Barack Hussein Obama is now faltering on Afghanistan after his dithering performance for months pretending to be working on a “strategy” that would only consider the request of General McChrystal to add at least 40,000 troops, increase the size of the Afghan police and army and surge against terrorist elements.

At an address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday, President Barack Obama is expected to announce that he will send roughly 30,000 American reinforcements to Afghanistan in addition to the 21,000 he deployed early in his administration.

Obama seems prepared to reject another of Gen. McChrystal’s top priorities: his call to double the size of the Afghan police and army over the next few years.

The administration now favors an alternative plan that would seek to build a larger Afghan security force, but one that would be considerably smaller than what Gen. McChrystal had wanted, these people said. Obama is likely to talk about Afghan troops Tuesday, without specifying a growth target for expanding their ranks.

“The president has a realistic view of how successful the training regimen can be, and that has helped inform his decision,” a senior administration official said Sunday.

This would be laughable if now so disingenuous. Obama has no military or foreign experience and could not possibly have any ability to make a forthright decisions working around what his hand-picked commander has requested. Other politicians on the left are questioning Obama but they are as clueless as “The One”.

Placing less emphasis on Afghan forces risks irking Democrats leery about an extended and expensive escalation. On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said Obama needs to show how a surge would speed the training and deployment of Afghan soldiers to ensure Democratic support.

“The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge,” he said

My question would be to ask Mr. Levin what he knows about military strategy in Afghanistan since he has the same report and strategy from Gen. McChrystal.

U.S. military police in Kandahar say progress takes time and can be hard to measure. U.S. troops say some Afghan patrolmen seem honest and competent; others fear Taliban assassination and rarely venture out of their stations at night without a coalition escort.

“They have their good days and they have their bad days,” said 2nd Lt. Danielle Champagne, a 24-year-old from Houma, La., and leader of Black Sheep — 1st Platoon of the 293rd Military Police Co., the only regular U.S. force based inside Kandahar.

Of course we have others who never served questioning a 4-star General of the Green Berets.

In the bleak war assessment that he delivered to Obama earlier this year, Gen. McChrystal called for expanding the Afghan army to 240,000 and the Afghan police to 160,000, roughly twice the size of their current growth plans. The proposal initially found support within the administration, where senior officials have talked openly about wanting to quickly transfer security responsibility to Afghan forces.

But as the months-long administration strategy review has worn on, Vice President Joe Biden and other senior administration officials have become skeptical that the Afghan central government could retain, train and support so large a force, even with considerable Western support.

For U.S. forces in Afghanistan, meanwhile, the expected troop surge can’t come fast enough.

“We could use as many troops as possible,” said Staff Sgt. Jeff Schaffer, a 25-year-old Black Sheep squad leader. “It’s ridiculous to think you can tame a city like this with as few people as we have.”

“I think they should send more” than the expected 30,000, said Cpl. David Pisano, 21, from Rossiter, Pa. “If they put just as much effort into Afghanistan as they did into Iraq, it would help out.”

Others on the left don’t want any part of Afghanistan because it effects their domestic spending capabilities to grow government and Socialism in the United States.

“There ain’t going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan,” House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an interview. “If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it.”

Would it be refreshing if Obey could speak correct English and support the troops at one time?

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he’ll demand a new tax — what he calls a “war surtax” — to pay for it.

“On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement,” Obey said. “But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don’t, if we don’t pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy.”

Recall that in March Mr. Obama unveiled his “comprehensive new strategy . . . to reverse the Taliban’s gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.” The “Commander in Chief” pledged to properly resource this “war of necessity,” which he also called during the 2008 campaign “the central front on terror.” Obama then sacked his war commander, who had been chosen by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in favor of Gen. McChrystal, an expert in counterinsurgency.

Obama now thinks he’s the expert but while the buzzword waiting for his “strategy” announcement was “dithering” we now have a phrase: Obama is a clear and present danger to troops abroad. Mr. Obama is also a disgrace and embarrassment to the people of the United states and the US Armed Forces around the world. Indeed!

Martha Stewart

Home “How To” Diva

Ms. Stewart should stick to her magazine, TV show(s) and business endeavors while staying out of public discourse on such things as Sarah Palin, former GOP VP candidate and Alaska governor. If Ms. Stewart would like us to discuss her conviction for lying to federal agents and time in jail we’d be glad to accommodate her.

In fact, this author defended Stewart during her tenure before and after prison, defended her capitalist and free market entreprenurial success. However, we can’t defend her when she opens her big mouth and attacks another public figure when she has no facts to base her horrible comments only misguided opinion.

Like Hollywood “celebrities” who don’t mind cashing in on capitalism, free speech through the arts and free markets Ms. Stewart should stop practicing her Socialist/Marxist side, especially when many who support the “Martha Stewart” brand don’t support her comments about politics and Ms. Palin specifically.

Stewart made it clear to CNN HLN’s Showbiz Tonight producer Jenny D’Attoma that she’s not a big fan:

“She’s very boring to me, very boring. And a very, to me, kind of a dangerous person. I mean, she’s dangerous. She speaks, she’s, she’s so confused. And anyone like that in government is a real problem.”

Watch D’Attoma’s interview with Stewart here.

We wish Ms. Stewart would explain her comments in detail about Ms. Palin without the celebrity sound bites. Provide real examples why you don’t like her and find it necessary to publicly attack her Ms. Stewart.

Martha Stewart, home “how-to” diva, celebrity Socialist, hypocrite and Moonbat. Indeed!

P.S. This household will be canceling the Martha Stewart subscription. We’re sure she’ll survive.

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

Do you like the ability and freedom to call your doctor for an appointment and to see recommended specialists when needed? Do you enjoy the freedom to choose what medical services you want and don’t want, or wish to have a second opinion when you want one? Obamacare would tell you TOO BAD!

Both the House and Senate versions of Obamacare create detailed new federal regulations that micromanage all health insurance decisions. Specifically, Section 2713 of the Senate Health Bill would give the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force the force of law by requiring all health insurance plans to provide coverage (with no patient co-pays) for “items or services that have in effect a rating of “A” or “B” [recommended] in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.”

Under Obamacare, last week’s Task Force decision to give annual mammograms a “C” rating (not recommended) will henceforth be viewed by insurers and employers as a justification for discontinuing coverage. This move to give the evidence-based medicine determinations of health experts the force of law is not incidental to Obamacare: this cost control rationing is the very heart of Obamacare’s promise to control health care costs.

Trying to convince wayward moderates that Obamacare would control health care costs, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag wrote in the Washington Post last Friday:

An independent Medicare commission … will ensure that reforming the health-care system is not a one-time event but an ongoing process that implements the most recent progress in medical science with the goal of improving care and lowering costs.

Obamacare supporter Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) told ABC News that Republicans have “Politicized Breast Cancer.” However, the leftists have it exactly backward: it is Obamacare that is guaranteed to politicize every single medical decision between you and your doctor.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rushed to say don’t worry. The decision had “caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women,” she said, promising that no policies would change. New Jersey’s Frank Pallone vowed to hold hearings, and Senator Dick Durbin leveled the gravest charge Democrats can make: The task force was “appointed by President Bush.” We knew the “blame Bush” excuse wasn’t far behind.

In any event, the distinction between cost effectiveness and clinical effectiveness will be moot if ObamaCare passes. The House bill gives the HHS task force the mandate to review “the benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of clinical preventive services” in making its de facto insurance coverage rulings.

What’s really going on here is that the left knows its designs will require political rationing of care, but it doesn’t want the public to figure this out until ObamaCare passes. Then it will begin the campaign to instruct the rest of us that we must follow the guidance of Princeton professors about what medical care we can receive. Americans will simply have to accept that the price of government-run health care in the name of redistributive justice is that patients and their doctors must bow to the superior wisdom of HHS task forces.

When the government becomes responsible for providing everyone’s health care, everyone’s health care becomes everyone else’s problem. Barack Hussein Obama once pitched his version of health care as “Everybody in. Nobody out.”

In reality, Obamacare will mean “Everybody in your health care business. Nobody out.” Indeed!