Posts Tagged ‘commander-in-chief’

U.S. Marines Saying NO To Obama Fascism: And I TOLD You This Would Happen

March 22, 2012

The cover says it:

The accompanying review gives us more:

Sgt. Gary Stein might be saying things about President Obama that a lot of Marines think, but some are saying he took it too far.

Stein has come under fire for stating on Facebook that he wouldn’t follow certain orders given by his commander-in-chief. And Marines say Stein’s not alone in his disapproval. More anti-Obama talk is being heard in the workplace and new Military Times poll data shows declining approval among military service members for the president’s job as commander-in-chief.

The Marine Corps depends on its chain of command structure, especially in a time of war. Some Marines say Stein and other vocal Marines like him are undermining that system.

See this week’s issue for a breakdown on what is happening, what it means for the chain of command and what Marine’s are saying about it.

We’re told some of the reasons why:

The article cites hot button issues such as repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” relaxing restrictions of women in combat, and steep budget cuts, behind the disapproval numbers.

And what did I say would happen three years ago?

Messiah-in-Chief Barack Obama? Will Conservative Soldiers Stay In?

This is just idle speculation, but I wonder how many professional warriors would leave the military rather than take their orders from Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama?

Here are the poll numbers representing active duty military personnel:

If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Total: 68% for McCain; 23% for Obama

Enlisted Personnel:
68% for McCain; 24% for Obama

Officers
70% for McCain; 22% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
74% for McCain; 19% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling military personnel issues, such as pay and benefits?
73% for McCain; 18% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling Defense Department issues, such as weapons purchases, the size of the armed forces and national security strategy?
77% for McCain; 15% for Obama

And here’s a link to the corresponding story in the Army Times.

I was a soldier, too. If a Barack Obama suddenly became my Commander-in-Chief, I would have realized the war is over, and America lost. I wouldn’t fight for the radical infanticide/abortion agenda, the radical gay rights agenda, or any other radical liberal agenda. I signed up to fight for the United States of America; not God Damn America. And I’d figure it’s about time that liberals sent their children off to die screaming in the mud for their new Peoples’ Socialist Republic under their new Messiah-in-Chief. Hell, instead of protesting military recruitment, these once-traitorous vermin (under the previous gone-but-not-forgotten United States of America) can quit protesting military recruiting stations and start actually signing up in them. That’s right, liberals; instead of bombing recruiting stations like Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers you can go and start signing up to sacrifice your blood and guts for your new country.

Geez, I wonder if you’d stop bitching about how evil American soldiers were fighting terrorists all over the world if you actually had to do all the fighting yourselves? Heck, it’s possible it might even start to occur to you that a place like Guantanamo Bay is a better idea than releasing terrorists who will immediately start trying to kill you again the moment they get back to their old stomping grounds.

Heck, I’ve got an even better idea. Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory. Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military? Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs. It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling. You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejad develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.

The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory. They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads. Good luck with that, girls. The guys carry that; surely you can do it too. And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality. You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.

There’s already an upside: in the United States military, combat readiness has always been hampered by pregnancies that could run as high as 30%. The God Damn America military could drop that down to zero.

And the fighting men of the “Gay All The Way!” God Damn America Army could finally put an end to that tired old cliché about there not being in atheists in fox holes.

All I know is this: I look at the numbers of the conservatives serving in the military, and I can’t help but wonder – and even hope – that those conservatives start leaving the army of the nation that wants to start pissing on their basic values in droves. Let the liberals start doing the fighting. Conservatives have done most of the fighting; liberals have done most of the bitching. Maybe we conservatives could start bitching about how evil liberals are for trying to protect the country for a change.

With all due respect, as you look at what is happening with Obama’s planned-to-fail escalation of Afghanistan – because a timetable for withdrawal was never anything ever than a timetable to defeat – and as you look at our armed forces beginning to literally fall apart under the worst commander-in-chief in American history, just where exactly was I wrong three years ago?  I was completely right about the military disaster we would see; I was completely right about Obama’s failure to do one damned thing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and preventing the Armageddon the Bible said we would have; and I was right about soldiers becoming increasingly pissed off at this godawful miserable failure who is sticking his feet up on the Oval Office desk.  Just as I was right that the forcibly-homosexualized military would not go over well.

As a soldier who served with soldiers and led soldiers, I believed – and continue to believe – that I understand the military mindset.  And it continues to viscerally offend me what this smiling sack of cockroach feces has done.

Personally, I would have left as soon as possible after Obama became my CiC rather than watch him systematically destroy something that I loved.  But as I observed at the time, where are these warriors to go given the fact that Obama has given us a wrecked economy that will never create anywhere near the jobs we need as long as his depraved policies are in effect? 

And maybe mine was the coward’s way out, because I would have just slunk away and cut and ran from my Army.  And these NCOs who are standing their ground and trying to defy an immoral system that is breaking down all around them are the real heroes.

Obama’s FOURTH ‘Abu Ghraib Moment’ Shows New Gay Military Disintergrating Under Messiah-In-Chief – Not That Media Will Ever Hold Him Responsible

March 12, 2012

In January of this year, I wrote about Obama’s “Abu Ghraib Moment #1″: the Marine snipers under Obama’s command who urinated on dead Taliban.  And of course I had to ask the question about why the same media that demonized George Bush over every possible thing that went wrong refused to hold their messiah responsible in any way, shape or form.

In February of this year, I wrote about Obama’s “Abu Ghraib Moment #2″: the Marines under Obama’s command who decided that they were Nazis just like their commander-in-chief:

In that article I expounded at some length about how the (also Nazi, of course) propoganda mainstream media went to incredible lengths to demonize George Bush over Abu Ghraib and somehow directly tie him to the debacle.

Also in February, I wrote about Obama’s “Abu Ghraib Moment #3″: the still infamous Koran burning incident in which Obama apologized to the murderers of the soldiers under his command.

I had previously pointed out that it was, of course, fine to burn Bibles; just don’t you ever dare burn a holy Koran.

And of course don’t you DARE bring a Bible to your wounded military family member.  Unless you want it burned or something.

And, here we are in March, and we’re already at Obama’s Abu Ghraib Moment #4″ featuring the psycho-soldier under Obama’s command murdering 16 Afghanis including several women and nine children.

Of course we can only hope that no Korans got burned.

Also, of course, it’s righteous indignation when Muslims go nuts and start shooting unarmed infidels, but don’t you dare return that favor, dontchaknow.

Mind you, there is absolutely no way you can hold “he who is never to be held responsible” responsible; you can ONLY blame George Bush for it.  Bush as much as put the rifle in that soldier’s hands, marched him to the homes and commanded him to pull the trigger.

After all, Barack Obama despises the American military and wants it destroyed, whereas George Bush loved the troops.

I also posted the incredibly telling video from my article “How Do Marines Feel About Obama? When Silence Is Golden” to document how the Marines felt about Bush versus how they felt about Obama:

In my article on Obama’s Abu Ghraib Moment #1 (it gets hard to keep all of Obama’s Abu Ghraibs apart, you know), I cited an apt statement:

Bush supported the troops. If the troops did something bad, it reflected on Bush and made him look bad. They were all in this together.

Obama despises the troops and keeps them at arm’s length. If the troops do something bad, it justifies Obama’s disdain and proves him to be correct in his policies.

Doesn’t that work out swell for the Left?

And of course, yes, it does.  Isn’t that a wonderful coincidence???

Afghanistan can rightly be called “Obama’s Vietnam,” with Obama making Afghanistan his very own war featuring a massive escalation and featuring the fact that 2/3rds of the casualities have occurred under Obama’s command.  And we can rightly call this incident involving the civilian deaths “Obama’s My Lai massacre.”

What is amazing is that this “psycho-soldier” may be the very thing that will now allow Obama to declare victory – by which I mean cut and run.  And what is truly amazing about that is that Afghanistan is “Obama’s war” to begin with, in the sense that he (like John Kerry) called for a massive escalation of Afghanistan as “the good war” even as they demonized Bush over Iraq as “the bad war.”  But when Obama pulls out of Afghanistan, it will be framed by the media as Obama getting us out of the last of “Bush’s wars.”  No matter how much of a lie that is.

Of course, back in July of last year Obama decided to homosexualize the once great American military.  Which we needed rather like we needed that massive Wikileak.  Obama had already began the witchhunts to throw out any soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who wasn’t enthusiastic enough about a gay military.  Because no matter how dangerous or destructive homosexuality is, Obama’s going to shove it in all the way (well, you know what I’m alluding to without my saying any more, I’m guessing).

Even before Obama was elected, I was making the point that our military was going to start breaking down if Obama became our president and started inflicting himself on it.

I’m one of “those” people who still believe that homosexuality is a serious personality disorder - much the way science did for most of human history until political correctness became more important than science.  Now, maybe you agree with me and maybe you don’t, but one thing that is becoming increasingly obvious is that the military under Obama is experiencing a serious personality disorder.

Obama had already given us military policies – just one after another – that were beyond irrational.  And it was all Obama given his remarkable penchant for completely ignoring his generals.  And the military going nuts itself was the next logical step.

Obama’s timetable for defeat – in which he told the Taliban terrorists exactly when the U.S. would be retreating – was the most insanity-inducing policy of all.  If we’re going to announce that we’re leaving to the enemy, we might as well just friggin leave and be done with it.  Because whether we leave in four months or three years ago, the damn end is going to be the damn same: a Taliban win and an America loss.

But don’t you worry your deranged little liberal head: the mainstream media won’t let Obama lose.  And unlike all those dead soldiers and Marines, that’s the really important thing.  Obama will be framed as the hero who brought the troops home.  And the fact that it is the war he insisted on escalating and the fact that he will crawl out in defeat won’t be allowed to ruin that fairy tale ending.

As you watch the craziest part of the world become crazier and crazier under Obama’s “commander-in-chieftanship” and as you watch the craziest country in the craziest part of the world get nuclear weapons to prepare the way for Antichrist and Armageddon, just realize it is all just part of God Damn America.

Update, 3/12/12: We have since learned that the soldier who committed this atrocity was on his fourth combat tour and had suffered a traumatic brain injury during his third tour which in all likelihood contributed to his clearly psychotic act.  We may never know whether the murder of several American soldiers after the so-called “Koran-burning incident” or Barack Obama’s apologizing to the murderers of those American soldiers had anything to do with this act or not.

This tragic and isolated incident should in no way affect the pride that Americans should feel about their troops.  They have been and continue to remain magnificent.

