The White House announced this week that the U.S. would be keeping troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016. The announcement came after Obama had previously trumpeted the end of the war in Afghanistan and promised all American troops would be out of the country by the end of his presidency. In 2012, Obama and his supporters had warned that a Mitt Romney presidency would mean an indefinite U.S. presence in that country.
The New York Times editorial board addressed the situation:
Obama sees the choice to slow down America's Afghan exit as the best of bad options. http://t.co/y0k5HDrqZ7 pic.twitter.com/QVFRP6zFgD
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) October 16, 2015
The editorial includes these sentences:
The Obama administration and the Pentagon have been disingenuous, and at times downright dishonest, in their public assessment of the progress American forces and civilians have made in Afghanistan in recent years.
Gee, do you think so?
Never thought I'd see a NY Times editorial call Pres. Obama "disingenuous, and at times downright dishonest" http://t.co/VV4gOfionT
— STEW ??? ⚾️ ? (@StewSays) October 16, 2015
This administration’s been dishonest and disingenuous about lots of things, why should the situation in Afghanistan be any different?
They are laying their evidence that they went after O now that it no longer matters. https://t.co/z19dIMCe2c
— Scott (@ScottyE_FL) October 16, 2015
Recommended
***
Related:
‘So angry I could spit’! NYT editorial board sinks to new low over Bergdahl mess
‘Ludicrous speed’: NYT editorial board calls Obamacare-induced unemployment ‘liberating’
Join the conversation as a VIP Member