Monday, September 28, 2009

Obama doesn't give a Damn about our Troops at War!

Obama said He was following the commanders advice and needs closely but how can this be if the Commander himself has only talked to the President one time? This ties directly into the fact that Obama has Not sent additional troops requested at the end of August too. This isn't important to Obama obviously!

The military general credited for capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq says he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan.

“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconferece],” General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.

“You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up.

“That is correct,” the general replied.

This revelation comes amid the explosive publication of an classified report written by the general that said the war in Afghanistan “will likely result in failure” of more troops are not added next year. Yet, the debate over health care reform continues to dominate Washington’s political discussions.

Former U.S. Ambassador for the United Nations John Bolton said this was indicative of President Obama’s misplaced priorities.

“I think it’s very clear, and has been during last year’s campaign and in the eight months the president has been in office that he just doesn’t regard foreign policy and national security as important as domestic issues, like reforming the health care system,” Mr. Bolton told the hosts of the Washington Times’ American Morning News Monday morning.

He went on, “If you think there are no threats then it’s not illogical to pay no attention to the rest of the world. The problem is in his [Obama’s] basic reading of the international environment where we do continue to face massive threats for international terrorists and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among others."

Related: Indecisive Obama Puts Troops in Danger by Playing Politics

Story by The Washington Times

No comments: