{link » Bush: 'Quiet Surge' of Troops Sent to Afghanistan}
h/t Theo
In light of the significance of our campaign against international terrorism, I am perplexed, nay stunned that the President has not seen fit to consult Harry Reid in the latter's capacity of Senator, Majority Leader, military expert, and all-around sincere participant in a bipartisan effort to confront the forces fanatically intent on our destruction.
The Democratic Presidential candidate has also made the observation that, "It is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency." How could the President have missed that which is clearly obvious to prominent military experts in Government, especially that the President has the Joint Chiefs of Staff advising him, not to mention the resources of the entire Department of Defense at his disposal? What is the meaning of these amazing contradictions, I wonder?
It's a conundrum.
h/t Theo“The president said he also plans to order 8,000 more combat and support troops out of Iraq by February, but plans to keep the bulk of U.S. force strength in Iraq intact until the next president takes over. No more combat brigades will come home from Iraq for the rest of this year.”As I surmise from the Senate Majority Leader's reaction to the President's announcement of American troop realignments, Harry Reid must be privy to military information that is not available to the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. Moreover, Mr. Reid must be the foremost expert in the American Government on military strategy and tactics, though that fact has somehow eluded my, admittedly, limited investigations.
“Said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: ‘I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan’.”
In light of the significance of our campaign against international terrorism, I am perplexed, nay stunned that the President has not seen fit to consult Harry Reid in the latter's capacity of Senator, Majority Leader, military expert, and all-around sincere participant in a bipartisan effort to confront the forces fanatically intent on our destruction.
The Democratic Presidential candidate has also made the observation that, "It is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency." How could the President have missed that which is clearly obvious to prominent military experts in Government, especially that the President has the Joint Chiefs of Staff advising him, not to mention the resources of the entire Department of Defense at his disposal? What is the meaning of these amazing contradictions, I wonder?
It's a conundrum.
No comments:
Post a Comment