Obama Furious McChrystal Supporting His Troops Instead Of Obama

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:


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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

25 Responses to “Obama Furious McChrystal Supporting His Troops Instead Of Obama”

  1. Ben Hoffman Says:

    Afghanistan is still Bush’s failure. Had he not dropped the ball on Afghanistan and gone into Iraq, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.

    The fact is, there are no good solutions for Afghanistan. If we step up our presence even more (Obama already increased the number of troops there), al-Qaeda can just retreat into Pakistan and wait us out. Why? Because the billions of dollars Bush gave to Pakistan to help us fight al-Qaeda went to non-military usage.

    McChrystal should actually be fired for insubordination. His job is to carry out the policies of the commander-in-chief. By making speeches promoting his strategy, he’s undermining his boss.

    I know how you’re going to respond. You’re going to say that liberals blame everything on Bush. Well, Obama inherited quite a mess from Bush. Two poorly executed wars, the worst economy since the Great Depression, huge deficits, loss of all credibility in world affairs…

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    I see even YOU realize that all you ever do is blame everything on Bush. Even YOU know how asinine this is. After all, EVERYTHING is George Bush’s fault with Obamacrats. Even the fact that Obama didn’t get the Olympics is George Bush’s fault.

    It would be nice if instead of “running to mamma” with Bush derangement syndrome you instead painstakingly explained how Afghanistan is “lost” NOW when it wasn’t “lost” while Bush was president. As you explain to me how Bush COULD have won there, but now Obama CAN’T, spare no details. Because I’d really like to hear this. What specifically and precisely changed, other than the fact that a weak, appeasing man whom the Taliban and the Islamic world KNOW they can push around took over?

    Liberal/Democrat/Obama supporter Bob Shrum wrote:

    “I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as “the right war” to conventional Democratic wisdom. This was accurate as criticism of the Bush Administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy. Today, we need a hard-headed examination of what’s still possible, especially in light of the India-Pakistan confrontation, which could throw the entire subcontinent into further turmoil.”

    It was the “right war” when Democrats could blame somebody else for it. But now its THEIR war, and now rather than man-up and take responsibility, all you people can do is desperately look around for someone to blame.

    Afghanistan is the war that Obama and most Democrats called the “good war” as a device to demonize Bush on Iraq and still pretend they weren’t cut-and-run cowards. And now that the war in Afghanistan is losing its popular support here, weakling, cowardly appeasing cut-and-run Democrats are exemplifying their ontological nature. And since Democrats don’t have the honor or honesty to take responsibility, when they cut and run, it has to be someone else’s fault. Because demagoguery is part of Democrats’ essential nature, too.

    Don’t tell me this isn’t Obama’s war. He has ALWAYS said he was a supporter of the war in Afghanistan. And now that he’s president, he’s got his chance to follow through on what he repeatedly promised he could do better than Bush. But he’s a weakling and an appeaser, and his enemies know it. In spite of Obama’s belief that the world would suddenly run to America’s aid if Messiah was president, Europe is as selfish and as apathetic as they have ALWAYS been. All of Obama’s assurances and promises turned out to be a lie.

    Obama didn’t say that “We can’t win in Afghanistan because Bush already lost there” in 2008. He said in July 2008:

    “And that’s why, as president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

    In March of this year, when Obama announced his strategy, and the general (McChrystal) he had chosen to implement that strategy, Obama said:

    “So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.”

    And now all of a sudden liberals like you have figured out a way to explain how it was really Bush that failed. How dare you? You aren’t capable of shame, are you?

    The Washington Post expressed amazement at how quickly Obama undercut his own statements from just a couple of months ago.

    In spite of every cowardice and literal determination to lose in Iraq, George Bush won. In spite of Harry Reid proclaiming, “Now I believe that this war is lost” EVEN WHILE OUR TROOPS WERE FIGHTING ON FOREIGN SOIL TO WIN AND PROVE THE DEMOCRATS WRONG, Bush won. In spite of Democrats like Obama who opposed the SURGE strategy that ACHIEVED VICTORY at every single turn, Bush won. In fact, in spite of Democrats who literally rooted AGAINST our soldiers to win in Iraq, Bush won.

    Obama strongly opposed the strategy that provided victory in Iraq:

    “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it’ll do the reverse.”

    Only he was utterly, completely wrong. Violence went down. WAAAAAAAYYYY DOWN.

    So what did our now Coward-in-chief do? He scrubbed his website of his predictions of failure when it began to become increasingly evident how desperately wrong he was. And he cast the Sunni awakening in Anbar – which happened as a RESULT of the surge – as what really achieved victory. Even though he hadn’t seen any sign of any “awakening” before. Even though he had predicted the very opposite of what actually happened. Because he is a pathologically dishonest liar.

    If there was an “Anbar awakening” prior to the surge, then SHOW me the liberals who said BEFORE THE SURGE, “We’ll achieve victory in Iraq because the Sunni sheiks are rising up in Anbar.” Bush announced the surge strategy in early January 2007. Just show me the media article or the statement from a Democrat predicting the Anbar awakening in advance. Show me the article that said, “We don’t need to have a surge in US forces, because the sheiks are rising up against al Qaeda.” I’ve seen quite a few articles that claim the “awakening” began in September 2006; but I’ve never seen an article written in September 2006 saying, “There’s a huge awakening going on.” Rather, liberals loudly predicted the surge would fail, and then suddenly managed to “discover” a reason it succeeded.

