apply to Obama so easily.

  7. Comedy Central quotes CNN:

    http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/12/01/barack-obama-wants-to-end-the-war-in-afghanistan-in-three-years-for-some-reason/?xrs=

    Barack Obama — who is nearly one year into his first four-year term — has supposedly decided to randomly pick a three-year time table for ending his proposed escalation in Afghanistan out of thin air for no reason whatsoever…

    President Obama intends to conclude the Afghanistan war and withdraw most U.S. troops within three years, according to senior administration officials.

    Obama is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and ordering military officials to get the reinforcements there within six months, White House officials told CNN Tuesday.

    Jeeze, I sure hope the bringing the troops home in 2012 doesn’t get too much in the way of Obama’s re-election campaign.*

    * Don’t worry. It won’t. Those troops will be there for at least another decade or so.

  8. JbStonesFan, the Kooks will blame Hillary and Republicans. That is why we suggest that Republicans stay in their seats for the vote until the Dimocrats themselves have to arm twist to get the votes for the war funding. Republicans should not provide cover for Obama.

    As to Hillary, she will make sense with her suggestions. The problem will remain that she is not the one in charge. There is a boob in charge.

  9. jbstonesfan

    December 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    ———————-

    Exactly!

    ——————

    Admin,

    Very timely article. Your choice of clip is my all-time favorite scene and song of Judy Garland’s. Thanks for the memories even if you posted it for other reasons.

  10. admin:

    “Think of it this way: A hungry person gets two invitations for dinner. The first invitation is from Julia Child (Hillary Clinton). The second invitation is from Jeffrey Dahmer.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Yes, the hungry person invited to the Julia Child dinner will eat well. Barack O’Dahmer knows he well eat well after he finishes with his hungry guest.

    (your analogy is as funny as hell, admin)

  11. BARF ALERT!

    NBC/Vanity Fair poll asks if a 5th prez should be added to Mount Rushmore and if it should be Squat!

    On another note – LSM is lying about Squat’s expected announcement of 30,000 troops for Afghanistan as being close to what McCrystal asked for. Nope. He originally requested 60G.

    How sickening that anyone has to serve under a POS POTUS like Squat.

  12. politico.com/click/stories/0912/potus_is_boon_for_prompter_industry.html

    Ernie Harris has one favor to ask of Barack Obama: Please, Mr. President, lower the eye line of your teleprompter panels.

    The current height of the beam splitters — as they are called — makes the president’s chin lift too much, says Harris, which creates the appearance that Obama is talking down to his audience.

    Harris should know. He’s the general manager of Capitol Prompting Service Inc., an Arlington, Va.-based company that has supplied prompters to numerous politicians. Last year, the company was the main supplier for Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, and it currently provides equipment to several members of Obama’s Cabinet.

    The use of teleprompters has become so identified with the current commander in chief that it’s made for an axiom: As goes Obama, so goes the prompter. Critics looking to take Obama’s oratory down a peg have derisively pointed to the device, as if to say, “If he’s really so good, why is he reading?” Others have had fun with it: The satirical publication The Onion recently posted an online video sendup mocking the president’s prompter use, just another in a long line of ribbings he’s received. (No matter that The Onion rents prompters for its fake TV news programs from the same company that sold the White House its current lot of hardware.)

    Obama’s embrace has changed the game for those like Harris. “We used to float under the radar,” he says.

    But not any longer. Obama’s much-publicized usage has both provided a wealth of free advertising for the industry and added to the besmirchment of the speaking aid as a crutch. “I think it is good in that it gets it out there,” says Harris, “but sometimes I think it creates a stigma we have a hard time overcoming.”

    Steve Carofalo, general manager at the New York-based prompter company Q-TV, says corporate clients began moving away from using “presidential-style” prompting in the late 1990s, when the stigmatizing first began. For that crowd, he says, Obama’s use and the ensuing conversation around it have further discouraged it.

    “These are Type A personalities, chief executives, and they don’t want to look bad,” Carofalo says. “They want to put the best face forward, and a lot of them are doing off-the-cuff, extemporaneous remarks, so that it is more real.”

    From the time Obama announced his candidacy to the present day, the president has been committed to the prompter. Harris says that several McCain staffers put forth the idea early in the general election that their candidate go off prompter to distinguish himself from his opponent. Ultimately, and at times quite clumsily, McCain decided to use one anyway.

    Sean Graham-White, whose Chicago-based business, SGW Teleprompting Solutions, staffed and supplied the Obama campaign, says he was reluctant to advertise his famous client for a while.

    “I didn’t really publicize it so much,” he says. “Because it was such a polarizing campaign, I didn’t want to go out there and say, ‘I am the Obama guy.’”

    But after Obama took office, Graham-White says, he’s less wary about the association and now features a photo of the campaign and a testimonial from the president on his company’s website.

    For every few dozen new clients who are encouraged by Obama’s use of prompters, Graham-White says, he gets a few who express leeriness because of how they’ve interpreted the president’s use. On balance, it’s been good for business, but Graham-White, Harris and others speak of the calamitous possibilities that could arise from a single bad prompting episode.

    ********************************************

    Ernie Harris has one favor to ask of Barack Obama: Please, Mr. President, lower the eye line of your teleprompter panels.

    The current height of the beam splitters – as they are called – makes the president’s chin lift too much, says Harris, which creates the appearance that Obama is talking down to his audience.

    ************************************

    he IS talking down to his audience, Mr. Harris…

    …harris does not realize that O likes to always have his nose up in the air and looking down at people…just look at him in any photo at any event and he is always got his nose up in the air and peering down from that vantage point…

  13. yeah, Basil9…Mt. Rushmore to go with his Nobel Peace Prize for doing “squat” and actually decreasing the amount of people in the democratic party…and increasing unemployment and foreclosures while looting the treasury at the same time…

  14. oh…the irony of it all…

    politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/dept_of_bad_timing_obama_and_tiger_on_the_cover_of_golf_digest.php

    Dept. Of Bad Timing: Obama And Tiger On The Cover Of Golf Digest
    What timing: President Obama and Tiger Woods will appear together on the cover of the January issue of Golf Digest.

    It could be the most politically charged Golf Digest cover ever. Woods is dealing with a swirl of rumors and media scrutiny after crashing into a fire hydrant outside his house at 2:30 a.m. and his wife bashing his SUV’s window with a golf club. Obama is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and trying to pass a health care bill.

    On the inside spread, the cover story is titled: “What President Obama could learn from Tiger Woods–and vice versa.” Seriously.

    Any suggestions for what each could learn?

    **************************************************************

    once again…you cannot make this stuff up…photo at site above…

  15. jbstonesfan
    December 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
    We should have been in Afghanistan in large numbers from the beginning as this is where those savages plotted and trained for 9/11.

    ==========================

    Obama is on record in summer 2007 saying in a careful position paper that we should move the troops from Iraq to “the real battlefield in Pakistan and Afganistan.” He has been saying for a long time that we should have gone into Afgan instead of Iraq in the first place and Iraq was a distraction from that.

  16. Clinton to attend NATO meeting on Friday

    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a “very important” meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Friday, her office said, as Washington seeks further allied reinforcements for Afghanistan.

    The Brussels meeting, the first between Clinton and her 28 NATO counterparts, follows an expected announcement from US President Barack Obama later Tuesday that he is sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

    The United States is counting on its allies — more than 40 countries have troops in Afghanistan — and particularly European nations to provide up to 10,000 troops to meet recommendations by the top US and NATO officer there.

    But so far US allies are only expected to be able to muster between 4,000 and 5,000 extra troops, some of which are already in Afghanistan as temporary reinforcements, a NATO officer said Tuesday.

    Ministers will also meet Friday with counterparts from countries who are not members of the military alliance but contribute troops to the 112,000-strong NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

    Friday’s gathering was a “very important coordination meeting” for future Afghan deployments, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said, adding that Clinton will leave Washington on Thursday.

    NATO military officers are to meet in southern Belgium on December 7 to rubber stamp the commitments already in the pipeline.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h9_hGk6I9xAt67HlAEN35vURHzUg

  17. Clinton: ‘Civilian efforts as vital as military operations’

    By Jill Dougherty
    December 1, 2009

    Washington (CNN) — As President Obama prepared to explain his military strategy for Afghanistan Tuesday, his secretary of state said U.S. civilian efforts are just as critical to successfully getting Afghanistan back on its feet.

    At the same time, a diplomatic source says the United States is pushing for an international “special coordinator” to work in parallel with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

    Speaking Monday in New York to the Business Executives for National Security Gala, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington’s “goals in Afghanistan include providing the government with the support that it needs to take full responsibility for its own country.

    “That makes civilian efforts as vital as military operations and of longer duration,” she said. “We have begun to elevate diplomacy and development alongside defense in our national security strategy, and we are certainly engaged in doing so in Afghanistan.”

    Clinton described the work of the State Department, USAID and other government agencies deployed in Afghanistan. She said experts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture are embedded with the U.S. military and “rule of law” experts are working to extend a system of justice “so that the Taliban would not offer the only form of justice in Afghanistan.”

    The State Department says it is tripling the number of civilian staff deployed to Afghanistan, and plans to have 974 staff members there by early 2010.

    U.S. Department of State
    Despite the increased numbers of U.S. civilians expected to go to Afghanistan, and Obama’s expected announcement that 30,000 more U.S. troops will deploy there, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs cautioned that the U.S. mission will not be “nation-building.”

    “As the president said, we can’t be there forever. This can’t be nation-building. This can’t be open-ended,” Gibbs told CNN Tuesday. “We have to help clear and hold areas that the Taliban control now, but we have to transfer that to a competent Afghan government that’s addressed governance and corruption issues but also understand that they alone have the responsibility to provide their own security going forward.”

    Clinton, according to the State Department, has been involved in intense diplomacy in the run-up to the president’s speech, speaking by phone with the foreign ministers of more than a dozen countries over the past week to outline Obama’s strategy. But she appears to be encountering reluctance among some allies to ante up more support.

    French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was one of those contacted by Clinton, a European diplomat told CNN. In a conversation last Thursday, the diplomat said Kouchner told Clinton that France “will stay as long as needed” in Afghanistan but has no plans to send more than the 3,750 French troops currently there. The State Department refused to confirm that Clinton asked Kouchner for more troops.

    Meanwhile, a senior U.S. official speaking on background according to State Department ground rules said Clinton supports the concept of an international special coordinator who would work with the Karzai government to strengthen it and avoid possibilities for corruption. The idea has been proposed informally by U.S. special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke.

    State Department spokesman Ian Kelly denied Tuesday that having a coordinator would be an attempt at an “end-run” around Karzai, whose government has been accused of mismanagement and corruption.
    “It’s a coordinating role,” Kelly said. “It’s about coordinating civilian developmental and other resources among international partners. This is about helping build the capacity of the Afghan government. It is not about by-passing.” “We are trying to better support the Afghan government. This is the main objective of having this civilian coordinator. And it will include a role for the U.N. as well,” he added.

    The European diplomat, speaking on background because of the sensitivity of the subject, agreed. “He [Karzai] has a lot to deliver and we want to make sure he does,” the diplomat said. “We want to help him.”

    Other ideas being proposed by Europeans include creating a “secretariat” of the government, an administrative service that would assure the functioning of the government, this official said. While there are many different ideas, there is no deadline for accepting them, the diplomat said. The hope is that proposals might be ready for discussion at the international conference on Afghanistan that will be held in London, England, on January 28, 2010.

    Mark Schneider, senior vice president of the International Crisis Group, said Holbrooke appears to be basing his idea on the model adopted after the war in Bosnia, under which the office of High Representative had “enormous powers” to void legislation and fire corrupt officials.

    The situation in Afghanistan is not the same, Schneider said, but the hope would be that Karzai would agree to have an international overseer to help the government deal with corruption, lack of effectiveness and the civilian side of the counter-insurgency effort.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/clinton.afghanistan/

  18. JbStonesFan, the Kooks will blame Hillary and Republicans. That is why we suggest that Republicans stay in their seats for the vote until the Dimocrats themselves have to arm twist to get the votes for the war funding. Republicans should not provide cover for Obama.
    ————————————-
    Brilliant!!!!!

  19. yeah, Basil9…Mt. Rushmore to go with his Nobel Peace Prize for doing “squat” and actually decreasing the amount of people in the democratic party…and increasing unemployment and foreclosures while looting the treasury at the same time…
    —————————————–
    Why despoil Mount Rushmore?

  20. “As the president said, we can’t be there forever. This can’t be nation-building. This can’t be open-ended,” Gibbs told CNN
    —————————————
    Gibbs (hereinafter “Curly” from the Three Stooges) is right! His military commanders say eight years and eight years is not forever. Except there are economic and geopolitical considerations which will extend our mission to maybe 50 years. But as Curly says, fifty years are not forever. Diamonds are forever, and Curly would look good with one in his ear. And Curly is right when he says this cannot be nation building. Even if we hire contractors, build cities, let global capitalists plunder what is there we must not call it nation building. Obama does not do nation building. But any company with roots in Chicago should be banned from participating in this grand delusion which we shall not call nation building. There is too much corruption in their circle. Forget about all this bullshit Curly, and give me two honest answers if you are capable of telling the truth: i) how much will it cost? ii) who will pay for it. One more question: is Britain pulling out?

  21. Snot nosed David Gregory is the oldest 37 I have ever seen. He claims Obama is better than Bush because he is plans to withdraw from Iraq. If Bush were in he would be pulling out as well, so what is the point? Isn’t it true that Obama voted in favor of every spending measure. He is no better than Bush. He misses the critical point which is that Obama is doubling down in Afghanistan, becoming a war president, and committing us to another Viet Nam. David Gregory is not very smart and his only redeeming virtue is his name is not Russert. Let us hope that jackal is sitting inside the gates of hell with Jeffery D, deciding what is for dinner.

  22. wbboei, Just a little info about politics of East Texas. 5 low level politicians have decided to change to republicans for 2010. Like rats leaving a sinking ship. They know most people are going to vote a straight rethug ticket in 2010 so they want to get out of the way of that. LOL!!
    Even these local politicians know the dimocrats are going to get their asses handed to them in 2010.

  23. Cover Of Golf Digest
    ——————————-
    At one time this was a great magazine. Ben Hogan published his classic The Fundamentals of Moder Golf in their pages in 1956. Some of their camera work is excellent. And they have run alot of article by my golf teacher David Leadbetter. Today however Golf Digest is too much like Oprah.

    If you have played golf you know there is a big difference between low gross and low net. Low gross your actual score. Low net is your actual score minus your handicap. One of the many ways to cheat in the game of golf is to inflate your handicap. The technical term for this is sandbagging.

    Now that you understand the difference between low gross and low net, you will understand the difference between Tiger(who is the real thing) and Obama (who is a fraud). With apologies to Jerry Tarde who wrote an article a twenty years ago entitled “Why it is becoming a low net world”.

    1. Golf carts are low net. Walking is low gross.

    2. Mulligans are low net. Playing the ball out of a divot hole without complaining is low gross.

    3. The Crosby was low net when Bing ran it. When Katherine moved it to North Carolina it became low gross.

    4. The senior tour is low net. The PGA tour is low gross.

    5. Eighteen hold playoffs in major championships are low net. Sudden death playoffs are low gross.

    6. A LeRoy Neiman print in your living room is low net. Keeping your trophies in the attic is low gross.

    7. Pete Dye dinosaur mounds are low net. Courses like Pine Valley designed by dead architects are low gross.

    8. Blowhard CEOs interviewed at tournaments is low net. Understated corp sponsorship is low net–Masters.

    9. Laying up when you have a chance to win is low net. Going for it and risking it all is low net.

    10.Obama is low net. Tiger Woods is low gross.

    Tiger is the best golfer of his generation, and maybe the greatest ever if you adjust for equipment. What Tiger is to Golf, our girl Hillary is to leadership–the best of the best.

  24. Correction: I got distracted. 8 & 9 are wrong. It should read:
    ————————————————————
    Cover Of Golf Digest
    ——————————-
    At one time this was a great magazine. Ben Hogan published his classic The Fundamentals of Moder Golf in their pages in 1956. Some of their camera work is excellent. And they have run alot of article by my golf teacher David Leadbetter. Today however Golf Digest is too much like Oprah.

    If you have played golf you know there is a big difference between low gross and low net. Low gross your actual score. Low net is your actual score minus your handicap. One of the many ways to cheat in the game of golf is to inflate your handicap. The technical term for this is sandbagging.

    Now that you understand the difference between low gross and low net, you will understand the difference between Tiger(who is the real thing) and Obama (who is a fraud). With apologies to Jerry Tarde who wrote an article a twenty years ago entitled “Why it is becoming a low net world”.

