What About the US Troops Already Deployed?
Obama’s Dithering Continues

As I’ve written her too many times to count, the single most important responsibility of the President of the United States is the security of the United States and her citizens, whether here or abroad.

And, whether it’s been here, in unpublished letters to the intellectually corrupt Editorial Board of the Boston Globe, or the discussion boards where I occasionally traffic, my position on America’s involvement in Afghanistan has been perfectly consistent: if the President of the United States says winning the war in Afghanistan is instrumental to the security of the United States, then I support the war effort in Afghanistan.

Let me also underscore that Gen. Stanley McChrystal (selected by President Obama), Gen. David Petraeus (retained by President Obama), Adm. Michael Mullen (retained by President Obama), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (retained by President Obama), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (selected by President Obama; voted for war in Iraq), Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (selected by President Obama), nor Director of the CIA Leon Panetta (selected by President Obama but completely emasculated by President Obama as well) brief me. I presume all the above do brief President Obama.

In the spring, President Obama told the Cadets at the Naval Academy that he would only send them into harm’s way when it was “absolutely necessary”. Knowing the shameless way Democrats operate, I always thought Obama would take no responsibility for the Troops already in Afghanistan because he and his kool-aid drinking supporters have convinced themselves that those Troops are President Bush’s responsibility; you see, Bush sent them into harm’s way, not Obama. Keeping them in harm’s way if not “absolutely necessary” is outside Obama’s promise to the Cadets.

However, shortly after the chest-beating promise to the Cadets, the Commander-in-Chief announced a new strategy in Afghanistan that required 21,000 more Troops. Again, I assume a Defense Secretary, who had already been on the job for 2.5 years and was fully knowledgeable about the situation in Afghanistan and who was retained by President Obama, supported the new strategy. Matter of fact, to underscore the commitment to Obama's strategy, a new Afghan commander, Gen. McChrstal, was brought in to execute the new strategy. The war in Afghanistan was now Obama's; how could logic dictate otherwise?

It then became obvious that part of the McChrystal appointment was to buy some time for Obama. The dithering begins. McChrystal, you see, would need !sixty days! to review the status on the ground in order to prepare his assessment of whether more Troops would be required to effectively implement Obama’s strategy. Meanwhile, UNDER-RESOURCED TROOPS would be asked to continue the fight. As the end of the sixty day review period approached, the White House, Gates and Mullen started to chirp that the war in Afghanistan had been “under-resourced” for years. Pay no mind that Gates had been on the job for three years now and that Mullen had been on the job for two. Pay no mind that Obama retained both of these under-resourcers. The attacks on President Bush under-scored that the Obama-Biden Administration is more about “all-politics-all-the-time” than it is in acting responsibly on behalf of the United States and for the US Troops already deployed in Afghanistan.

This week, General McChrystal’s much anticipated request for as many as 40,000 more Troops to execute Obama’s new strategy finally hit Gates’ desk; Gates stuck the request in a drawer.

So, today, September 27, 2009, the Ditherer-in-Chief is knowingly under-resourcing Troops he has sent into a war he says is a “war of necessity” (his words not mine; recall, I’m not briefed by people who would know). And there is no outrage.

The letter that went to the Boston Globe today:

Editor,

What objective did President Obama give Gen. Stanley McChrystal (Obama receives conflicting advice on troop increases, September 27, A14)?

Does anyone besides me think the answer to this simple question is important before there is ANY assessment of Gen. McChrystal's request for as many as 40,000 more troops in Afghanstan?

Recall, four months ago President Obama changed the Afghan strategy and it was President Obama who labeled the war in Afghanistan a "war of necessity". (End of letter.)

(For those interested, my September 7, 2009 post is also directly related.)

The "Under-Resourced" War and Its Casualties

Martin Fortunato cries as he touches his father's coffin; Captain Antonio Fortunato was one of six Italian soldiers recently killed in Afghanistan.

Photo is courtesy of Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters.

A Conversation with a Passive-Aggressive Liberal Extremist

Some time ago I posted an email exchange I had with a columnist for a major American (news)paper. Based on the positive feedback I had from that post, I share with you the exchange I had last week with the same columnist.