Hamid Karzai – whose soldiers had just got through murdering unarmed Americans – said, “when a US soldier intentionally kills innocent people, it could be described as an act of terror, which cannot be forgiven.”

There are two pathetic and corrupt leaders – Karzai and Obama – who make any victory in Afghanistan absolutely impossible.  There is no possible way we can win with either of these political weasels in charge.  So we should just get the hell out of there at this point.

Why Fighting For Our Country Under Obama Is Different Than Any Other Time – Except Maybe Vietnam

July 5, 2010

Fighting a war under the command of Barack Obama is very different than fighting under the command of any president who has ever come before.  Up until president #44, commanders-in-chief actually had some degree of trust in the soldiers under their command.  They put them into battle for one reason, summed up by President Ronald Reagan’s statement: “We win, they lose.”  They sent them with commonsensical rules for civilized warfare, and then they gave them the mandate to go out and win.  Today we have a commander-in-chief who would prefer not to talk about actually winning:

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”

In order to avoid the potential for some kind of awkward “victory,” our soldiers and Marines are literally unable to shoot when every element of common sense and the entire history of warfare tell them to shoot:

Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive
By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann – The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Marine Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

“This is difficult,” Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”

That mindset doesn’t just apply to our fighting men on the ground, who are put in a position in which they can’t defend themselves if their enemy flouts Obama’s miserable rules of engagement.  The pilots flying overhead and the artillerymen on surrounding positions are prevented from supporting our soldiers if they get pinned down, too:

Family calls U.S. military goals ‘fuzzy’
Parents of soldier killed last week criticize firepower restrictions

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
First published in print: Thursday, June 24, 2010

QUEENSBURY — The parents of a Lake George soldier killed in Afghanistan attacked the Obama administration Wednesday for “flower children leadership,” and said they would work to change U.S. rules of military engagement in the nine-year conflict.

Hours before holding a wake for their 27-year-old son in Glens Falls, Bill and Beverly Osborn heavily criticized a military policy implemented last year that places some restrictions on when American troops can use firepower in Afghanistan. The new rules were set when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the Afghanistan effort, and have reportedly made it harder for troops to call in for or initiate air power, artillery and mortars against the Taliban.

The counterinsurgency policy is intended to reduce civilian casualties and win the allegiance of Afghans, McChrystal had said. But echoing criticisms from the Vietnam era, Bill Osborn said Wednesday that it’s tied the hands of service members on the ground.

“We send our young men and women to spill their blood and we won’t let them do their job,” he said from his Queensbury home. “Winning hearts and minds is wonderful, but first we have to defeat the enemy.”

And then we wonder why Obama doubled the American body count from Bush in 2009, and is now on pace to double his own total (which means four times the Bush 2008 Americans KIA).

We just suffered the highest number of American causalities for a single month in the history of the war.  Mind you, EVERY month becomes the new “deadliest month” under Obama.

From icasualties.org:

For those who are historically ignorant, America firebombed Tokyo and Dresden in World War II.  We didn’t make sure that every single person who could possibly get killed during an attack was a 100%-confirmed “militant” before we sent a wave of death at our enemies.  If we’d resorted to that form of liberal moral stupidity, we would have lost – and the only question would have been how many of us would have ended up speaking German, and how many of us would have ended up speaking Japanese.

Thank God we didn’t have Obama leading us back then.

But our rules of engagement still weren’t getting enough American soldiers killed, so Team Obama came up with a better idea: how about ordering soldiers to go into battle with unloaded weapons? That’s right. Soldiers are now told to wait until they actually start falling down on the ground dead before they can actually be allowed to fumble a round into the chamber.

Fighting a War without Bullets?
by  Chris Carter
05/25/2010

Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.

American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.

When a weapon has a loaded magazine, but the safety is on and no round is chambered, the military refers to this condition as “amber status.” Weapons on “red status” are ready to fire—they have a round in the chamber and the safety is off.

The source stated that he had been stationed at the base for only a month, but the amber weapons order was in place since before he arrived. A NATO spokesman could not confirm the information, stating that levels of force are classified.

In other words, our guys can’t prepare their weapons to actually fire until they are already under attack.

Imagine sending our police into a building filled with armed gang members like that.

And you want to know how to win a medal in Obama’s army? Don’t do anything. Certainly don’t actually shoot at the enemy.

Hold fire, earn a medal
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 15:51:31 EDT

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.

It used to be that the hero was the guy who took on the enemy. Now it’s the guy who crawls into the fetal position and walks away from a battle with an unfired weapon.

We can only wonder what Obama’s version of Audie Murphy will look like.

And Iran sure doesn’t have to worry about Obama shooting at them as they develop their nuclear arsenal so they can cause Armageddon.

About the only thing regarding the military Obama is actually determined to fight for is gay rights. You can bet that the same political weasels who won’t let our soldiers actually shoot at the enemy will fight tooth and nail for the right of homosexual soldiers to be able to buttrape their buddies. Because we don’t have nearly enough gay rape in the military. That’s going to be the new meaning to “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Don’t tell, because that homosexual is the new protected class.

And if all of the above doesn’t beat all, you probably don’t want to hear about the fact that Obama’s timetable for a cut-and-run had nothing whatsoever about satisfying military issues and everything about satisfying political ones within Obama’s radical leftwing base.  The military wasn’t even consulted, according to General David Petraeus:

McCain: “General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the President when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?”

