At the conclusion of the weak sermon...I mean "speech", the young cadets at West Point were probably clapping because they were glad that Obama was done preaching at them!
Didn't most of what Obama said sound condescending and preachy? I noticed that Obama especially targeted those who might disagree with (the silly title of) his "overseas contingency operation" decision. He verbally pointed his finger at the American people in the T.V. audience; blasting our objections to his stupid non-winning plan even before we had the chance to express them after the speech. After all, Obama is all about protecting his image - more than anything (like, OUR NATION!) or anyone (like, OUR SOLDIERS, MARINES, AIRMEN, AND NAVY!) else.
Did you hear him say anything about winning the war over there? I didn't. Did you hear him say the word "victory" even once? How utterly PATHETIC!!
The looks on the faces of the cadets must have mirrored what the American people were feeling as we all watched just another one of Obama's excruciatingly painful stage shows on parade in the West Point venue. I didn't see any smiles. I didn't see any looks of confidence in this bogus POTUS being evident on the cadet's faces. I didn't see any looks of feeling that Obama GENUINELY CARES about our military - except for maybe that brief moment when Obama read the words off of his teleprompter that someone else inevitably wrote for him to say.
Isn't it creepy that the guy doesn't seem to have any real emotion(s) to express when he's up there lecturing all of us Americans?
At church this last Sunday, Pastor Miles McPherson did a wrap-up on his body language series of sermons. One point that stands out (and applies here) is the fact that most people share only 7% of what they really mean and are thinking - in a verbal manner; whereas the other 93% is done through body language.
What does Obama's body language say?
I'm no expert, but I can trust my gut and say how his words and dour, unemotional body language made me feel.
I, as well as millions of other Americans are NOT confident in his ability to be Commander in Chief; and we are legitimately and highly worried that he is sending more troops into Afghanistan just for the purpose of being able to say that he "listened" to his military commanders in the field.
But what is this horribly weak strategy telling us? Reader, what is your gut feeling about it all?
This morning, during the Congressional hearings on the war, John McCain asked how is it that Obama can set a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan in 18 months without giving the American people pause about his commitment to win there? It's either one or the other!!
This continuing, sickening nightmare of an administration is just too much to listen to anymore. I'm about ready to turn off my radio, T.V. and Internet so that I can enjoy a Blessed Christmas season, concentrate on, and celebrate one of the greatest moments (the second was Christ's Resurrection) in world history - the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
There will most likely be hundreds of blog posts about the speech last night. However, one of the best that I have read so far is at The Obama File: Setting Up Our Military To Fail. It is where I got the title for this post. [Hat tip and thanks to The Obama File.]
Here's a copy:
Setting Up Our Military To Fail
Col. Ralph Peters asks, if Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but, "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011," then why send them?
If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground? Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?
After eight years of failure to create effective Afghan security forces and a responsible government, does anyone believe we can do it in 12 to 18 months?
"Target the insurgency"? Does that mean our soldiers will finally be permitted to go after our enemies and kill them? Nope. Those troops are going to "secure population centers." We'll be passive and let the enemy choose where and when to strike.
When fighting insurgents and terrorists, if you're not slamming them up against the wall and breaking their bones, you're losing. Obama isn't sending more troops -- he's sending more targets.
Adding to the confusion, Obama qualified his timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground." If conditions of the ground are key, why announce a pullout date?
Obama is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault. He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam. Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?
Does the 2012 election ring a bell?
This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.
On the other hand, the stage lighting and the camera angles at West Point were terrific, Obama's delivery was superb -- but what he was delivering was a funeral oration.
Read Col. Peters complete observations here . . .
Simon Jenkins, writing in the Guardian (UK), believes Obama has no stomach for this fight, and his "strategy" is a frantic bid to rescue what promises to be a stumbling re-election campaign that must start in 2011. It oozes with his desperation not to be in Afghanistan.
I'll go further. Obama's "strategy" is nuts! His goals are to "deny al Qaeda a safe haven," and to bribe the Taliban to lay down their arms.
The only way to deny al Qaeda a safe haven is to invade Pakistan -- and he's not going to do that -- and you can't bribe a "true believer."
Obama used the word "I" 45 times in his pompous, political, and pathetic speech, but he never once uttered the words "win" or "victory."
In a related event, Chris Matthews, commenting on the speech, referred to the United States Military Academy, at West Point, as "the enemy camp," providing more evidence that MSNBC is, in fact, "the enemy camp."
Now that I got all of that off my chest, I am taking a deep breath and going over to the links included in The Obama File post.
I grieve deeply for our nation today. I grieve for our military to be in the hands of an incompetent dolt who pretends to listen to his military commanders, but cuts in half the amount of troops needed for victory. (McCrystal asked for 40,000 - 60,000). All we can do is continue to pray that God will keep us safe until this bogus POTUS and horrible Congress (2010 Congressional elections can't get here soon enough!!!) are all booted out of office!!
Hat Tip:
The Obama File Latest News
*******
Additional Articles and Blog Posts:
NY Mag.: Almost Everyone Hated Obama's Afghanistan Speech
(Note: Good thing the author said almost everyone. I wonder whether or not Mike Rucker, GMPilot, John, Scott and the rest of the ObamaBORG Bots who wander in here from time to time will be in that small group who will praise Obama for this speech?)
Gateway Pundit: West Point Cadets Told To Applaud Obama Before Speech But Fall Asleep Instead (Video)
(Not surprised...)
Gateway Pundit: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama’s Weak Afghan Surge Speech (Video)
(Krauthammer, "Do we have the commitment of the president?" Answer: NO!)
*******
Update:
Nice Deb: Compare and Contrast: The Decider v.s. The Ditherer At West Point.
Excerpt:
Captain Ed has a few more thoughts on the speech:The only sense of real mission I get from this speech is that we’re going to send 30,000 more troops now so we can start evacuating all of them in the summer of 2011. It sounds like a slow-motion Dunkirk, and it recalls what Winston Churchill had to say after being congratulated for rescuing the entire British Army and a good portion of the French Army in 1940 from that massive cross-Channel evacuation: “Wars are not won by evacuations.” And apparently Obama agrees, since he didn’t bother to talk about victory at all, but instead treated it as a massive responsibility that he reluctantly will fulfill.
What’s the point of sending troops into a far off war zone, if you know you’re going to be sending them home in a few months, win or lose?
Exactly!
Posts
9 comments:
Since you “wondered”, I'll answer.
No, I did not like Obama's speech. I think sending more brigades there is foolish, even if he does plan to start bringing them back in 2 ½ years. But I think he said what needed to be said—that we're not going to stay there forever.
CJW: I grieve deeply for our nation today.
On what grounds, exactly? You seem to want more soldiers to die, so I guess you're grieving for them.
I grieve for our military to be in the hands of an incompetent dolt who pretends to listen to his military commanders, but cuts in half the amount of troops needed for victory.
Ummm...didn't General Shinseki tell Bush that we'd need upwards of 100,000 troops for Iraq? Oh, sorry—Bush and Rumsfeld actually listened to him, and we hit Saddam with overwhelming force and smashed the Iraqi army, and the war was over by December 2003. All those troops are home now, so we have a number of experienced combat veterans to send into Afghanistan. Sorry. I must have missed that.
More below.
continuing...
(McCrystal (sic) asked for 40,000 – 60,000).
Yeah...where will we get them from? Every brigade we have has been to that AOO at least once; some as many as four times. In another year, we will have been there as long as the Soviet Union was. They finally left after ten years, and what did they accomplish? They didn't restore a Soviet-friendly government—that's what they originally went in there to do. Kabul was fairly safe at night, with Russian soldiers on the streets, but outside the cities was another story. Later in the war, some of those soldiers were ethnically related to the Afghans, but it didn't help much. We don't even have that slight advantage.
We also supplied the fathers of those Afghans we're now fighting, as you know. Stinger missile launchers brought down many a Russian Hind in the 1980s. Who's supplying them now, against us? We're even mimicking Soviet-era terminology: they called the Afghani fighters “bandits” while we call them “insurgents”. When the Russians finally left they had nothing to show for their plans but a depleted treasury, and 13,000 combat deaths. Are you anxious for us to eclipse that record?
For at least the past thirty years, Afghanistan has been at war. They were fighting the Soviets, now they fight us; in-between, they fought each other and the occasional Pakistani. Before that, they fought the British. I'm aware of your disdain for history, but you really should study it.
Col. Peters pinned it down exactly: If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground? Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?
After eight years of failure to create effective Afghan security forces and a responsible government, does anyone believe we can do it in 12 to 18 months?
If we really don't think we can do that, we should go. Period. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
BTW, how does your son feel about the war?
All we can do is continue to pray that God will keep us safe until this bogus POTUS and horrible Congress (2010 Congressional elections can't get here soon enough!!!) are all booted out of office!!
And who will replace them? Sarah “I-quit-a-rod” Palin? Huckabee, perhaps? How many prominent Republicans are left who have any workable ideas...and if there are any, why aren't they trying to get them before the public?
“Throw the bums out” is a good battle cry all the time, anywhere, but it's usually just a cover to get those bums out and your bums in. I almost hope you succeed next year, but this past decade or so the 'Pubs have shown themselves to be incapable of governing either. Running a country is not like organizing a TEA party, and things look very different when you are the government!
Oh, BTW: I hope you had a happy birthday. Too bad you won't have many more, with the Antichrist coming over the horizon and all...
Quote: "Oh, BTW: I hope you had a happy birthday. Too bad you won't have many more, with the Antichrist coming over the horizon and all..." /quote
Satan? Is that you?
heh heh...sorry...just couldn't resist...
BTW, GM - Since you didn't like what I had to say about Obama's speech and defeatist plan, perhaps you will enjoy someone else's take on it:
What Obama Really Said Last Night
Because of Obama's weak reasoning on this extremely important decision to send additional troops into harms way, I think it SHOULD have been an all or nothing decision. To do something half-a**ed like this is a recipe for disaster - and will ultimately lead to more deaths for our soldiers headed over there. Giving away a pull-out date like Obambi did is awful. His naivete' knows no bounds. Not good...
I agree with the author who called it right - we are sending over more targets rather than a military regimen for VICTORY AND TO WIN THE WAR.
P.S. About Bush. He ALWAYS spoke about winning the war and working towards VICTORY. Words that apparently aren't in Obama's sorry a** vocabulary...
GM,
"How many prominent Republicans are left who have any workable ideas...and if there are any, why aren't they trying to get them before the public?"
I'm not sure how many there are, but I know that there are some and they are trying to get the ideas before the public. I'm guessing from the general tenor of your comments that you haven't gone looking in the correct places, and the way most of the media is biased these days you will have to do just that. For example, I was listening to Fred Thompson discuss Afghan strategy yesterday with a former official of the Bush administration. As you assert about defense and security policy, so many liberals insist that the Republicans have no strategies for health care reform except to oppose the Dems. It's an easy impression to get since the media outlets aren't putting out much news that isn't spoon fed by the Dems unless it's already gotten so much attention on the web or Fox News that they can't ignore it anymore.
Honestly, I'm not sure what kind of victory is possible in Afghanistan these days. What I am hoping for is some kind of arrangement that will deny open access and safe haven to terrorist groups plotting against the US. As a former service member, I was disappointed (again) with how little Obama seemed to care about the troops or victory, especially since the Dems made such a point of it during the campaign. As is their habit, they only complain about a lack of action when they have to take no responsibility for it. And now we have a Commander in Chief with the same mentality. Yeah, considering his lack of commitment, I hope they do pull everyone out soon. That would probably be less demoralizing in the long run and give the world a first rate example of how much they can depend on their Liberal American brethern when they actually have to stick their own political necks out.
Hi, I saw where you promote Dr. David Jeremiah's book What in the World Is Going On? on your blog. I work with Thomas Nelson, and we would love to follow your blog and learn what readers think of this exciting book. I also want to let you know that Dr. Jeremiah has just released a new book titled Living with Confidence in a Chaotic World which offers practical instruction for living a confident life in a world filled with chaos and crisis. Please contact me with your mailing address if you are interested in receiving a complimentary copy of Living with Confidence in a Chaotic World for review on your site.
Thanks!
Jodi Hughes
pubintern@thomasnelson.com
Hi Christine,
So let me get this straight--Obama promises more fighting and more troops in Afghanistan, and you are unhappy? I'm sure he could have sent 200,000 men and women over there, but maybe that is the problem. What would you like him to do there? What you would do if you were president?
Kevin,
What bothers me is that Obama thinks he knows better than an experienced military general (who requested 40,000 to 60,000 troops in order to WIN THE WAR over there) and decides to send even less than the minimum that the officer asked for.
What also bothers me is that Obama does not have the words "win" or "victory" in his vocabulary.
And last but not least, "Captain Ed" from the Nice Deb blog quote says it well:
What’s the point of sending troops into a far off war zone, if you know you’re going to be sending them home in a few months, win or lose?
Hi Christine,
I am certain that President Obama would not dare to mention victory because of the vivid memory of President Bush's 'victory' speech.
And I thought the troops were supposed to be coming home in 2011? That is more than a 'few months.'
I totally agree with you that Afghanistan is a mess. Historically Afghanistan has been rough on outsiders. I wish that the Taliban could be gotten rid of, but I'm not sure if that is a feasible goal--I don't think that throwing troops in there is a solution. But then again, I don't know what a solution would be--other than to mass slaughter a large amount of people living there and wipe it clean. That isn't a feasible goal as well.
Post a Comment