    1. Golf carts are low net. Walking is low gross.

    2. Mulligans are low net. Playing the ball out of a divot hole without complaining is low gross.

    3. The Crosby was low net when Bing ran it. When Katherine moved it to North Carolina it became low gross.

    4. The senior tour is low net. The PGA tour is low gross.

    5. Eighteen hold playoffs in major championships are low net. Sudden death playoffs are low gross.

    6. A LeRoy Neiman print in your living room is low net. Keeping your trophies in the attic is low gross.

    7. Pete Dye dinosaur mounds are low net. Courses like Pine Valley designed by dead architects are low gross.

    8. Blowhard CEOs interviewed at tournaments is low net. Understated corp sponsorship is low gross–Masters.

    9. Laying up when you have a chance to win is low net. Going for it and risking it all is low gross.

    10.Obama is low net. Tiger Woods is low gross.

    Tiger is the best golfer of his generation, and maybe the greatest ever if you adjust for equipment. What Tiger is to Golf, our girl Hillary is to leadership–the best of the best.

  25. I need a proof reader. Hogans book was the Fundamentals of Modern Golf. I misspelled the word Modern. For at least forty years it was the teaching bible of the USGA. He was the greatest ball striker who ever lived, and the game in those days was less a game of power and more a game of finesse. If you substitute the word money for power the analogy to politics becomes obvious.

  26. Obama starts by reliving 9/11 and blaming George W. for not sending enough troops to Afghanistan.
    —————————————————————————-
    He just became a war president in the mind of Michael Moore. That should be the que to Republicans to do what you suggested above.

  27. Let us hope the public is smart enough to see through this charade. Again, the question is whom do you trust. The words are not his own, and he breaks every promise he makes. Why should anyone believe him now?

  28. The look on the cadet’s faces is one of disgust. Thinking to themselves, why in the world did we vote for this guy in the first place? Where is the Hope and Change? They were told by Obama, he would bring everyone home starting on day 1 he is in office. Obama is waxing Bush III.

  29. The TelePrompTer appears to be working. Something appears to have gone awry with the lack of introduction however. Maybe it was planned?

  30. ok al qaeda, you’ve heard it from the horses mouth, all you’ve gotta do is hide in your caves for the next 18 mos. after that it will be “party time” for the terrorists.

  31. He appeared at first to address the Vietnam analogy but then gave it very short shrift. He only said that Americans are not fighting alone. Now he seems to be addressing the cost issue but not a whiff about how “guns and butter” can be had at the same time.

  32. When BO mentioned the word prosperity… no one looked up.
    Someone just lit up the applause sign.. hmm..

  33. Resist DC: A Step-by-Step Plan for Freedom

    Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)
    Tenth Amendment Center
    November 30, 2009

    This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.

    From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.

    • State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation “with teeth” to put the federal government back in its place.

    • The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.

    • County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.

    Step 1: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation

    continued:
    infowars.com/resist-dc-a-step-by-step-plan-for-freedom/

  34. The entire speech – nothing:

    Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

    To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

    As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – 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.

    Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

    Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

    Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that 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.

    Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

    But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

    Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

    Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

    Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

    As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

    This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

    I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

    Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

    So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

    Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

    These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

    To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

    We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

    The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

    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. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

    Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

    This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

    The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

    Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

    We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

    In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

    In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

    These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

    I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

    First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

    Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

    Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

    As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

    Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

    All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

    But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

    Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

    So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

    And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

    We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

    We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

    Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

    Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

    We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

    For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

    As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

    In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

    This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

    It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

    America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

  35. Admin,

    thanks for the play-by-play.

    Glad it wasn’t me that had to sit through it. 😉

    S,
    ROTFLMFAO!
    /12/dept_of_bad_timing_obama_and_tiger_on_the_cover_of_golf_digest.php

  36. We updated by adding a pictorial representation of Obama’s speech to our article.

    Those poor cadets going off to war with weak Obama in charge.

  37. Alcina, there is a strange silence from Kookville. We have not been to DailyKooks, but the other Obama Big Blog Boys are doing their best to ignore the speech. It’s almost as if they are pretending tonight did not happen. Kookville is silent now that the Grinch stole their Hopium.

  38. For those that bothered to watch, did you see that just about every camera pan of the cadets had a few snoozing?

  39. Bill O’Reilly just told Dennis Kucinich about Obama “He agrees more with me than with you.” That should help the DailyKooks who called Hillary a “war-monger” realize they have been had by a flim-flam man from Chicago.

  40. admin, I am not sure he is a war-monger either. He is a spineless coward who is trying to have it both ways, by deploying new troops and talking about bringing them back in 18 months. But what is to be accomplished in those 18 months and how?

  41. admin
    December 1st, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    The count was 1 in 10 nodding off from the rat-tat-tat droning of the speech until someone started to applaud waking-up those almost in Ambien state.

  42. Why, Big Blog Boys like Ambinder are not having an orgasm crying that was the best speech ever (like they did last time for the Fort Hood one)?

  43. Pm317, that is exactly the point – he’s trying to have it both ways. By talking “exit” he sends a message of weakness to opponents. What leaders do, even if unsure, is they make a strong case – and get beaten up by those who disagree with them domestically. Obama wants to keep the Dimocrats happy and threaten the enemy and fails at both.

    What he needed to do was make a strong case for his position and take his lumps from those who enabled him. Instead he produced a speech which sends a message of weakness. Those in Afghanistan he is sending American troops to fight against get the message that the commander in chief lacks resolve and they just have to wait him out. Even if he did not like it, Obama should have sent a message of resolve to the troops and to enemies. Instead he sounded weak and limp.

    As to calling him a “war-monger” we do so to force the DailyKooks and their ilk to look at themselves and how they attacked Hillary with those very words.

  44. Obama is a profiteer involved in protecting Pakistan. The Gatecrashers are pro-Hamas and therefore welcome at the State dinner by their benefactor.

    Lauer said, at first the Salani’s asked nbc for 6 figures to do the interview. They ended up with zero to prognosticate publicly.

  45. The concern I have about Obama as Commander In Chief (Toastmaster General and Gladhandler at large)is summed up by two lines from Tennyson about the Crimean War:

    Half a league, half a league,
    Half a league onward,
    All in the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred.
    “Forward, the Light Brigade!
    “Charge for the guns!” he said:
    Into the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred.

    2.
    “Forward, the Light Brigade!”
    Was there a man dismay’d?
    Not tho’ the soldier knew
    SOMEONE HAD BLUNDER’ED:
    Theirs not to make reply,
    Theirs not to reason why,
    Theirs but to do and die:
    Into the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred.

    Fortunately, we have good commanders in the field. Let us hope he does not interfere.

  46. admin
    December 1st, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    Did Tiger Woods watch the speech?

    Tigger is Winnieing in deep Pooh…

  47. Mrs. Smith….. No exodus anywhere for potus….. As it seems via drudge he will be partying 28 times in December like it’s 1999 with 50,000 visitors to the WH.

  48. After this weak speech expect the “coalition of the willing” to become a coalition of the exiting.
    ————————————-
    The question any ally must ask themselves about Obama is given his history of breaking his word, why should we count on him to keep his word in this instance. It is a serious question and it may cause the coalition to collapse. At a minimum, there is reasonable grounds for scepticism. In the past we could count on Britain and Israel to back us. He has undermined that coalition by his actions.

  49. Admin, right, I do get why you say “war-monger.” BTW thanks for the comments. I didn’t watch the speech. Here is the incongruousness (?!) I see. Every life lost between now and the 18 months are up will be for what? When we are asking them to give their lives, we at least have to give them the mission/the vision of the same magnitude in the name of their country. But this guy goes limping around everywhere apologizing.

  50. The Cadets were suffering from droopy eyelids syndrome while the messiah rambled on and on with his lullaby of BS.
    The real president sat there and suffered in silence.This is itenarary for tomorrow.She will also appear before
    the Foreign Affairs hearing at 1:30 pm on C-Span 3

    _______———————————————————–

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Travel to Brussels

    Office of the Spokesman
    Washington, DC

    December 1, 2009

    ——————————————————————————–

    Secretary of State Clinton will travel to Brussels December 4, 2009 to attend a meeting of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at the level of Foreign Ministers to be held at NATO Headquarters. On the agenda will also be a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers with Non-NATO ISAF contributing nations and a NATO-Russia Council working lunch.

    She will also meet with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, as well as with newly appointed Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme and Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere, and EU leaders
    She will also

  51. ABM90, tomorrow we will hear a presidential presentation from Hillary. Too bad she’s not the Julia Child in the kitchen.

  52. My g-d that was awful…I felt terrible for those cadets having to listen to a guy who basically just told the enemy we are coming, but then going, once again, in front of our nations finest, apologized for our mistakes. Then tries to end it all in some kumbaya , we are the world, m=nonsense. Disgraceful, embarrassing, incompetent.