    The funny thing is that there certainly wasn’t any “Anbar awakening” as of April 19, 2007 when Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq. Explain that.

    The surge worked. But Democrats are too dishonest to acknowledge any reality they don’t like.

    James Clyburn, Democrat Whip confessed that good news in Iraq meant bad news for Democrats:

    “Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”

    When things were going badly in Iraq, Democrats were jumping up and down in joy. They literally rooted for us to lose. And then when it looked like Bush would actually win in spite of every obstacle they’d put in front of him, Clyburn said victory for America would be a defeat for Democrats.

    60% of Democrat Senators voted for the Iraq War, only to cut and run like the weasels and cowards that they are as soon as the popular opinion polls started to show support for the war dropping.

    Oh, the support that Democrats gave in fair weather!

    Truth or Fiction

    Freedom Agenda


    Democrats are total vermin. They supported Bush until they betrayed him. They supported the war until they started chanting “Bush lied, people died!” and “General Betray Us?” Now it’s Obama’s war in Afghanistan, and he’s facing the same unpopular war in the polls. Bush stood strong and won in spite of the opinion polls. And in spite of the most dishonorable political party in American history in the Democrats – who tried and tried to undermine a president in time of war for just to obtain partisan political advantage. But Obama just doesn’t have that kind of strength or courage.

    Can you even imagine what would have happened in World War II had Republicans sought to take advantage of the fact that the war wasn’t going well for us? Thank God Republicans weren’t as despicable then as the Democrats are now.

    The funny thing about Obama is that he’ll only fire McChrystal – whether he truly believes McChrystal deserves to be fired or not – if he thinks he has the political cover to do it. Because he is a genuine weasel at heart.

    I actually think you’re right. Afghanistan is a lost cause. And so is Iran, and so is any other conflict down the road. Because our enemies know that there is a genuine weakling in the White House now. They are going to do what they want, and Obama isn’t going to stand against them.

  3. hl Says:

    My heart goes out to our troops and those that love them. As a mom and a grandmother I CANNOT imagine how I would feel if my son or g-son were in Afganistan or Iraq with this Weakling-in-Chief in charge. I would be outraged, infuriated, afraid and do everything in my power to see this WIMP defeated.

    Let them fight to victory or bring them home. The chart showing the deaths of our brave troops should be required viewing for every American on a daily basis.
    Pretty much says it all.

    Will these Libs EVER stop blaming Bush???? I guess it worked so well for them for eight years and they have no substantive ideas or policies THAT ACTUALLY WORK, that they just keep BLAMIMG Bush……..over and over and over………what ignorant wimps!

    May our Lord Jesus have mercy on our troops, keep them safe and give them TRUE leadership. This is OUTRAGEOUS what Obama is allowing to happen by his weakness. Absolutely EVIL!

  4. Ben Hoffman Says:

    We’ve been fighting the war in Afghanistan for nine years and what exactly has been accomplished? The last election was a sham. The Taliban has regained power. You right-wingers act like history began when Obama was inaugurated.

    As far as strength and courage, it doesn’t take strength and courage to send other people to fight your battles for you.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    A few points.

    Your last sentence – “As far as strength and courage, it doesn’t take strength and courage to send other people to fight your battles for you” – shows just how profoundly disconnected from truth and from reality you liberals truly are.

    Fact (from the Army Times, October 2008):

    Sen. John McCain enjoys overwhelming support from the military’s professional core, a Military Times survey of nearly 4,300 readers, indicates, though career-oriented black service members strongly favored the Democratic Party candidate.

    McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.

    The fact that conservatives OVERWHELMINGLY represent our troops should be enough to tell you which side has showed “strength and courage.” Conservatives aren’t sending “other people to fight” battles; that’s been what liberals have done since the Vietnam War. You didn’t see conservatives burning their draft cards — even when Lyndon Baines was president.

    And I also point out that I volunteered for the Army, and I fought for my country. I served under Ronald Reagan, and it was rare to find soldiers that didn’t love him.

    The short Youtube video accompanying this article pretty much says it all about how our troops felt about Bush vs. how they felt about Obama.

    Then let me go to your thought, “You right-wingers act like history began when Obama was inaugurated.” You clearly didn’t read my last comment – which cites facts/statements that primarily took place BEFORE Obama was inaugurated. Based on my previous comment, you are just in non-sequitor zone. Like too many liberals, you’re making up your own facts to create your very own straw man.

    But let me provide you with some more “pre-Obama-inaugural” events: when Dick Durbin compared our troops to Nazis and Soviet Gulag torturers, Democrats were displaying their true colors before I’d even heard of Obama. When Jack Murtha demonized innocent Marines of being war criminals and murderers to reveal the nature of Democrats, I’d likewise never HEARD of Barack Obama. Or how about Obama himself? Obama hadn’t been inaugurated yet when he said, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

    And three things come from that PRE-inauguration remark from Obama. 1) It showed what he truly thought of our military, continuing the “our soldiers are murderous thugs” line from the Democrats. 2) In hindsight, it shows how truly pathetic Obama is, given the fact that there have been ALL KINDS of civilians killed in Obama’s air raids (headline September 5, 2009: “150 civilians dead in air raid: Villagers”; headline May 7, 2009: “Civilian deaths in US airstrike overshadow Obama’s Afghan summit”). It was the worst kind of hypocrisy, incompetence, and demagoguery for Obama to demonize Bush for something, when HE’S WORSE THAN BUSH EVER WAS. And 3) It belies the fact that Obama – BEFORE HE WAS INAUGURATED – Obama was calling for THE VERY THING MCCHRYSTAL WANTS NOW — MORE TROOPS.

