Please, people, don't forget who brought "the world's only superpower" to this. It was Old Joe, and whoever's pulling his strings. That's not just my opinion. In this short (just under two minutes) video, David Petraeus, Leon Panetta, Jeh Johnson, Stan Crocker and others who served under the Prez and his successor but one give their opinions on what happened in Afcrapistan and why it happened. Produced by the Republican National Committee and presented by Walt as a public service.
Showing posts with label Petraeus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petraeus. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2021
VIDEO: "A Dunkirk moment", "a Saigon moment" - Obama/Biden officials speak the truth about the Afghanistan debacle
Ed. here. We hope our readers won't think that the uncivility north of the World's Longest Undefended Border (TM) or the landfall of Hurricane Ida will make us forget about Sleepy Joe Biden's shameful cut-and-run from Afghanistan. He and his handlers certainly want you to forget, which is why we see the lickspittle media devoting lots of time to showing him "doing something" (what?) about Ida, and looking reverential as the bodies of 13 dead American troops were offloaded.
Further reading: "Biden Drone Strikes White House After Vowing To Kill Those Reponsible For American Military Deaths In Kabul", Babylon Bee (you know what that means, right?) 28/8/21.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
Biden,
Crocker,
debacle,
disaster,
Dunkirk,
Obama,
Panetta,
Petraeus,
pullout,
retreat,
Saigon
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
What are we doing in Libya?
That's the $64 question this week. People keep asking, and other people keep answering. And it's like asking someone for the time. Every minute you get a different answer.
In today's Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente poses a plethora of good questions, such as:
In today's Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente poses a plethora of good questions, such as:
- What is our objective?
- Are we fighting to protect the Libyan population from the government, or are we fighting for régime change?
- What if air strikes don’t knock out the bad guys and they keep on killing people anyway?
- What national interest do we have in this war?
- Who takes the lead role when the US steps down?
- Who says Libya’s rebels are the good guys?
- What happens if (as seems likely) there are no good guys?
Making himself clear, as always, Obama says this war is “a chance to align our values with our interests.” For others, it's a risky decision to insert ourselves into a tribal society we don’t understand. Haven’t we done enough of that already?
As General David Petraeus said of Afghanistan, “Tell me how this ends.”
Footnote: Whatever happened to The Sixty-four Dollar Question? I can't seem to find it on my radio any more.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Gates calls ISAF killing of Afghan kids "a setback"
The turmoil in North Africa has diverted our attention from the war against the Axis of Evil in Afghanistan. Of late, the Forces of Democracy haven't suffered as many casualties as in the past, but the total body count has decreased only a little. Afghan civilians are still being killed by the score, sometimes by "insurgents" and sometimes by ... errr ... the NATO invaders.
Many western eyebrows were raised and faces reddened last week wheN it was revealed that nine Afghan boys had been killed by NATO helicopters -- by mistake, of course. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates described their deaths as a "setback".
"Not only is their loss a tragedy for their families, it is a setback for our relationship with the Afghan people," he told a media conference in Kabul.
Mr. Gates was on an unannounced trip to assess security progress. He did not reveal his assessment, but repeated Washington's apology for the killing of the boys, which has increased strain on an already testy relationship with Afghan President Karzai.
The Puppet-in-Chief had earlier rejected a surprisingly candid apology by General David Petraeus, commander of the ISAF. [Please check. Typo for "USAF"? Ed.] "It may be a setback to you," growled the Afghan prez, "but not nearly so much as it was to those kids!"
Said Joshua Foust, a fellow at the American Security Project, "There is legitimate and growing anger within Afghanistan over ISAF-caused deaths."
However, Major General John Campbell, ISAF commander in the east, said 90 percent of civilian casualties in his area were caused by insurgents. So that's all right, then.
Walt to Ed.: OK, I checked. ISAF stands for "International Setback Amelioration Force".
Ed. to Walt: Check again.
Many western eyebrows were raised and faces reddened last week wheN it was revealed that nine Afghan boys had been killed by NATO helicopters -- by mistake, of course. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates described their deaths as a "setback".
"Not only is their loss a tragedy for their families, it is a setback for our relationship with the Afghan people," he told a media conference in Kabul.
Mr. Gates was on an unannounced trip to assess security progress. He did not reveal his assessment, but repeated Washington's apology for the killing of the boys, which has increased strain on an already testy relationship with Afghan President Karzai.
The Puppet-in-Chief had earlier rejected a surprisingly candid apology by General David Petraeus, commander of the ISAF. [Please check. Typo for "USAF"? Ed.] "It may be a setback to you," growled the Afghan prez, "but not nearly so much as it was to those kids!"
Said Joshua Foust, a fellow at the American Security Project, "There is legitimate and growing anger within Afghanistan over ISAF-caused deaths."
However, Major General John Campbell, ISAF commander in the east, said 90 percent of civilian casualties in his area were caused by insurgents. So that's all right, then.
Walt to Ed.: OK, I checked. ISAF stands for "International Setback Amelioration Force".
Ed. to Walt: Check again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)