Petraeus: “Uh, there was not.”

McCain: “There was not – by any military person that you know of?”

Petraeus: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Nobody knows what the hell is going on over there.  Are we going to stay and fight?  Or cut and run?  Most of the Obama administration is saying that we are most definitely going to cut and run in July 2011.  Take Vice President Biden, who says, “In July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”  All Obama will say is that “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.” which isn’t really saying anything.

All the money is on a pullout, as Obama cuts and runs.  The Afghan people know that, know that the Taliban will soon be their landlords, and aren’t about to risk any kind of meaningful alliance with America that would be necessary to actually winning over there.

Do you remember FDR telling Churchill, “I’ll give you a year, and then we’re running with our tail between our legs where it belongs”???

If it’s a war worth fighting, it is a war worth sticking around to fight.

We will win when we allow our fighting men to fight.  And not until then.

If you wonder whether Afghanistan is going to become like Vietnam, stop wondering: it already has.  Because we’re fighting Afghanistan the same way we fought Vietnam – with the mindset of putting our troops in danger while simultaneously preventing them from securing victory.

Why Is West Point The ‘Enemy Camp’ For Barack Obama?

December 2, 2009

MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews put it into crystal-clear perspective.  When Barack Obama gave his Afghanistan speech at West Point, he was entering “the enemy camp.”

That is a shocking admission, coming from the Obama-approved media.

You can understand it being “enemy territory” if Obama were to go to Afghanistan and address a Taliban training camp.  But West Point?  A U.S. military academy?  Just what kind of president is this man that his own military must be regarded as “the enemy”?

How is this not profoundly wrong?

Now, you might argue that Chris Matthews is just using a metaphor.  But it is simply a fact that Matthews is pretty clear that the West Point cadets did not positively respond to what Obama said to them.  They didn’t receive him well.  They don’t like his agenda.  And maybe they don’t even like him.

Liberals might regard that as a positive point about this president.  A liberal high school LATIN teacher asked a 17-year old future West Point cadet, “Why would you want to become a mindless killing machine?”

I have to share the young man’s answer to that despicable teacher, in the words of his proud father:

But our son looked at this guy in the eye and said, “Sir, there are people out there who want to kill us and I feel like I’m called to keep that from happening,” and I’d like to add that it only took them about two seconds to identify the mission, not three months, and he’s only 17.  You can imagine how much pride I feel in him for making such a statement and how outraged I was his teacher would even ask him that.

Like I said: liberals might regard it as a wonderful thing that the President of the United States would have a hostile relationship with the United States military.  I regard it as an damning indictment against a less-than-pathetic commander-in-chief that the guardians of our freedom who sacrifice themselves so that others might live free neither like him nor respect him.

Obama-approved mouthpiece Chris Matthews is correct in asserting that the United States military is like an enemy camp to Barack Obama.

Obama gave his speech at West Point in order to use the venue as a photo-op, and in fact to co-opt the cadets into appearing to support his policies.

It didn’t exactly work, as Der Speigel pointed out:

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

Let us put aside that this order, or “suggestion,” is yet another example of the same sort of “politically-correct” postmodernist multiculturalism that the Obama-warped military establishment accorded to a Muslim officer who was promoted even though he had been in contact with al-Qaeda some thirty times, and had an acronym for “soldier of Allah” emblazoned on his business cards.  (Not to mention the fact that the military has now so degenerated into political correctness that it is now treating terrorists like citizens, and Navy SEALs like terrorists).

What is wrong with this president that our future Army officers have to literally be told to be “enthusiastic” toward him?  And even then refuse to do so?

The following two paragraphs provide an answer why our future military officers feel as they do:

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

I would argue that what Chris Matthews statement about West Point being an “enemy camp” for Obama means is that Barack Obama is openly hostile to the United States military and everything it stands for.  Barack Obama has said he wants to “fundamentally transform America,” and has vowed to “remake America.”  You can understand why people who love our countries’ traditions wouldn’t appreciate a man who hates those very same traditions.  These young future officers did not sign up to fight and die for Obama’s “remade” America.  They love the America of their forefathers, rather than the America of Barack Hussein’s Marxist visions.

It’s not just the U.S. Army that has quiet contempt for Barack Obama.  The U.S. Marines don’t care much for him either, judging by the “polite” response they gave him versus the wild cheering for their last real commander-in-chief:

When the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us are quietly disgusted by their commander-in-chief, you should seriously contemplate these valiant warriors’ judgment.

Obama’s Political Correctness The Gateway Drug To Terrorism

November 9, 2009

Political correctness is running amok like a massive wildfire set by a pack of raving arsonists.  And that wildfire claimed the lives of 14 people at Fort Hood, in addition to some 38 others who were wounded.

We find out things like this:

Danquah assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates at the Maryland graduate military medical program.  His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.

Of course, I myself am quite used to encountering “anti-American propaganda.”  I watch the mainstream media.

Initially, the FBI wouldn’t even consider the possibility that Nidal Hasan was a terrorist.  They immediately came out saying there “was no terrorism nexus” with a Muslim shooter who repeatedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he fired more than 100 rounds at unarmed soldiers.  A Muslim shooter whom they KNEW had tried to contact al-Qaeda.

