<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/caught-white-house-lied-about -gen-petraeus-afghan-withdrawal-strategy/> CAUGHT: White House lied about Gen. Petraeus' Afghan Withdrawal Strategy <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> Scotty Starnes | June 29, 2011 at 6:32 AM | Tags: <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=afghanistan-withdrawal> Afghanistan withdrawal, <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=general-petraeus> General Petraeus, <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=lieutenant-general-john-allen> Lieutenant General John Allen, <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=president-obama> President Obama, <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=sen-lindsey-graham-r-sc> Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=senate-armed-services-committee> Senate Armed Services Committee | Categories: <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?cat=35145> Political Issues | URL: <http://wp.me/pvnFC-5wG> http://wp.me/pvnFC-5wG How many more lies can Team Obama get caught in? IMPEACH the liar-in-chief. <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/general-reveals-obama-ignored-militarys -advice-afghanistan_575902.html?nopager=1> Stephen F. Hayes points out the lie: Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen's testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president's announcement. In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), <http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/28/obama-troop-cuts-went-beyond-l argest-withdrawal-offered-top-general> Allen testified that Obama's decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was "a more aggressive option than that which was presented." Graham pressed him. "My question is: Was that a option?" Allen: "It was not." Allen's claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week-that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. "Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?" The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. "In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out - so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president's decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team." The most corrupt administration in history led by the most corrupt radical the U.S. has ever seen. This is what happens when a Chicago community organizer is elected. General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military's Advice on Afghanistan 5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 . By STEPHEN F. HAYES <http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/stephen-f.-hayes> <http://www.weeklystandard.com/rss/stephen%20f.%20hayes/rss.xml> http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/themes/ws/images/rss-icon.gif <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/?nopager=1> Single Page <http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/general-reveals-obama-ignored-mil itarys-advice-afghanistan_575902.html?nopager=1> Print <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/general-reveals-obama-ignored-militarys -advice-afghanistan_575902.html?nopager=1> Larger Text <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/general-reveals-obama-ignored-militarys -advice-afghanistan_575902.html?nopager=1> Smaller Text Email <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/general-reveals-obama-ignored-militarys -advice-afghanistan_575902.html?nopager=1> Hide To forward this article to a friend, please fill out the form below: * Required Fields Your Name: * Your Email: * Your Friend's Name: * Your Friend's Email: * Alerts <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/general-reveals-obama-ignored-militarys -advice-afghanistan_575902.html?nopager=1> Hide Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you. Send me alerts for: Bill Kristol Fred Barnes Your e-mail address: Confirm e-mail address: Zip code: Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter. The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email. Please include me in third party offers. http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/image?c=03AHJ_VuvJSSHeNtmxzPZyhU-nyvrTNs UdJpV_mYm7X1VNoeE9d4M02cyw2A-cQ9-igCfCkI-v94m1C-YicZa521uv4JD3nJPP5Mr8aRqVfX YCKdamin0x81ywilXS5u4qJ55RrU-4MedjTU-sQYW6WLZfzUanB3VMTA <javascript:Recaptcha.reload%20();> Get a new challenge <javascript:Recaptcha.switch_type('audio');> Get an audio challenge <javascript:Recaptcha.switch_type('image');> Get a visual challenge <http://www.google.com/recaptcha/help?c=03AHJ_VuvJSSHeNtmxzPZyhU-nyvrTNsUdJp V_mYm7X1VNoeE9d4M02cyw2A-cQ9-igCfCkI-v94m1C-YicZa521uv4JD3nJPP5Mr8aRqVfXYCKd amin0x81ywilXS5u4qJ55RrU-4MedjTU-sQYW6WLZfzUanB3VMTA> Help http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/img/clean/logo.png http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/img/clean/tagline.png Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen's testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president's announcement. Obama and John Allen In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), <http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/28/obama-troop-cuts-went-beyond-l argest-withdrawal-offered-top-general> Allen testified that Obama's decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was "a more aggressive option than that which was presented." Graham pressed him. "My question is: Was that a option?" Allen: "It was not." Allen's claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week-that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. "Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?" Related Stories . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-afghanistan-withdrawal-decisio n-more-aggressive-advised_575477.html> Petraeus: Afghanistan Withdrawal 'More Aggressive' ... . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/why-summer-2012_575455.html> Why the Summer of 2012? . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-announce-afghan-decision-week_574 969.html> Obama to Announce Afghan Decision this Week . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/surge-or-retreat_526831.html> Surge or Retreat? . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/memo-president> Memo to the President More by Stephen F. Hayes . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/huntsman-2012-against-name-calling-and- anger-and-them_575419.html> Huntsman 2012: Against Name-Calling, Anger-And For ... . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/afghanistan-what-did-mitt-mean_574653.h tml> On Afghanistan-What Did Mitt Mean? . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-gas_573985.html> What a Gas . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fundamentally-different-worldview_57395 8.html> 'Fundamentally Different Worldview' . <http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/land-pawlenty_573255.html> Land of Pawlenty The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. "In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out - so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president's decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team." The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. "So to your first question I would certainly - I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president's decision was fully in the range of options the president considered." (The full transcript of the exchange is below; <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/22/white-house-transcript-of-afghanis tan-briefing/> the full transcript of the call is at the link.) So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military's range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president's policy was within that range of options. Who is right? We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration's decision was "more aggressive" than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House's insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer-a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan's "fighting season" typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year's fighting season. Would Petraeus have made such a recommendation? No. He wants to win the war. When he was pressed last week to explain the peculiar timeframe, Petraeus said that it wasn't military considerations that produced such a timeline but "risks having to do with other considerations." Which ones? Petraeus declined to say. But in a happy coincidence for the White house, the troops will be home in time for the presidential debates of 2012 and the November election. Q Hi, everyone. Thanks for doing the call. I've got a couple, but I'll be quick. Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president? And as a follow-up, did Gates, Panetta and Clinton all endorse it? Finally, will the president say about how many troops will remain past 2014? And of the 33,000 coming home by next summer, how many are coming home and how many are going to be reassigned somewhere else? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, I'll take part of that. In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the President settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out - so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president's decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and has the full support of his national security team. I think there's a broad understanding among the national security team that there's an imperative to both consolidate the gains that have been made and continue our efforts to train Afghan security forces and partner with them in going after the Taliban, while also being very serious about the process of transition and the drawdown of our forces. So, to your first question, I would certainly - I would characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the President chose to do, but the president's decision was fully in the range of options the president considered. Just for a process point, over the course of last week the president had three meetings with his national security team to include Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, Director Panetta, Director Clapper, but also General Petraeus was in all of those discussions as well - and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, of course, Admiral Mullen. In terms of the troops, I couldn't be specific about that. They're obviously coming out of Afghanistan. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor biso...@intellnet.org http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