  53. #djia
    December 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    Mrs. Smith….. No exodus anywhere for potus….. As it seems via drudge he will be partying 28 times in December like it’s 1999 with 50,000 visitors to the WH.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    It’s disturbing to me Obama is depleting our domestic defenses by sending West Point cadets with their strategic military skills to die in A-stan. You know damn well, al queda will be hiding out in caves for the next 18 mos (the giveaway in Obama’s speech) forcing our troops out into the open as cannon fodder for the insurgents.

    For what Obama is asking of the cadets and troops, that speech should have been given directly from the oval office.

  54. WH does all the research and framing for these bastards. They don’t have to lift a finger but to collect their fat checks.
    —————————
    They always go to the schamiest members of the press–like Eugene Robinson, Al Hunt and Joe Kline–cnn newsweek time and new york times, who are perfectly willing to lie for them.

  55. Mathews should be fired immediately!!!!!!!! I am stunned that even a jackass like him could say something so incredibly stupid.

  56. This Robert Haass who was on to defend the decision is not only head of the Council of Foreign Affairs but is also a Bushie. Most likely a neocon. Why are these guys out front. Normally they stay back in the shadows. Remember Hillary’s comment about them when they moved from New York to Washington DC. I do not remember the exact words but it was a joke about them watching over the administration. Many a truth is said in jest/

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/18273/war_of_necessity_war_of_choice.html

  57. Matthews is a brain dead reader. Obama standing at the podium telling the cadets they are shipping out to A-stan to die for more of his lies. Didn’t Matthews hear the lofty words of spreading freedom and democracy coming from his boy? Did he expect cheers, smiles and unrelenting applause for Obama’s death knell proclamation to the cadets who understood fully he is asking them to give their lives for his ever vacillating words?

    Better still, after the speech. The fast talking Richard Haas from the CFR was on with David Gregory. He sounded like a used car salesman selling a good looking car that was actually an underwater restoration job from Katrina.. pumping up Obama’s circular logic.

  58. I am sure the cadets loved hearing how the Muslim religion was a wonderful religion after some of their countrymen in Texas was masacred by one of its followers.

    Chris Mathews is losing it! West Point is the enemy camp! WOW!

  59. Gah, he’s so darn COLD. One of the things that bothers me most is that you could tell he just flat doesn’t care, either way, except about how it will affect HIS career. It’s all politics to him. He was voting present.

    If he believes it’s unwinnable militarily, then come out and MAKE THAT CASE, outline the withdrawal steps, and outline the bold alternatives we’ll pursue instead of continued occupation.

    And though I’d disagree, I could (almost) respect him for it if he decided yes, we need to do this, we CAN win this, we’re going all-in, and he came out and gave his reasons, and rallied the nation and those young men and women to BELIEVE in their mission. I’d hate it, but I could at least respect it a tiny bit.

    But THIS namby-pamby fence-straddling bullshit? He’s a f**king coward with no convictions at all, about anything. He’s an empty cipher. He’s a husk. It’s creepy. Our troops deserve so much better than that.

  60. more from Obama mouthpieces, a different kind of propaganda news network, much more dangerous because they seem to be benign and thoughtful (there is that word again)..Ambinder did have his high today at the lunch with his best president evah..

    politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/interview_with_the_president_the_politics_of_escalation.php

  61. pm, Ambinder needs to get off his knees and learn not to talk with his mouth full. Sorry, admin – I’m just so disgusted right now.

  62. What did Plouffe say in his book? They (Obama’s campaign) gave/fed the reporters things to report as opposed to reporters digging up objective news and information about him and his fucking campaign. Well, they are still using the same MO/tricks with the lapdog media bastards.

  63. Someone posted a photoshopped picture of a cadet reading a book “Kill Bin Laden”. hahahaha. Well, at least he wasn’t asleep.

  64. Since when is West Point the “enemy camp” for the president? Matthews is a real nutcase. Why does he still have a job? Thanks for the pbp.

  65. Obama issues order for escalation in Afghanistan

    “The new “surge” follows the 21,000 additional troops Obama ordered to Afghanistan in the first weeks of his administration. It will bring the total US troop deployment to 100,000—the highest since the invasion eight years ago.

    In escalating US violence in Afghanistan and threatening more direct military involvement in Pakistan, the administration is defying public opinion in the two countries, where popular opposition to US military operations is pervasive, and in the US itself, where opinion polls show that a majority of the American people is opposed to the war.

    In its contempt for the will of the people, as in its policies on the economy, war and democratic rights, the Obama administration is continuing without a hitch the basic policies and methods of the Bush administration, which were repudiated by the electorate when it voted for Obama on the basis of his claim to be the candidate of “change.”

    It is highly significant that, after the manner of his predecessor, Obama has chosen the US Military Academy at West Point as the venue for tonight’s nationally televised speech. He is not speaking as the civilian president from the Oval Office, as is traditional for major presidential policy statements, or going before the elected legislators in Congress.

    Instead, he has chosen to address the officer corps who will be entrusted with carrying out his orders. He will speak as a military figure—the commander in chief—before a captive audience, outlining policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan that were set by the top military brass.

    Obama’s choice of venue demonstrates that the main constituency to which he is appealing is the military. The more the administration pursues right-wing, unpopular policies—whether bailing out the banks, attacking civil liberties, or escalating the war—the more it seeks to base itself on the military and the national security apparatus.

    The increasingly open and powerful role of the military in US political life has reached the point where the formal trappings of democracy have become almost irrelevant. Obama is signaling that the military represents an independent constituency, separate and apart from the people, whose approval must be secured, regardless the sentiments of the population.”

    h… pumasunleashed.wordpress.com

  66. pm317
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:48 pm
    damn him. Ben Nelson wants Stupak type language in the Senate bill. I hate his face, he is on Greta now.
    —————————————————————————

    I loathe these guys that want to control women’s reproductive rights. What hubris.

  67. Well, here’s a little tidbit of information I just mentioned today might happen in the not too distant future sometime after Christmas IF Obama keeps pushing Americans into a corner not only challenging their freedom but his lack of interest in America’s economic recovery and job creation.

    “Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops To “Prepare For Civil War” (here)

    If it’s being predicted, you know it will be instigated by gov operatives.

    “Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin today that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.”

    h… pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/obama-orders-1-million-us-troops-to-prepare-for-civil-war/

  68. Obama enabler Garry Wills will no longer guzzle Hopium, he says (and writes in the NYTimes Review of Books):

    http://blogs.nybooks.com/post/265874686/afghanistan-the-betrayal

    I did not think he would lose me so soon—sooner than Bill Clinton did. Like many people, I was deeply invested in the success of our first African-American president. I had written op-ed pieces and articles to support him in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books. My wife and I had maxed out in donations for him. Our children had been ardent for his cause.

    Others I respect have given up on him before now. I can see why. His backtracking on the treatment of torture (and photographs of torture), his hesitation to give up on rendition, on detentions, on military commissions, and on signing statements, are disheartening continuations of George W. Bush’s heritage. But I kept hoping that he was using these concessions to buy leeway for his most important position, for the ground on which his presidential bid was predicated.

    There was only one thing that brought him to the attention of the nation as a future president. It was opposition to the Iraq war. None of his serious rivals for the Democratic nomination had that credential—not Hillary Clinton, not Joseph Biden, not John Edwards. It set him apart. He put in clarion terms the truth about that war—that it was a dumb war, that it went after an enemy where he was not hiding, that it had no indigenous base of support, that it had no sensible goal and no foreseeable cutoff point.

    He said that he would not oppose war in general, but dumb wars. On that basis, we went for him. And now he betrays us. Although he talked of a larger commitment to Afghanistan during his campaign, he has now officially adopted his very own war, one with all the disqualifications that he attacked in the Iraq engagement. This war too is a dumb one. It has even less indigenous props than Iraq did.

    Iraq at least had a functioning government (though a tyrannical one). The Afghanistan government that replaced the Taliban is not only corrupt but ineffectual. The country is riven by tribal war, Islamic militancy, and warlordism, and fueled by a drug economy —interrupting the drug industry will destabilize what order there is and increase hostility to us.

    We have been in Afghanistan for eight years, earning hatred as occupiers, and after this record for longevity in American wars we will be there for still more years earning even more hatred. It gives us not another Iraq but another Vietnam, with wobbly rulers and an alien culture.

    Although Obama says he plans to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011, he will meanwhile be sending there not only soldiers but the contract employees that cling about us now like camp followers, corrupt adjuncts in perpetuity. Obama did not mention these plagues that now equal the number of military personnel we dispatch. We are sending off thousands of people to take and give bribes to drug dealers in Afghanistan.

