Posted on 10/11/2009 11:34:51 AM PDT by kristinn
As the debate on Afghanistan comes to the fore, a well respected Democrat has urged Barack Obama to emulate the wartime courage and leadership of former President George W. Bush by implementing the 'surge' strategy recommended by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Medal of Honor recipient of the Vietnam war, wrote an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal Friday night that congratulated Obama on his Nobel Peace Prize but then went on to criticize Obama for being "naive" and apologizing for America too much. The news media has ignored this article by the former 9/11 Commission member and candidate Obama supporter. It has been noted by a handful of bloggers.
Kerrey admits he is tempering his criticism, but his words still sting:
On vision, President Obama is very inspiring. He has given moderates in Muslim countries room to move by speaking to them directly and respectfully, while at the same time continuing to wage an aggressive and necessary battle against radical Islamists who have declared war on the U.S. However, he has made too many apologies. And at this point, his strategy is too naïve and has too little coherence to be called a strategy. If the issue of foreign policy had been more important in his presidential campaign—and therefore important to the electorate—I might be more critical. And if I weren't a supporter, my judgment would be harsher. But in this realm, I'm still hoping for improvement.
Kerrey implies Bush is a "great American leader" for his decision to 'surge' to victory in Iraq after the 2006 elections:
In December 2006, President George W. Bush was faced with a similarly difficult foreign policy decision. The Republicans had suffered tremendous losses in the November election, in part because of the conduct of the war in Iraq. At the time, the unpopular Republican president was being pressured by ascendant congressional Democrats and some members of his own party into withdrawing from Iraq. Failure in Iraq loomed, as public opinion for the effort to help the democratically elected government survive had faded thanks to a series of tactical blunders and inaccurate assessments of what would be needed to accomplish the mission.
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision....
...There is surely a strong temptation to conform his better judgment to popular opinion. If he chooses this politically safe route and does not give his military commander on the ground the resources needed to win, history will judge him harshly. Great American leaders of our past have ignored popular sentiment and pressed on during the darkest hours, even when setbacks give rhetorical ammunition to the skeptics.
Kerrey concludes with an impassioned plea for victory:
...our leaders must remain focused on the fact that success in Afghanistan bolsters our national security and yes, our moral reputation. This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror.
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
It's a sad state of affairs when Saturday Night Live gets more attention from the media when it comes to criticizing Obama on the war than someone with Bob Kerrey's qualifications.
In Obama’s case, the medium is the message.
This, sadly, seems about as much as can be hoped for right now from Establishment Democratic Politicians.
The former senator actually makes alot of sense here. I'm shocked.
John Kerry medal of honor, now that is the most that I have been insulted. John Kerry says that he served in Viet Nam but there is no proof. John Kerry accused all Viet Nam Veterans of killing babes and war crimes was bad but to say that he got a medal of honor is an insult!
One “tiny” problem for Obama — or rather for the USA. He’s an Ayers Radical and as such views the US military as the cause of world-wide bloody US imperialism. He’s going to cut-n-run.
He can’t the Nobel people put him in a box. LOL. Foolish communists in Norway have sealed his demise.
I heard he served in Viet Nam...
Bob Kerrey, not John Kerry.
Bob Kerrey? Never woulda thought!
Bob Kerrey’s criticism of Obama will surely be reported extensively by the enemedia. NOT!
Re: “Bob Kerrey? Never woulda thought!”
**********
Surprising, isn’t it? Kerrey’s old pal, actress Debra Winger, will probably have to call him out on this! Hollywood’s never going to complain about Zero’s ‘apologizing’ to everyone in the world. They love that.
Silk purse, sow’s ear.
No, this is Bob Kerrey, Nebraska grad, went into the Navy SEALs, was awarded the Medal and held onto it, and dated Debra Winger in her prime, not John Kerry, Yale grad, went into Navy river patrol, and got stuck with Teresa Heinz.
Another Clintonista attack on the MESSIAH....
The long knives are being drawn, in the face of Obama’s weakness and incompetence.
These Super-delegates have got to kiccking themselves in the ass for falling for the media hype...
>>> This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror. <<<
Am I to suppose that the Vietcong WERE popular and had lots of support in South Vietnam and Cambodia, aside from what they secured through terror?
This doesn’t accord with the history I’ve read, especially for the period of time after Tet.
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
Actually, the surge was decided on and planned for before the November election. One of the principle reasons for the "tremendous losses" was that almost no Republicans in Congress defended the need for the war in Iraq, nor stood with the President in calling for a victory there. Our troops were abandoned by almost everyone except President Bush.
But other than that error, GOOD for Kerrey for telling the truth about Obama and his naive apologetic, (anti-American) pseudo-foreign policy.
