President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.
Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you're still lacking to make that call.”
“With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer,” the president scolded, “I don't think this is a matter of some datum of information that I'm waiting on. … Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what's happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”
The cool president’s heated response reflected second-guessing from the press and Pentagon about a process that has spanned eight formal meetings with his war cabinet, totaling about 20 hours.
The White House has been deliberately portraying the process as thorough, emphasizing the opposing views the president has considered, as a way of positing a contrast with President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
Let's address this issue of contrast with the Iraq War debate.
One, there is the difference between a debate before the war begins and a debate dragging out as our troops fight and die in an ongoing war.
And two, there was no "rush to war" in Iraq as the argument deployed by the White House asserts. The national debate lasted about a year from after the fall of Kabul to the invasion of Iraq, and included a Congressional debate and declaration of war and long efforts at the UN that got us a resolution reaffirming post-Desert Storm UN resolutions insisting Iraq prove it no longer had WMD or else. We had a long debate on starting that war, and the so-called "rush to war" was quite possibly the most telegraphed war in history.
Oh, and as a delicious bonus, is the president really saying that people outside the White House can't judge the Afghanistan War because of lack of information or responsibility? If so, I'd like a do-over on the Iraq War debates that commenced in 2002 and continues until today.
The president may not like being accused of dithering, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that he's striving to vote "present" when his title of commander-in-chief of the armed forces says it all--he is the chief commander and everybody else must wait on his commands.
There, just three swings with the clue bat. That wasn't so difficult, was it?