    If we had wanted Bush’s wars, and contractors, and corruption, we could have voted for John McCain. At least we would have seen our foe facing us, not felt him at our back, as now we do. The Republicans are given a great boon by this new war. They can use its cost to say that domestic needs are too expensive to be met—health care, education, infrastructure. They can say that military recruitments from the poor make job creation unnecessary. They can call it Obama’s war when it is really theirs. They can attack it and support it at the same time, with equal advantage.

    I cannot vote for any Republican. But Obama will not get another penny from me, or another word of praise, after this betrayal. And in all this I know that my disappointment does not matter. What really matters are the lives of the young men and women he is sending off to senseless deaths.

  69. Obama enabler Garry Wills will no longer guzzle Hopium, he says (and writes in the NYTimes Review of Books)
    —————————————–
    Fine. Obama BETRAYED him. That is the word he uses and it is the only word that accurately describes what has occurred. That makes him better than Ambinder and the rest of the temporaizing rationalizing lying zombies. But he needs to go one step further to complete the recovery process. He needs to look in the mirror and say but for deceived fools like me who failed to do their homework we could have had a great president. We could have had Hillary.

  70. I am not offended by Matthews statement. He spoke the truth. West Point is not the enemy of the United States. It is the hero of the United States. It has given us an officer corps second to none in the world–second only to Annapolis, on or off the grid iron. Matthews point was these men and women of honor are Obama’s enemy because he has no honor. I can tell you this for sure. I know these people and they have no patience with liars. Robert Service said it best.

    I will not be won by weaklings
    Subtle and suave and mild
    But by men with the hearts of Vikings
    And the simple faith of a child.

  71. Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin today that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.”
    ————————————————-
    This is payback for what Soros did to Russia. I think this is KGB propaganda. Putin respects Hillary but has no use for the buffoon Obama. And he knows that the American People are losing their faith in him. This rumor would widen and deepen the schism. The other possibility is it is true.

    Remember the lecture Putin gave him and the way nobody would shake his hand in the receiving line. I guarantee you Putin knows Obama is a Soros puppet, and he remembers only too well what Soros, Bzezinsky, Sachs et al did to Russia, Georgia and Ukraine. I hate to sound like a broken record, but Obamas intimate relationship with Soros anathema to Putin. That much is certain.

  72. Some enterprising reporter needs to delve into the Council of Foreign Relations. The public needs to understand the nature of that organization, what its true purpose is, what specific policies it advocates, who his on it and what entities do they represent. Somebody asked me about the Council and I said they are fine I have been reading their publication for four decades, and past members like Kennan, Acheson, Marshal et. al. But now I realize I know nothing about them. If they are running our foreign policy under this administration then we need to know alot more about them. At one time the New York Law Firm Sullivan and Cromwell ran our foreign policy so this is not farfetched. Hillarys casual comment underscore my concern. When I found out that Soros and Bzeziniski were members that peaked my interest and the more I learned about that duo the more concerned I became. Why this guy Haass with the Council would be the amen corner for Obama in this Afghan surge is even more suspicious.

  73. …more power to all of you that can manage through a whole speech of his…so, when does he leave to pick up his ‘Nobel PEACE prize’??? what a colossal joke!

    …wonder how the nobel peace council feels about this now…more karma…O throws Nobel Peace Prize under the bus…

  74. more power to all of you that can manage through a whole speech of his…so, when does he leave to pick up his ‘Nobel PEACE prize’??? what a colossal joke!

    …wonder how the nobel peace council feels about this now…more karma…O throws Nobel Peace Prize under the bus…
    ———————————————————————–

    S: I have never seen a play in the theater of the absurd . . . until now. In light of what happened tonight, they need to retract the peace prize and give him a war prize.

  75. How the f… did it take 3 months to come up with that?

    By the way, I was right about the speech, totally useless.

  76. basil9
    December 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
    BARF ALERT!

    NBC/Vanity Fair poll asks if a 5th prez should be added to Mount Rushmore and if it should be Squat!
    **************
    I hate Vanity and this is why. They did this crap all through the nomination. That article on Hillary must have slipped through the trash bin.Probably heads rolled.

    On another note, Chris Matthews should be fired. We need to start a writing campaign.The media is the enenmy camp IMHO

  77. Well its official, i had a look over at the lame dead bot sites and they are all furious at Obama.

    This went down like a lead baloon.

    Boy is he gonna be in trouble now. The headlines coming out of those aint pretty.

    Best comments, and this is from the DUmmies.

    “The Best Bush Speech Obama has given”

    “Obama is escalating this, wtf?”

    “Its official, he’s Bush 2”

    “God were we sold a crock of shit with Obama”

    Even Rachel Maddow shredded him.

    The really left wing just had its eyes well and truly opened and the fallout from this is going to be astronomical.

  78. So how exactly does one pick up a nobel peace prize and send 30’000 soldiers to their deaths to fight in a hellhole.

    I mean this is just absolutely incredulous, the Nobel board should strip him of it right now.

  79. Last night the messiah held a sleep in for the cadets and a turn-off for the misguided and and snookered supporters.That Mussolini pose is becoming a caricature for the comics books.Hillary has the patience of Jobe and must hold back the urge to hold her nose when he spouts his self love teleprompter scripts.
    More info on Hillarys commitee hearings today and tomorrow.Two long days of hearings will further enhance her talent for knowing and solving world problems.Glad that it follows a day after BO exposed himself to the world wide audience as a mis-begotten fraud and cannot be trusted.

    =====================================================================

    R. KELLY: Okay. Well, welcome. I think, as you all know, the Secretary is going to accompany the President up to West Point tonight for the speech by the President to talk about his strategy toward Afghanistan. The Secretary will have about seven hours of hearings tomorrow beginning with the Senate Armed Services Committee at 9:00, and then that will be followed in the afternoon by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She’ll be joined by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen at both of those briefings.

    On Thursday, the same three will participate in a hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That starts at 9:00. There will also be a hearing in the afternoon of the House Armed Services Committee, but Deputy Secretary Lew will participate in that one. Secretary Clinton tomorrow goes to – I’m sorry, not tomorrow, Thursday – goes Thursday to Brussels for meetings on December 4th.

    There will be a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of foreign ministers at NATO Headquarters on the agenda. There will also be a meeting of NATO foreign ministers with non-NATO ISAF contributing nations, and a NATO-Russia Council working lunch. She, of course, will also meet with the NATO Secretary General Rasmussen as well as with the newly appointed Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme, and Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere and EU leaders.

  80. Europe is officially out of love with Obama

    This article from Der Speigel

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html

    Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic

    Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

    One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.

    Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

    One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

    An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

    Just in Time for the Campaign

    For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

    The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the “world’s great religions.” He promised that responsibility for the country’s security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai — a government which he said was “corrupt.” The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But “America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars,” he added.

    It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

    Obama’s Magic No Longer Works

    But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama’s magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.

    It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives — their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.

    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 last line is pure poetry!!

  81. Why are not people outraged about the number 18 months? Why 18 months (it is obvious why)? The brazen politics of that number is breathtaking. To think he thinks he can get away with it, audacity of only a fool.

  82. I get a kick out of all of the old Dims who now say they were mistaken. The young you can caulk up to inexperience at politics, or they are gulible. However, the older experience people that feel betrayed by Obama, I am sorry, you are just plain stxpid, and responsible for your actions. Saying that you could not vote Rep, does not cut it. So you will not give anymore money. So What. His sins are your sins, and YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

    This was a serious election, and you made a BIG mistake that all America will suffer under for a LONG time. Sorry, just cutting off your money donations to the Dims really does not cut it.

    Got a call from the Dims last night, and I got to do my song and dance about how they blew it when they stole the Primary from HRC. I always feel good after I am able to blast them with my opinion. That is the only reason I stay register in that Party. I NEVER WANT THEM TO FORGET WHAT THEY DID.

  83. #
    wbboei
    December 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 am

    Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin today that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.”
    ————————————————-
    This is payback for what Soros did to Russia. I think this is KGB propaganda. Putin respects Hillary but has no use for the buffoon Obama. And he knows that the American People are losing their faith in him. This rumor would widen and deepen the schism. The other possibility is it is true.

