Hillary on Afghanistan: “if we simply leave and allow the Taliban to return, al-Qaeda “would come right back, and we’d be worse off in Pakistan.” & Sens. Kyl & Levin on Afghanistan strategy & FOX Panel Plus…

First some much needed humor:

Mashup by FleetwoodFactor

In this Parade piece on 24 hours with Hillary, an important insight into her position on our role in Afghanistan and the dangers posed by the Taliban:

(…)We sit at a table away from the crowd. Clinton has a hard edge to her foreign-policy views and generally positions herself to the right of her colleagues in national security. Yet she staunchly defends President Obama and his prerogatives. While she’s “not satisfied that we’re executing as we should” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere, she nonetheless argues for continuing “present directions” in most areas.

When I question whether the U.S. really has vital interests in Afghanistan, she shoots back that if we simply leave and allow the Taliban to return, al-Qaeda “would come right back, and we’d be worse off in Pakistan. She continues: “Despite how hard Afghanistan is, we have to make progress. And what we do and what happens in Afghanistan will affect Pakistan…

As we have noted here before, the British press has reported that Hillary and Gates while keeping their positions close to the vest, want increased troop levels in Afghanistan, it is essential. The mumbling of Juan Williams on the FOX Panel Plus (clip below) wondering why we should stay in Afghanistan is just ridiculous.

When Dana Perrino, former GWB press secretary points out the important progress we have made in security that allows women to participate in the Afghan society and educate themselves (which will lead to their economic freedom and an amazing economic renaissance for Afghanistan, we see this all over the world when women are able to educate themselves and enter the economy-and Hillary Clinton is very focused on this as well) Juan Williams actually says ‘it is nice for women to rule the world but that’s no reason to be in Afghanistan” He thinks this is funny. Incredible.

WHAT HAPPENED TO HUMAN RIGHTS?

MEMO TO ‘NEOPROGRESSIVES’ AND JOURNOLISTS: WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS (Sen Feinstein gets it)

THE TALIBAN ARE OUR ENEMY AND PROVIDE AID AND SUSTENANCE TO AL QAEIDA

Continues after the break:

(more…)

Advertisements

October 25, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Cabinet, Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 2 comments.

Politico: Obama urged to cite moral obligation to Afghani people, especially women, in West Point speech on war in Afghanistan…

The UN National Human Rights Committee (click image for their page) was quite concerned in April 2008 to note many Afghan girls were still not attending school. I have not heard anything from them on how these girls will survive attempting a single day of school without US troop protection while Obama considered withdrawal of forces. The concern for human rights seem to be quixotic.

FINALLY. Someone begged, borrowed or stole a clue and these people are understanding WHY we are there. We are not there only for AQ, we are there to stop the Taliban from murdering, maiming, raping and brutalizing the women and children of Afghanistan. We made a committment, these girls have braved death to attend school under our watch. We must not abandon them now.

Our previous posts on our missions in Afghanistan and the need for more troops and a FIRM commitment to the people, and the urgent need to protect these women and children, a message someone FINALLY seems to have gotten through the Obama bubble, here.

Politico:

As President Barack Obama prepares to make the case for sending more troops to Afghanistan, some allies are urging him to return to a line of argument little heard since the Bush years: the United States has a moral obligation to protect the Afghan people, particularly women, from the Taliban.

Obama ran on a promise to restore cold-eyed calculations of national interest to American foreign policy, a reaction against President George W. Bush’s tendency to cast a confrontational foreign policy in terms of the freedoms it would achieve for nations that did not have them. And he has governed without the public appeals to human rights that marked American foreign policy ventures from Kosovo to Iraq.

But realism has proved, at times, a hard political sell. Bloodless talk about “engagement” has left the Obama administration without a compelling story to tell or argument to make. And its emphasis on process has only increased the pressure for more tangible results.

In Afghanistan, the White House was reluctant to play up the Taliban’s excesses and the plight of Afghan women while it considered withdrawing from an active role in the country’s governance. But as Obama moves toward sending additional troops – reportedly more than 30,000 more – to the country, supporters of the policy are urging him to stress human rights in an effort to revive support for an increasingly unpopular war….

Yeah, wouldn’t want to stress the brutal conditions women under the Taliban face when we withdraw when he was ready to back out of our committment, but now he feels a bit better about using the moral argument about women’s rights, which are BTW human rights, as HRC said in Beijing over a decade ago.

I have no idea how neoprogs square their ACLU concern for the human rights of Gitmo prisoners with abandoning the women of Afghanistan to the Taliban, but they do, they call it realism and pragmatism. I call it utterly disgusting and amoral, an abandonment of our duty to humanity.

That is the needle they are threading, if he raises the moral obligation we have, he will be hard-pressed to cut and run later when he takes political heat (his handmaidens in the lamestream media would be eager to assist but we loud mouthed bloggers would take note andTeam O hates that). And his own political survival is IMO of paramount importance to him, thus the presence of Emanuel and Axelrasputin at war cabinet meetings.

