Obama's Speech: No Objective, Just an Exit Strategy FrumForum
07.12.09
Wow, you know you are dealing with a real intellectual when he has to whine about Obama “badmouthing” the country and make a fake connection with Ayers. Obviously Americans have such low self esteem that if you say anything less than you are the greatest and the most exceptional they go to their room, yell and throw their toys around.
On the other hand I agree with most of this post, the plan seems like a half measure, more like he is going though the motions that any goo dstrategy. But the ultimate problem and solutions are political. The Karzai admin, that we inherited from Bush is a weak, ineffective, corrupt(aren’t they all) that lacks the will and the charisma to create a real nation. I hate Nam parallels but he seems like Diem redux. The Taliban thrive ,like Hezbollah & Hamas, because they spout reassuring Islamic nostrums as well as just being effective and there on the scene. Without a political solution the military will just be a prop for Karzai’s weak regime. It is just like the old open ended War on Terror, that seems to be just the opposite, as long as there is some guerilla band in some god foresaken land that would toss a grenade into a tavern in their enemy’s town, then we have to be at war against terror. But then again we are very exceptional people.
Like all good little far left, democrat activist trolls popping out the latest DailyKos talking point in defense of Obama Messiah, BlankHead, Marcus & RancidMeat try the ol’ Saul Alinksy tactics of ridiculing their more worthy opponent, a former Army SpecForces solider and expert.
Lots of commenters have noted that Obama Messiah was more than a little cheeky to bring-up a cost-benefit scenario before the future military leaders at West Point… afterall, this is the president who ran to the right of McCain on fiscal discipline and then, when elected, flip-flopped 180 degrees and has added more the natl debt than all other presidents combined –going all the way back to the Rev War presidents that served as heads of the ContinCong. Obama does one thing consistently: He Lies. I’m thinking Kerry’s Flip-Flops would have been better than Obama’s Lies.
Now, we’re at 303 US troop deaths under Obama’s Regime. The worst year ever under BlankHead’s “Evil Duo” of Bush-Cheney was 155 –I wonder if Obama’s dithering could have emboldened more enemies, more adversaries… or as Linnane puts it: 116 brave men died while Obama Messiah dithered. I hope our enemies and allies didn’t read or hear Obama’s non-plus, underwhelming, inauthentic speech as “Capitulation & Surrender” instead of Hope & Chage… because if the pundits and experts are correct –if our allies and enemies did hear it as “Capitulation”– our troops are in for even a greater slaughter than our Ditherer in Chief has visited upon their corps to date.
I see why military families and the military despise the man. They have good cause given his decisions and use of them, their caskets and cadets as WH stagecraft props.
Well written Linnane. And thank you for your service to this great Nation and country, in and out of uniform.
23 Raider1 Balcon…did you REALLY say what you said in post 10? Do you really believe that that is GOP’s claim or are you just desperate for an argument and thus using any parsing of stats and any manipulation of context to make a point?
Raider – no, if you’re referring to the claim that last year the Taliban had their best year since the fall of the Soviet vichy government because they killed more US troops than in previous years … no, I’m simply responding to MI-GOPer here, and not to the GOP writ large. I am not surprised that MI-GOPer has become such a self-characture that you don’t even bother reading him.
If I may take your idocy a step further. On this day in 1941 the Japanese killed 2,400 Americans. At Okinawa in 1945 the Japanes killed over 12,000. So then would you say that anyone in their right mind would argue that Okinanwa was a much greater victory for Japan than Pearl Harbor?
I agree with your logic wholeheartedly. Thank you for confirming that the argument being made by MI-GOPer most certainly is idiocy.
“A country is SUPPOSED to spend its treasure during time of war; you cannot put a price to U.S. national security.”
Of course you can. That’s like saying you can’t put a price on health, something most Americans hope we end up doing and doing well. We should make decisions like this on business terms at least: if a war does not benefit us enough relative to the cost, we should drop it. I don’t agree that Afghanistan is much more beneficial than Iraq was– certainly it benefits us nowhere close to the cost– and wars like that take away our ability to threaten military action with, for example, North Korea.
You also might look up the budget for the NEA. It would take cutting 200 NEAs to make up for one year’s worth of Afghanistan, something you ought to discover before putting your foot in your mouth in print. And eliminating NASA, one of the most popular government programs? Do you seriously love being out of power so much that you decide to argue for new positions even less popular?
Source: