Our commander in chief's Christmas crisis ~ By Chuck Norris

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: November 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Alas, after nearly three months of military deliberations, our commander in chief is finally coming out of the closet with his Afghan strategy. But is his plan based more upon politics than national security? In September, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, requested 40,000 additional troops on top of the 68,000 already there. This increase would allow the military flexibility to deploy 15,000 forces to the Taliban stronghold in the south, 5,000 to the eastern border with Pakistan and 10,000 as trainers for Afghan security forces. The other 10,000 would be deployed across the country in various overt and covert operations. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen suggested a plan deploying roughly 30,000 more forces. Vice President Joe Biden advocated a plan of only 10,000 to 15,000 more. And President Obama appears to be landing on roughly 30,000 more troops (with hopefully 10,000 more from the 41 country international alliance). And one of the big questions that keeps coming to our minds is: How is it that Obama fast tracks borrowing, bailouts or Obamacare, but he's slower than molasses when it comes to decisions like this one for the military, especially when he basically is returning to Gen. McChrystal's three-month-old request? Some answer that military decisions are more complicated – more life and death at stake, and warrant the delay. But I genuinely believe Obama's nearly three-month delay reflects both his leadership deficiencies and a quandary that he cannot appease the left and simultaneously fulfill his campaign promise, "I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority that it should be." READ FULL STORY >

Way to go, Obama ~ By Barbara Simpson

From WorldNetDaily

By Barbara Simpson Posted: November 02, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Sometimes liberals make me sick. I was scanning the radio dial while driving this week and happened on a liberal talk show. I listened for a bit, and it was good I had a solid grip on the wheel as I heard the juvenile fawning over Barack Obama. The man who is president of this country finally found it on his "to do" list to be on the scene with military officers at Dover Air Force Base as the bodies of 18 American military service members were returned to the United States. He had the routine down pat: the slow salute, timed perfectly with the witnessing officers; the stiff, upright posture and the grim face and eyes focused in the distance. As I watched him, it appeared he was chewing the inside of his cheeks, as he tried really hard not to break that serious look. People say Obama is a good speaker. Perhaps. But he's not a very good actor, and this was a test. That he "happened" to show up in the middle of the night with the White House press pool and cameras in tow was clearly just coincidental, wasn't it? After all, he would have shown up alone to pay respects to the dead, wouldn't he? Well, no. Think back to his trip to Germany when he played basketball instead of visiting injured troops because the press wasn't allowed in the hospital. It's all about priorities, and Obama's priorities are skewed. Americans are becoming cynical about the Obama image even though media present him as "concerned" and "involved." It was Obama, after all, who on his Olympic "sales trip" to Europe had barely 25 minutes to spare for Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal to discuss the Afghanistan war and the general's request for 40,000 more troops. Obama still hasn't made up his mind what to do, and while he dithers Americans are being killed and maimed. These 18 were the remains of American military most recently killed in Afghanistan, the worst month in a year – young men who met the ultimate test of dedication to their country and bravery in the face of ultimate danger. It's a shame they were used as a photo-op for the president, but the obvious truth of that doesn't surprise me. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

President Obama, time to make a decision ~ By Chuck Norris

From WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: November 02, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Let me see if I have the facts straight. Last May, President Obama removed Gen. David D. McKiernan as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and replaced him with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who in September issued a dire report warning that, without as many as 40,000 more troops for the fight in Afghanistan, the mission "will likely result in failure." President Obama rebuffed that he would make no quick decision but take as long as needed to do a broad study first on the issue. Is this about genuine concern, or could this delay simply be a politically driven tactic for upcoming state elections? Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies. Roughly a month after McChrystal's requests, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel continued to blame the Bush administration for the chaos in the war. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blamed former Vice President Cheney. Vice President Biden blamed the generals for a bad military plan. And presidential adviser David Axelrod blamed Fox News! Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies. Two weeks ago, when asked about Obama's indecisiveness about McChrystal's requests, White House Press Secretary Gibbs rebuffed, "The president will make a decision in the next few weeks, in the coming weeks. I don't know when that decision will be – it could be before the (Afghanistan political) run off (on Nov. 7), it might be after the run off." Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies. Last Friday, the president met with the joint chiefs of staff and discussed the Afghan-Pakistani situation some more and then said he wants another meeting. It has been almost two months since Gen. McChrystal first warned the president of the dire situation in Afghanistan, and yet our commander in chief continues to delay a response. Meanwhile, record numbers of U.S. troop casualties mount in Afghanistan. When our president and his administration go to war against the former administration and Fox News channel, but do not give our generals on the ground the troops that they need to win the war, something is definitely amiss. Instead of a trip to Dover Air Force Base to greet the dead coming home, Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan to protect them from dying. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Obama fiddles while troops die ~ By Mychal Massie

From WorldNetDaily

By Mychal Massie Posted: October 27, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Legend has it that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The fiddling in Nero's case may be euphemistic – but in the case of Obama's emporial dismissiveness of the critical straits our military personnel find themselves in, his lack of action is both feckless and lurdane. In March 2009, the Boston Globe reported that Obama "[planned] to unveil his long-awaited new strategy for Afghanistan." ("Obama plans more Afghanistan reinforcements"; March 26, 2009; Boston.com; Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender) And so it was that, on Sept. 21, Obama finally revealed his true plan, but I will get to that. In his highly vaunted Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) speech in March, he "announced a goal of 216,000 Afghan security force members by 2011 – which fell well short of assessments by the U.S. military that a security force of 400,000 is needed to secure Afghanistan." ("Yon: Obama plan for Afghanistan, Pakistan short of bold"; Michael Yon; April 2, 2009; Washington Times) So, was the speech-giver-in-chief disingenuous then, or is he now showing complete disregard for the peril our troops face in Afghanistan today? I say both – he was disingenuous then and he is showing a disregard for our troops now. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Send Biden to get Osama ~ By Joseph Farah

From WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: October 17, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I don't know why Barack Obama is having so much trouble deciding what to do about Afghanistan. He was so sure before he got elected. For starters, he ought to consult with Vice President Joe Biden. You remember Joe Biden, don't you? He is still vice president, isn't he? Well, just like Obama knew what to do in Afghanistan last year, Biden did, too. Obama wasn't waffling about sending more troops then, when the war seemed to be going better. But now that the war has hit a bit of a snag, he's not so sure. Biden was even more clear. He told us last October: "Ending the [Iraq] war will help us deal with Afghanistan, which we talked about at length this morning. In 2002, I said we should focus on finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden. Throughout this campaign, I have argued that we need more troops and more resources to win the war in Afghanistan, and to confront the growing threat from al-Qaida along the Pakistani border. "Over seven years after 9/11, the situation in Afghanistan is grave. This is the most violent year of the war, with the highest number of American casualties. The Taliban is on the offensive, al- Qaida has a sanctuary across the border in Pakistan, and some experts believe that 50 percent of the Afghan economy comes from the heroin trade. As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said, 'The trends across the board are not going in the right direction.' "Make no mistake: we are confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan, and we have to act. It's time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That's why I'd send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming , more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al-Qaida will succeed, and that's the change I'll bring to the White House." He said all this in his famous speech in which he predicted Obama would be tested in his first six months in office. In fact, he didn't just predict it – he "promised" it. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Another jewel in his crown ~ By Barbara Simpson

From WorldNetDaily

By Barbara Simpson Posted: October 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Barack Obama is like the opera singer vocalizing before a performance: Take a breath and sing … 'me, me, me, me, me!' Reports are that when Robert Gibbs woke him early Friday with the news that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize had his name on it, Obama was surprised. And humbled, of course. Of course. It wouldn't do for him to express pride in the award. With good reason: he's done nothing to earn or deserve it. Consider that any normal person would be bursting with pride after being named for that international honor. For a normal person, a Nobel Prize for peace or for any of the other categories of honorees, such as literature, medicine and science, would engender feeling excitement and happiness. Those emotions would reflect that the person was being rewarded and honored for years of research, work and accomplishment in their chosen field. But Barack Obama isn't a "normal" person. He's a man of mixed race with a clouded family history who somehow got out of the comfortable middle class and into the heady ether of the Ivy League. How or why we don't know, but get there he did, using the perks that opened doors to the ride of his life that continues today. It's an amazing story, because despite what many believe were disadvantages of race and birth and possibly religion, he's risen above them – way above them. Consider: a man of little accomplishment who, in the course of barely four years, went from community organizer to politics and now president of the USA. Then on Friday, it's the Nobel Peace Prize. How nice that former vice president Al Gore – who won his own Nobel Peace Prize for his fictional climate-change work and "documentary" along with a Grammy and an Oscar – says Obamas' Nobel is extremely well deserved and an honor for the country. It takes one to know one. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Question for Nobel Appease Prize winner ~ By Joseph Farah

From WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: October 11, 2009 ~ 9:54 pm Eastern © 2009 I have a question for Barack Obama, the Nobel Appease Prize winner, and the man who told us during last year's presidential campaign that troops needed to be redeployed from Iraq to the "real" front in the war on terrorism – Afghanistan. In case your memory fails you, here's what he said in July 2008:

• "In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. (John) McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

• "It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."

• "… as president, I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

• "We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

So what happened between then and now? Well, Obama got his wish. He became president. He is now fully in command. He can divert any resources he wishes from Iraq to Afghanistan. He got to appoint a new commander for the Afghan campaign, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. And what did Gen. McChrystal advise? He told Obama he needs "more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region" – exactly the prescription Obama was calling for more than a year ago during the campaign. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Unwinnable war in Afghanistan? ~ By Patrick Buchanan

By Patrick Buchanan Posted: August 13, 2009 7:54 pm Eastern © 2009 "Taliban Are Winning: U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Warns of Rising Casualties." Thus ran the startling headline on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The lead paragraph ran thus: "The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home." Source for the story: Gen. Stanley McChrystal himself. The general's spokesman in Kabul was swift to separate him from that headline and lead. They "go too far," he said: The general does not believe the Taliban are winning or "gaining the upper hand." Nevertheless, in the eighth year of America's war, the newly arrived field commander concedes that U.S. casualties, now at record levels, will continue to be high or go higher, and that our primary mission is no longer to run down and kill Taliban but to defend the Afghan population. What went wrong? Though U.S. force levels are higher than ever, the U.S. military situation is worse than ever. Though President Karzai is expected to win re-election, he is regarded as the ineffectual head of a corrupt regime. Though we have trained an Afghan army and police force of 220,000, twice that number are now needed. The Taliban are operating not only in the east, but in the north and west, and are taking control of the capital of the south, Kandahar. NATO's response to Obama's request for more troops has been pathetic. Europeans want to draw down the troops already sent. And Western opinion has soured on the war. A poll commissioned by The Independent found 52 percent of Britons wanting to pull out and 58 percent believing the war is "unwinnable." U.S. polls, too, have turned upside down. A CBS-New York Times survey in late July found 33 percent saying the war was going well and 57 percent saying it was going badly or very badly. In a CNN poll in early August, Americans, by 54 percent to 41 percent, said they oppose the Afghan war that almost all Americans favored after 9/11 and Obama said in 2008 was the right war for America to fight. The president is now approaching a decision that may prove as fateful for him and his country as was the one made by Lyndon Johnson to send the Marines ashore at Da Nang in December 1965. [READ COMPLETE STORY]