November 30, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics. Comments off.

Sen Feinstein supports McChrystal’s recommendations and the women and children of Afghanistan…

Finally someone mentions the women and children of Afghanistan in this discussion of the mythical Taliban ‘moderates’. Feinstein wants to find Pashtoun Tribal Warlords who will work with us and she wants to support General McChrystal’s recommendations. That gives us the full Brass- Petraeus, Mullen, McChrystal, plus Hillary, Gates, and now Sen Feinstein of her powerful intelligence cmte, all on one page. Good. Support the troops, Support the Afghani people we promised to protect.

Courtesy of speakmymind02

October 11, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Cabinet, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 1 comment.

Update: USAToday poll shows Americans support reinforcing the troops; Memo to Obama: The Taliban ARE our enemy. The Taliban are terrorists. The Taliban are enemies of the Afghani people.

Update, Ace HQ:

From Goldfarb’s Tweet: A USA Today poll says Joe Biden’s brilliant strategy of leaving our troops to twist without reinforcement or plan of victory commands 7% support.

Pull out? 38%.

Give them the reinforcements and resources they need? 48%….

warning video content is disturbing and violent

HotAir:

(…)Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said…

Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan’s culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government — though there has been little receptiveness to this among the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban

Obama kept returning to one question for his advisers: Who is our adversary, the official said.

In other words, rather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.”

What happened in Basra when American troops withdrew? What happened to the women we promised to protect?

AceHQ:

(…)This is dangerous and cynical. They don’t want to be seen as bugging out, so they’re going to leave our troops in the meat-grinder without any actual intention to resource and reinforce them and give them a chance at actually accomplishing anything besides defending the Democratic Party’s interests.

Disgusting…

October 8, 2009. Tags: , , , , , . Armed Forces, Obama Administration, Terrorism. 2 comments.

Hillary and the Pentagon want more troops for Afghanistan, Biden and Pelosi do not..

Great. Yet again I say, it should have been Hillary. I have NO DOUBT Susan Rice and Smantha Power are also calling to withdraw and let the terrorists take hold, fools:

UK Telegraph (h/t Ace commenter stuiec!)

President Barack Obama’s administration is sharply divided over whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, with Vice-President Joe Biden and other senior figures arguing that it would be folly to escalate the fighting.

On this vital question, Mr Biden is sharply at odds with Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state.. He strongly opposes any large increase in US combat forces in Afghanistan, while Mrs Clinton has called for reinforcements, with the support of the Pentagon…

hclintoncurtain2

…General Stanley McChrystal, the new American commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, has submitted his classified assessment of the war to the White House. This is understood to lay out future options, ranging from sending 10,000 to 40,000 additional soldiers.

Gen McChrystal has privately made clear that he believes the greatest risk attaches to holding back on the reinforcements. What he considers the minimal option of sending between 10,000 and 15,000 more troops is also the riskiest choice, he argues.

Mr Obama, who ordered another 17,000 combat soldiers and 4,000 military trainers to Afghanistan within weeks of taking office, will be loath to reject his new commander’s advice and risk being branded weak on national security by the Republicans.

An official described the row between the president’s advisers as “a necessary and healthy debate”. It comes as senior Democrats in Congress have publicly opposed sending more US soldiers. “I don’t think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan, in the country or in the Congress,” said Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and one of the most senior Democrats in Congress, who is also known as a close ally of Mr Obama….

Holbrooke wants more troops too:

…But Richard Holbroke, Mr Obama’s special representative to the region, argues that extra combat troops are needed to protect civilians from the Taliban….

Sign spotted at DC 912 rally, courtesy of Vodkapundit:

DEMINWH

TOTUS and Biden don’t seem to have what Queen Elizabeth 1st and Hillary do, the ‘stomach of a King’:

September 12, 2009. Tags: , , , , , . Cabinet, Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Terrorism. 6 comments.

Reports of Mullah Omar capture abound while Team Obama rushes to apologize for Hillary taking a firm stance on protecting America, (even from our erstwhile ally Pakistan)

(more…)

May 11, 2010. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 1 comment.

Obama rejects *ALL* the AfPak war options at today’s national security meeting (8th!), pushes for revisions

Still voting present. I am convinced he is waiting for his peace prize pick-up. This must be why Mullen, Gates and Hillary let it be known today all three of them support the high troop reinforcement option (30k+) as requested by McChrystal.  Trying to move the decision along. (Note- Hillary and the Pentagon had let it be known in September that they supported more troops-it was reported in the UK Times but our media ignored it. Sen Feinstein went on record a few weeks after that supporting more troops to guard the women of Afghanistan against the Taliban AND Al Qaeda. Hillary went on record AGAIN in October flatly stating we MUST stay and WIN in Afghanistan.)

