Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • C-in-C doesn’t mean ‘Campaigner in Chief’

    Posted by Shannon Love on October 3rd, 2009 (All posts by )

    Steven Den Beste on Obama and the Olympics.

     

    5 Responses to “C-in-C doesn’t mean ‘Campaigner in Chief’”

    1. Anonymous Says:

      Steve must be awfully riled up, but it is good to see him back in action.

    2. sol vason Says:

      He plans to have Iran’s leaders over to the White House for Cokes. He plans to coax them into disarming by teaching them to sing in perfect harmony.

    3. historyguy99 Says:

      A week of revlation about American values!

      Obama makes a pointless trip that cost $1 million and wasted 16 hrs, except for the 25 minutes he gave General McCrystal, which in itself speaks volumes about his being connected to the real issues of the nation.

      Meanwhile, every celebrity and left of center pundit coast to coast, goes on full verbal spew to defend Roman Polanski for drugging and raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl thirty five years ago.

      And finally, David Letterman self reveals on national TV that he has been cheating on his partner of 25 years with several female staffers, after an equally corrupt news producer is arrested for trying to extort money to keep quiet.

      What a week that was!

    4. who, me? Says:

      Remember when Obama said that yes, he was qualified to be in charge of the country because he had managed a big enterprise — his campaign? Turns out everything’s a campaign.

    5. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      RE: Historyguy99

      except for the 25 minutes he gave General McCrystal, which in itself speaks volumes about his being connected to the real issues of the nation.

      As a followup, it seems from news reports today that much if not all of that 25 minutes was spent with Obama and/or his staff reprimanding the General for his public questions, not on matters of substantive policy.

      I have my own doubts about our current situation in Afghanistan. The logistics situation scares me terribly. However, the military will do as they are told by the political leadership. No one is denying that.

      The problem is, McCrystal was selected and installed by Obama to carry out one strategy. As per normal procedure, the general has submitted his requirements to carry out that strategy. “Officially”, Obama has not received it, even though it was submitted weeks ago. And the administration has made it clear that a) he will not get the resources that he asked for [which is a decision of the political leadership], and b) that the strategy he was installed to carry out is no longer valid. He is asking for command guidance from the political leadership at this point. What does the administration want him to do? Keep in mind that we have lost close to 50 soldiers since the report was submitted, operating under the restricted rules of engagement imposed by the administration. A year ago, the now state-controlled media would have been all over this. Now, the American deaths are non-events. They do not fit the desired narrative.

      For better or ill, and I admit I think it is for ill, Obama was elected. It is his job to make the choices as to what the military is to do. Americans are dying while we wait for him to run out of distractions from doing his job.

      Subotai Bahadur