Last night, former NATO allied commander Wesley Clark gave irrefutable proof that his loyalties lie with the Obama administration, not with the military he formerly served in. Here’s the video of the interview (Be prepared to be sick to your stomach):

The first time I screamed at the television set came after O’Reilly asked about Gen. McChrystal’s request for more troops. Clark said that “When a general in the field asks for more troops, you’d better listen.” O’Reilly then tried saying that they were on the same page on that. Tried is the key word. Before O’Reilly could finish the sentence, Clark said this:

“But I think that the real issue is ‘What’s the right mission and what’s the right strategy and I don’t think it’s wrong for the administration to really do a gut check and see if we’ve got the right mission and the right strategy. If it were up to me, I’d be looking for Osama bin Laden because that’s why we went over there in the first place. We missed him the first time. He’s not in Afghanistan. He’s in Pakistan.”

Gen. Clark knows that conditions in Afghanistan are deteriorating quickly. He knows that Gen. McChrystal did a serious review of both the strategy and the logistics needed to carry out his strategy.

Also, Gen. Clark knows that we didn’t go over to Afghanistan solely to kill or capture bin Laden. While it’s true that killing or capturing bin laden would’ve boosted the troops’ morale, it’s also true that it was important that the NATO forces dismantled the Taliban’s training bases, kill their fighters, liberate the country from the Taliban’s and al Qa’ida’s tyrannical rule and to eliminate al Qa’ida’s planning sanctuary.

Gen. Clark knows that killing bin Laden was only part of the mission. He knows this because leaving Afghanistan in the Taliban’s control would let Ayman al-Zawahiri continue planning terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark knows that not liberating Afghanistan means that we wouldn’t have gained a major ally in the war against Islamic extremists.

Later in the interview, Gen. Clark says that doing a second review of strategy doesn’t make President Obama look weak or indecisive, that it’s better to get everything right before proceeding. Shame on him for saying that. His statement assumes that Gen. McChrystal didn’t do his due diligence before preparing his request for more troops.

Gen. Clark should know that delaying the decision while the Taliban are resurrecting themselves and while NATO casualties skyrocket is unacceptable. President Obama isn’t making a decision while soldiers are dying needlessly on the battlefield? That’s the type of indecision that a nation at war can’t afford from its commander-in-chief.

Here’s what President Obama told the VFW convention this August:

By moving forward in Iraq, we’re able to refocus on the war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s why I announced a new, comprehensive strategy in March, a strategy that recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base from the remote, tribal areas, to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan. This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war, that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance. And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies……

Why should we think that the mission and strategy have changed so dramatically since August that another review is in order? President Obama sounded like he knew exactly what he wanted to accomplish in Afghanistan and that he had the right priorities. Six weeks later, it’s time to reassess our goals, our strategy and our troop levels needed to accomplish our priorities?

I’m not buying it.

This sounds suspiciously like President Obama voting present again. It isn’t the commander-in-chief’s responsibility to vote present. It’s his responsibility to make timely, informed decisions that help protect our nation and that give our troops everything they need to win.

This administration should send a clear signal that they won’t be stopped in destroying what’s left of the terrorists’ infrastructure network. That’s vitally important to preventing another terrorist attack on US soil.

According to iCasualties.org, NATO casualties have skyrocketed since the start of summer. In April, 2009, there were 14 casualties. In July, that total jumped to 76, with August and September coming in with 77 casualties and 70 casualties respectively. Six days into October, we’ve already sustained 21 casualties.

Mr. President, your indecision is getting soldiers killed needlessly. Shame on you.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

3 Responses to “Wesley Clark, Obama Shill”

  • Gen Ramos says:

    I think you overreact much to what Gen.Clark said. I watched the clip 3 times already and have re-read the transcripts about 2 times. I found not fault in any of the statements that Gen.Clark made.

    I guess only in your myopic view of things that you have translated the General’s statement as tantamount to impugning or being against Gen.Mchrystal’s strategy. You seem to forget your civic history here sir, Gen.Mchrystal is just but one of the many competing experts that the Commander-In-Chief must listen to, where you this concern during the previous administrations handling of this war? I think not.

    So quit your bull crap and stop pretending like you actually care about troops and shit, cause I can smell your fart like a skunk. No matter what Pres.Obama do you will have something to gripe about and against. Man for once think before you spew your illogical hatred towards the CINC.

    Lest we not forget who is the arbiter and the ultimate decider here it’s Pres. Obama and Gen.Mchrystal knows this. You on the other hand do not.

  • Gary Gross says:

    I found not fault in any of the statements that Gen.Clark made.

    With all due repect, Gen. Clark said that it wouldn’t be wrong to do a strategic assessment of Afghanistan. As I ponted out, that was done in February & the report was released in late March. Then President Obama restated the need to win in Afghanistan in August in front of the VFW convention, where he emphasized the fact that they’d done a comprehensive study of the strategy.

    Let’s remember, too, that President Obama said that this was a war we have to win. Why wouldn’t a commander-in-chief take the advice of his two top generals in the region (Petraeus & McChrystal) ahead of the political advice of VP Biden? That’s stupidity!!!

    Gen. McChrystal is just but one of the many competing experts that the Commander-In-Chief must listen to.

    Right, just like McArthur was just “one of the many competing experts” that Truman had to listen to.

    So quit your bull crap and stop pretending like you actually care about troops.

    Believe it or not, I care both about the troops & about seeing that our government do everything to prevent future terrorist attacks. You don’t have to be in the military to want that.

    Man for once think before you spew your illogical hatred towards the CINC.

    Stop projecting. I don’t hate President Obama. I just passionately disagree with his unwillingness to make a timely decision. When the top general in Afghanistan says that they need more troops soon or else we’re at risk of losing the war there, I think it’s entirely logical to expect the CINC to make a prompt decision.

Leave a Reply