Gibbs accuses Bush/Cheney of “underresourcing” the whitewashed war on terror
Responding to a question about Afghanistan during today’s White House press briefing, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs assailed Bush/Cheney for having “under-resourced Afghanistan for the better part of a decade” and declared the region “the most important part of our war on terror.”
Whoops. That’s “Overseas Continegency Operation” to you, Bobby.
After days of confusion and denial about whether the Obama administration was officially no longer using the term “War on Terror,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration is no longer speaking of a “War on Terror.”
“I haven’t gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It’s just not being used,” said Clinton during a briefing with reporters aboard her plane to the Hague to attend an international conference on Afghanistan.
“The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself,” she said at a different point during her trip. “Obviously.”
***
President Obama hasn’t yet read Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s report on Afghanistan delivered to NATO allies and the Pentagon earlier today.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
December 25, 2011 03:26 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsJoe Biden: The Taliban Per Se is Not Our Enemy
December 19, 2011 04:06 PM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
CNN: 31 Americans, Including 22 SEALs, Killed in Afghanistan
August 6, 2011 03:35 PM by Doug Powers
52 CommentsZogby International: Most Arab Countries View US Less Favorably Than at End of Bush Administration
July 13, 2011 04:08 PM by Doug Powers
99 Comments
Harry Reid & Lindsey Graham: Afghanistan Riots Might Be Due to Too Many Freedoms in the US… or Something
April 3, 2011 03:49 PM by Doug Powers
169 CommentsTroops Returning from Iraq and Afghanistan Get a Little Surprise at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport
August 11, 2010 10:20 PM by Doug Powers
91 Comments
Taliban executes Christian medical team in Afghanistan; 6 American doctors among those murdered
August 8, 2010 10:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
202 CommentsDoes a US Marine in Afghanistan Really Have a Sarah Palin Tattoo on His Butt? You Bet’cha!
May 30, 2010 03:55 PM by Doug Powers
30 Comments
Categories: Afghanistan
The month of August marked the most deaths of American troops in Afghanistan since the War on Terror started. For a Drive-by Media that couldn’t get enough of death counts until 1/20/09, the sound of crickets chirping is deafening.
Only a Nancy-boy accepts a job and then continues to whine about what happened before. If Zero can’t handle the action, he should have remained a do-nothing senator. Zero owns this — the highest death rate — now, lgm. He owns the lousy economy, the high unemployment rate, and all the rest. Nothing you or Gibbs say about what Bush / Cheney did or didn’t do is going to change that. We see what’s going on. Your Nancy-boy isn’t cutting it. As time goes on more and more people will see it too.
Liberals are responsible for all our problems.
ABCNews reports: “National Security Adviser: Obama Having Greater Success Taking Out Terrorists — Than Bush!”
How the hell does this guy KNOW that the human beings killed were terrorists? How does he know that they weren’t innocent Afghani civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time? Were there trials? Were they read their Miranda warnings before they were so ruthlessly slaughtered? How is it that torturing these innocent Afghanis by blowing second-hand smoke in their faces is unconscionable, but separating their brains from their skulls, their spleens from their torsos, and their limbs from everything else is not only A-o.k. but something this Administration brags about?
BTW, where’s Osama?
Puleeze. I don’t know your crazy definition of “open,” but Al Qaeda was the prime suspect before noon EDT on 9.11.01.
Wrong. I’ve schooled you on this before. Iraq was THE direct reason for the 9/11 attacks. In fact, Al Qaeda was founded in response to our containment of Iraq.
Try to follow this simple logic. If no containment of Iraq had been necessary, then Al Qaeda would never have existed, then Al Qaeda wouldn’t have been around to orchestrate attacks on 9/11.
Well, you’re stupid. You hit all those that pose a continued threat.
Stupid and meaningless.
I know. I know. You still think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. I’m sure that would have caused far fewer problems than invading Iraq.
That’s silly. You claim that the perpetrators were Saudi. So the resources in Afghanistan aren’t germane. Or maybe you should get your story straight.
Wow, chapoutier. You really are thinking linearly today.
No. That’s not the point. The administration didn’t kowtow to the protestors in Nam either – until they did.
Pretend that you know the executive branch power limitations in the United States. Pretend that you know Congress could very well have cut off funding for the Iraq war in early 2007. Pretend that you know that the protestors, the MSM coverage, and the 2006 congressional polls didn’t offer hope (false or otherwise) to anyone fighting the US in Iraq? Pretend that you didn’t know whether or not the US would abruptly pull troops in 2007. Pretend that you didn’t know that the SURGE would be approved.