    Now, let me from there continue from the above, and at the same time deal with your lame, “We’ve been fighting the war in Afghanistan for nine years and what exactly has been accomplished?”

    POST-Inauguration Obama in August 17, 2009 – just weeks ago:

    “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

    Now, people like you never have to live in the real world. But Obama tried to. He stated it in his own words. We’re in Afghanistan – Obama’s war, which Obama supported all along – because we HAVE to be there. We’re there because we suffered a massive attack from there. And so far, by being there, we’ve kept this country safe from another terrorist attack.

    Now, that statement above from August 17 clearly refutes your charge that somehow the failure in Afghanistan is “Bush’s fault” and now Obama can’t succeed because of that rotten Bush. Obama didn’t try to make that argument in March, when he handpicked McChrystal, made his bold statements (which I cite in my last comment), and sent 20,000 troops. And he didn’t make it in August. You’re making it now because Obama is failing and you have to demonize Republicans for it. But the truth is, by the end of this year, Obama will have lost more than TWICE as many troops in 2009 as Bush lost in 2008. I show the table proving that in my article.

    When things were going badly in Iraq, and when Democrats were backstabbing and undermining Bush at every turn, comparing our soldiers to Nazis, accusing innocent Marines of war crimes, and proclaiming defeat, President Bush called in General Petraeus and launched the surge – against unanimous demonization from Democrats – and basically turned the war around on a dime.

    The reason Obama will likely fail in Afghanistan is because he’s like you, and because people like you represent his base. You are already screaming to cut and run – after YEARS of boldly saying “We’re not cowards. We want to get out of Iraq and fight in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the war to fight.” And now we get to see what a complete line of crap that was, and that you are completely true to form. And our enemies know you people are weak. They know you don’t stand for anything. They know you have no resolve, and they can do what they want with impunity when Democrats are in charge (It’s been that way since Lyndon Johnson realized his own Democrat base had turned against everything John F. Kennedy stood for). And they are emboldened because they know Obama and liberals just like you will blink and withdraw.

    As to your point, “The last election was a sham.” It brings back all the demonization from the left loudly predicting the failure of the elections in Iraq. And then they were a triumphant success for Iraq and for George Bush. It wasn’t George Bush who couldn’t pull off a fair election; it was Obama.

    So as I go back and look over your comment and mine, every single thing you said was completely and utterly wrong. Not that you have the capability to ever realize how truly and monumentally wrong you are.

    Obama talked so tough and bold on Afghanistan because he had been so completely naive and stupid that he thought he could inspire Europe to send troops. He actually believed that. And it was absurd, as I pointed out BEFORE OBAMA WAS ELECTED, LET ALONE INAUGURATED. As it stands, I believe Obama has actually rallied even LESS support from our allies than Obama did. In short, Obama has completely failed to live up to his fluffy nonsense.

    So you are just wrong about everything, aren’t you?

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    It didn’t rain here today. That devil Bush!

    When the left blamed Bush for Obama not getting the Olympics, I think they showed just how utterly determined they are to avoid any responsibility for anything whatsoever. The whole “blame Bush” thing is confirmation of my theory that liberals are truly demagogues; that all they can do is blame and demonize; that they cannot govern or lead; and that therefore when their actions lead to terrible consequences, they blame the first Republican they can find.

    Obama deserves to fail in Afghanistan as no president has ever deserved to fail in a war before. Because he demagogued and demonized George Bush when HE was the president at war. But our troops certainly don’t deserve to fail. They deserve to succeed. They deserve to have leaders who support them. They deserved a president who won’t send them into harm’s way and then waffle and dither. In short, they deserve better than Obama.

    What truly makes me grieve, as I think about our troops, is that we’re in such a tough job market that soldiers who would WANT out of “Obama’s Army” can’t support themselves or their families. And so have to reenlist.

  7. Ben Hoffman Says:

    [Obama deserves to fail in Afghanistan as no president has ever deserved to fail in a war before. ]

    See, that’s the problem with right-wingers. Everything is politics. If a war is lost, it’s not just Obama who loses — our country loses.

    But this is the question: Is the war in Afghanistan winnable? We’ve been in there for eight years now and what exactly have we accomplished by fighting it as a “war?”

    Those who attacked us on 9/11 aren’t the general Afghani population. It was al-Qaeda. Had we gone in and helped rebuild their country, they could have helped us fight al-Qaeda. Why are they tolerant of the Taliban? It’s because the Taliban provides them with some means of income. These people are dirt poor and working in the poppies fields beats starving to death. Had we gone in there and helped them rebuild their country, and provided them with jobs, we would have won the hearts and minds of the people. But instead, by killing the friends and families of the general Afghani population, we’ve created more terrorists.

    So now Obama has the decision to make as to whether after eight years we should escalate the war or change strategy. Does it really make sense to escalate an unwinnable war?

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Anybody who reads my last two comments responding to you can readily see how utterly despicable Democrats – as well as one Barack Obama – were to George Bush in time of war. A war that 60% of Democrats in the Senate voted to authorize, only to turn like rabid rats on him the minute the war lost its popular opinion support.

    It took you eight years to realize that “if a war is lost, it’s not just __ BUSH__ who loses – our country loses”? After your fellow Democrats attacked the president for eight years, you finally come to the conclusion that the opposition has a moral duty to support the president at war? And your head hasn’t exploded from the massive contradiction?

    I challenge any liberal to go back over the record that I presented earlier and tell me that Democrats were not utterly contemptible, and in fact utterly treasonous and demonic.

    You condemned yourself and your party by your very own standard you now try to load off on me, Ben.

    I think I very clearly say that OBAMA – the demagogue who demonized Bush over Iraq, the president of the party that was just utterly hateful about Bush, about Iraq, and about our soldiers – deserves to fail. And you now explain to me how someone who said all the stuff these people said now DON’T deserve to be hung on their own damn petard!!! Explain to me how the people and the party that unrelentingly targeted Bush over the war now don’t deserve to be attacked themselves. Please. I’d really like to hear that story.

    I continue to support our troops, and truly feel for them. As I said: “But our troops certainly don’t deserve to fail. They deserve to succeed.” You forgot to quote that part for some reason. You also forgot to mention that I said they deserve better than Obama as their commander in chief.

    I can’t believe the chutzpah and hypocrisy of liberals. We’ve had two elections, with two Democrat presidential candidates. Both said we had to win in Afghanistan. Both said we needed to send in the troops. Obama made all kinds of remarks about standing strong in Afghanistan, and the need to have enough troops to do the job, and the need to prevail over al-Qaeda. Both candidates – John Kerry and Barack Obama – sought to use Afganistan as a way to attack Bush and undermine the war in Iraq. And the Democrats were all over the place doing the same thing. “We support the war in Afghanistan!” Until they quit. Until they cut and run. Until they demonstrated how cynical they are and what contemptible liars that they truly were all along.

    And now Democrats are so filled with deceit that they think Obama can just walk away from his own rhetoric and his own commitment now? And then blame Bush for everything? What is morally wrong with you people? Cheering Roman Polanski, rapist and sodomizer of a 13 year old girl. Cheering Kevin Jennings, Safe School Czar who advocates homosexual pedophilia in public schools. Cheering and supporting Van Jones, the communist supporter of a cop-murderer. Cheering and supporting David Letterman, who had sex with at least three subordinate employees, and who created a climate of discrimination (how did the women who DIDN’T have sex with Letterman fare? What about male employees? Did they lose out?). Cheering and supporting ACORN and all the vile and frankly evil crap they’ve perpetuated and gladly would have perpetuated. You people truly stand for nothing. You liberals can say anything, do anything, and you’re never responsible for anything, are you?

    “we’ve created more terrorists”

    Your spiel on Afghanistan is just utter and amazing “blame America first” nonsense. Jeane Kirkpatrick had you people nailed. Only a fool would say we don’t dare fight the people who have repeatedly tried to murder us because we might make them angry. How can you not that realize that fighting Germany created more Nazis? But far better and more deserving people than you knew what to do with that line of cowardly reasoning.

    It’s not a desperately flawed, warped, and evil theology. No. You’d rather blame America. It’s not the fact that despots, tyrants, and dictators have dominated the Islamic world forever. No, you’d rather blame America. It’s not that the Islamic world is ridden with graft, corruption, bribery, etc. etc. No, you’d rather blame America.

    “Now I believe myself . . . that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” — Harry Reid, declaring surrender in Iraq (and emboldening the enemy to fight harder).

    “Does it really make sense to escalate an unwinnable war?” — Ben Hoffman, declaring surrender in Afghanistan (and emboldening the enemy to fight harder).

    Deplorable minds think alike. And if anyone wants to know the truth as to why Obama is losing in Afghanistan, read these two statements from these two liberals and understand. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, and every single other enemy who will come along understand cowardice, weakness, appeasement, naivete, and the spirit of cut-and-run, blame America first and then retreat spirit that permeates the people who now run this once great nation.

  9. Ben Hoffman Says:

    Mikey, all you have is anger, hatred, and fear. You seriously lack the ability to understand anything.

    Few Democrats were against the mission in Afghanistan, but they WERE against the mission in Iraq — especially when it turned out that the rationale for invading Iraq was based on lies.

    Lying us into war is anti-American action. It violates our Constitution and is a treasonous offense, but most right-wingers love their party far more than they love our country, so they defend Bushes actions no matter what.

    Right-wingers “love” of our country takes the form of nationalism. Democrats, on the other hand, want our country to be the best it can be.

    But back to Afghanistan… We’re in our ninth year now fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda and what exactly have we accomplished, other than running up our national debt and sacrificing the lives of our soldiers. This war isn’t winnable. The Russians found that out back in the 80s and England found that out in the late 1800s.

    The best chance for success came early after our invasion of Afghanistan, but Bush dropped the ball and instead, turned his attention on Iraq. And that’s how it will be written about in history books. You know, the history books with the “liberal bias.” :)

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    If you think all I have is anger, hatred, and fear, you are truly a genuine freak given the fact that you keep wanting to argue with me. The fact that I have – in our discussions – presented about a trillion facts to refute your idiocy is beside the point.

    You want to hear a lie? Here’s one:

    MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

    SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

    And when Obama promised he would accept public campaign financing if McCain did, that was another lie. A DAMN BIG LIE, too. And when Obama said he wouldn’t raise taxes on people making less than $250,000, that was another lie.

