Deadliest month in Middle East, still no decision by President

With the recent deaths in Afghanistan, this month is the deadliest since the war in the Middle East started in 2002. And the deadliest since...well...August.

What do these months have in common? Simple - both months went without the reinforcements requested by the commanders in the field. Reinforcements requested formally in July and repeatedly requested in briefings since May.

Ummm, didn't Candidate Obama say that he, unlike his predecessor, would LISTEN to his commanders in the field? Didn't he say that he would do what it takes to complete the operation in Afghanistan?

Looks like Bush and Obama have more in common than they like to admit. They both dragged out this war without defined objectives and without giving their commanders what they need to get the job done. And they have both stood idly by as men and women of our armed forces die almost daily.

Get it done or get out. I don't care what your party is. Get it done or get out.

Afghanistan: Do it or don't do it

Did you hear that August was the deadliest month in the Iraq/Afghanistan theater since we went there in 2002? Yes, despite all the protests by Democrats that Bush was killing our troops, Obama has seen more killed himself.

The general that President Obama himself appointed to oversee the war in Afghanistan has strongly recommended that we need more troops. He says we need them NOW.

When healthcare issues or stimulus issues come up, President Obama says these bills must go through now - don't even bother reading it, just pass it - it's too important to get done now. But when his own appointee general gives him a report about Afghanistan, he lets it sit on his desk for WEEKS without action.

Instead, the President goes on TV shows. He's been on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Univision, and The David Letterman Show; he's given talks to the UN (apologizing for the United States again), been to meetings in Russia, and he's taken a vacation on Martha's Vineyard, all since he's gotten the report on Afghanistan. And he has still not done anything about the report, still not approved the troops that are, according to the report, NECESSARY to win the war.

Now, I'm not sure the troops are needed. I think we should be able to use a technological solution, but that's my bias. But I think we should do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get the job done. Get it done, and get our troops home.

If you don't have enough troops available, I have a simple solution. Transfer everyone from Germany, Britain, Australia, Ireland, and anywhere else they are not actively needed for our own defense Close every base in other countries, unless we actively need them for our own defense. Put enough troops in Afghanistan that there will be one every square yard over the entire country. Take out EVERY MEMBER of the Taliban and EVERY MEMBER of Al Qaeda and EVERY MEMBER of any other terrorist group, with, as they say, extreme prejudice. If there's a stronghold and you can't get to it, use a cruise missile with a tactical nuke and destroy it.

Get the job done and bring our troops home.

Or, if you're unwilling to do what it takes, then just bring them home. It's better to admit defeat now, than to wait until you've allowed another few thousand of our men and women die and then pull them out.

Bill for a specific purpose is only 80% for that purpose, and that's fine?!?

A bill to fund military operations includes $5 billion in lending to the International Monetary Fund, money that some expect will be lent to countries like Iran and North Korea. Money that will be borrowed (by us) largely from China, since we don't have it.

But the Democrat House Majority Leader, says that it's not a problem since 80% of the bill is still going to the military.

That's part of the problem. As long as over half of the funds of a bill go to the EXPRESS PURPOSE OF A BILL go to that purpose, the bill is "close enough" on target. That's why they have no problem with "pork". They are including in a bill $5 BILLION that is for something entirely different? I'm not even getting into the wrongness (or whatever) of what that money is for. If they want the money for IMF, put a bill through for that; don't tack it onto something else.