ABC reported as follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS, ABC: We’re going to turn now to the attack at Fort Hood. Authorities are actively investigating whether the suspected gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had links to any terrorist organizations. Our chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross has learned that Hasan was most-likely trying to just do that, forge that kind of link?

BRIAN ROSS, ABC: Indeed, Robin. As Major Hasan’s road to increased radicalization becomes clearer, ABC News has learned that U.S. intelligence agencies became aware months ago that he was attempting to make contact with people connected to al Qaeda. Two American officials who have been briefed on classified information say it’s not known whether the military was ever told by the CIA or others that one of its majors was making efforts to communicate with figures under electronic surveillance by the U.S. Congress has now asked the CIA and other intelligence agencies to preserve all documents that relate to Hasan, as it appears a full investigation is now likely into whether the warning signs were missed.

Kind of makes you wonder just what you have to do to have the Obama administration call you a “terrorist” these days.  Besides voting Republican or working at Fox News, I mean.

This is now the SECOND successful domestic terrorist-jihadist attack – Oops, I’m sorry, Domestic Contingency Operation – that the United States has suffered under the Obama administration.  And there is little question that it will not be the last.

And even NBC reported that Obama’s reaction to it was just plain weird, in addition to being an example of “frightening insensitivity.”  Among other things, Obama’s first words to the American people consisted in giving a “shout out” to a “Congressional Medal of Honor” winner who has never been awarded such an honor.  Rather, President Obama HIMSELF awarded the guy a Medal of Freedom.  Big diff – and you’d expect a one-tenth-way competent commander-in-chief to know that obvious difference.

And if that isn’t horrible enough, we find out that the Obama administration recruited Nidal Hasan – whom we now know was a terrorist – to write a propagandist ideological Department of Homeland Security report fearmongering “rightwing extremists.”

It should therefore come as no surprise that we find the Army chief-of-staff under Commander-in-Chief Obama being sent out to TV land to say that his greatest worry is some kind of backlash against Muslims, because GodI’m sorry for my intolerance - Allah forbid that ANY of them so much as get their feelings hurt as their community launches so many terror attacks worldwide that nobody even bothers to keep statistics any more.

Well, at least General Casey and his commander-in-chief aren’t worried about something silly, such as the fact that a bunch of his unarmed soldiers just got gunned down on their own base in the USA by a guy yelling “Allahu Akbar!”

Consider how politically correct the U.S. military has become under the Barack Hussein administration: this guy was actually promoted to major, in spite of the fact that he was telling his colleagues that infidels (that’s you and me) should die, and in spite of the fact that he was trying to contact al Qaeda to find out what he could do to help their cause.

Doug Ross at  DirectorBlue located one of Hasan’s internet postings comparing a soldier diving on a grenade to save his buddies with a terrorist blowing himself up to kill non-Muslims (and, of course, “bad” Muslims):

There was a grenade thrown amongs [sic] a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally [sic] took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled [sic] this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair.

Here’s another “in his own words” take on Nidal Hasan available at NPR:

[DANIEL] ZWERDLING: Earlier today, I spoke to a psychiatrist who worked very closely with Hasan and knows him very well. And he said, you know, from the beginning -and Hasan was there for four years – the medical staff was very worried about this guy. He said the first thing is he’s cold, unfriendly. At least that’s who he came off. He did not do a good job as a psychiatrist in training, was repeatedly warned, you better shape up, or, you know, you’re going to be in trouble. Did badly in his classes, seemed disinterested.  But second of all – and this is, perhaps, you know, more relevant. The psychiatrist says that he was very proud and upfront about being Muslim. And psychiatrist hastened to say, and nobody minded that. But he seemed almost belligerent about being Muslim, and he gave a lecture one day that really freaked a lot of doctors out.

They have grand rounds, right? They, you know, dozens of medical staff come into an auditorium, and somebody stands at the podium at the front and gives a lecture about some academic issue, you know, what drugs to prescribe for what condition. But instead of that, he – Hasan apparently gave a long lecture on the Koran and talked about how if you don’t believe, you are condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You’re set on fire. Burning oil is burned down your throat.

The ironically funny thing is that Nidal Hassan – after enjoying the fruits of his million dollar education, anyway – ostensibly wanted out of the military.  But because he was a protected member of the cherished liberal class, he couldn’t do anything that could actually offend anybody enough to kick him out.  He could be professionally incompetent; he could tell his colleagues that they should die; he could try to indoctrinate returning veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq into radical Islam; he could post violent terrorist internet comments; he could actually try to contact al Qaeda.  And it didn’t matter.  Not only did he remain an officer and a “gentleman,” but he got PROMOTED.

This is rather like Montgomery Burns promoting Homer Simpson at the Springfield nuclear power plant.  Only in this case, Homer Simpson is a raving jihadist terrorist as well as an incompetent buffoon.

The federal authorities knew all this prior to Nidal Hasan going out and buying an $1100 gun.  Apparently, we have quite a few “Homers” in our ranks these days.

Don’t want to appear like you’re discriminating or anything.

After all, hasn’t Obama already apologized to our enemies enough as it already is? And hasn’t he apologized enough to the Muslim world? Do you want to give him something ELSE to feel that he should apologize for, such as yanking a Muslim radical out of the Army as a terrorist threat before he became a terrorist mass murderer?