First, the columnist is not Ms. Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe. Though I address the email to her because I was commenting on her column, I blind copy quite a few folks on such emails. One of the people I copied replied.

Second, I decided against adding editorial commentary. If someone wants to make their own editorial comment on the entire exchange or a specific line or two, I’ll gladly comment on that. I think the only inside joke in the conversation is when I invite the columnist to be “Portside Horowitz”; that is a liberal extremist with the courage to call-out the blatant hypocrisy or hate of other liberal extremists; it’s from a prior email exchange we shared; the columnist knows the Democratic machinery that dominates most cities and demonstrates time and again it cannot educate urban children; the columnist has written positively about education reform.

The entire exchange was completed over 4 hours or so.

Finally, I did not edit a single word in the entire exchange except to remove the columnist’s name where it would have appeared and to replace my name with “ZACKlyRight” where it appears.

In chronological order starting with my email to a Boston Globe columnist (I'm the odd-numbered entries, the columnist is the even-numbered entries):

1. Ms. Vennochi,

Ms. Stockman reports today that Vietnam war hero, 25 years in the Senate, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John F. Kerry, is "on the fence" about sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Like I wrote you earlier, maybe with just a bit more seasoning he'll be ready to shine.

What more evidence does anyone need to write the most scathing of columns on this total failure?

And, while President Obama dithers, TODAY there are American troops in Afghanistan fighting and dying that Gates (December, 2006) says he's under-resourced for three years and Mullen (August, 2007) says he's under-resourced for two years. We owe these troops help TODAY if that is their assessment. I dare say, that Gates and Mullen should be fired for gross negligence.

No doubt Kerry will be at the White House today when President Obama presents the Medal of Honor to the family of Sgt. First Class Jared Monti of Raynam, MA.

No doubt Kerry is not on the fence about attending either.

2. I think probably people are looking at the history of combat in Afghanistan as well as the state of the current govt. there and wondering about the possibility for anything more than years of low grade conflict ...

3. 100 years?

4. 100 years what?

5. Obama and his demagogues pounded McCain for suggesting non-combat US troops could be in Iraq for 100 years.

I'm asking if Obama, Kerry, or you would tolerate a low grade conflict in Afghanistan for 100 years? Can I start demagoguing in-kind today?

If you have a comment on Obama reasserting Bush on the USA PATRIOT Act or Obama cowering in the Oval while a race conversation is taking place, you can comment on those here, no need to have three threads going.

Obama presents a Medal of Honor today, I wonder if he'll successfully avoid discussing the war in Afghanistan again and I wonder how many times he'll say "health care".

The job of Portside Horowitz is still open; only partial credit for charter school support.

6. 100 years? Are you kidding? Of course not.

7. The job of Portside is still open.

Call-out Obama for not personally calling out Carter. A "nation of cowards", indeed (Obama, not you).

Good God, Gates and Mullen (and Obama through Gibbs) have trashed McKiernan and Bush (but not themselves?) for three weeks now by referring to the war in Afghanistan as "under-resourced" and Stockman is reporting Obama"vows"!!! no immediate action? The comments and inaction cannot be reconciled. I'm sure the troops currently in Afghanistan appreciate the Commander-in-Chief's concern for them. Or, maybe Obama will enjoy himself today at the Monti event. He'll get a chance to be photographed looking presidential.

I'll rank Afghanistan, race-relations and health care in that order. I think we're seeing how Obama ranks them.

8. Why should he call Carter out? Can't a former president express his opinion? And isn't there some truth to what he's saying? Think, old boy, think.

9. Obama should have called out Carter and should not have sent Gibbs to do it.

Yes, a former President can express his opinion. When he incites hate, there should be consequences, though. Or, do you not agree?

The truth in what he is saying lies in the history he re-counted which no one is contesting. I don't know his relationship with former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert C. Byrd (D, WV) so I don't know what truths Carter knows about the inner workings of the Klan.

Afghanistan (small gap) race-relations (huge gap plus at least 8 other issues) health care.

Under-resourced and inaction cannot be reconciled.

10. To call that inciting hatred is to misuse (or misunderstand) words, ZACKlyRight. At least try to think.

11. I'm well-versed in the code words and language the Democrats use to justify victimization in those they keep on the plantation(*). The hate he fostered is in those who vote for Democrats.

Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile.

(*) - plantation means just what Hillary meant in Jan. 2006 and as supported by Rev. Sharpton when asked about the quote. Maybe if I use the same language your friends use you'll understand me better.

12. Hate is simply a dumb word to use there, ZACKlyRight. It makes you guilty of the very kind of politics you accuse others of.

13. I'm not in front of a microphone inciting. I'm not giving an interview that will be plastered for millions to read. I'm engaged with someone who can affect the thoughts of 300,000 subscribers to a newspaper and the millions more who read on-line.

I agree with President Obama that Wilson's words were not racially based.

I agree with President Obama that Kanye West is a jackass and I'm quite positive Kanye's words were racially motivated. But, let's not have an honest national conversation about that.

I still haven't seen the race of the line judge Serena threatened. Based on her name only I gather she might be a white Hispanic. Knowing what we know about how Boston's black cops ticket white Hispanics with the greatest frequency per stop of any cop/driver combination (Dedman's special report, 2003), it might be worth considering if Serena's threat was racially motivated.

All racism is wrong. All racism should be called out. And using race to score political as the Democrats do with so much regularity is vile.

Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile,

14. Knowingly or otherwise, you've allowed yourself to become a right-wing dupe. V. sad. You could be the starboard-size Horowitz.

15. Your calling a Republican a name. I understand that offends no etiquette in today's political environment. I'm sorry our conversation included your comment.

Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile,

16. You mean, you're?

17. Yes.

18. I thought as much.

At my entry 5. above, I did not wait for 6. to return before I sent a second email, a. below. The exchange below then became a concurrent conversation. The above conversation ended around d. below, with e. – h. being the last four comments exchanged.

a. Also, about two days ago the (guilty) all-white Editorial Board of the Boston Globe threw a blanket over Wilson, West and Williams in an effort to paint their behavior as simply "boorish". Great pre-emptive move; now those who have to defend West and Williams from the charge of racism know the reply - they were just uncivil. But from the three, the extremists have attacked one – for political gain - not to improve race relations.

Why did Coakley vote for Clinton at the Democratic National Convention after Hillary released all her delegates? Could she not pull the lever for the black man? That Democrats don't think prominent white Democratscan be racists is one of the greatest lies. Or, could she not pull the lever for a man? Racist or sexist, the ugly motive for the vote should be disqualifying.

100%! According to CNN.com exit polling, 100% of black females in North Carolina voted for Obama. Fine, some thought he was the better candidate. Some are racists. We're to excuse their ugly motives? When does excusing ugly racism stop?

Are there white Republican racists? Absolutely. If the race conversation in this country is only going to continue to the extent Democrats can make political hay from this fact, to the exclusion of discussing the white, liberal racists or the black racists, then that's no conversation at all. That's Jimmy Carter.

b. Because she was pandering to women as she planned a future Senate run. That's not hard to figure out, old boy.

Racism, properly understood, has to have a malign element to it. You're trying to stretch it to cover anything that remotely involves race in a way that's dishonest.

If, for example, someone observes that Asian women are smart and attractive, that may be a racial stereotype, but it shouldn't be thought of a racist (sic) (Blogger's Note: I know I said no commentary but it is important to note that the columnist's 16. above came AFTER my c. below which completely ignored the horrific usage mistake by the columnist here.) per se because it's not used as the basis of a negative judgment.

It's a "mistake'' conservatives often make. I wonder why?

c. There is no such thing as good racism. Rewarding an African-American on her Michigan Law School application simply because she is black hurts the Asian you referred to above who also applied.

d. That's a different argument and one that's nonresponsive.

e. No, it is responsive.

I don't think African-American women or my wife would be happy if I thought Asian woman were attractive. They'd want to pursue my thoughts. The follow-up question would be, "More attractive than African-American women and white women?" As soon as someone puts people in any order based on race, they've practiced racism. Not seeing this is a mistake many liberals make.

f. Well, ZACKlyRight, I can lead you to water, but I can't make you think.

g. Outstanding! You found my email to you from months ago. But, you messed up my line. It's, "I can lead you to KNOWLEDGE, but I can't make you think." I'm flattered nonetheless

h. Actually, I was thinking of Bill Weld's classic line about the Legislature: You can call them to order, but can't make them think.

President Obushma - The USA PATRIOT Act of 2010

Regular readers here know that I've been keeping a rather robust list of all of President Obushma's reassertions of President Bush.

I'm not going to re-produce the list now, which numbers well over 40 significant reassertions.

Instead, I simply want to alert readers to the latest reassertion as the subject matter gave great fuel to the liberal extremists who railed against President Bush.

First, a little quick history: The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was passed in the United States Senate by a vote of 98 - 1, Senator Russ Feingold (D, WI) was the lone dissenter. On March 2, 2006, the United States Senate reauthorized much of the 2001 Act by a vote of 89 - 10. Notable Democratic Senators in support were Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry.

Well, yesterday, President Obama let Congress know that he supports extending 3 provisions of the 2006 Act that are set to expire at the end of this year.

As I tell all my Republican and conservative friends, if you ever have the good fortune of engaging in debate a delusional liberal extremist on almost any national security matter, simply share, "I agree with President Obushma and President Bush (provide you do, of course)."

The email I sent my liberal friends in the media:

Friends,

No letter, just a quick email.

And no reproduction of my now 40+ list of significant reassertions of Bush by Obama (retentions of under-resourcers Gates and Mullen fast becoming my satirical favorites).

I trust you all saw President Obama wants to have three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2006 extended. Recall, the 2001 Act fueled much of the moveon.org hate toward President Bush. Recall also that on March 2, 2006, then-Senators Obama, Biden and Clinton voted for the 2006 re-authorization. Also voting for reauthorization were our Senators, Kerry and Kennedy.

I wonder if an interim Senator must also support the reauthorization as Kennedy would have (the application of the extremely stupid health care logic) or would an interim Senator be free to spew "shredding the Constitution" rhetoric and vote against any reauthorization?

My tag line I will repeat, the Emperor is wearing Bush's clothes.

Regards,

ZACKlyRight (End of email to my liberal friends in the media.)

Bush Derangement Syndrome Liberation Day

I sent this letter to the Boston Globe over a week ago asking it consider the letter below for publication on September 13, 2009. Naturally, the liberal extremists who preside over the biased editorial pages did not publish my letter.

Editor,

For exactly eight years now, we have known the date the liberal extremists are insistent that President Bush became responsible for everything. Despite President Clinton’s evisceration of the intelligence apparatus abroad, despite the Democratically-controlled Senate holding up countless Bush nominations at the Defense Department and National Security Agency (NSA), and despite the intelligence sharing “wall” constructed by Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick between the CIA and the FBI, we know the date the Democrats have shamelessly demagogued, to great political advantage, as the date President Bush became responsible for everything.

Well, today, Sunday, September 13, is deeper into President Obama’s presidency than when President Bush became responsible for everything. President Obama has enjoyed a filibuster-proof Senate and will so again in no more than 5 months. Obama has enjoyed a massive majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans have not held up any Obama nominations at Defense or the NSA. And, the Clinton/Gorelick “wall” has been torn down.

Today is Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) Liberation Day and from this day forward until September 13, 2013, President Obama, a BDS sufferer, can no longer blame President Bush for anything. (End of letter proclaiming Bush Derangement Syndrome Liberation Day.)

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen Must Go

It is with regret that I call for President Obama to fire Secretary of Defense (SecDef) Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, unless, of course, the two men resign.

As regular readers here know, I’ve long supported President Obama’s reassertion of President Bush by retaining Gates, his credentials on Iraq stout. This is no longer the case.

First some names, dates and responsibilities:

Robert Gates was sworn in as SecDef on December 18, 2006; that is nearly three and a half years ago!

Admiral Mullen was elevated at the Joint Chiefs on August 3, 2007; this is over two years ago!

General David McKiernan is a four-star general who led the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from June 3, 2008 until he was replaced by General Stanley McChrystal on June 15, 2009.

Finally, for context only, General David Petraeus was promoted to USCentComm in October 2008; McChrystal certainly has a solid-line reporting responsibility to Petraeus but I’ll admit I do not know his reporting responsibility to NATO.

