From Steve Luxenberg, Washington Post Staff Writer:
According to Bob Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives. “This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan,” Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. “Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html
From Toby Harnden, US editor of The Daily Telegraph:
“A president has no more solemn duty than that of being commander-in-chief. And judging from the evidence presented by Woodward, Barack Obama's view of that role is at best disquieting. Nearly 100,000 American troops are now committed to Afghanistan but Obama's principal war aim is to withdraw and his main preoccupation is how the conflict plays domestically, particularly within his own Democratic party.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8024846/Barack-Obama-the-Great-Unravelling-of-a-One-Term-President.html
“A president has no more solemn duty than that of being commander-in-chief. And judging from the evidence presented by Woodward, Barack Obama's view of that role is at best disquieting. Nearly 100,000 American troops are now committed to Afghanistan but Obama's principal war aim is to withdraw and his main preoccupation is how the conflict plays domestically, particularly within his own Democratic party.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8024846/Barack-Obama-the-Great-Unravelling-of-a-One-Term-President.html
Exactly! So I'll say it again:
I am DISGUSTED with a so-called “Commander-in-Chief” who sends Americans to fight a war he has absolutely NO intention of winning.