    When Bush went to war with Iraq – after 60% of the Democrats in the Senate authorized said war, he was not lying. You are lying now.

    CNN noted that “The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”… The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president’s father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.”

    But like your fellow Democrats, you just started lying your way out of what you had once supported. YOU LIARS.

    Rather, Bush was saying what every single major Western intelligence service in the world was saying. And he was saying what a long list of Democrats had been saying for years right up to and even after the war:

    Truth or Fiction
    Freedom Agenda

    Here’s a couple good ones:

    Senator Hillary Clinton, urging the support of her fellow Senators for the Iraq War Resolution, said:

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.”

    On December 15, 2003 – well after the war had started – Hillary cheered and claimed credit for the capture of Saddam Hussein and said:

    “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote.”

    On May 3, 2003, candidate for president John Kerry said: “I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.”

    Only he is the kind of liar who was for that war before he was against it.

    Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Dec 16, 1998, said:

    “As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

    And on Nov 17, 2002 she said:

    “Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”

    On Oct 10, 2002, she said:

    “I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

    Howard Dean, former Democratic candidate for president and current Democratic National Committee chairman, said on Sep 29, 2002:

    “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

    If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we’re clearly going to have to do something about it.”

    Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Oct 9, 2002 said:

    “We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

    Further, there is also good reason to believe that Bush – and the Democrats quoted in the three sites above – were RIGHT in believing that Saddam had WMD. We know that long convoys went to Syria prior to our arrival. Colin Powell displayed satellite photos of a 50-truck convoy en route to Syria. And there is very good reason to believe that Saddam’s WMD materials were in those convoys. And see. And see also here. And here. And here.

    Here’s an ABC story reporting on the story:

    Part of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons program was transferred from Iraq to neighbouring Syria, and their status has yet to be resolved, Dr David Kay, the just-resigned head of the Iraq Survey Group, was quoted Sunday as telling a British newspaper.

    In what it called an exclusive interview, the Sunday Telegraph said it was told by Dr Kay that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before the start of the Iraq war in March last year.

    To say that Saddam categorically didn’t have WMD is a lie. Of course he had it. It is accurate to say we don’t know what happened to it; it is accurate to say we didn’t find it. But it is simply not true to say he didn’t have it as though that has somehow been confirmed. Unless you were in those truck convoys heading for Syria.

    So maybe all those Democrats who shared George Bush’s belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD were right all along.

    Now, see, the problem is that you are such a thoroughly dishonest person that you see saying one thing, and then pretending you didn’t say it, while attacking and denouncing the same position you had formerly held yourself, is good. And standing up for your principles is bad. Your problem is that you are a rabid little weasel with no comprehension of honesty or honor.

    Your “this war isn’t winnable” is just as evil and just as wrong as Harry Reid’s “Now I believe this war is lost” about Iraq. Bush showed what a liar Reid was in Iraq. He turned it around after you Democrats said it was “unwinnable.” You Democrats always see failure and defeat, because you are genuine moral cowards.

    You start out by decrying “lying.” But you are perfectly at home with lies. In fact, you WANT lies. In point of fact, you DEMAND lies. You yourself are in fact DEMANDING that Barack Obama lie as regards to Afghanistan. I have already cited several of the numerous times that Obama said he would fight and win there. And now you want him to make a liar out of himself AGAIN and break his promises to Afghanistan and cut and run.

  11. Ben Hoffman Says:

    See, everything is politics for you. I want Obama to do what’s right for OUR country. You just want Obama to fail — our country be damned.

    Does it make sense to stay there and sacrifice more of our troops and money when we’re still cleaning up the mess left by Bush here at home? I’m not sure, but I do know that right-wingers haven’t got a clue what’s going on over there. See, that would take a bit of intellectual curiosity, which you lack. All you want is talking points and spun “news.”

    Okay, get mad. :)

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    I utterly refute everything you say with an army of facts that show the real picture to correct your lies, and that’s your comeback? When I document that everything you say is just plain wrong, it’s only because all I care about is politics??? How about, “I care about truth,” or “I care about exposing deceitful lies?” And you are truly one loathsome hypocrite to wave away all the evidences with a dismissive wave without showing a single thing I said being false, and then accusing ME of lacking “intellectual curiosity.”

    People who have “intellectual curiosity” know that there’s something called the “genetic fallacy.” No one who cares about truth dismisses a fact just because of its source. The New York Times is liberal, but if you cite something in the NY Times, I don’t just dismiss it. Because unlike you I AM intellectually honest. And nobody who is either honest or decent claims that sources that aren’t remotely rightwing (again, unless the University of liberal California in liberal Los Angeles became rightwing since this morning) are somehow invalid on their face without any inspection or analysis. Only an ideologue would do what you do. And the University of Wisconsin??? Seriously??? Oh, everybody knows they’re more rightwing than Bob Jones University, don’t they?!?! The Democrat governor Jim Doyle and the two Wisconsin Senators – Democrats Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold – are just horrible rightwing bastards, aren’t they? You’re just a bald faced liar, Bob. Plain and simple.

    For what it’s worth, when people comment on this blog and make truth claims and try to document what they are saying, I do something every time that you haven’t bothered to do yet: I check out their sources/facts and deal with what they are claiming. That’s what makes people like me so much better than people like you. I have the honesty and integrity to document what I say, and to deal with other people’s arguments. You just spin lies of the top of your head, and never once interact with the truth.

    Since you don’t give me any scintilla of good intentions, I’ll treat you the same way: YOU don’t care what’s right for our country. Rather, you want our president to be a liar, to abandon his commitment to our troops and to Afghanistan, to make the US look like a paper tiger that will cut and run in the face of both our enemies, to look like a pathetic and treacherous ally to our friends, and to embolden a terrorist enemy who will attack this country again to devastating consequences. You demand that Afghanis realize that they dare not trust us, and to form alliances with the Taliban and al-Qaeda who will be there when Obama flees.

    At the same time, you want the president to continue to build upon a completely unsustainable debt that will bankrupt this country and see our children – whose inheritance we squandered – starve in the cold in the dark. Because you support the president’s “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” You support the total destruction of the U.S. dollar and its abandonment as a viable currency on the global stage due to Obama’s fiscal insanity.

    My God, you support the nuclear armament of Iran, and the massive increase in terrorism and the very real likelihood of nuclear annihilation that will ensue. You want Obama to pull out of Afghanistan, undermine the security of nuclear – and vulnerable – Pakistan, and embolden the Ayatollahs that we have a weakling for a leader and he won’t risk war with them while they move headlong toward their goal of nuclear arms.

    And YOU’RE the one who voted for the first president in this country’s entire history whose reverend (for 23 years!!!) said, “Not God bless America! God DAMN America!” So don’t you dare tell me which of us wants this country to be damned.

    You blather, “I’m not sure, but I do know that right-wingers haven’t got a clue what’s going on over there.” In spite of the FACT that I already PROVED THAT IT IS PRIMARILY CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE “OVER THERE” IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    You are just a liar without shame, aren’t you?

    P.S. You liberals literally make me sick with your “You just want Obama to fail” crap. After 8 years of undermining, backstabbing, contradicting, demagoguing, and demonizing George Bush, and gloating over every roadside bomb because you got another chance to attack Bush again, you people suddenly get self-righteous about opposing a president. Every single time any of you make that claim, you just reveal what cockroaches you truly are.

    If it ever once genuinely occurred to you that opposing a president was bad for the country, THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU DO IT FOR EIGHT UNRELENTING YEARS???

  13. Ben Hoffman Says:

    No, we apposed Bush’s policies. You just appose Obama. Period.

    You’re pro-democracy only when your party gets elected. That’s because you favor an authoritarian type government where you can be a follower and not have to think. You can just be a happy little sheep when somebody like Bush is in office.

    There’s a good article about that mentality here:


    and here:


  14. hl Says:

    Dear Michael,
    I received this from a friend this morning and wanted to pass it along to you. I thought you might appreciate it. I did.
    I’m convinced Liberals like Ben have a ‘mental disorder’, they are infuriating and unbearable to say the least. He cares nothing for truth.
    Please do not post this publicly unless you want to.

    Semper Fi means always true.

    “The Axis of Idiots”
    From the Podium:
    J. D. Pendry, Retired Sergeant Major, USMC

    This retired USMC Sgt. Major has his Stuff together.

    Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the “runner-in-chief.”

    Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

    John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

    John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You’re not a Marine, sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s ass. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

    Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

    Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

    American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

    You are America ‘s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS.’ Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

    Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

    Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

    Semper Fi,
    J. D. Pendry – Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    As usual, you are factually and demonstrably wrong.

    The Gallery of ‘Bush=Hitler’ Allusions

    Bush as Hitler, swastika-mania: a retrospective.

    Two different articles trying to connect Bush’s life to Hitler’s. And here’s an article detailing MoveOn.org running a television campaign doing it. And here’s Nancy Pelosi tying herself to that same MoveOn during that same campaign.

    Now, I could go on and on and on and on. You see, there are 1.4 million hits on “bush=hitler” – and I just looked at the first hit page. If I just googled “bush” and “hitler” I got 9,220,000 hits. And how many of those sites demonizing Bush as Hitler have been taken down after 8 years?

    And of course I didn’t bother to post any articles for “Bush” and “devil,” or “Bush” and “warmonger,” or Bush and murderer, and on and on. Because I’ve clearly made my point.

    Eight years of rabid, unrelenting hate for Bush. It cut him down bit by bit by bit. And you liberals taught us that that stuff works. You taught us that we’d better either fight back or give up. We’re fighting back.

    And then you continue to just be an idiot loon. Bush won the election, and you people tried to turn over every single rock looking for a rock that would overturn the election. In Minnesota, Franken’s Republican opponent won the election, only to have it “sued” and “community organized” away from him. Criminal Democrat enterprise ACORN participated in registering 43,000 votes – 75% of the total of such registrations in the STATE. And they somehow just kept “finding” more and more votes that were ALWAYS pro-Franken. And the same group that demonstrated what wicked, evil criminal frauds ACORN truly was pointed out that ACORN made a habit of throwing out Republican registrations that were collected. When these Republicans thought they were registered. And dead people don’t have a business-as-usual habit of showing up and voting in Republican districts the way they do in Democrat districts.

    You are not only dumb, but deranged. Conservatives want SMALL government, Mr. Brains. It’s LIBERALS WHO WANT BIG GOVERNMENT. IT’S LIBERALS WHO WANT AUTHORITARIAN-RULE OF GOVERNMENT OVER THE PEOPLE. You just aren’t very smart when you try to assert that people who want smaller government, and more control in the states with less control of the giant federal bureaucracy, are “authoritarian.” But demagogues will be demagogues.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Now why WOULDN’T I want to post the words of a great USMC Sgt Major?

    Sgt Major Pendry nailed the point: we have had anti-American forces working against us for thirty years.

  17. Ben Hoffman Says:

    I think I said it best in my post about the inferiority complex of right wingers…

    As I wrote about before, much of the problem with right-wingers is an inferiority complex. They believe in the superiority of their party, but every time Republicans gain power, they make a mess of everything.

    It goes beyond that, though. Most (though not all) right-wingers have achieved little in life. Few of them have a four year college degree and many have no higher education at all. When you talk about education to a right-winger, they think of grade school and high school. Talk about education to a liberal and they think about college.

    Right-wingers also tend to be religious, which means accepting ideas on faith alone with no critical thinking. And that is how they live their lives. It is also how their political viewpoints are formed. Since the facts are antithetical to their opinions, they look to bias sources of information that tailor the facts to fit their opinions — opinions, which are also dictated by the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and their right-wing ideologies.

    Glenn Beck is especially disturbing in that he seems to have control over so many people these days. He provides the hate and fear mongering that so many right-wingers seem to crave. And who is this Glenn Beck, anyway? He’s pretty much just a cult personality. Although he managed to get accepted to Yale University, he didn’t even complete one class. He is an alcoholic and recovering drug addict. And a Mormon convert.

    Now, no one can say that Beck hasn’t accomplished a lot. He’s a multi-millionaire, a cable news talk show host, best selling author, and performer, but does he really deserve the power over a large group of people he seems to have? It’s about the same as looking to Brittany Spears for financial advice.

    The answer is psychological. Right-wingers have an inferiority complex. If they can elevate one of their own to prestigious levels, that, in effect, raises their own sense of worth. This was the case with George W. Bush, although he only had the facade of being a common man. But that was good enough for right-wingers. George W. Bush went from a failed businessman with no political experience, directly to governor of Texas for one term, and then president. Is it any wonder he destroyed our country.

    But George W. Bush made right-wingers feel good. He was one of theirs. And he was president.

    Right-wingers are scared and angry. If Obama has a successful presidency, that will fuel their feelings of inferiority. So they’re doing everything in their powers to bring down the Obama presidency.

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m not even going to bother to respond to most of this. It is the irrational, bigoted, depraved opinion of a true jerk. In fact, it’s an asinine, demagogic rant that is enough for me to decide it is past time I blocked you for the crime of being a total waste of my time.

    I mean, how am I even supposed to respond to this?

    It goes beyond that, though. Most (though not all) right-wingers have achieved little in life. Few of them have a four year college degree and many have no higher education at all.

    I mean, you might as well have said, “No right-winger has ever owned a house. Most (though not all) live in caves. Few of them have had the equivalent of a dog’s housebreaking training. Personal hygiene is nonexistent…”

    In your comments, you’ve gone from blaming Republicans as being the greedy corporate honchos who took over the entire economy, to now being imbeciles who can barely manage to avoid drooling on ourselves. If you ever once had a nanosecond of clarity, your skull would explode from trying to contain all your contradictions.

    It’s all just utter nonsense. You proceed from tirade to tirade, with nothing but your profound ignorance, your hatred of God, and your worship of your own opinions to substantiate anything. I would never make the kind of assertions you routinely make, because unlike you, I actually care about accurately describing reality; and unlike you, I try to be honest; and unlike you, I just don’t walk around making idiot claims.

    Speaking of idiot claims, here’s the one I want to focus on:

    They believe in the superiority of their party, but every time Republicans gain power, they make a mess of everything.

    I’ve described the process by which Democrats refused to allow ANY regulation of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac – which controlled more than HALF the mortgages in this country. GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) Fannie and Freddie had the sole authority to bundle mortgages into securities, and were the group that created subprime loans. They then sold these mortgage-backed securities – with the risky bad loans concealed – and sold them to the open market which believed that since they were buying from the federal government, the securities were safe. As soon as the housing market began to lose value, the whole system crashed. Republicans repeatedly tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie under Bush, but Democrats blocked them.
    Here are a couple of articles on the subject for anyone who cares to learn: “Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy – Liberals Or Conservatives?” And “Biden: ‘We Misread the Economy – And It’s All Republicans’ Fault’.”

    Of course, the Democrats (who ran both branches of Congress during the two years in which the economy went from being pretty darned good to absolutely terrible) are now running this:

    The U.S. federal budget deficit topped $1.4 trillion at the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Wednesday.

    That number is about three times as large as it was at the end of 2008, CBO reported. It means the deficit at the conclusion of the 2009 fiscal year comprised almost 10 percent of the country’s total gross domestic product, thanks in part to declining revenues and increased spending, their analysis also found.

    Yeah, Ben, THAT’S taking care of business. As long as “taking care of business” means, “Claiming that Bush’s high spending is fiscally irresponsible, and then spending THREE TIMES MORE THAN BUSH SPENT IN HIS WORST YEAR EVER.

    But it’s actually even worse than that. Barack Obama’s deficit for just his first year in office is higher than all eight of Bush’s years COMBINED. And you are brainless enough to claim that Republicans ruin things?

    Your president goes to Europe to get the Olympics for his corrupt Chicago buddies, and the mostest popular and wonderful president who ever lived can’t even figure out how to get that done.

    And even liberals now are recognizing that Obama’s “job creation” is a sick joke.

    Time Magazine ran an article back in July entitled, “Obama’s Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure.” It begins:

    Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983.

    And of course, it’s currently 9.8% – and almost certain to keep rising.

    Now contrast what the Obama team predicted – a ceiling no higher than 8% unemployment – and then see what the administration is trying to pass off now:

    Vice President Joe Biden delivered a rousing review of the government’s economic stimulus plan in a conversation with the nation’s governors. “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well,” he said. “Thank you, thank you.”

    Obama, who said – “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers” – has set about to implement his economy destroying master plan during a period of unemployment and recession. According to CBS:

    The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

    A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

    Brilliant. Just brilliant. And this from the Great Deceiver who said he wouldn’t raise taxes a single dime on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

    Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is out openly supporting a federal VAT tax that will put a real hurting on the people: We learn:

    The allure of a VAT for politicians is that it applies to every level of production or service, rakes in piles of money, and is largely hidden from those who ultimately pay it—namely, consumers. With a $9 trillion 10-year budget deficit, $4 trillion in spending in fiscal 2010 alone, and a $1 trillion (at a minimum) health-care entitlement in the wings, Mrs. Pelosi knows that not even the revenue from the expiration of the lower Bush tax rates in 2011 will cover the bills. Nearly every European country that has passed national health care has also eventually imposed a VAT, and it’s foolish to think the U.S. will be different.

    And liberal states like California and New York are showing just how dysfunctional their stupid policies truly are.

    So we are in the middle of a massive government takeover attempt of the economy. We are pursuing hard core socialism. Our spending is so shocking that countries are starting to run away from the dollar like rats off a sinking ship. And it’s getting harder and harder to prop what a rapidly devaluing dollar. And the president who campaigned on how he wouldn’t raise taxes is about to perpetuate the most shocking tax increases in American history.

    The president of the European Union earlier called Obama’s economic policy – and I quote – “a road to hell.”

    And China Banking Regulatory Commission director-general Luo Ping earlier said:

    “We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion-$2 trillion . . .we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do.”

    Because Obama IS making a mess of everything, the dollar is losing value fast, it is getting increasingly difficult to find any buyers for our debt, and so we are monetizing our own debt (just printing money that is becoming less and less valuable by the minute). And so right now we are facing the demise of the dollar, with our foreign rivals literally planning to abandon the once-all-powerful dollar as the unit of exchange entirely.

    Your clown-in-chief makes all these bold statements about how he’s going to run Afghanistan SO much better than Bush ever did, and now casualties have doubled since last year and he’s dithering around not able to figure out what to do. Meanwhile, he’s appearing like an even weaker president than Jimmy Carter, and is well on the way to presiding over the most catastrophic foreign policy we’ve ever seen. Pakistan will go to hell because of his weakness, Iran will get its nuke, and things will get real scary while we drift around.

    The United States under Obama has proved to our allies that our promises are meaningless as they have taken actions such as betraying their commitment to Poland and Czechoslovakia – and even selecting the 70th anniversary of the day the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia as the day we decided to sell out that country to Russia.

    Meanwhile, Obama has destroyed the CIA’s morale to the lowest point since Carter attacked them.

    But what is most amazing of all is that ALL THAT is really actually your idea of the way it ought to be.

  19. hl Says:

    Hi Michael, I didn’t know how to link to the Sgt Major’s article in it’s original state as it came to me in a private e-mail , so I copied it in my comment to you. I was referring to the way in which I sent it to you NOT the Sgt. Major’s words.
    Sorry for any confusion. HL :)

  20. Michael Eden Says:

    Having decided to block Ben Hoffman, I will take it upon myself to explain why. I have only made it a point to block a small number of commenters – generally for excessive profanity or expressions of hate. And Ben hasn’t perpetuated either of these to the degree that I would consider blocking him.

    So why did I do it? Excessive lies. He has accumulated a pattern of making statements that are utterly and demonstrably false.

    And, as someone who responds to comments, what am I supposed to do? Do I just allow someone who is clearly hostile to the viewpoints and worldview that I express on this blog to advance one lie after another? Or do I correct the record again and again and again? And I don’t just want to counter his assertions of lies with my assertions of truth; I want to provide evidence that he is advancing lies. That takes time I’m not willing to spend considering the recent scope of his commenting.

    Allow me to again cite part of one of Ben’s last comments:

    It goes beyond that, though. Most (though not all) right-wingers have achieved little in life. Few of them have a four year college degree and many have no higher education at all….

    Right-wingers also tend to be religious, which means accepting ideas on faith alone with no critical thinking.

    Do I just allow this to stand? It’s utter nonsense. It is the assertion of a fundamentally dishonest human being.

    Allow me to take it apart as follows:

    What does Ben mean when he says, “Most (though not all) right-wingers have achieved little in life”? He clearly doesn’t mean success in a career. A Pew Research Center study from 2005 points out the following:

    “It remains true now, as it was in 1992, that the more income a person has, the more likely he or she is to be a Republican, and the less income a person has, the more likely he or she is to be a Democrat.”

    Well, maybe Ben was referring to characteristics of personal virtue when he talked about “accomplishment”; qualities like honesty, generosity, and morality.

    Well, conservatives are more honest than liberals. And it turns out that they are more generous and more moral, too. The research is in:

    Some recent surveys suggest a striking gap between liberals and conservatives on the issue of honesty. