That Afghanistan Promise? Eh, Never Mind

Is this inherent cowardice, or deliberate pandering? Does it matter? Watch:

That was from two speeches during the campaign last fall. Last week, Obama had this to say on winning in Afghanistan:

'Not interested in victory'?! I guess that's why he's ignoring the commanding General in Afghanistan:

U.S. and NATO Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's long-awaited report containing a request for additional troops on Saturday was submitted to the Pentagon, but the Defense Department will hold it until the Obama administration reconfigures its Afghan strategy.

Spokesman Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis told media outlets today that McChrystal hand delivered the report to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Adm. James Stavridis.

In the report, which was leaked to the Washington Post on Monday, McChrystal warned of "mission failure" if the size of the allied force in Afghanistan remains the same.

The White House, however, has asserted that it will review the nation's entire Afghan strategy before considering McChrystal's request.But top Republican lawmakers have been pressuring the administration to act quickly.

Ace of Spades summarizes the liberal position on war very eloquently, and it describes what Obama's doing in Afghanistan perfectly:

This is so typical of liberal Democrats. They aren't against robust defense or war they cry, they are just always against the war we happen to actually be fighting. But some theoretical future war? Oh absolutely, under the right conditions they are so there.

How many times do we have to see this man completely fail to uphold his promises before we stop believing him when he makes them?

There's my two cents.