Second, some recent quotes:

As reported by the Associated Press on September 3, Gates said eight-year old war in Afghanistan is “only now beginning.”

In explaining himself further, Gates added this gobbly-guk, “I think what is important to remember is the President's decisions on this strategy were only made at the very end of March; our new commander appeared on the scene in June . . . So we are only now beginning to be in a position to have the assets in place and the strategy or the military approach in place to begin to implement the strategy." (Blogger’ Note: It’s been a while since my last post because for some time I was only beginning to gather evidence for this post so that I could begin to formulize thoughts and then begin to write and it was only this morning that I began to begin beginning.)

In addition to authoring the asinine quote of the century (see my post of July 9, 2009), Adm. Mullen offered this beauty leading into the quiet Labor Day weekend, “We’ve badly resourced (the war in Afghanistan) for so long.”

Finally, Gates, lying in defense of his boss, claims that President Obama has been “crystal clear” with his explanation of “his” strategy for the war in Afghanistan. Well, I've been calling for President Obama to explain his escalation of the war in Afghanistan to the American people for months now and I'm sure I've seen no speech that supports the SecDef's ridiculous claim.

Third, the characterizations by the media, even the Wall Street Journal:

President Obama, apparently, is a counter-insurgency expert. We know that General Petraeus has spent nearly a lifetime studying counter-insurgency yet we are led to believe that somehow President Obama, a constitutional law “scholar” and a community organizer, resolved the best way to win the war in Afghanistan is to nation-build, develop trust among the populace (community organizing?), and track and kill the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The characterization in the media is that there is some solid line reporting responsibility between the ISAF commander and the President of the United States. I guess the Commander-in-Chief can organize his defense department however he sees fit but I find it extremely unlikely McChrystal is reporting directly to the President. I find it as extremely unlikely as Gen. McKiernan was reporting directly to the President.

Finally, my analysis:

Gates and Mullen have offered no quote or characterization that they share any responsibility for the war in Afghanistan. This is outrageous.

When McKiernan was fired, Gates was asked if it would mean the end of his career. “Probably,” came the icy reply.

McKiernan was on the job for one year. Gates has been on the job for over three years. Mullen has been on the job for over two years. What kind of counsel have THEY been providing the President that the war THEY were prosecuting was under-resourced for so long on their watch?

Gates and Mullen have lost credibility as they blame subordinates and demur to their boss. The troops in the field do not need such men looking out for them and we certainly need better looking out for our national security. Over the weekend I read accounts of two different US troops who lost their lives in Afghanistan. In separate incidents, both first lost their legs to a roadside bomb before they succumbed to their injuries; one will receive the Medal of Honor. The two men and every other soldier in Afghanistan needs to know that the SecDef and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has their back and I simply have not seen that in any quote or any paraphrased comments by either Gates or Mullen. The two of them continue explain beginning to begin; that's not good enough, in my opinion, for the troops in the field or for us safe(?) in our homes.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen should be fired for gross negligence if they truly believe they under-resourced a war. Or, they both should resign.

The Depravity of Democrats Continues

According to the Associated Press, when Senator Harry Reid was asked how the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s passing would affect the Democrats health care nationalization plans, Sen. Reid responded, "I think it's going to help us. He hasn't been around for some time. We're going to have a new chairman of that committee."

Back on June 19, 2009 when I told you the best thing that could happen for Republicans was a filibuster-proof majority for the Democrats, I also reminded you, “As so many Democrats and liberals quietly celebrated US military deaths in Iraq so that they could demagogue the deaths leading up to the November 2006 and 2008 elections, I wonder if the same Democrats are praying as hard for Kennedy as I am . . . .”

I guess Sen. Reid was not.

Oh, the new chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee? Sen. Chris Dodd. The Democrats are shameless. Their depravity continues.

9th Overall Pick

I have my fantasy football league draft this Friday night and all the studying in the world has got me no closer to putting the top nine players in an order - nor have I identified the top nine players.

I pick 9th in a 16 team league where I'd say the scoring slightly favors RBs over QBs and WRs. Any tips on who to take and who to definitely avoid - and why - would be greatly appreciated.

Obviously, coming back in the second round I pick 24th. Assistance here would be appreciated, too.