    Remember the lecture Putin gave him and the way nobody would shake his hand in the receiving line. I guarantee you Putin knows Obama is a Soros puppet, and he remembers only too well what Soros, Bzezinsky, Sachs et al did to Russia, Georgia and Ukraine. I hate to sound like a broken record, but Obamas intimate relationship with Soros anathema to Putin. That much is certain.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dreams/propaganda die in the face of reality. Payback for Obama being a Soros puppet has nothing to do with their statement. Strange analogy when the facts point to their statement of reality as a final conclusion to Obama’s actions. which are-

    Obama isn’t concerned about his failing approval rating or re-election.(red flag). The Dem Congress is unconcerned about low approval ratings or re-election (Red Flag). Obama hasn’t rescinded his declared State of Emergency due to the Swine Flu Epidemic (that never happened)(Red Flag) FEMA Rules state: “During a State of Emergency, ALL ELECTIONS ARE SUSPENDED INDEFINATEY”. Obama hasn’t lifted a finger to revive the economy or create jobs after a year in office. (Red Flag) The country continues to deteriorate with no relief in sight. Just more of Obama’s giveaways of Taxpayer money to causes other than our own creating unprecedented resentment from a public fed up and angry at Obama’s outright unrequited provocative behavior.

    wbb, I almost wish your dream scenario of propaganda as payback were true. But the facts as they lay, as I’m sure you would agree, loom large in the face of our reality. As Rham always says: “Never let a CRISIS go to waste.”

    How much more would it take after Obama’s speech last night and after the Anti-War Rally in DC Dec 12 to make Civil-War breakout in this country as the Russians predicted? A spark coming from any direction would do it.

  84. Here is a path Obama could have adopted and in the process kept his campaign promise of a non-war-monger. He could have started withdrawing the forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and promised them aid with the condition that they would clean up their acts. If they don’t and let Al-Queda, Taliban and other terrorist groups fester on their land, they would go the way of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bring the rest of the sane countries and govts together for the mission of eradicating terrorism — ostracize and punish the bad state players who harbor terrorists (I think I have to like GWB’s you’re with us or with them) and do not pay attention to their current blackmail strategies (like Pakistan blackmailing the rest of the world with their nukes. Call their bluff and see if they let their govt fall apart and disintegrate. Chances are that it won’t happen.)

  85. One more thing, Pakistan certainly has resources to go after Al-Queda and Taliban if they wanted to (which is what Hillary daringly pointed out in her last trip there.) I really wish someone would get in the face of these bullies and threaten them with dire consequences if they don’t clean up their act.

  86. Kay

    December 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am

    —————
    Yes! At last!

    ——————
    How on earth did he come up with the “18 month” figure? Are the soldiers supposed to work themselves to the bone…do or die…in order to achieve this? As moononpluto stated yesterday, Afghanistan is a no-win situation. How much blood does this guy want on his hands?

    He would have been better off pulling them all out if he was going to set such a short time limit.

  87. Confloyd, you’re damn right? All that dithering was a political calculation. He would have delayed it even further if he could, like doing this after getting his prize later this month. Now Favreau has to work doubly hard to make sense.

  88. Kay

    December 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am

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

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Exactly why his speech was a non-starter to the cadets who although were primed beforehand to respond enthusiastically to his speech shut out his words from their consciousness . It would also help if we knew for sure if Obama isn’t a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer. As Bin Laden said in a video, the US will be destroyed from within. His prescient words daily come closer to the reality we are facing. The combination of an undercover Muslim president subverting the richest country in the world to austerity and strife would eventually be enough to trigger a Civil-War changing our culture and landscape for years to come.

    After the Fort Hood massacre and last night’s address to the WP Cadets, how much more would it take for the SS or the military to Frog-March the fraud down the front steps of our WH preempting the deceiver in Chief from completely destroying our country?

  89. I am so enjoying the outright depression by the commentators over on Taylor Marsh. Oh, how I enjoy all the crying, although there is still one hateful commentator over there. We tried to tell them he didn’t know what he was doing. Well, at least we have Hillary working her ass off to keep things going right, for that we all can be greatfull, the kool-aid drinkers have nothing to be happy about. Their messiah has fallen from grace and most still hate the war-monger Hillary.

  90. US ‘commitment’ to Afghanistan, Pakistan: Clinton

    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday pledged an “enduring” commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan, adding Washington will also significantly expand support to Pakistan.

    “It should be clear to everyone that — unlike the past — the United States and our allies and partners have an enduring commitment to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the region,” Clinton told US lawmakers.

    She added: “We will significantly expand support intended for Pakistan to develop the potential of their people.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i4vC2yM0S26AVrVN51wDPNNpSTmw

  91. uh, oh.. lunch bribe was lost on Friedman:

    This I Believe — Let me start with the bottom line and then tell you how I got there: I can’t agree with President Obama’s decision to escalate in Afghanistan. I’d prefer a minimalist approach, working with tribal leaders the way we did to overthrow the Taliban regime in the first place.

  92. JanH says:
    December 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
    Kay

    December 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am

    —————
    Yes! At last!

    ——————
    How on earth did he come up with the “18 month” figure? Are the soldiers supposed to work themselves to the bone…do or die…in order to achieve this? As moononpluto stated yesterday, Afghanistan is a no-win situation. How much blood does this guy want on his hands?

    He would have been better off pulling them all out if he was going to set such a short time limit.
    ********************************************************

    Jan…fate is going to catch up with O…call it karma, call it justice…call it the truth winning out…the scene is being set…this man’s ‘character’ is becoming obvious to all on all sides…a man with no honor to anyone, including his cold hearted self…

  93. Hillary on the hot seat: Clinton answers for Obama’s Afghanistan surge at Senate committee

    BY Richard Sisk
    Wednesday, December 2nd 2009,

    Secretary Hillary Clinton answers questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee on Obama’s announced Afghanistan surge.

    WASHINGTON — Citing her own experiences on 9/11, Secretary of State Clinton Wednesday pleaded with doubting Senate Democrats to back President Obama’s Afghan troop surge.

    “Simply put, among a range of difficult choices, this is the best way to protect our nation now and in the future,” Clinton told the Senate Armed Services Committee on which she served as New York’s junior senator.

    The heavy lift Clinton had in selling the plan to put another 30,000 troops into Afghanistan by this summer became evident before Clinton could sit down at the witness table.

    An anti-war protester followed Clinton into the room and said politely: “Hillary, c’mon, you know better than this.”

    Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, then told Clinton that Obama had gotten it backwards on the surge — thousands of Afghan troops should be trained to take the field before U.S. surge troops arrive, and not the other way around, Levin said.

    The problem in Afghanistan, Levin said, “is not a shortage of American combat troops, it’s a shortage of Afghan troops.”

    Levin’s skepticism on the surge echoed the doubts expressed by scores of Senate and House Democrats that could pose a problem when Obama seeks funding for the surge in the range of $30- to 40 billion. Republicans have generally supported the boost in troop numbers.

    But Clinton, who was joined at the hearing by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said the surge was vital in reversing the recent gains made by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and in preventing attempts to plot another 9/11.

    “I witnessed the tragic consequences in the lives of thousands of innocent families” in New York City, Clinton said, “and the damage done to our economy and our sense of security. So I feel a personal responsibility to help protect our nation from such violence.”

    Gates said the surge in Afghanistan would encourage Pakistan to hit harder at its own terrorist threat. “We know the Pakistan Taliban operate in collusion with both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda,” Gates said.

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the committee, strongly supported the surge while carping about Obama’s decision to start pulling back the surge troops in July 2001.

    “I think it deserves the support of all Americans,” McCain said of the surge, but “the President was wrong to signal our intent to start leaving Afghanistan on an arbitrary date.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/02/2009-12-02_secretaries_hillary_clinton_and__.html

  94. Janh, I imagine that winning the nobel peace price was something Obama wanted, I believe it is a family tradition, I mean didn’t Obama’s real father win one also???

  95. Sisk is an idiot.

    First, this pullback date is not July 2001. Someone needs to tell this loon that was the first year of the bush presidency. And it was before 9/11. But that is what you get from a newspaper that is so bad that it employs Michael Goodwin and is owned by a man who has little regard for the strategic interests of Israel.

    Second, it is not carping to argue against telegraphing your timetable for retreat to the enemy. It is unsound strategy on all levels to do this. Even if you intend to withdraw or end the surge that quickly why on earth would you communicate that to the enemy. It is the mark of a fool. Carping?

    The bet here is that we can clean out the Taliban and get al Quaeda in 18 months. If that is the case this is going to be very intense. We will take casualties. And when we have achieved military victory things we may lose it on the political front, because there is no nation there we will have to build one. But as Obama would be first to tell you call it anything you like please do not call it nation building.

    The political risk here is that they do find Osama. Let us hope he disappears and is never heard from again. No good would come from his high profile death at this point. It would incite Muslim extremists around the world, would rekindle the tragedy of those who lost loved ones in 9/11 and the jackass in the White House will claim credit.

