snip

>>>>>>>>That wacky IOC!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I blame Obama :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see the smiley but some will. This despite the fact that the President of Brazil, the Prime Minister of Japan, and the King of Spain were also in Copenhagen.
>>>>>
>>>>>Isn't he the first U.S. President to personally represent any U.S. location in a bid for Olympic events?
>>>>
>>>>I believe that is true. But that doesn't make it his fault. The U.S. has hosted the Olympics seven times already, vs. never before for the entire continent of South America, and we aren't exactly the world's favorite nation these days.
>>>
>>>It is not his fault, true. His fault is that he wasted his time and efforts on something over which he had very little (or none) control.
>>
>>The wasted-his-time argument is being advanced already by some Republicans. "Shouldn't he be focusing on health care reform and Afghanistan?" they ask in faux consternation. In fact he left Thursday evening, flew and slept through the night, and is back or close to it already. So basically he took Friday off to make this plea for his hometown. Big whoop.
>
>I know. Ridiculous, isn't it?!! I'm sure all our soldiers risking their lives in Afghanistan and waiting to find out if more troops will be arriving to help them feel the same as you do.

Oh, come on, Tracy. Did he leave his thoughts, phone, and aides back in the White House while he went to Copenhagen for one day? I am sure Afghanistan was not a detached issue anxiously awaiting his return. There is a debate, both inside and outside the administration, already underway following Gen. McChrystal's formal request for more troops the week before last. Whether you like him or not, it's clear already that Obama's style is to put an idea out there and await (insist upon) input. I don't think that's such a bad managerial style. It's in the review stage. What do you think he could have done about Afghanistan and the soldiers yesterday if he had been sitting in the Oval Office instead of to/from/in Copenhagen?

You make an uncharacteristically emotional (melodramatic?) appeal for the safety of the soldiers, as though they were a vastly outnumbered army under siege from enemy forces, a la the Alamo. But that isn't in fact the situation in Afghanistan, is it? The issue is whether more troops is an effective or appropriate response to an insurgency.

Speaking of Gen. McChrystal, about whom I have little knowledge or opinion other than respect that he has such an important role, I thought it was presumptuous of him to give a speech the other day saying he had "rejected" the idea of scaling down our aims in Afghanistan. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/asia/02general.html?scp=2&sq=mcchrystal&st=cse) He did not mention Joseph Biden by name but this was clearly a response to Biden's suggestion earlier in the week.that ramping up troops might not be our best strategy. Regardless of which of them has the wiser opinion here, does the General really think it is up to him to accept or reject anything? Does he think the executive branch reports to the military now rather than vice versa? Having spent so long in the military yourself, you know that isn't the way it works. Soldiers are trained and ready to fight wars. That's their mindset. Which is terrific when military defense is needed -- and eternal gratitude to every U.S. soldier who ever lived -- and yet potentially dangerous
as well. We can legitimately be accused of skewing to the military option first and foremost in recent years.

Sorry for going off into the wider ranging thoughts about the Afghan strategy debate, which is ongoing. My original point remains that whether President Obama was in Washington or Copenhagen yesterday is a complete non-impact non-issue.

GRATUITOUS PARTISAN REMARKS START BELOW ---

I think you know I dislike reflexive political responses but here's a mention only in passing that his predecessor spent over 1/3 of his time in office at Camp David or in Crawford.

For which, I hasten to add, I am grateful ;-)