Obama rejects Schieffer's "Obama's war" characterization
March 29, 2009 1:28 pm ET
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
It's either Obama's war or we can declare defeat.
Isn't Schieffer due to die from old age soon...HURRY UP!
What the President chose not to say to this schieffer dude, was that every single thing in his Afghanistan/Pakistan Policy plans, were all requested of him, by others... in particular, by Gen. Petraeus and DOD Secretary Gates (and others too).
Of course, both of those men mentioned are inherited by the Obama administration, from the Bush administration.
I point that out, not to deflect in any way who are the authors of this new and current Policy in Afghanistan/Pakistan (because the sole author is President Obama: as none of this can be done without his approval), and not to imply anything negative whatsoever about those men (because they are both supremely competent to their jobs), but to ask if this schieffer dude ever thought to characterize the new and current Afghanistan/Pakistan Policy as...
"General Petraeus' war" or "Secretary Gates' war"
...you see what I mean?
If every last detail of this new and current Policy, including U.S. Troop commitments and budget expenditures, are all simply granting the requests of others, then how and why can or would this new and current Policy ever be called the insultingly personal name "Obama's war"?
We see a strange and twisted view presently taking form, of the President's responsibilities and obligations, in his Command of those U.S. Troops already in Afghanistan, and of his appraisal of their Mission, and his responsibility and obligation to see that Mission through.
"Obama's war" and "ownership of the war", in addition to citing the U.S. Troop increases there (all requested of the President, by others) and the increased monies to support that Mission (again, all requested of the President, and none of those monies or Troop increases being anything he has initiated or proposed), all of which is also being characterized as an "escalation", and even amazingly being analogized (if that's a word) to Vietnam...
A strange and twisted media view is taking shape here.
And for them to make the insultingly personal reference to something they want to call "Obama's war" (and notice how high a road the President took, in driving around that insult: I'd never have been able to keep my bearing in such a manner, as the President did and does regularly), all of it ignores two facts:
1. Everything the President has approved in his new and current Afghanistan/Pakistan Policy, has been requested of him, or otherwise advised to him.
And 2. Among the several advices given him in this matter (none of which are initiated or proposed by him), none can be more important or more serious than the Intelligence provided to him, the President of the United States, in this matter.
Intelligence that informs him of the risk posed to American lives, from elements in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region...
Intelligence that President Obama is taking seriously and acting on responsibly, as is his obligation to those lives of the American People...
Intelligence that this schieffer dude has not a clue about: because if he did, then he would never be so ignorant (or personally insulting) to call our current and new Policy in the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, "Obama's war".
No it isn't.
Neither Republicans nor George W. Bush ever once cited reasons or Intelligence that Iraq was a threat to the American People.
It makes all the difference in the world... it's the single criteria in matters such as these.
You should know better: we do.
...and George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney were the principal initiative to going into Iraq: if you disagree, then say who it was that told them to do that?
President Obama had absolutely no say whatsoever in creating the fact that U.S. Troops are in Afghanistan, versus the fact that George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney (and Congressional Republicans) were the absolute sole reason that U.S. Troops went into Iraq.
The difference is bigger than the Grand Canyon, and every bit as obvious.
Maybe you've been napping for the past 6 years, and have just woken up... if so, you have a lot of catching up to do.