    This surge will spill over into Pakistan, just as in Viet Nam we were force to go into Laos to destroy enemy bases.

  96. Has anyone else heard that the man that shot those 4 police officers dead took the muslim faith while in prison in Arkansas.

    Here is a site that is praising the death of the 4 white officers in Seattle.

    h t t p : / / blackmalefelon.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/adorned-with-virgins-jewelry-crowned-seattle-bow-martyr-against-white-terrorist-police-maurice-clemmons/

  97. Here is a path Obama could have adopted and in the process kept his campaign promise of a non-war-monger. He could have started withdrawing the forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and promised them aid with the condition that they would clean up their acts. If they don’t and let Al-Queda, Taliban and other terrorist groups fester on their land, they would go the way of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bring the rest of the sane countries and govts together for the mission of eradicating terrorism — ostracize and punish the bad state players who harbor terrorists (I think I have to like GWB’s you’re with us or with them) and do not pay attention to their current blackmail strategies (like Pakistan blackmailing the rest of the world with their nukes. Call their bluff and see if they let their govt fall apart and disintegrate. Chances are that it won’t happen.)
    ——————————-
    At least he did not do that. No I think this is the least worst approach. A big piece of it will be diplomacy and aid. I am quite sure Hillary supports this policy. I think she is right. I think this was force fed to Obama. I think the 18 month cap was a mistake. What interests me is that coward Obama reads a speech and Hillary does the heavy lifting. I cannot find polite words to describe the contempt I have for Levin. I hope he gets his head handed to him the next time he runs. He is repulsive to look at and even worse to listen to.

  98. Clinton, Gates And Mullen Outline Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy To Senate

    12/2/2009

    Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen discussed the strategy for the war in Afghanistan outlined by President Barack Obama Tuesday night.

    In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said that the U.S. “has important security interests in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.” He added, “Instability in Afghanistan, or the return of the Taliban to power, would not only provide fertile ground for Al Qaeda and other extremists to regroup and renew plots against the United States and its allies, but it would also threaten the stability of neighboring Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country.” Levin said that he agreed with Obama’s call for the training and rapid growth of the Afghanistan National Security Forces, his call for more NATO involvement in Afghanistan, and his call for more active involvement of the Afghanistan government in preparing it to function on its own.

    While ranking member Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., said he agrees with Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, he said he does not agree with the decision to establish a timeline of about 18 months before he begins withdrawing those troops. “What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the president’s decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan,” McCain said. He added, “A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies – in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the entire region – all of whom currently doubt whether America is committed to winning this war.” McCain argued that setting a withdrawal date “only emboldens Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight.”

    In her testimony, Secretary Clinton said that, as part of its strategy in Afghanistan, the U.S. would work with the Afghan and Pakistani governments to “eliminate safe havens for those plotting attacks against us, our allies, and our interests.” She also said the U.S. would “help to stabilize a region that is fundamental to our national security.”
    Additionally, Clinton stated the U.S. would “develop a long-term, sustainable relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.”

    In addressing the limited time the extra U.S. troops will be in Afghanistan, Clinton said, “The duration of our military presence will be limited, but our civilian commitment must continue even as our troops begin to come home.” She further emphasized that the U.S. “will help by working with our Afghan partners to strengthen institutions at every level of Afghan society so that we don’t leave chaos behind when our combat troops begin to depart.”

    Clinton said the U.S. plans to triple the number of civilian positions in Afghanistan to 974 by early next year.
    Finally, she argued that a “strong, stable, democratic Pakistan” will be key to the U.S. in helping to maintain stability in both Afghanistan and the entire region.

    Secretary Gates also emphasized the importance of Pakistan to the war in Afghanistan in his testimony, stating, “Giving extremists breathing room in Pakistan led to the resurgence of the Taliban and more coordinated, sophisticated attacks in Afghanistan.” He said that, in the past year, “the Pakistan Taliban…has become a real threat to Pakistan’s own domestic peace and stability, carrying out – with Al Qaeda’s help – escalating bombing attacks throughout the country.” Gates said the U.S. is well aware that “the Pakistan Taliban operate in collusion with both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.” “A stable security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan – one that is sustainable over the long term by their governments – is vital to our national security,” Gates added. He indicated that the U.S. strategy for the region would involve reversing Taliban momentum through sustained military action by the U.S., its allies and the Afghans themselves.
    Further, Gates said the U.S. would work to deny the Taliban access to and control of key population and production centers and lines of communication.

    The U.S. will also disrupt the Taliban outside secured areas and prevent Al Qaeda from regaining sanctuary in Afghanistan, which he said would help degrade Taliban to levels manageable by the Afghan National Security Forces.
    Gates said another goal would be increasing the size and capability of the ANSF and employing other local forces selectively to begin transitioning security responsibility to the Afghan government within the roughly 18 months the troops surge will be in place.

    Admiral Mullen said in his testimony that one of the major goals for the U.S. in Afghanistan is to “deny al Qaeda safe haven and the Afghan-Taliban the ability to overthrow the duly elected Afghan government.” “To achieve this refined strategic aim,” Mullen added, “we must continue to deny al Qaeda any Afghanistan toe-hold, reverse the momentum of the Taliban insurgency, and build sufficient Afghan government and security capacity to eventually defeat the insurgent threat.” He argued that Obama is committed to rapidly send the 30,000 extra troops “to get as much force into the fight as fast as General (Stanley) McChrystal can absorb it.” Doing this, Mullen argued, will allow Generals McChrystal and David Petraeus to “plan for cohesive logistics and transportation support over the course of the coming year.” Mullen also emphasized that he expects U.S. forces in Afghanistan to make “significant headway in the next 18-24 months.”

    http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1145809

  99. Mrs. Smith–you realize of course that I did not rule out that possibility. All I am saying is that I need more evidence. Absent that I think it is more probable than not that it is propaganda or contingency planning. We shall see.

  100. Mrs.Smith/Wbboei, the site I just posted shows exactly how this civil war will begin. I think its real and imminent. When more people lose their jobs they are going to blame the President and it won’t be pretty. This is also exactly what Soros and his crew want, civil war, high umemployment and food shortages to get what they want. I do believe Mrs. Smith’s post last evening.

  101. note: This post was written before I read confloyd’s post- thanks..

    #
    wbboei
    December 2nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    Mrs. Smith–you realize of course that I did not rule out that possibility. All I am saying is that I need more evidence. Absent that I think it is more probable than not that it is propaganda or contingency planning. We shall see.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    wbb, would you disagree these are incontrovertable facts:

    “Obama isn’t concerned about his failing approval rating or re-election.(red flag). The Dem Congress is unconcerned about low approval ratings or re-election (Red Flag). Obama hasn’t rescinded his declared State of Emergency due to the Swine Flu Epidemic (that never happened)(Red Flag) FEMA Rules state: “During a State of Emergency, ALL ELECTIONS ARE SUSPENDED INDEFINATEY”. Obama hasn’t lifted a finger to revive the economy or create jobs after a year in office. (Red Flag) The country continues to deteriorate with no relief in sight. Just more of Obama’s giveaways of Taxpayer money to causes other than our own creating unprecedented resentment from a public fed up and angry at Obama’s outright unrequited provocative behavior.”

    I need more evidence your propaganda theory can hold up to reality that Putin would be so easily satisfied throwing pebbles at George Soros under the guise of an outbreak of Civil War in the US in retribution for his puppetmaster status of Obama. When Soros has been a pain in his backside for the last 20yrs and if anything Civil War would be the pinnacle of Soros’ plan realized leaving him with clean hands and Obama in charge. I fail to see the logic in your argument unless you can convince me otherwise. 🙂

  102. Mrs. Smith,

    You present a very frightening outlook, but one that makes more and more sense. I can’t believe how much has changed for the worse in so short a time.

  103. #
    confloyd
    December 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    Mrs.Smith/Wbboei, the site I just posted shows exactly how this civil war will begin. I think its real and imminent. When more people lose their jobs they are going to blame the President and it won’t be pretty. This is also exactly what Soros and his crew want, civil war, high umemployment and food shortages to get what they want. I do believe Mrs. Smith’s post last evening.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    confloyd, which site are you referring to? The AA site?

  104. wbboei, Hillary may be on board with this policy but I am beginning to think that this is all wrong and the speech last night and the US language is hurting the self-esteem (if they have any) of countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan — imagine being a Zardari or a Karzai under the conditions (of occupancy) from the US. It is like occupying your poor and hapless neighbor’s house and demanding him to get rid of his crazy uncle because the uncle throws rocks/grenades at your house. How about fortifying your house and get a neighborhood watch and pay some money to your poor neighbor to get help for his uncle? And if he didn’t do that nuke his house! No, not the last part but may be call police (in my analogy, get the world community to support) to make him behave.

