Andrew Mitchell on Meet the Press:
GREGORY: What is the–this is a leadership point, Andrea. Does the president have an unshakable commitment to this war? How do we gauge that?
MS. MITCHELL: It’s not clear, and that question is being raised. People are asking, “What is the mission?” He said, “I won’t make the resource decision until I know what the mission is.” What exactly is the mission? They will not go for a complete withdrawal. And in fact, one of the issues that was raised repeatedly by the leaders–the generals and the intelligence leaders in Pakistan is–to Hillary Clinton this past week, “Are you withdrawing, and what does that mean for us? And are you pulling back from border posts on the Afghan side that are going to let more of the bad guys come over the border and create a bigger problem for Pakistan and its government?” So that is a big related issue. But he has not explained the mission. And he knows, they know he has to give a major speech. And frankly, I think that it’s pretty clear now that this decision is not coming before he goes to Asia. It will be another week or two, because they need five days to roll this out. They have to meet with, you know, the hosts of Sunday shows and do Sunday talk shows, he’s got to give a major speech, they have to have editorial board meetings. There’s a process. They have to advise the allies, who are not going to be happy in some instances. They have to talk to the Hill. And that, of course, is going to be the source of all leaks. So they don’t have time right now before he takes this Asia trip.
So, Mitchell is basically saying that Obama is holding off on making a decision that would save lives and help secure our War effort, because he knows he has to make a speech and talk to a bunch of liberal television hosts and newspaper editors? Excuse me, but first of all, we are already in this war. We committed ourselves to this fight on 9/11, what we need to know is if Obama will see us through or not.
Second, I thought this was the “new media” presidency. Who cares about a bunch of editorial board meetings? If the New York Times isn’t on board for hunting down and killing terrorists, so be it. I understand there are logistical challenges on the ground. I believe strongly the American people need to have their fears addressed. Let me be frank, no one is reading these newspapers anyway. No one cares what Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd have to say about anything. If they did, they would buy a newspaper. Newspapers are dead BECAUSE people don’t want to hear their opinions. Make a YouTube video and then let’s win this.
Third, one of the major obstacles is figuring out if Obama is committed to this War. The fact that he won’t do anything about it is the reason everyone in Afghanistan and the military is worried and why al Qaeda feels embolden. So not saying or doing anything is making things worse. It has almost been a year since Obama took office. If he doesn’t have a plan for Afghanistan now it means he hasn’t been spending enough time on the issue, doesn’t understand the issue, has no good options to solve the issue or he doesn’t want to solve the issue. Any one of those possibilities scares me.
Fourth, it is entirely possible Andrea Mitchell has no idea what she is talking about. That is very likely.
Fifth, “They don’t have time right now.” Despicable and I HOPE that she has no idea, because if anyone in the Obama administration suggested in any way they “don’t have time” to win a War, they need to be fired.
The other nugget, real or imagined in Mitchell’s often confused mind, was this:
MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, what they were working frantically this weekend, minute by minute, actually, in calls from Richard Holbrooke to Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador there, was to persuade Abdullah Abdullah not to leave with a complete denunciation of the process. And as Secretary Clinton said during a stop in Jerusalem, that it still is a legitimate election. And what they’re hoping and praying is that his initial comments were sort of middle range comments, that he continues to not blast this process and try to say that it’s not legitimate. As long as he says that the election and Karzai are the leader, that they may not even have to have the election and put all of those people at risk to go to polls. Because at this stage Abdullah Abdullah was not going to win, he knew that. And what they’ve been telling him, interestingly, is do what Al Gore. They’ve actually used that example. You know, step back the way Al Gore did from a constitutional crisis. Show your leadership and then, you know, you can live for another day.
That right there is priceless and I don’t even know where to begin. The election seems anything but legitimate, that level of involvement of telling a candidate what to do would have been fodder for impeachment charges by the left if Condi Rice and GW done it, the continued fascination with the snake-oil salesman Al Gore and his 2000 election loss is fascinating.
