Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Most Important Number in Politics Today

8

That's the number of American military servicemen killed in an attack in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, casualties that come amid a heated debate inside the Obama White House about the proper next steps in the war-torn country.

Afghanistan is rapidly becoming the international counterpart to the domestic debate over health care -- an issue in which President Barack Obama has invested much political capital but has yet to find a successful solution.

The Administration continues to mull next steps in Afghanistan with two competing lines of thought emerging.

The first -- championed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal is a significant increase in American troops in the country, necessary, he argued in a speech last week, to winning the war.

The second, which reportedly is being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden, is to winnow the number of troops in Afghanistan and narrow the targets from the Taliban broadly to Al-Quaeda specifically.

From a political perspective, Obama is in a tough spot as polling suggests that the American people remain deeply divided about the proper course of action in Afghanistan.

In a September New York Times poll, 29 percent said they favored increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan while 32 percent wanted troop levels decreased; twenty-seven percent thought the amount of U.S. troops in the country should stay the same.

And, the public is not only ambivalent about the course in Afghanistan but also increasingly skeptical of President Obama's handling of the situation. In April, nearly six in ten Americans (58 percent) approved of Obama's approach to Afghanistan, according to the Times poll. By mid-September that approval number had dropped to 44 percent.

(Worth noting: The Washington Post/ABC News poll showed a less precipitous decline for Obama on Afghanistan. Sixty-three percent of respondents approved of how he was handling the situation in late April and 55 percent approved in the middle of last month.)

The polling data and the divide within Obama's own Administration in regards Afghanistan reveals the lack of a clear political win as the president decides next steps in the country. And there's nothing politicians -- and their strategists -- dislike more than a major political decision for which there is no obvious answer.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 5, 2009; 12:26 PM ET
Categories:  Most Important Number  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Palin Wars: Part LXII
Next: Short Takes: Lowden's Ensign Problem

Comments

FYI: the remains of 6 U.S. soldiers returned home for the final time today:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-us-afghanistan-casua,0,7273573.story

The soldiers were identified by the military as Sgt. Joshua J. Kirk of South Portland, Maine; Spec. Michael P. Scusa of Villas, N.J.; Spec. Christopher T. Griffin of Kincheloe, Mich.; Pfc. Kevin C. Thomson of Reno, Nev.; Sgt. Vernon W. Martin, of Savannah, Ga.; and Spec. Stephen L. Mace of Lovettsville, Va.

Here's one of their life stories:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20091006_Cape_May_soldier_killed_in_Afghanistan_attacks_returns_to_U_S__so.html

Posted by: JakeD | October 6, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 6, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight: the use of soldier's deaths for political ends is only OK if you are a leftist opposed to the very war they volunteered to go fight in? And you wonder why the rest of us don't think you have the first clue how to defend this nation?

Posted by: JakeD | October 6, 2009 6:30 AM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss the thread topic (8 American soldiers KIA), let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | October 6, 2009 3:47 AM | Report abuse

I guess a complete lack of integrity or shame has always been JakeD's claim to fame on here, but usually it takes the form of repeating a lie two posts after someone exposes it.

Then it gets to wishing that a fellow poster dies on the operating table, or writing about a poster's recently deceased father, so no it shouldn't be too surprising to see yet another level of depravity come out of this twisted little fellow.

But really, Jake, trolling for attention with the names and faces of dead soldiers? Using the recently killed in combat to score points? You're a seriously sick little creep and I hope that the world finds some fittingly grotesque way to rid itself of you.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 6, 2009 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Cynical use of soldier's deaths for political ends is fairly disgusting. If you are against the war, fine. But if you are for the conflict, and promote anti-war protest just in the hope it cripples your opponent, what are you?

jaked.

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 10:44 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who can attend the protest this Saturday in the D.C. area: Barack Obama will be speaking at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, October 10, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at 801 Mt. Vernon Place, between 7th and 9th Streets and N Street and Mt. Vernon Place. Be sure to get there early!

==

I guess we really shouldn't begrudge you the illusion that by posting here you're actually having an effect on the outside world.

Truth is, though, you aren't.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 5, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

you are a despicable low life cretin. I hope some Marine kicks your ass. you got one coming.

==

Funny you should mention Marines and posterii in the same sentence. I was "in the Marines" many times when I lived in Norfolk.

I won't bother calling you any names. I don't need to. Fate has already dealt you such a losing hand.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 5, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who can attend the protest this Saturday in the D.C. area: Barack Obama will be speaking at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, October 10, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at 801 Mt. Vernon Place, between 7th and 9th Streets and N Street and Mt. Vernon Place. Be sure to get there early!

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't think McChrystal is the right guy, he's a manager of assassins.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite


you are a despicable low life cretin. I hope some Marine kicks your ass. you got one coming.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Army Private First Class, Kevin Thomson, was killed in action October 3rd. It has not been confirmed yet if he was one of the eight KIA in eastern Afghanistan.

http://www.kktv.com/military/headlines/63548602.html

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Mark Udall, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement in memory of the eight Fort Carson soldiers who died in Afghanistan on Saturday, the deadliest day for Fort Carson since the Vietnam War.

“I want to extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the eight soldiers from Fort Carson killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan on Saturday. They faced hostile terrain and extraordinarily difficult conditions, yet the soldiers of the 4th Brigade Combat Team fought bravely and honorably.

“I am proud of the courage these soldiers showed. Today, we honor their service and mourn their deaths. But we must never forget the sacrifice they made or their dedication to our nation.”

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Details emerge on Afghanistan attack that left 8 Ft. Carson soldiers dead

http://www.gazette.com/articles/carson-63286-soldiers-details.html

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Our military leaders botched Iraq. Not enough troops. Bad plan.

Why should we trust our military leaders now?

Lets face it, just because someone wears a uniform, that does not

make him or her smart.

Posted by: bobnsri | October 5, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

The Special Forces don't generally do the killing, I am told that is for the Rangers. The Specials do the psy-ops (I don't mean to get our Scrivener exercised), they know the language, they blend in, dress local that kind of thing.

But it is a head scratcher of an appointment, that is for sure. Got everybody's attention.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The key issue for Obama is: Does Taliban = Al Quaeda? If that is a true equation, then we have to stick it out in Afghanistan, as much as I hate to admit it. Even if it’s not totally true, we may still need to consider staying long enough to stabilize the country, although we may argue over what “stabilization” means.

==

For people not immersed in the details of Islamic extremism I don't think the difference is worth a lot. They're both really, really bad, and both mean us harm.

More to the point: both are violently unpopular movements that have no chance of gaining ground in a society where the government is strong and trusted, neither of which is currently true in Afganistan, and neither of which is within our capacity to make true.

I don't think McChrystal is the right guy, he's a manager of assassins.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 5, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Army Spec. Russell S. Hercules Jr.
Hometown: Murfreesboro, Tennessee, U.S.

KIA: October 1, 2009

Incident: Died in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire.

Army Sgt. Ryan C. Adams
Hometown: Rhinelander, Wisconsin, U.S.

KIA: October 2, 2009

Incident: Died in Logar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle using rocket-propelled grenade fire.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

McChrystal is Special Forces.
I think he is the first ever American theater commander with SF provenance.

I can't imagine that is an accident.
I also can't imagine he is suddenly freelancing or gone rogue.

Pressure allies?
Possibly.
Pressure Pakistan?
Likely. They need to start the Waziristan offensive, starting with the Mehsud clan they have been talking about. They need to root out the elements in their own services loyal to the Taliban.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 5, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The key issue for Obama is: Does Taliban = Al Quaeda? If that is a true equation, then we have to stick it out in Afghanistan, as much as I hate to admit it. Even if it’s not totally true, we may still need to consider staying long enough to stabilize the country, although we may argue over what “stabilization” means.

Afghanistan presents a different problem from Iraq. Ahmed Rashid, the Pakistani journalist who has written extensively on Afghanistan and Pakistan, has chronicled our extensive failures to recognize the situation on the ground in Afghanistan from the period after the Soviets departed up to the present. If we are unable to give the rural areas the confidence that they are safe from the Taliban, the rural population will be forced to accept Taliban rule, even though they do not support them. The rural areas despise the government in Kabul and the Taliban is the only alternative to bringing some degree of order, even as draconian and heavy-handed as the Taliban. Those rural leaders who openly oppose the Taliban become targets and no one will stand up to the Taliban unless they have the confidence that someone has their back.

A military “victory” doesn’t seem likely against the Taliban since it is not a conventional army. What the U.S. and other countries need to to do is change the conditions in the countryside that have allowed the Taliban to survive and thrive, and that means more troops on the ground. It means a commitment that will likely last for years.

Posted by: Tbel | October 5, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

Has anyone seen the names of the eight American military servicemen killed in an attack in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday? I heard they were all out of Fort Carson.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

hadn't thought of it that way, mark. you may be right.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Good thoughts, Mark. Why raise the stakes when the rest are standing pat or folding?

Posted by: mikeinmidIand | October 5, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

To those calling for McCh's head I think MikeInMidland is correct, I think McCH gave the Prez the honest and informed opinion he needed, and I think the leaks and public statements are part of a coordinated Admin campaign to pressure our NATO allies. I even think the calculation of deliberations includes gauging reaction from the other nations of the alliance. We don't need them all to be heavily invested, but we know that Spain, Italy, and Canada, unlike the USA, have national police forces that can do training in Afg that we cannot do. They are unlikely to come along for the ride if we are not boldly committed. But we may not boldly commit in the end if our allies do not respond positively.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 5, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Look Afghanistan started to go down hill with the Iraq war. It sucked all the resources right out of the place.

I hate this nation building crap we seem to be doing.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | October 5, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The correct number today is 4.

Because four neutron bombs dropped on Saudi Arabia and Yemen - which is where al-Qaeda is, where they get more than 95 percent of their money and volunteers from, and where they get all their religious fanatic Wahhabi texts from - is all we need.

The only other answer is how fast can we return ALL our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan - because that is where al-Qaeda is NOT.

But I don't expect people who didn't spend 7 years in the Army to get that.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 5, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The first surge of troops showed up before McChrystal did. Now McChrystal wants another 20,000 or so, and says he needs them in the next 12 months or the counterinsurgency effort "may" fail.

First, Obama has committed more troops, they are just now up to strength, and he has not said he is withdrawing any.

Second, McChrystal's request is completely normal. I challenge anyone to find me an example of a commander in the field claiming he had too many troops.

Third, his request is far from urgent. "In the next 12 months." They have troops. They have a plan. To my knowledge, our forces are still overcommitted as it is. Significant troop additions will not be possible before winter in Afghanistan.

You can say he's dithering if you like, but it's just the opposition trying to bait him into making a commitment out in the future which is not warranted.

Posted by: mikeinmidIand | October 5, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Since Color of Change launched its campaign targeting Beck’s advertisers, 62 companies have pulled their support from his show."

Posted by: drivl

and don't forget, the highest rated show on cable TV with over 3 million daily viewers. It would take Krazy Keith or Retching Madcow over a week to have that many eyeballs.

Meanwhile, the 1 and 2 books are Palin and Beck. the liberals are busy specializing in job losees and surrender to the Taliban. Busy, busy.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

AndyR3,

“I would also fire McChrystal”

It was Obama who relieved the previous general on the ground something that has only happen a couple times is US history. Obama owns this current strategy since he took it out of the military hands by hand picking his general.

mikeinmidIand,

“Back in March, Obama described the mission as one to deny alQuada a safe haven, not one to eradicate the Taliban. That leaves him free to decide between counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency, or something else. He has some hard choices to make.”

However, previous to all that Obama made wining in Afghanistan a prime example of his military strategy for counter terrorism. He has now had to change the nuance of his statements, which are being parsed to the umth degree. He is basically leaving the war in Afghanistan to failure and I seriously doubt the Taliban will stop the terrorist groups from freely operating in their country.

Posted by: sltiowa | October 5, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

More good news..

"Upscale British supermarket chain Waitrose has announced that it will no longer be advertising on Fox News in the U.K. because of Glenn Beck’s comments that President Obama hates white people. The decision came after Waitrose shoppers complained:

An angry Waitrose shopper who emailed the chain to express his distaste over its decision “to be associated with this particular form of rightwing cant” received an apology last week.

“We take the placement of our ads in individual programmes very seriously, ensuring the content of these programmes is deemed appropriate for a brand with our values,” said a customer services spokesman. “Since being notified of our presence within the Glenn Beck programme, we have withdrawn all Waitrose advertising from the Fox News channel with immediate effect and for all future TV advertising campaigns.”

A spokesman for the supermarket, which is part of the John Lewis Partnership, could not tell the Guardian how many complaints had been received over the matter. “We believe it was the right thing to do,” he said, adding: “We take the views of our customers seriously.”

Since Color of Change launched its campaign targeting Beck’s advertisers, 62 companies have pulled their support from his show."

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Since Flaky the no-life snowball has ruined this thread with his plagerizing and propaganda, I'll just post a healthcare story for you

drivl

translation: I couldn't find any anti war screed anywhere on huff, Kos or Moveon. Therefore I exercise my right to change subject, insult and post annoying garbage. I am the moonbat in residence here.

drivl, if you head out to the grocery store to spend your foodstamps, be sure to threaten a boycott at that time, so we can all get a good laugh at your absence. without solid principles, liberals are all just david lettermans but with no viewers. but I repeat myself.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The average individual US tax-payer is paying four times as much for government than they did ten months ago.


Posted by: drivl

Um, the Libs are back. spending is now more than the entire US history combined. See, Libs are good at some things. It's just not creating jobs, balancing budgets, winning wars, you know, the important stuff.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Remember, to the Dems, Afghanistan was the "good" war; this was the one to win. In fact, Obama early on said winning the Afghan war was an imperative. Now, as support crumbles, he looks over his shoulder and sees his anti-war base crumbling. He will either bail, or give us a half measure of what is needed in order to put off a difficult decision. In any event, his decision will be made to enhance his chances for re-election and not what is in the security interests of this country. If his going to run, do it now and spare the lives of our brave kids.

Posted by: saelij | October 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama should strap on a helmet and go to Afghanistan to take personal command of the NATO armed forces there.

He obviously knows much more about military strategy than any of the generals he hand picked.
Maybe all the taliban would see the mighty messiah and lay down their weapons to kiss his feet.

Sarcasm aside, if Obama is going to ignore the recommendations of generals "hand picked" by himself then he should declare the war lost under his watch and bring our troops home.
He's an arrogant fool and his arrogance will get many more young American's killed.

The taliban aren't fools, they can see Obama for what he is.
He's a wishy washy naive little man with no experience and a huge ego.

Posted by: Thozmaniac | October 5, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

very simple solution drivl. end the state by state monopoly, as Repubs have called for.

but that would involve actual choice and competition, not the fake kind.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I hope you all saw SNL. when Palin was on it was the rage and not to be missed. It was pronounced accurate and so telling.

Still is except that they have Barry characterized perfectly. Lots of nervous liberal sotto voco laughing. but the fact is, we have a ditherer who can't make up what little mind he has.

Who could have thought that picking a family dog would be a characterization for an entire regime. long, slow, indecisive and dithering.

Carter has his rabbit moment. barry will always have Denmark.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Since Flaky the no-life snowball has ruined this thread with his plagerizing and propaganda, I'll just post a healthcare story for you:

Anthem Health Plans of Maine, a subsidiary of WellPoint, is suing the state because they want to increase premium rates by 18.5% on their 12,000 individual insurance policy holders, so they can guarantee themselves a 3% profit margin. This story shows how silly it would be to solely rely on regulation to rein in insurance industry practices.

Like many other states, Anthem Health Plans hold a monopoly on the individual insurance market in Maine, controlling 79% of all the plans. Also like many other states, they are licensed to sell insurance through the Department of Insurance, who must clear all rate increases prior to implementation. Originally, Anthem Health Plans were a nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield corporation licensed to practice in Maine since 1939. In 1999, Anthem bought the business and began to operate it as a for-profit company. Since that point, Anthem has raised premium rates 10 times, and 8 of those times have been double-digit rate increases.

Jan-99: 20.4%
Nov-99: 15.7%
Jan-01: 23.5%
Feb-02: 12.7%
Jan-03: 3.4%
Mar-05: 14.5%
Mar-06: 16.3%
Jan-07: 16.7%
Jul-07: 1.3%
Jan-08: 12.5%

The average individual Maine rate-payer is paying four times as much for insurance than they did ten years ago.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

In separate Associated Press reports, President Obama was said to be "mulling options to boost job growth" and "considering a range of ideas" for dealing with Afghanistan. The president seems to spend a great deal of his time these days mulling and considering, and one has to ask why. As an indecisive president mulls and considers, the unemployment rate approaches 10% and casualties in Afghanistan have risen to an all-time high.

How is it possible that, now a year after his election, he does not have a clue as to what to do in Afghanistan? The only answer is that he is vacillating because he is unsure which way the political winds are blowing.

The president's indecisiveness has real consequences for the future of this country. Underlying the Obama's mulling and considering is the simple fact that this president sets politics over principles. But while the president is trying to figure out which option will garner the most votes in the next election, and bring in the largest contributions from liberal supporters, tens of millions of Americans are going without jobs, and some of our finest young men are dying in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

This administration has dithered for 9 months about what to do in Afghanistan. They sent McChrystal there to ascertain what was needed to stabilize the country so that our troops could start coming home. McChrystal has now finished that analysis and told them many things they prefer not to hear - including the need for a massive number of troops to battle a growing insurgency - growing while they have been twiddling their thumbs for months.

And now they're angry that their hand picked commanding general, frustrated beyond measure with the slow pace of decision making (I would call it a lack of decision making), tries to goose his superiors by highlighting their incompetence.

Insubordinate? I think McChrystal has crossed the Rubicon and has decided that if the administration won't give him what he thinks he needs to WIN, he will resign anyway. I also think that there may be a method to the administration's delay; that when Afghanistan goes south, they can blame McChrystal for the failure. It wouldn't be the first time a president tried to blame a general for his own failure. And McChrystal might see the writing on the wall and is acting accordingly.

The Obama administration is making a pitiful spectacle of itself over Afghanistan. And does anyone out there see any evidence whatsoever that President Barack Obama is acting like a Commander in Chief rather than a politician who strives to split the difference on everything - including America's national security?

Posted by: snowbama | October 5, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Seven Days in May" McChrystal?

Executor of What Seymour Hersh Calls an "Executive Assassination Wing?"

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/who-is-stanley-mcchrystal-051909

Movie quote:

"I'm suggesting, Mr President, there's a military plot to take over the Government of these United States, next Sunday..."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058576 ("Seven Days in May")

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 5, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"Obama described the mission as one to deny al Quada a safe haven, not one to eradicate the Taliban."

Bingo.

But it is a policy or political problem in the news today, and the number represents it as well as anything else.

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I think he should fire McChrystal too. That was completely insappropriate behavior.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Back in March, Obama described the mission as one to deny alQuada a safe haven, not one to eradicate the Taliban. That leaves him free to decide between counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency, or something else. He has some hard choices to make.

As overall casualty numbers increase, so does the pressure to find a solution. That said, CC, I think it is specious to focus on a one-day casualty figure as indicative of a policy or political problem.

Posted by: mikeinmidIand | October 5, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Merely because you prefer to argue about whether he is president or not.

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

What he will do is go both ways. He will initially have a surge as the generals (and Sec Gates) want. But he will do so with a caviate to the Afgan government saying if they don't get their act together then we will start to draw down in say 12 months or so.
I would also fire McChrystal soon for leaking the memo that said he wanted more troops to the press. That forced Obama's hand, and limited the administration's ability to push the Afgan government for reform. I am not saying he is wrong, but generals shouldn't try and influence policy through the press.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 5, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

Yet I have never posted anything critical of Obama re: American troops in Afghanistan.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"You know if GWB was still President, the Dems would be OUT-RAGED by this."

And Republicans would be justifying it.

Posted by: nodebris | October 5, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Afghanistan is rapidly becoming the international counterpart to the domestic debate over health care -- an issue in which President Barack Obama has invested much political capital but has yet to find a successful solution"

Yes, he's been in office for 9 whole months now and he hasn't solved all the world's problems yet. What's wrong with him.

Meantime, we've been in George Bush's Bloody Quagmire for what is it, 7 years now?

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Afghanistan is an afterthought for most Americans. Even health care takes a back seat to jobs...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | October 5, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Let me see -- did Chris ever do a column on how many casualties there were in the Iraq War?

Hmmm...

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

Were you equally as "outraged" by that Move On full-page ad re: "General Betray-us"?

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

URGENT TO TEAM OBAMA: REMOVE McCHRYSTAL, STOP MILITARY/SECURITY MICROWAVE 'DIRECTED ENERGY' WAR CRIMES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

General McChrystal disrespected the office of the President and the Constitution. He violated the chain of command, and the expectation that trusted military advisers should offer their counsel to the President in private. He also appears to have played a central role in the cover-up of the circumstances surrounding the friendly-fire death in Iraq of former NFL star Pat Tillman.

President Obama should remove him from power...

...along with the leaders of a security/military/intel cabal which has deployed classified, silent, injury- and illness-inducing "slow-kill" microwave and laser directed energy weapons systems against "targeted" American citizens...

...human rights violations which constitute war crimes against the American people.

What do your Bush-Cheney "leave-behinds" know about this?:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 5, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Finally!!! You know if GWB was still President, the Dems would be OUT-RAGED by this. Funny how caskets on the front page of every newspaper are no longer an issue now that the Dems are in control.

Posted by: JakeD | October 5, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company