Is This Obama’s Idea of Being a Commander? By Telling His Troops That We’re Losing? [Updates x2]
By LisaB on March 7, 2009 at 4:17 PM in Afghanistan, Commander in Chief, Current Affairs
AnnieCollier’s update from the comments: “Will someone deliver the news to MEchille that Burquas are not sleeveless?”
Susan’s Update here: THIS IS UNCONSCIONABLE BEHAVIOR BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Way to rally the troops, Obama!
Talk about leading with your chin. Heck of a job, you loser. (This is NOT to say that we don’t all realize that things aren’t going well in Afghanistan and won’t ever go well when we’re dealing with people who live in the 4th century. BUT, BY GOD, a COMMANDER NEVER SAYS THIS OUT LOUD, TO HIS TROOPS as well as the American people!!!)
The right blogs have the correct reaction to the story:
- “PRESIDENT SCARY WILL SURRENDER TO TALIBAN
US CAPITULATES TO ISLAMIC DOMINATION,” Atlas Shrugs - “It Has Begun: Obama Announces He Is Open to Appeasing Taliban …Update: Hamas & Hezbollah Too?,” Gateway Pundit
MORE from Gateway Pundit, which caught the story from Astute Bloggers:
Gee, they only harbored the terrorists behind the 9-11 attacks. What could go wrong?
In a shocking move Barack Obama announced today that he was open to appeasing the anti-American Taliban fundamentalists. …
LisaB’s story: Look what the NYT has today.
President Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.
The NYT had an interview with Obama aboard Air Force One and the article mentions the financial crisis, health care and Afghanistan. Apparently that was not enough, so after that interview, BO called reporters back.
After the interview, which took place as the president was flying home from Ohio, he called reporters from the Oval Office to assert that his actions have been “entirely consistent with free-market principles” and to point out that large-scale government intervention in the markets and expansion of social welfare programs began under President George W. Bush.
———–
The president spoke at length about the struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, staking out positions that at times seemed more comparable to those of his predecessor than many of Mr. Obama’s more liberal supporters would like. He did not rule out the option of snatching terrorism suspects out of hostile countries.Asked if the United States was winning in Afghanistan, a war he effectively adopted as his own last month by ordering an additional 17,000 troops sent there, Mr. Obama replied flatly, “No.”
And to those people who expected those celestial choirs and happiness?
Mr. Obama signaled that those on the left seeking a wholesale reversal of Mr. Bush’s detainee policy might be disappointed. Mr. Obama said that by the time he got into office, the Bush administration had taken “steps to correct certain policies and procedures after those first couple of years” after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Oh yeah, but since he won’t change things, he’ll just say the “other guy” made the necessary changes already. Oh, wait. Not the “other guy,” but the other guy’s minions.
When discussing the economy, BO has his own “go shopping” moment.
“What I don’t think people should do is suddenly stuff money in their mattresses and pull back completely from spending,” he said.
And, of course, in a total non sequitur, BO mentions . . . . . . blogs.
Mr. Obama rode to the White House partly on his savvy use of new technology, and he has a staff-written blog on his presidential Web site. Even so, he said he did not find blogs to be reliable, citing the economy as one example.
I guess BO doesn’t tweet and everything he says is COMPLETELY reliable.
Not.

















