Clinton criticizes Bush handling of Afghan conflict
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday that President Bush's administration was "unrealistic" in its dealings with the war in Afghanistan.
Clinton told CNN the Bush administration was unrealistic both in terms of the number of U.S. soldiers it committed to the conflict and in its relationship with certain Afghan political leaders.
The war was "under resourced" since its start in 2001, she said, and she indicated the Bush administration's attention was improperly shifted to Iraq.
That's it. That's the entire "article". No mention on what "realistic" would look like, although given that the Annointed One hasn't deviated from the Bush plan much, it's hard to tell what they might even consider "realistic". As far as the number of soldiers committed to the conflict, can someone please reconcile Hillary!'s comments with 0bama's refusal to consider the recommendation to send more troops now? And of course, the obligatory slam at the Iraq war - which Senator Clinton voted for.
Many on the left blamed Bush entirely for the 9/11 attacks. It "happened on his watch", even though the attacks were demonstrably planned during the Clinton administration. 0bama has been in office for a month longer at this point than Bush was during the 9/11 attacks, and yet his mouthpieces are trotting out the same tired excuses. It's not his fault. He ran out of gas. He, he had a flat tire. He didn't have enough money for cab fare. His tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole his car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T HIS FAULT, HE SWEARS TO GOD.
Maybe it's got something to do with Chicago?
That is all.
8 comments:
Jay, we have been in Afghanistan for eight freaking years. Think of it like a ball game, if you are in the eighth inning, you are down by seven runs and you bring in a relief pitcher, who is going to be tagged with the loss if the team still loses?
The Taliban was crushed in 2001. There was a window to secure that tactical victory. The Bush Administration ignored it and diverted resources to the Iraq War. Karzai had to go to Washington to beg that the US pay attention to Afghanistan.
The Taliban started to regroup in 2003 and each year since then has been more violent. George W. Bush (just like his father did before him) failed to secure a battlefield victory into a lasting one.
So now Gen. McChrystal wants 80,000 more troops to get to the point of "low risk of failure", but that number is not possible in the short run. He can't even get 40,000 easily. 80,000 would require stripping troops from bases around the world and extending tour lengths to 15-18 months, which the Army is extremely reluctant to do.
If it makes you feel better to blame Obama, that is your right. It is your blog.
But facts are stubborn things and the facts of this war are that if we wind up losing this one, George Bush will be saddled with the lion's share of the blame.
Except that blaming Bush doesn't do anything to change what's going on now. Who gives a flying rat's ass who's to blame; tell me what the hell you're going to do to fix the situation you've inherited.
That's my point.
At some point, 0bama has to stop jumping up and down yelling "IT'S BUSH'S FAULT" and start coming up with some ideas of his own on how to fix things.
Bush ain't coming back. He can't. There's no reason to blame him other than to divert from their own failings. They're the ones that ran on the open platform of hope and change, yet have changed nothing and left little hope.
That's the problem with running on empty platitudes and sound bites. When it's your turn to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING, there's no there there...
So blame Bush. Talk about what a poopyhead he was. How he mishandled resources. Whatever.
If that's all you're going to do, then why even bother? If you're not taking steps to correct it, what's the point?
It sure makes it seem like all 0bama cares about is not being blamed for what's happening there. Like he has no interest in whether the area is secured or not; just that all the "blame" for our "failure" be given to GWB.
Fine.
All failure from 2001 through January 2009 is George Bush's.
Now what's 0bama going to do about all failures from Feb. 2009 on?
Besides blaming Bush, I mean.
"Maybe it's got something to do with Chicago?"
Heh!
I won't even argue that Bush screwed up Afghanistan.
It still doesn't excuse Obama from further screwing things up. He's had quite some time to formulate a strategy for the war. He's dicked around and not done it and shows no signs of doing it. And he's more than happy to admit it. It sickens me.
Part of what is going on is the same old game. The GOP play the "It's All Clinton's Fault"(tm) for a few years.
There is time to do it right. One of the older sayings in aviation is that when things go wrong, the first thing you do is wind your watch. More people get killed from reacting than from thinking.
What we may do next might hinge greatly on what Pakistan does now. The smart bet may be to wait.
Chicago connections and a Blues Brothers quote. Heh.
Another good one, Jay!
At what point do we stop blaming past administrations for current failings?
If you're a Democrat -- never. I know Democrats who are still trying to blame some portions of today's problems on Reagan. The man's been out of office twenty years and in the ground for ten, and they're still using him as an excuse.
I hate Illinois nazis.
Post a Comment