    Here are two links you may enjoy reading:

    powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator.html

    http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obamas-af-pak-whack-bushs-iraq

  105. All this civil war thing is too far fetched. There is enough bad stuff without going hyper with those, IMHO. If we do, we are only empowering Obama and his supporters and even people in the middle to easily negate and dismiss our rational arguments. Even in a dysfunctional democracy like that of India when Indira Gandhi went too far with her Emergency rule in the 70s, people brought back sanity quite quickly. At some level we have to have faith in the genius of the American democracy.

  106. #
    JanH
    December 2nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    Mrs. Smith,

    You present a very frightening outlook, but one that makes more and more sense. I can’t believe how much has changed for the worse in so short a time.

    ~~~~~~~~

    You can read everywhere, gun sales are up in the US- People are feeling the
    hopelessness of Obama’s promises never coming to fruition and they are scared. Even the Blacks are frightened because they have received no help at all and Obama has used them for his own political gain.

    People are taking the stand, it’s ‘every man for themselves’ warehousing food, water and protection rather than waiting any longer for Obama to help them. I feel sorry for the people who have already lost their homes and their jobs who are left indigent and vulnerable because of Obama’s grand bamboozlement scheme.

    What are the Canadians saying abut his speech last night. There is a good assessment at Truthdig with an update to the Afghan escalation and Kucinich is speaking out on audio how the Afghan escalation is a mistake.

    h… w… truthdig.com/report/item/here_we_go_again_20091202/

  107. pm317
    December 2nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    You’ll have to read wbb’s brilliant 12 chapter treatise on Soros here:

    http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/blockbuster-obama%e2%80%99s-godfather/

    Wbb and I may disagree on minor points due to informational interpretation but on major points we wholeheartedly agree, SOROS IS DETERMINED TO DESTROY AMERICA. HE SAID SO IN HIS OWN WORDS. A CIVIL WAR in this country would be the means to his accomplishing his goal.

  108. Mrs. Smith,

    Canadians are somewhat confused by his deadline. Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2001 and the prime minister has repeatedly stated that he will not extend the mission beyond 2011.

    There is some speculation as to whether obama chose the same date because of this, but mostly it’s that he tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing nobody.

  109. JanH, well, we don’t like what happened but it was still democracy, people voted in fair elections and majority accepted the outcome. What happened within the Dem party is a party problem and not an American democracy problem. The genius I am referring to is not about electing the best and the brightest which is subjective but having a process that works and it did work (however much we don’t like the outcome). The best lines I have read about democracy are these:

    Politics is heartless, and there is no place to be sentimental. You cannot personalise a situation in a democracy.

    The person who said it is Nehru’s nephew who is a politician and elected parliamentary member in India. I bet Hillary knows this all too well which is why she can function as well as she can with the hand she is dealt with.

  110. Not surprising Confloyd if true..Yet, once again, Obama in front of our military had to defend his Muslim brothers and sisters….

  111. JanH
    December 2nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Mrs. Smith,

    Canadians are somewhat confused by his deadline. Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2001 and the prime minister has repeatedly stated that he will not extend the mission beyond 2011.

    There is some speculation as to whether obama chose the same date because of this, but mostly it’s that he tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing nobody.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Ten years is a fair benchmark for success or failure. Kucinich makes a valid point in his audio statement, saying: It takes almost a year to withdraw troops safely from any battlefield and he wonders what can be accomplished in a mere 6 mos if troops are to be withdrawn in 18 mos.

    I did not know the Canadians had a definitive timeline. Thanks for the info.

  112. Gibbs was already qualifying the 18 months, paraphrasing him, it is about handing control over to Afghans and not necessarily withdrawing in 18 months.. Whatever.

  113. Gibbs was already qualifying the 18 months, paraphrasing him, it is about handing control over to Afghans and not necessarily withdrawing in 18 months.. Whatever.
    —————————————————
    He says at paragraph 13 of his speech:

    This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

    Translation: he said the troops would begin to come home after 18 months. Curly is lying through his teeth if he claims that Obama said the 18 month deadline was about turning over control and not necessarily withdrawing in 18 months. The plain meaning of the phase our troops will begin to come home in eighteen months is that we will begin to withdraw in 18 months. I am quite sure that is how al Quaeda read it.

    These guys are rank amateurs. They cannot even get the message straight.

  114. well this quote from Reuters says it all really from a poor afghan boy.

    KABUL (Reuters) – Thirty thousand more U.S. troops for Afghanistan? Esmatullah only shrugged.

    “Even if they bring the whole of America, they won’t be able to stabilize Afghanistan,” said the young construction worker out on a Kabul street corner on Wednesday morning. “Only Afghans understand our traditions, geography and way of life.”

    and there you have it in a nutshell

  115. but you see, begin to withdraw, does than mean withdrawn within a month, within a year, 5 years, 10 years.

    You can withdraw 1000 soldiers a month over 100 months and still call it a withdrawal.

  116. The plot thickens…

    Emails show White House crashers lobbied hard for invite
    (AFP) – 2 hours ago

    WASHINGTON — Copies of emails exchanged between a couple who crashed a White House dinner and a Pentagon official show the pair lobbied hard for an invite, but apparently showed up to the event without one. The emails obtained by ABC News show Tareq Salahi and his wife Michaele sought an invite to a state dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, but also suggest they showed up without receiving one.

    “It worked out at the end,” he wrote in an email to Michelle Jones, a Pentagon official who had sought to get the couple an invitation. “We ended up going to the gate to check in at 6.30 pm to just check, in case it got approved since we didn’t know, and our name was indeed on the list!” the email from Tareq Salahi reads.

    The White House has denied that the Salahis were authorized to attend any part of President Barack Obama’s first state dinner, and the Secret Service is investigating how the couple was able to meet and be photographed with dozens of high-profile guests, including the president.

    Just hours before the state dinner Jones, a special assistant to the secretary of defense White House liaison, wrote that she was still working to get invites for the Virginia socialite couple. A day earlier, she warned: “I still haven’t given up, but it doesn’t seem likely.”

    The emails show the Salahis pushed hard for an invitation to the glamorous event, attended by some of the country’s top politicians and celebrities.

    In one email, dated November 23, Tareq Salahi suggests that there should be room for him and his wife. “By the way — I know for a fact these persons are unable to attend the state dinner and the reception portion,” he wrote, listing among others Democratic Senator Harry Reid and his wife, who he said “have gone home early for Thanksgiving.”

    The emails were reportedly released by lawyers for the Salahis, and come after the White House released a statement from Jones denying she had procured tickets for the couple. “Even though I informed them of this, they decided to come,” the statement said.

    The email exchange appears to back her version of events.

    In a message after the dinner, Tareq Salahi references a voicemail from Jones he says he was unable to access earlier in the day. “I just got you (sic) message now after driving back out. But obviously it worked out in the end,” he writes.

    The incident has provoked White House and congressional fury, with lawmakers demanding to know how the pair were able to enter the presidential residence without permission.

    The House of Representatives Homeland Security committee has said they will hold a hearing on the security lapse, during which they are expected to seek testimony from both the Salahis and the Secret Service.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jxbUuYTsoiE0K6upbYGn2I6xweTA

  117. Mrs.Smith, Yes, its a black site and I have posted upstream @ 1:11.

    I agree there will be a civil war and Soros and his puppet are making sure of it. We all know cap and trade is going to fail, so they had to devise another plan to bankrupt us which is the Afghan War. Everything has to be airlifted in, so it will be more expensive than Iraq. Thats how you might say theres more than one way to skin a cat. The project has not changed. I am so worried about the Palestinian running for governor of Texas. If he gets in the super highway will be a done deal.

  118. This Salihi thing is a smoke screen. I remember someone saying that they feed the news to the media instead of the media looking and generating a story. This is what they do, they make a mountain out of a mole hill to keep people from looking very deep at what is really going on.

  119. Are they televising the Senate hearing on the new Afgan policy?? I have looked at C-span and did not see it. I love to see Hillary stick to those smart ass young rethugs. She does it so elloquently.

  120. Wow! Re: Press conference in Cambridge – I never realized what a failure that was – and that only tells me how effectively the media covers for him. We all heard about the genius of the beer summit, but no one said a word about the failure to have the vote before recess. Thanks for setting things straight for me.

Comments are closed.