This is an asinine statement. You sound like big tobacco during the 1980s. How long did it take to prove causality for lung cancer? Maybe if we had 1,000 Iraq wars with protestors and 1,000 Iraq wars without protestors (preferably a blinded study) then we could produce some data for you.
There’s a big difference between believing that the US is beatable and believing that the US is already beaten.
Puleeze. If honey didn’t cure my cold, then why did my symptoms get better?
Fatalities might have decreased sooner WITHOUT protestors.
Do you really think the surge was simply successful because of the additional forces being sent to Iraq?
Do you at least think it’s possible that the enemy suffered morale problems because they realized the surge represented strengthened resolve which nobody could have predicted existed with any certitude?
I can tell you from a military planning perspective that intelligence analysis with respect to the political landscape is very important. Are you telling me that Rangle’s promise (which we all now known to have been broken) to cut funding for the troops wouldn’t have been a planning consideration for the enemies in Iraq? When you run a race, wouldn’t you consider the distance required to run? If Rangle gave you reason to believe the finish line was near, is it possible that you would decide to sprint thereby overcommitting your resources along a compressed timetable?
You’ve stated that our enemies in Iraq knew Bush wouldn’t kowtow. You stated this as if Bush was the only factor in the equation. So, you made it all about Bush (instead of considering congress, etc.).
I know a guy that utilized nine women in his attempt to produce a baby in one month.
However, it actually took him nine months. This proves that he was under resourced.
Try not to be a small thinker.
On September 1st, 2009 at 2:58 am, corkie said: #104
You had far more intelligence than the Administration did, you ought to be commended. On the morning of 9.12.2001 the question remained open as to who was responsible.
Puleeze. I don’t know your crazy definition of “open,” but Al Qaeda was the prime suspect before noon EDT on 9.11.01.Certainly there was speculation that included Iraq, but of course, it was determined later that Saddam Hussein had no direct involvement in the events of 9.11.2001.
Wrong. I’ve schooled you on this before. Iraq was THE direct reason for the 9/11 attacks. In fact, Al Qaeda was founded in response to our containment of Iraq.Try to follow this simple logic. If no containment of Iraq had been necessary, then Al Qaeda would never have existed, then Al Qaeda wouldn’t have been around to orchestrate attacks on 9/11.I am old school, and you hit back when hit, and you only hit those who hit you.
Well, you’re stupid. You hit all those that pose a continued threat.You don’t climb into the stands and hit the 5′8″ geek holding a beer, you hit the 6′3″ dude with the empty cup…
Stupid and meaningless.For the record, when I heard that we would go after the perpertraitors, I thought that was the correct thing to do.
I know. I know. You still think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. I’m sure that would have caused far fewer problems than invading Iraq.Oh, and by the way, have we brought the perpertraitors of 9.11.2001 to justice? If we haven’t, maybe it is because our efforts were under resourced in Afghanistan.
That’s silly. You claim that the perpetrators were Saudi. So the resources in Afghanistan aren’t germane. Or maybe you should get your story straight.On September 1st, 2009 at 3:33 am, corkie said: #106
Why is it that we are still in Afghanistan seven years after the fact, unless we were under resourced, and put our efforts there on the back burner?
That is the only question.
I know a guy that utilized nine women in his attempt to produce a baby in one month.However, it actually took him nine months. This proves that he was under resourced.
Try not to be a small thinker.
I am surprised by you, corkie. I guess, just like we didn’t kowtow to protesters in Nam… until we did, you are all about the empirical proof… until you aren’t. And what is absolutely asinine is you indulging unsubstantiated assertions and absolutely insane allegations that a protester is morally equivalent to one that plants an ied.
Yeah. Just like Big Tobacco. Except by the 1980′s there were already tons of studies about the health risks of cigarettes. Independent ones even. Oh and except that I am not trying to suppress any such studies. I am earnestly asking for any evidence, beyond all the “Maybes” and “Pretend thats”. Hell, maybe even a few statements from those fellows we have in Gitmo something to the effect of “Well, I was about ready to pack it up and then go home, but then I heard about a bunch of hippies protesting and thought ‘eh…I’ll stick it out a few more months.’” Surely we could have gotten some of those statements using those fancy enhanced interrogation methods.
But other than that, spot on analogy.
I believe there was also a change in tactics, i.e., clearing and holding territory in the major cities. Also, see below.
Perhaps. But you know what the surge was? A CHANGE IN ACTUAL STRATEGY. I don’t think that I have ever argued that the actual military could or could not have an effect on the outcome of a war. I have never even argued that a change in military strategy could not have a psychological impact on the enemy. So I am not sure your point has a point to it.
I have no idea. You seem to give them a lot of credit and high level of sophistication and knowledge about the inner workings of our governmental system. But even granting all that, surely you realize there is a difference between your average run of the mill protester and Charlie Rangel. Maybe Charlie does have a higher standard of care, so to speak, since he is more able to actually directly influence honest to goodness military matters.
It was also determined that Hussein ignored and blocked the UN mandated inspections for 12 years. Was doing backdoor illegal deals with the oil for food program, was starving certain segments of his population for world “sympathy”, bet you fell for that one, hosted and aided an Al Queda wanted member in his hospital, had himself “invaded a sovereign country”, do I need to go on? You know, contempt takes as much passion as support. Some people love it just as much, it is just a shame that people like you put honor and country so far down the list.
He said directly involved. Al Quaeda may have been pissed about the US containment of Iraq, but to state that this means Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 is to say that Lincoln was directly involved in the 1963 Birmingham church bombings by the KKK. I mean, follow this simple logic: If no freeing of the slaves had occurred, then the KKK would have never existed, then the KKK would not have been around to bomb that church.
The right to form and express an independent thought apparently is much much lower down on your list.
But in any case, I did not have “contempt” for the war nearly so much as I have contempt for those who say that any contempt for the war is treason.
chapoutier said:
What did you do on 9/11 and how did you feel that day as well as on 9/12?
Chap the fact that you and xerxes say it is okay for politicians to say things like…. “MARINES ARE KILLING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN COLD BLOOD” without facts of the case, “THEY ARE TERRORIZING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT” “THE WAR IS LOST”, etc. because there is no proof that soldiers died from those remarks says what kind of people you are.
Newsweek did a lie of a story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet and civilians in Afghanistan died, but there’s no proof right?
You have no honor or integrity. I do not need to say anymore.
On 9/11 I got the hell out of Washington DC. My law school was very close to the Capitol and there were reports on CCN that all hell was breaking loose. Bombs going off at the State Department, fires on the Mall…So a bunch of us headed north to Silver Spring. We, as everyone else, watched news coverage and waited to hear from friends or family that may have been in danger’s way. I couldn’t go home because my apartment was toward the Pentagon. When I finally was able to go home that night, my building reeked of the smoke and fumes from the Pentagon fire.
On 9/12 I learned my cousin, who I did not know worked at the WTC, had been in the 2nd tower and barely escaped, with very significant injuries. I also learned that my good friend’s wedding that coming spring was supposed to be at Windows on the World. I also learned, to my great relief, that one of my friends who I thought worked at WTC did not.
What about you? And more importantly, what relevance?
chapoutier said:
I am getting to that, when the President said we were going to war how did you feel about it?
I am glad you finally admit this.
Right. You should do a little less “saying” and a little more “reading what I actually wrote.” I admit politicians that might be able to have a direct influence on the war have a higher standard than the average protester, which is what this “conversation” was originally about.
Whatever. Go ahead and fill yourself with all the feigned self righteous loathing you want. Just wrap your little soul around that blanket of smugness and that super duper extra special patriotism that makes you feel all warm and tingly at night . You can continue to spout off nonsense about how protesters killed soldiers. You only serve to marginalize yourself from reality and relevance.
With whom?
Afghanistan first, The Taliban, and Iraq second, Saddams regime.
Good Gawd, I know you are, but what am I?
But yet, you still vote for them and their party, don’t you? Do you ever call them on it? Conservatives vote out our useless and dangerous politicians, why does it not bother you? don’t you think it makes you pretty much just as guilty as the ones who say provocative statements like the ones I listed?
Maybe mine is super duper, the fact that you have none gets people killed. Especially when I have been there and you probably do nothing more than sit on the couch sipping the French wine you named your avatar after. The fact that men and women do the dirty jobs you would never consider does mean you owe them at least a small amount of gratitude. At least the courtesy to tell the politicians you love to shove it and stop hurting the troops.
You honestly don’t know sh** about me or my relationship with troops. So stuff it and your idiotic ramblings about what does and does not get troops killed. You know what gets troops killed? Sending them off to war.
So-called conservatives haven’t voted in or out anything lately. You know why? because kooks like you have marginalized them.
chapoutier said:
No Chap, what gets troops killed is not allowing them to fight a war as a war should be fought. What gets trrops killed is playing games with funding to make polotical hay, what gets troops killed is telling them they cannot fire back unless they see someone pointing a weapon at them and firing, what gets troops killed is bombing a target one day and then not folowing up on that target for 2 weeks because of edicts from Liberal asses in Washington, what gets troops killed is liberal Asses in Washington telling field troops they do not need armored vehicles. That list can go on and on.
Great. Let’s stick with this.
Do you also admit that protestor movements can influence politicians?
How were they not allowed to fight the way they should because of protesters? Be specific.
What war appropriations bill was not passed? be specific.
How was this a decision of war protesters? Be specific.
First, cite a specific example. Second, please tell me how this, if true, is a consequence of the protesters. Be specific.
Same as above.
Tell us then super trooper, tell us how supportive you are of the troops, but then tell us how you do not support the mission. How many of the “troops” agree with you on that one? You have no idea what it is like to be a warrior. By how angry you are now, that is apparent. If you are not for the war, that is fine, but people like you support orgs that get people killed, ie. Newsweek (they got so ginned up on making Bush look bad they got people killed), people like you who convince yourself that being “dangerous” through your words and actions is chic and cool gets people killed. You just don’t like being called out, the truth makes people really edgy and angry…I have to go to work now, enough wasting time, I don’t get to make a 2 min phone call and bill someone for the entire hour, spending 58 mins blogging.
Perhaps. Did they actually? I would like something out of anyone else here other than freaking speculation or hypothetical.
First off, it is not about supporting or not supporting the mission. Just because one thinks it is a stupid plan of attack does not mean one hope it fails. My football team is the Buffalo Bills. I love the team. I think the coach is an idiot for thinking they can run a no-huddle offense. Do I want them to go three and out every possession? No. Nor does it mean I hate Trent Edwards.
The fact that you cannot or do not allow yourself to understand that says a lot more about your intellectual failings than it does about me.
Then maybe you picked the wrong line of work. Don’t let your jealousy show too much.
Have fun on your long march toward irrelevance.
chapoutier said:
Protestors influence politicians:
One prime example is Murtha and his influence. Because of him and his mouth the marines had to change their doctrine.
Second: protestors influenced the decision on bombing in Vietnam.
Most of all, all Liberal politicians are influenced by protestors to show they are on the protestors side.
The more vocal the minoity the more they are depicted as being a majority – thats the news media influencing the public on everything negative, protests and protestors, which in turn influence politicians.
I’m not “all about empirical proof” for everything. Only a fool would be.
I never gave the surge full credit for anything. Forget about what “also” helped. Do you think the surge had any demoralizing effect on those fighting against the US in Iraq?
Great there’s my answer.
And you knew that this CHANGE was inevitable? Is it possible that a withdrawal could have occurred instead of a surge? Is it possible that the fighters in Iraq were hoping for a withdrawal? It is possible that the fighters in Iraq were watching the ground swell efforts (the MSM certainly made it easy enough to watch) hoping that it would influence the policy?
Right. Sophistication and knowledge. Well maybe their intelligence apparatus had access to this sophisticated training material.
No, it’s not “to say.”
The containment of Iraq was an ongoing, continuous problem – not some one-time dynamic such as freeing the slaves. Try again, chap.
It’s quite satisfying to see that zyzzyg still chooses NOT to attempt engaging me!
chapoutier said:
I will also add John (Mr Lincoln) Kerry and that ass from ILL, “Dick (Turban) Durban to that political mix also.
No. All I am saying is that there is a hell of a lot more direct causation between a change in military tactics having an influence on the enemy than a hypothetical person who hypothetically may protest our involvement in the war, which protest might hypothetically influence a politician’s decision on the war that might hypothetically be known by an insurgent that might hypothetically influence their decision as to whether or not to engage US troops that might hypothetically lead to a soldier being killed by the insurgent.
Enough of this nonsense. You are free to agree with sonofdy frontierguy and call me a soldier killer. But until you have something other than maybes and perhapses and possiblys, I am done.
Please. Ongoing or “one time dynamic” has nothing to do with it. Your definition of “direct involvement” is absurd. You are confusing motivation for an action with the action itself. That or being purposely obtuse about what people generally mean when they say “directly involved.”
You mean like this:
I’m sure you’re going to provide this empirical evidence. Just kidding.
First, give me the decency of admitting that Iraq war protestors weren’t hypothetical and that their influence on democrat (and republican) politicians wasn’t hypothetical.
Then, I’ll just assume that you won’t argue that morale is an extremely important contribution to the effectiveness of a fighting force – especially a volunteer force with no obligation with respect to enlistment duration.
We can disagree about whether this morale contributed to the death of Americans.
I would never call you a soldier killer. However, war hawks have also certainly been responsible for troop deaths. It doesn’t make sense to analyze the negative effects of war hawks and ignore the negative effects of war resistors. BTW, try to remember that I was against the Iraq invasion for a multitude of reasons so don’t think that I disagreed with all criticisms of the war. I believe that criticism led to the surge (which wasn’t necessarily the result many of the critics wanted). But sorry, I don’t empirical evidence of that.
How am I confusing the two? If your car gets stolen by crack addicts that live next to you, then you can either stop parking cars in your driveway or eject the addicts to prevent further theft.
Think of the cars as the Iraq containment. Removing your cars from your driveway is like ending the containment.
Bush chose to do both. The Afgan war was ejecting the crack addicts. The Iraq war was moving the cars.
Some people (eg zyzzyg) are still obsessed with catching the actual addicts which stole our car while others don’t think it should be the primary concern for keeping us safe.
Chap, I posted this link yesterday to a study that concludes that YES, insurgents were emboldened by anti war reporting. This study concludes they were. Please post your proof that insurgents were not emboldened.
Here is the first line of this US News and World Report article.
“Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq? The short answer, according to a pair of Harvard economists, is yes.”
And by the way, this is just plain common sense that if your enemy is divided, you have an opportunity to take advantage of their division. Come on. Your argument to the contrary is pure speculation and conjecture. And if 1 American soldier died because some terrorist was “emboldened”, I rest my case. Now stop it.
Need more? From the next paragraph.
Duh! Ya think?
All right. I deserve that. May have gotten a bit overzealous.
I agree that morale is important. I also hope that our soldiers are not so dainty as to get all worked up to the point of ineffectiveness about actual debate and disagreement about the utility or morality of the war. I would think that maybe some sort of ingrained self preservation instinct would kick in. But in any case I don’t think that was what the argument was. It was not about the protesters’ effect on American soldiers, it was about the effect, or lack therof, on the enemy.
We can only disagree if you are willing to contend that war protesters have a material effect on morale and if you contend that this directly led to American deaths. Please clarify.
For example: Scenario 1: I make fun of your ugly girlfriend in a bar. You hit me. I would say you are directly involved. Scenario 2: I make fun of your ugly girlfriend in a bar. The bouncer takes exception to my use of the word “fugly whore” and kicks me out to the curb. I would not say that you, or your girlfriend, were directly involved in that altercation, though you (or she) were the motivation behind it.
Did you bother to read beyond that paragraph? Their caveats and exceptions to their research were so wide open as to render that study absolutely useless.
Um, yes, exactly.
American soldiers ABSOLUTELY have enlistment duration obligations. American soldiers can’t quit at will. Why would you think I was referring to American soldiers?
I was referring to the BOOST in (or at the very minimum support to) morale the protestors provided to the enemy.
I contend that the protestors had, at the very minimum, a marginal effect on the morale of the enemy and that such effect contributed, at least minimally, to American deaths.
However, it’s possible that the action of the protestors provided impetus for the surge, and that such effect may have saved American lives.
While I’m not sure how that nets out, this would be a much stronger argument for you.
Fail. Terrible analogy.
However, if I decided to take an aggressive posture towards you in defense of my ugly girlfriend, and as a result, get hit by a self-appointed bouncer, then I’m left with two choices in order to avoid being hit again while defending my ugly girlfriend. 1) Remove my girlfriend from the bar. 2) Remove you from the bar.
Either such action would then no longer require me to maintain the aggressive posture which caused the self-appointed bouncer to hit me. Most importantly, I would be correct to state that you were directly involved in the hit I suffered. In fact, I have trouble understand how you could deny this.