- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
10/01/09 4:37 PM EDT
The Senate defeated on a party-line vote a move by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz to set a Nov. 15 deadline for the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and other military brass to testify before the Senate about the need for additional troops and resources to fight the war.
Senate blocks move to bring McChrystal to Hill | Washington Examiner
It's just our young men and women dying for their country, who really and truly cares?
From a Senate that was thick with timelines and benchmarks regarding Iraq, this seems rather odd to me. Almost like their priorities...much like this President's, aren't in proper order.
Having McChrystal come before the Senate seems like a waste of everyone's time. Obama isn't stalling because he can't decide to say yes or no. He's stalling because he is debating on changing the militarizes mission in Afghanistan.
McChrystal gave a the number of troops he needs to combat the Taliban. Does he still need that same number if he is no longer combating the Taliban? Should Obama oblige McChrystal's current mission based request if Obama is going to change McChrystal's mission?
Personally I think Obama is fool. Take out the Taliban and you start choking off AL-Q supplies and safety and thus make them that easier to defeat. Of course fighting the Taliban puts us into the same situation we are in in Iraq, nation building.
Having McChrystal come before the Senate seems like a waste of everyone's time. Obama isn't stalling because he can't decide to say yes or no. He's stalling because he is debating on changing the militarizes mission in Afghanistan.
McChrystal gave a the number of troops he needs to combat the Taliban. Does he still need that same number if he is no longer combating the Taliban? Should Obama oblige McChrystal's current mission based request if Obama is going to change McChrystal's mission?
Personally I think Obama is fool. Take out the Taliban and you start choking off AL-Q supplies and safety and thus make them that easier to defeat. Of course fighting the Taliban puts us into the same situation we are in in Iraq, nation building.
Yeah, he's trying to decide if he's going to change the mission to a surrender mission.
Obama is a weak leader. That much is obvious...
Considering how Bush was a weak leader...and Obama is a Bush clone that does make sense.
I'd rather serve under Bush any day of the week...
Why? Just curious...
Because he projected strength and resolve.
Every time Bush spoke about military matters I felt like I was listening to the Commander In Chief instead of some political animal.
Obama seems like he’s a hostage to political circumstance; like he's not a leader.
PBO's makng Bush look like a genius.
Having McChrystal come before the Senate seems like a waste of everyone's time.
Obama isn't stalling because he can't decide to say yes or no. He's stalling because he is debating on changing the militarizes mission in Afghanistan.
McChrystal gave a the number of troops he needs to combat the Taliban. Does he still need that same number if he is no longer combating the Taliban? Should Obama oblige McChrystal's current mission based request if Obama is going to change McChrystal's mission?
I don't think anyone could do that. Except Terry Schiavo.
I guess you're right. PBO couldn't out-perform a dead woman.
Ok, interesting.
Yea, I liked the cut of his jib...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?