Of course, had “Captain Hasan” been a white evangelical Christian who told his colleagues that openly declared gays shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military, he would have been drummed out faster than you could say, “Out, damn’d spot!”  And he certainly would NEVER have been allowed to become “Major Hasan.”  Especially in Barack Obama’s Army.

Being politically correct is not merely a naive attempt to make people feel better; it’s a much larger, much more coordinated, and much more sinister effort to change Western culture as we know it.  Progressives designed this game plan decades ago – following the previous success that Marxists enjoyed after employing the same stratagem – and liberals continue to execute the same game plan today: to shape the debate and control the argument by controlling the language.  All they need to succeed is an oversensitive public that is ignorant of history and morality.

What may be most interesting of all is how liberalism becomes the useful idiot of jihadist terrorism, apart from that thing about liberals being “so open-minded their brains fall out.”

As just one of many examples of liberals brains having fallen out, how about the liberal view that Nidal Hasan was mentally ill rather than a terrorist?  Because, as we all know, terrorists are the epitome of mental health, and being the former must therefore rule that latter out.

And yet here we have Evan Thomas, editor-at-large with Newsweek saying:

I cringe that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he’s probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just — I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse.

And again, we have this morally deranged Newsweek ideologue essentially saying that it’s those right wingers who are the REAL terrorists.  We have a moral idiot burying his head in the sand while using every possible opportunity to demonize his political adversaries.

All of this is par for the course in the Brave New World of Barack Hussein.

This is a great time for a replay of an American Thinker article entitled, “Islam’s Useful Idiots.”  It reads in part:

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non—Muslims: A new generation of ‘Useful Idiots,’ the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

Useful Idiots are naive, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.

Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the ‘Politically Correct.’ He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti—establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.

The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self—discovery and self—improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and ‘Monday Morning Quarterback.’

The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

Even a ‘normal’ person spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don’t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions they disapprove.

But the Useful Idiot takes things much farther. The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.

The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as ‘Political Islam,’ or ‘Radical Islam,’ for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the ‘real Islam’ constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non—political and moderate.

[Continue reading].

And so here we are, “speculating” over whether a terrorist mass murderer is actually a “terrorist” (a now banned retranslation of the politically correct “Overseas Contintency Operation” that itself idiotically fails to understand that terrorists can come from right here, too.

Weakness is provocative, as Don Rumsfeld said.  And boy oh boy are we ever “provocative” these days.

Do you want to hear the “politically incorrect” truth?  We are at a crisis such as history has never before seen in the form of jihadist Islam.  And we are making it far worse by burying our heads in the sand and refusing to recognize the dilemma until long after it is too late to do anything to address it.

 

Obama Furious McChrystal Supporting His Troops Instead Of Obama

October 5, 2009

The general whom Barack Obama handpicked only months ago is trying to stand up for his soldiers.  And Obama is furious at him for it.

Here’s the gist: Obama wants to put off a troop increase which would anger his liberal base because he knows he needs his base to ram his unpopular health care through.  He didn’t want to anger and dishearten his base until he got his health care agenda through Congress.  So he ordered that the report be shelved until – well, who knows how long?

What does Gen. McChrystal want?  He wants a commitment from the commander-in-chief that this isn’t going to be just another throw-away cut-and-run Democrat war.  And so far the Pentagon is legitimately deeply concerned about a lack of commitment from Obama.    McChrystal wants a decision so he can know how many troops he can expect – and when they will arrive – so that he can plan his operations.  If he knew what to expect in the future, it would help him plan for the present.  In short, he wants what ANY good commander wants: he wants to know what the hell is going on.

It’s just such a shocker that Gen. McChrystal isn’t willing to send his soldiers home in coffins so Obama can win his health care “victory.”

So Obama is playing politics, and McChrystal is dead-serious about matters life and death.

Suggestion: perhaps Obama should fire McChrystal and appoint a weak, pandering ditherer like himself?

White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal’s comments on strategy for the war.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 7:00AM BST 05 Oct 2009

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.  [Because God forbid that a general should ever be blunt.  A general who has no clue what he wants to do is always much better].

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.  [Because 25 minutes - and speaking twice to your most significant combat commander in 100 days is MORE than enough to know exactly what's going on in such a CLEARLY simple situation as Afghanistan].

In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said: “It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.”  [In other words, BUTT OUT, Stanley!!!  The fact that you're the commander of the effort in Afghanistan doesn't mean SQUAT to us Chairborne Rangers!].

When asked on CNN about the commander’s public lobbying for more troops, Gen Jim Jones, national security adviser, said:

“Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.”  [Just submit your paperwork to the bureaucracy so it can sit on Gate's desk for six weeks and counting.  Please stand in line and shut the hell up until we call your number].

Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: “I wasn’t there so I can’t answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views.”  [Actually, Barack Obama probably gave McChrystal a 25 minute speech on why he was so wonderful, and McChrystal never got a single word in edgewise].

An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”  [Mind you, people also aren't sure whether Obama is being naive or a pathetic weakling.  And if you want to talk about someone not being ready for their damn job, maybe you should take a good long look at your boss].