And his response is to dig deeper in indecision and delay.  (Typical Obama, on Veteran’s Day he gives a speech pledging support and then kicks the can on the actual support, a man of NO convictions)

Politico has it:

POTUS will not accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, and instead will push “for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government,” AP is reporting.

Obama held his 8th Afghan meeting today, to discuss how long it would take to implement the various options for troop increases he’s considering. The White House stressed that no decision has been made yet, and that the president is insistent that any new commitment will not be open-ended.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday evening that the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, sent out two classified cables to D.C. in the last week, expressing his concerns about sending more troops there until Prime Minister Hamid Karzai shows that it is willing to take serious steps to tackle corruption and mismanagement….

November 11, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Politics, Terrorism. 4 comments.

Hillary supports Israel – Media breaks out tomtoms against her (again)

So Hillary tried to get the Palestinian government to agree to come back to the table and allow Israel to continue organic growth. Palestinians said no. Then  she went to Israel and praised the Israelis for their cooperation and willingness to come to the table.

So the Palestinians ran crying to all their outlets and connections and lo and behold the media reported Hillary Stopping Peace Talks!! This despite the fact that Hillary said nothing Obama has not said himself! Clearly Team TOTUS backed down when the Palestinians whined at him, but don’t blame the SoS people, come on!

On a one-day Middle East visit on Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed Israel’s view that settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank should not be a bar to resuming negotiations — contradicting the Palestinian position.

Netanyahu has proposed limiting building for now to some 3,000 settler homes already approved by Israel in the West Bank. He does not regard building in occupied East Jerusalem, annexed in defiance of international opposition, as settlement.

U.S. President Barack Obama himself, after persuading Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September to meet Netanyahu in New York, called only for “restraint” in settlement, not the “freeze” he had previously proposed.

Then the neocons and CDS afflicted along with TOTUS cheerleaders who are the anti-Clintons at any given opportunity ran with Obama lede ‘Hillary Incompetent!”. Were I the conservatives,  I would question why I was on the same side as the media in this one when Hillary is the best ally Israel has in this Administration

As a Dem and a Catholic and an American, one of my big problems with Obama was his wishy-washy support of Israel, thus my joy when Hillary said as plain as anyone could possibly be during the primary debates, that if Iran attacked Israel we would ‘wipe them off the map.”. I like that kind of clarity and leadership in, you know, a LEADER.

Sadly some of the GOP and conservative outlets are jumping on board with a ‘Hillary is incompetent’ meme, which does absolutely nothing to further their agenda and in fact alienates moderates such as myself.

I call bullshxt.

Hillary knows EXACTLY where America should stand on Israel. She knows exactly where our military stands on Israel, She knows exactly where she stands on Israel. The thing no one knows day to day is where OBAMA stands. Don’t blame the messenger.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki, speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the Marrakesh conference, said while they were surprised to see Clinton’s statement in Jerusalem, and thought it was inconsistent with what Clinton told them in Abu Dhabi earlier Saturday, they are happy the position has been clarified and brought back into line with their understanding. He also said that the Palestinian Authority is happy that Obama has made the Israeli Palestinian issue and the creation of a Palestinian state a priority and they believe in him and his sincerity.

Look, clearly Hillary is not as good as Obama at being everything to everyone and appearing to agree with everyone, and everyone leaving him believing he is in complete agreement with them on everything. That is a good thing IMO, and for Hillary it is again IMO because she actually COMMITS to things, her husband, her party, her positions. She isn’t the tabula rasa Obama is, glad handing everyone and letting everyone see what they want.  So in that sense people like the Palestinian leadership and the Russians are simply not going to get what they want from her, or what they got from TOTUS,. And no doubt that is one large reason the cabal of dunces in the DEM leadership like Pelosi and Dean SELECTED Barack as the nominee over Hillary, she is tough, he rolls over.

Anyone who doubts that Hillary supports Israel, and that she is quite competent and decisive simply has not been paying attention.

I hope the conservatives and GOP do not allow CDS to sweep them into banging tomtoms and doing the mowmow on Hillary.

There is a REASON OBAMA WANTS HILLARY UNDERMINED NOW.

HILLARY AND GATES ARE THE TWO VOICES IN THE ADMINISTRATION WHO WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT A FULL TROOP BUILD UP IN AFGHANISTAN.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE MEDIA OR TEAM TOTUS TO UNDERMINE ONE OF THE STRONGEST PRO MILITARY, PRO TROOP BUILDUP VOICES IN THIS ADMINISTRATION.

Obama and Kerry could never handle this aggressive questioning in Pakistan. Hillary’s mission there was to speak to all the Pakistani people and press and government and try to assure them our presence, and drone attacks, and military buildup and our bill (Kerry Lugar) are well intentioned. We NEED Pakistan to trust us to stay (something hard to convince them of under the guidance of our dear leader who is himself MIA on the troop buildup) and to give us the intelligence we need to work against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

November 2, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , . Armed Forces, Politics, Terrorism. 2 comments.

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: