Althouse: A "senior administration official" leaked that Obama is rejecting all the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team.

November 12, 2009

A "senior administration official" leaked that Obama is rejecting all the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team.

The Obama administration continues its dithering and leaking.

205 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 205 of 205

Alex said...: Explain why there needs to be "international security" at all. Sounds like code words to me.; 11/13/09, 1:05 AM
Adjoran said...: Obama is already plotting his political cover strategy for his inevitable cut-and-run from Afghanistan. By demanding more options from his commanders and advisers, he will eventually get one which splits the differences in every direction.

It will be certain to fail miserably, of course, BUT Obama will then be able to disclaim fault, saying, "I followed the best recommendation of the commanders in the field and my national security team . . ."

Never mind that he will task them with presenting "more options" again and again until they present one with just enough increase in troops to appear a strong move to the casual observer (none of Obama's support ever comes from those who pay close attention to detail), yet not enough to achieve any reasonable goal (so as to appease the left, his base) before he declares the whole thing a lost cause and blames Bush.; 11/13/09, 3:37 AM
Robert Cook said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/13/09, 6:19 AM
Robert Cook said...: Synova said:

(Quoting me on welfare)"'No, it's a means by which we can offer help to people who have nowhere else to turn. One might it's the public policy version of Christianity.'"

"Sorta kinda like forced conversions and the inquisition for those who don't cooperate. But hey, the *theology* is right and good and saves your soul. What could *possibly* be wrong with making it a law?"

Sorta kinda like nothing of the sort. YOU'RE not forced to take welfare, are you? As to your expected riposte that "you're expected to PAY welfare," well, that's no different than any other government program. Some object to helping feed or house people, others object to paying for public schools (because they don't have children in the schools) or sending men or machines into outer space, or researching the life cycle of the snail darter, or using our soldiers and armaments to invade other countries to murder, imprison and torture the people who live there.

If "the people" have spoken, so to speak, through their support for any of these programs, we who disagree with any given program must accept that this is the way it is in a society where everyone has different ideas.

I'd think you'd at least be happy that we spend so much more of our treasure--yours and mine--killing and torturing people than helping them eat or have a place to live or be treated when they're sick.; 11/13/09, 6:29 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Anyone mentioned Bush's dithering with the Iraq Study Group?

Of course, he ignored it.; 11/13/09, 2:42 PM