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.  [But hey, who wouldn't go with Biden?  I mean, it's not as if he's ever had any truly stupid ideas (and see here for how that brilliant stratagem worked out) before, or anything.  I mean, if I were running a war against insurgent terrorists, the first thing I'd do would be to fire my country's foremost counter-insurgency expert and put Joe Biden in charge].

When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”  [Another short answer would be, "So either start pissing or start getting your troops out of this pot, Obama"].

He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.” [In other words, PLEASE STOP DITHERING AROUND PLAYING POLITICS AND SEND ME THE TROOPS I NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY WIN OVER HERE].

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House. [BECAUSE IT IS, YOU MORONS!!!].

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second “principals meeting” on the issue last week.  [And guess who didn't get his engraved invitation to the "principals meeting"?  You guessed it, the general whose assessment should matter the most].

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.  [I.e., until after Obama passes ObamaCare so he can stop ignoring Afghanistan and start ignoring the liberals he had just counted on for health care].

A military expert said: “They still have working relationship but all in all it’s not great for now.” [I've seen enough action movies to know that every time you set a pathetic selfish bureaucrat up against a hero, the pathetic selfish bureaucrat goes into a tizzy.  It's pretty much an established plot device of the whole action genre].

Some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.  [You know, the mainstream media commentators who got thrills up their legs when they heard Obama give speeches].

Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements.”  [And as commander-in-chief, Barack Obama has no business allowing his most important field commander to twist in the wind ad nauseum.  That in addition to the fact that an expert would know that the Constitution doesn't put a muzzle on anyone, let alone generals].

He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to “pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy”.  [Because it's highly unusual for a president to dither around after being confronted with such an urgent military need in time of war].

Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general’s recommendations.  [And the general had the gall to say something rather than throw himself on a landmine?  The nerve!].

The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: “You can’t hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn.”  [If Democrats truly think "half-measures" are a good thing, maybe they could start with their health care plans].

As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.  [Having a clue what to do and actually bothering to talk with your senior field commander would go a long way, Barry].

They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban.  [Mind you, we basically voted for failure and the return to power of the Taliban when we voted for Obama in the first place].

“They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong,” said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defence.  [And they might even want - and this is a shocker - to prevent things from going horribly wrong in the first place].

Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June.  [And if that isn't pathetic, then nothing is].

Here’s a chart for those of you keeping score of the war at home:

Afghanistan-Fatalities

We are shaping up to have easily twice as many American casualties in Afghanistan this year as we had last year.  We’ve had another 20 soldiers killed just five days into October, plus two more long months to go.

My theory: the Taliban smell weakness, indecision, and lack of commitment – and Barack Obama is utterly reeking with all three qualities.  And the mullahs in Iran smell the same thing that the Taliban in Afghanistan smell.

Either send Gen. McChrystal his troops – and do it fast – or just cut-and-run and pull them out so we can have another massive terrorist attack on our soil in a few years.

I’ll tell you what: maybe Obama is outraged at McChrystal for speaking out.  Maybe the White House is furious.  Maybe Democrats are angry.  But if I were a solder hunkering down in a foxhole in Afghanistan, I’d be glad my commanding general stood up for me and demanded the resources we need to succeed.

Messiah-in-Chief Barack Obama? Will Conservative Soldiers Stay In?

October 20, 2008


This is just idle speculation, but I wonder how many professional warriors would leave the military rather than take their orders from Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama?

Here are the poll numbers representing active duty military personnel:

If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Total: 68% for McCain; 23% for Obama

Enlisted Personnel:
68% for McCain; 24% for Obama

Officers
70% for McCain; 22% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
74% for McCain; 19% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling military personnel issues, such as pay and benefits?
73% for McCain; 18% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling Defense Department issues, such as weapons purchases, the size of the armed forces and national security strategy?
77% for McCain; 15% for Obama

And here’s a link to the corresponding story in the Army Times.

I was a soldier, too.  If a Barack Obama suddenly became my Commander-in-Chief, I would have realized the war is over, and America lost.  I wouldn’t fight for the radical infanticide/abortion agenda, the radical gay rights agenda, or any other radical liberal agenda.  I signed up to fight for the United States of America; not God Damn America. And I’d figure it’s about time that liberals sent their children off to die screaming in the mud for their new Peoples’ Socialist Republic under their new Messiah-in-Chief.  Hell, instead of protesting military recruitment, these once-traitorous vermin (under the previous gone-but-not-forgotten United States of America) can quit protesting military recruiting stations and start actually signing up in them.  That’s right, liberals; instead of bombing recruiting stations like Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers you can go and start signing up to sacrifice your blood and guts for your new country.

Geez, I wonder if you’d stop bitching about how evil American soldiers were fighting terrorists all over the world if you actually had to do all the fighting yourselves?  Heck, it’s possible it might even start to occur to you that a place like Guantanamo Bay is a better idea than releasing terrorists who will immediately start trying to kill you again the moment they get back to their old stomping grounds.

Heck, I’ve got an even better idea.  Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory.  Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military?  Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs.  It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling.  You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejab develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.

The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory.  They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads.  Good luck with that, girls.  The guys carry that; surely you can do it too.  And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality.  You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.

There’s already an upside: in the United States military, combat readiness has always been hampered by pregnancies that could run as high as 30%.  The God Damn America military could drop that down to zero.

