U.S. commander in Afghanistan talked with Obama only once, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 28-9-2009 @ 01:21 PM by centurion1211


Can this be true that obama has spoken with the general in charge of his afghanistan war only once since taking office?

article

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

"I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconferece]," Gen. 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" if 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 R. Bolton said this was indicative of Mr. Obama’s misplaced priorities.


I personally think this is more indicative of obama's fear of the afghanistan war becoming obama's war. Way too late for that ...

And what kind of message does this send to the U.S. military?

[edit on 9/28/2009 by centurion1211]


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 08:30 AM by lpowell0627
I made mention of this in another post. I actually watched the 60 Minutes interview in which the General was asked this question -- and frankly I found his answer of "once" to be extremely disturbing.

People can argue that Obama's administration has spoken to him more than once, so that should suffice. And suffice it would if not for the fact that the President issued this statement: "I will not send additional troops to Afganistan" which was followed by the declaration from the General: "If we don't have more troops we will unequivably lose this war" which shows a clear misunderstanding by our President of what the situation in Afganistan really is. At the very least, it shows a very real divide in communication.

For everybody, including myself, that voiced our concern over electing a President with absolutely NO military experience, little or no foreign policy experience, and a general lack of experience overall, this is what we were concerned about.

Here's the thing: The President of the United States IS the Commander-in-Chief. By definition, a commander-in-chief is: "... is the commander of a nation's military forces." Link: en.wikipedia.org... I kind of was under the impression that in order to command a military one would have to actually know what said military was doing.

Whether you agree with the war or not, the bottom line is that we are at war. And if anybody thinks losing the war is even an option, than I suggest you consider the fallout from such a loss.

While I suppose that going to Afganistan, or dealing with Afganistan, is hardly as glitzy as going on 5 primetime TV shows, or a dinner date in NY
C, or bidding for the Olympics, or spending numerous weekends at Camp David, i think it's about time that the President realize that getting us out of Afganistan is going to require a little more than handshakes, smiles, rhetoric, and beers.

This, of course, does not even begin to address the issue of whether or not the President should have a better handle on where trillions of dollars are being spent and thousands of lives are being lost.....

Wait! I know the answer! We need a "war czar".....



reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 10:49 AM by centurion1211
reply to post by lpowell0627


Exactly.

Being commander-in-chief is part of the job of being president. IMO, there could not be a more dangerous part of his job for obama to ignore.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^