Fighting Back!

I have to link Michelle Malkin’s piece on Obama’s speech here. It’s amazing to me that Chris Matthews had the tacit nerve to smear the West Point cadets for not being more visibly, emotionally “supportive” to their commander-in-chief.

Note to Matthews: when I’m working with a superior officer for whom I don’t care, I don’t tell him (or her) what I think. It’s not my place. I might like the opportunity to tell him to piss off, but I’m going to do what I’ve been trained to do–follow the rules, do what I’m told, say “yes, sir!” and STFU. Even if I think he’s 100% wrong I’m not going to show so much as a microexpression letting him know that I disagree. Why? I can lose my career, and that’s not worth it. And mark my words, Matthews, a large portion of those cadets actually don’t agree with Obama’s speech.

Which is why I believe Obama made that speech at West Point. Nobody–not one soul–was going to question him. The cadets would be completely out of line if they did try to challenge Obama’s stupidity and would be drummed out of the military in a heartbeat if they did. Why make that speech before the Senate or House, where someone could call him out on his rank idiocy?

(I particularly like the picture Malkin posted of a cadet reading a book in the audience. If you notice the badge and ribbons on his chest, that soldier started out in the enlisted ranks and has already seen combat.)

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Fighting Back!

  1. Ending this war is so easy. But, the liberals would not like this idea:

    Take away drug abusers and you take away the Taliban’s ability to make money. No market for heroin means no money for the Taliban. They can grow poppies and refine opium and let it rot on the shelf. Nobody will be around to buy it. Also, no market for marijuana means the Mexican drug war stops too.

    Smoke pot or shoot smack and you are a supporter of terrorists. That is a crime in my opinion. Drug abusers who support terrorism are terrorists. Let’s lock them all up and throw away the key.

    The liberals hate this idea because toking ganga is a hobby for many of them. Rotting in prison is not. People who boot smack up their veins need help not jail. Yeah right. See why the liberals will hate the idea?

  2. I’m curious to know which of you cons can actually defend against my observation of your rank partisanship. You loved this war when the cowboy waged it, and now that the commander in chief has a D after his name, you’re all kinds of bitchcakes about it. What’s the deal? We all know damn well if John McCain were in charge, making the same decision, we wouldn’t hear a peep out of you. You people are so conflicted, and it’s clear as day the reasons for the cry and hue…

  3. Robert – while the focus was on Iraq, Afghanistan was more of an area we needed to occupy rather than to engage in full fledged bomb throwing.

    With Iraq’s natural resources and their quick turn to Democracy, it was like sticky fly paper to terrorists. So, they would send a few over, our guys would kill or capture them and so on, and so on.

    Less people died per month in Afghanistan under Bush than they did under Obama. It was only after turning the entire focus to Afghanistan did things get worse there.

    This is a much harder war to fight because people are hiding in mountain cracks and caves. Whereas Iraq’s land was flat, so terrorists could be quarantined to one area and we could use our immense air power.

    There is nothing here that Bush would have done….first, we wouldn’t have had these many military deaths in this short of time.

    And if you don’t believe any of that, then tell me, how could Obama constantly refer to Afghanistan (they didn’t attack us either on 9/11) as the “war of necessity” only to blatantly tell the military last night that he was going to limit their resources (financially) and establish a time table?

    If it’s so necessary, why take those gambles?

  4. “Less people died per month in Afghanistan under Bush than they did under Obama.”

    Of course that’s true Steve. That’s because Bush only had 20,000 troops there, and he diverted all the military power and resources to Iraq. If you only have a few eggs in one basket, you’re not going to break very many.

    “There is nothing here that Bush would have done….first, we wouldn’t have had these many military deaths in this short of time.”

    Well, again, that’s because he chose to ignore the country that was harboring terrorists in favor of bombing one that wasn’t.

    “And if you don’t believe any of that, then tell me, how could Obama constantly refer to Afghanistan (they didn’t attack us either on 9/11) as the “war of necessity” only to blatantly tell the military last night that he was going to limit their resources (financially) and establish a time table?”

    Let me preface my remarks by stating that I absolutely disagree with the President’s decision. I think he had a wealth of historical information to dispel the notion of a successful occupation of Afghanistan. I think he tried to placate both sides of the aisle, and in doing so, pleased no one (granted, most right wingers agree with the idea of troop escalation, but since it’s a democrat doing it, it’s bad). But apropos of that, I think this line about a war of necessity has run its course. I do agree that Afghanistan was and most likely is still harboring terrorists, and therefore it was a more sensical war than Iraq (and that’s not saying much). I don’t know why those in power fail to see the futility of fighting a war on a movement and on a tactic. I think there was a back door with the timeline, because he stipulated it with “if conditions allow”. This is pretty much an open ended commitment. I think this was a bad decision, and this will be his Vietnam. Hopefully it won’t take another Gerry Ford to get us out…

  5. “Well, again, that’s because he chose to ignore the country that was harboring terrorists in favor of bombing one that wasn’t.”

    Iraq never harbored terrorists? Before I continue, do you really want to go on record with that?

  6. Saddam WAS a terrorist. He broke the rules of the ceasefire that he signed when we tossed him on his can out of Kuwait.

    For the record, I’m all for the surge–but the strategy of telegraphing that we’ll be out in 18 months? We might as well just invite them to wait us out so that when we leave they can take over again. I also maintain that we need to stop allowing Congress (most of whom have never fired a rifle in their lives) to set the rules of engagement, because requiring a soldier to see a sniper before they shoot back or get permission to use a grenade is just farggin’ ridiculous.

  7. “You loved this war when the cowboy waged it, and now that the commander in chief has a D after his name, you’re all kinds of bitchcakes about it. ”

    We need more troops and I give Obama credit for bringing them in. This timetable for withdrawal is a joke. If I were a Taliban I’d lay low, arm myself to teeth and wait for the clock to run out. It makes perfect sense to do that.

    Why engage more foreign soliders when they are going to pack up and leave? That risks your own men and resources and could leave you severely weakened after the troops pull out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s