And the fighting men of the “Gay All The Way!” God Damn America Army could finally put an end to that tired old cliche about there not being in atheists in fox holes.

All I know is this: I look at the numbers of the conservatives serving in the military, and I can’t help but wonder – and even hope – that those conservatives start leaving the army of the nation that wants to start pissing on their basic values in droves.  Let the liberals start doing the fighting.  Conservatives have done most of the fighting; liberals have done most of the bitching.  Maybe we conservatives could start bitching about how evil liberals are for trying to protect the country for a change.

John McCain Getting “Commander-in-Chief” Poll Numbers Over Obama

August 27, 2008

Gallup had this newsflash, appropriately titled “Veterans Solidly Back McCain.”

PRINCETON, NJ — With both presidential candidates addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention this week (John McCain on Monday and Barack Obama on Tuesday), Gallup finds that registered voters who have served in the U.S. military solidly back McCain over Obama, 56% to 34%.

(more…)

Hillary Clinton: Good Speech, But Not Much Of An Obama Endorsement

August 27, 2008

Hillary Clinton gave a pretty good speech. She presented her case for her candidacy, citing all the reasons why she ran and all the aspirations she had for America. And she said that those same reasons were why she now supported Barack Obama. She did outwardly all the things the Obama people wanted her to do.

But she didn’t do any more than the minimum.

The McCain campaign jumped all over what Hillary Clinton didn’t say:

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded, “Senator Clinton ran her presidential campaign making clear that Barack Obama is not prepared to lead as commander in chief. Nowhere tonight did she alter that assessment. Nowhere tonight did she say that Barack Obama is ready to lead. Millions of Hillary Clinton supporters and millions of Americans remain concerned about whether Barack Obama is ready to be president.”

I  took notes on an interesting discussion  on Fox News.  There analysis was insightful about what Hillary didn’t do.

The interesting thing about this speech is that she could have given it about ANY Democratic nominee. It could have been given of John Edwards or Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. She didn’t say a word about him as a person. She didn’t talk about what she’d learned about his character over the last 18 months. She didn’t trace his biography and tell us what about his character or experiences would make him fit to be President. She never said she respected him. She never said she had confidence in him. She never said he was ready to be president. She never said she’d come to have confidence in him as Commander-in-chief. She never claimed he was experienced or ready to lead. And in the past she has said that he WASN’T ready to be president, ready to lead, ready to be Commander-in-chief.

In the end, Hillary Clinton supported Barack Obama for President because he is the Democratic nominee for President. She would have supported Daffy Duck if Daffy Duck were the Democratic nominee.

Interestingly, she said Michelle Obama would make a great first lady. She never said the same about Barack Obama making a great President.

It was a minimalist endorsement, and she didn’t go one iota beyond what she needed to.

Contrast Hillary’s speech endorsing Barack Obama with Barack Obama’s speech introducing Joe Biden.

Heck, the last quarter plus of her speech presented her historic role as the first major female candidate for President. “This is the culmination of the women’s movement of 1848.” That sort of thing. That was the rhetorical high point of the speech.

The speech didn’t in any way culminate with a presentation of Barack Obama’s vision for America. In the end, the speech was more about Hillary (and Hillary supporting the Democratic Party) than it was about Barack Obama as the candidate for President.

Is John McCain’s Computer Illiteracy a Problem?

August 16, 2008

Someone on the Huffington Post featured a video in which John McCain acknowledged that he was computer-illiterate, and asked:

This video appears to be from at least six weeks ago, but no one has really commented on it. Do we want a commander-in-chief who can’t use a computer without assistance?

Well, I suppose someone had better comment on it, then.

Perhaps we should simply crown Bill Gates as our king and be done with it? I mean, his computer know-how put both McCain’s and Obama’s computer knowledge to shame.

And just how much does Barack Obama know about computers? I haven’t heard of him wowing anyone with his mastery of all things silicon.

I find it a little funny that, throughout our nation’s history, we have believed military service was a vitally important aspect to a president’s development. And then when there is a candidate with incredible military experience running against one who never served, it’s trivial. But the ability to play video games on a computer (I frankly don’t even know what they expect a president to do with a computer that John McCain can’t do and Barack Obama can) – never important in our history – is suddenly a decisive weakness?

I look at it this way, aside from the fact that a president probably doesn’t spend a whole lot of time designing, building, or operating computers – but rather relies on the advice of professionals who do those things – there is something else to consider.

Maybe John McCain’s computer-illiteracy will motivate him to keep the government’s paws off the internet (excepting pursuing actual criminal activities).

You want to help build the internet? DON’T TAX IT. But that is tantamount to saying, “Don’t vote for Democrats.” They’re doing everything they can to tax every aspect of the internet that they can.

High-technology and butterflies have one thing in common. If you want them to grow and develop as best they can, leave them alone.

Ronald Reagan, describing Democrats to a “T,” once said: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.” Which is another way of saying Democrats are determined to pretty much kill successful industries and bail out the failed and useless ones.

So I’m actually kind of glad that John McCain doesn’t know diddley about something that government shouldn’t be doing diddley to mess with in the first place.

But I still find it more than amusing that this Huffington Post-er things that it is insignificant for a commander-in-chief of our armed forces to have served in the military – especially during wartime – but that it is somehow vitally important to know how to type a letter using Microsoft Word.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 525 other followers