That’s a real possibility and with his incompetence coming to light more and more it wouldn’t be surprising to see Hillary challenge him again.
bttt.
How dare he attempt to advise a Nobel Prize winner...
Kerrey wasn’t as bad as Clinton would have been, I think. We might have been better off if he had won the Demo nomination in ‘92.
Knock me over with a feather.
Evidently Bob Kerry didn’t get the memo - you don’t advise the One on military matters....or on any matter......unless it fits in with the Obomunist Agenda....and this advice doesn’t. He’ll learn soon enough.
As the respected Sherlock Holmes said about one detective he dealt with, Bob Kerry has always been the pick of a bad lot. I think he does have some integrity and no one can accuse him of disloyalty. There is no doubt that we would have done better with him rather than Slickmeister!
I guess he can call them at times.
I am going to copy /paste this article to every lib I can find
ping
Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
The first rats are beginning to document words that distance them from their lightworker. Just in case.
It's funny, since they last got away with it in Vietnam, no matter what the polls show, those with most at stake with the voters seem to end up voting for victory. They may not talk like that all the time, but most politicians have figured out that deep down the American people don't like to lose wars.
ping for future reference
Thank you for your correction and analysis!
. . . And thank you President Bush for your courage and vision — you are missed!
Am I to suppose that the Vietcong WERE popular and had lots of support in South Vietnam and Cambodia, aside from what they secured through terror?
This doesn’t accord with the history I’ve read, especially for the period of time after Tet.
Yeah. I'm no expert on the subject. But I also suspect we had that war won, and allowed a traitor ridden Congress to piss of the victory.
The North Vietnamese threw everything they had into three major offensives: '68, '72 (IIRC) and '75.
They got badly beaten the first two times, and only succeeded on the third occasion because by then the American Congress had cut off nearly all aid, and fatally weakened morale by otherwise undermining and deligitimizing the South Vietnamese government and armed forces at every opportunity.
Of course this will never be widely admitted until long after the last morsel of flesh from the last 60's "New Left" radical has been expelled from the south end of a north bound worm.
Americans don't want to lose this war and they don't want our brave troops killed while the pseudo-Commander in Chief "dithers."
I have to disagree with Sen. Kerrey on this.
Obama does not know how to decide anything.
He only knows how to read what is put up on the teleprompter for him to read.
Obama is but a puppet with we don't don't know who all behind him pulling his strings.
“It’s a sad state of affairs when Saturday Night Live gets more attention from the media when it comes to criticizing Obama on the war than someone with Bob Kerrey’s qualifications.”
As Mrs. RQSR has said in the past, the MSM is so up Obama’s tail-end, they’ll never report such critiques as that of the likes of Bob Kerrey, and what strikes me about that is how their adulation, their protectionism if you will of this President is actually undermining his Presidency.
I love it.
I have to wonder if Kerrey had the same love from the media an Hollywood elites as Clinton did. Perhaps he would have been less electable Though a second Bush/Quayle term would probably have meant Republicans would never have taken a majority in Congress.
If Kerrey had been elected though I think he would not have weakened our defenses as much as Clinton did
I can't think of any group of people who miss President Bush more than our troops in harm's way.
We really need to pray hard for them. They have no CinC any more, but they're still fighting the war.
helping our military and saving their lives is not in the to do list
getting homos to be open in the military and have a bunch of drama queen homos is
No words express how I feel about him, his freeloading family and folks like nancy pelosi.
they make me sick
helping our military and saving their lives is not in the to do list
getting homos to be open in the military and have a bunch of drama queen homos is
No words express how I feel about him, his freeloading family and folks like nancy pelosi. and a bunch of people who call them journalists
they make me sick
I heard that CNN is a great news organisation
LOL
Yea pigs flying outside my house too
Bob Kerry, Sheila Johnson.......seems to be a pattern here....who next?...Barbara Strisand?.....George Clooney ?.......
“Even a stopped watch.............................
Bob Kerrey’s a pretty good guy, Democrat or not.
Where have the Clinton’s been lately? BO must have some really bad stuff on them that’s keeping them quiet.
Bob Kerry and Diane Feinstein both basically calling BO a chicken sh&^t. I’m hoping the gloves will be off now. Yes, to a previous poster, the radical thinking that BO was raised on is producing great conflict for him. He and Ayers and their ilk hate the military might of the USA and that does present that “tiny” problem.
Actually the truth is something like that. The side we were backing were the heirs of the French colonials, large landholders extracting oppressive rents from peasants.
One of the problems with Vietnam was that socially, economically and politically we were not on the right side of the war. Thus winning hearts and minds was nearly an impossible task, not that that is a tactic we tried much of.
It was one of the worst fought wars in the history of warfare. We completely overmatched the other side militarily and still managed to keep so much of the population against us that anything like winning was impossible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.