« Knockout!Half-Pregnant »

Wartime President Supported

This hasn’t happened in what, nearly seven years now. I mean, not without a lot of kicking and screaming. Democrats say they’ll support a wartime president, with American troops in the field, and vital national and global security interests at stake. OK, that’s not exactly how AP put it. 

AP reports Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid comes out of the White House Afghanistan meeting, said Dems and GOP leaders told Obama, ”Whatever decision you make, we’ll support it.”

So, is it a better-liked thing? Have they suddenly become interested in national security and allowing the president of the United States to follow the advice of his generals and prosecute a war successfully? Or do they already know what “whatever” is? AP, lacking the details, so far has yet to grasp the momentousness of this potential sea change. Countdown to when AP makes reference to two years of active Democratic obstruction of the highly successful effort to turn around the Iraq War starts … now. 

Back to the matter at hand. Theoretically it means he’s actually free to do the right thing. Now, all he needs to do is make a decision. Or announce it. Whatever.

So what’s Pelosi so PO’d about? She joins the chorus telling McChrystal to can it, which I’m pretty sure he is going to. National Republican Cong Com has fun with Nancy.

Petraeus isn’t done yet, though: HotAir.

In compliance with FTC regs re blogger conflict of interest, I’d like to disclose that I consider the Democratic leadership of Congress to be petty, treasonous jackasses. They have not paid me to say this.

(Care to comment? Registration is shut down, due to persistent spammers. Use the “contact” link above to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand, include the screenname and temporary password of your choice, and I’ll create a logon for you. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, mean-spirited rightwingers all welcome. No litmus test, this is a free speech zone as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)

Topics: Afghanistan,Obama,pols

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 5:14 pm Comments (5) on Tuesday, October 6, 2009

5 Responses to “Wartime President Supported”

1. saveliberty Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

   I thought that dissent was patriotic, but that was before VP Biden told us that paying one’s taxes was patriotic.

   Do you think that someone may have missed the definition of patriot?

   From dictionary.com
   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriot?db=luna

   pa⋅tri⋅ot  [pey-tree-uht, -ot or, especially Brit., pa-tree-uht] Show IPA
   –noun
   1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
   2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.
   3. (initial capital letter) Military. a U.S. Army antiaircraft missile with a range of 37 mi. (60 km) and a 200-lb. (90 kg) warhead, launched from a tracked vehicle with radar and computer guidance and fire control.

2. RebeccaH Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

   We are royally screwed.

3. Should a General Speak Freely? « An American Lion Says:
   October 7th, 2009 at 8:46 am

   [...] decided to take a further look at this, this, and this. Now, as to whether or not General McChrystal should speak out about Afghan strategy, yes, of [...]

4. mojo Says:
   October 7th, 2009 at 11:02 am

   According to the NRCC, Madame Speaksalot has credibility.

   Who knew?

5. In Afghanistan, Obama rules out reduction of forces but supports half measures « The Western Experience Says:
   October 7th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

   [...] want to alienate them by escalating the war. Because the minute he does, he knows, and they know, that it will be the Democrats’ war. In other words, they would have to get serious about fighting and winning there. When really, they [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.