Uh oh, General Petraeus said of the Afgan war…”we are in this to win”, Will Obama replace him now?
Didn’t Robert Gibbs tell us we are not supposed to…say jihadist, call them terrorists, say this is the “war on terror” and proclaim VICTORY. Obama gives medals for NOT engaging the enemy.
Beer summit time…
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100704/D9GO6HI00.html
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) – Gen. David Petraeus formally assumed command of the 130,000-strong international force in Afghanistan on Sunday, declaring “we are in this to win” despite rising casualties and growing skepticism about the nearly 9-year-old war.
During a ceremony at NATO headquarters, Petraeus received two flags – one for the U.S. and the other for NATO – marking his formal assumption of command.
I thought that George W. Bush won both the Afghan and Iraq wars before he left office,
Wow, what a deal we got going on from the Washington dolts in charge. That Obama is out of huis league. that commander in chief title is a joke for him. He is clueless.
.
barry’s STILL looking for a way to vote PRESENT in Afghanistan…. dragged his feet for a YEAR on the decision, THEN didn’t send enough troops… NOW it’s getting serious… this jackass needs to RESIGN.
barry has a REAL problem with Patreus – he can’t threaten or shake him down, and Patreus is not going to let his career slide down the 0baama sh|thole…
Obama can’t WIN a war. Liberals don’t WIN. That’s downright mean.
General Petraeus is a very smart man.He knows he was picked because Obama didn’t want the responsibility of picking a new General as he can say Bush supported him also if things go bad.
He will get Obamas ear a bit more or will force Obama to decide on someone else…
And responsibility is something Obama cowards from.
General Petraeus (Be tray us as the Libs used to call him) needs to learn to read from the teleprompter, no off prompter comments are allowed.
I am sure he won’t. Just as I am sure that you must have forgotten that it was the BUSH administration that in May of 2008 prohibited the use of the terms jihad, violent extremists, etc. Here, let me remind you:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2008/05/06/US-officials-urged-to-avoid-linking-Islam-jihad-with-terrorism/UPI-93701210085457/
“WASHINGTON, May 6, 2008 (UPI) — U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which “unintentionally legitimize” terrorism.
“There’s a growing consensus (in the administration) that we need to move away from that language,” said a former senior administration official who was involved until recently in policy debates on the issue.
Instead, in two documents circulated last month by the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the multiagency center charged with strategic coordination of the U.S. war on terrorism, officials are urged to use terms like violent extremists, totalitarian and death cult to characterize al-Qaida and other terror groups.
“Avoid labeling everything ‘Muslim.’ It reinforces the ‘U.S. vs. Islam’ framework that al-Qaida promotes,” reads “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication,” produced last month by the center.
“You have a large percentage of the world’s population that subscribes to this religion,” noted the former official. “Unintentionally alienating them is not a judicious move.”
“Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahedin’ … to describe the terrorists,” instructs the guide. “A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies Jihadis and their movement a global Jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”
The guide also bans the use of the word caliphate — the pan-national Islamic state — to describe al-Qaida’s goal. The term “has positive connotations for Muslims,” says the guide, adding, “The best description of what (al-Qaida) really want to create is a ‘global totalitarian state.’”
There…now you can see what you apparently overlooked…
Well Obama don’t like it if he can’t have his way–he is known for taken the bat and ball home so no-one can play unless it is his way. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if he did.
Obama ‘s Ideas of winning in on his knees sucking up, lip service and apologizing. And in history that has never worked
Let’s face it that is one nasty country–someone should put the pressure on them
obama does not want to win the war, that means we have to kill some of his muslim brothers…
he will find a general who went to rev wrights church to run the war
What are Obama’s current rules of engagement … you have to let the enemy shoot you twice before you can return fire?
That will end.
0bama may have already handed him his notice, as 0bama has no intention on winning any thing but reelection which he wont
The Afghan fight will look about the same for a week or two yet. Same players in place.
Long about week number three, Both the Ambassador and the Envoy will no longer be
a part of the team. There will be new civilian leadership. Holbrook and the other spineless
dolt will be out of there. Gen D.P. Will change the rules of engagement. He will alert all
Field commanders to this effect. New Sheriff in town folks, No longer same ole same ole.
Obama will sit back and keep his mouth shut, as he should. He can’t manage his leaking
ship at the white House let alone a real war.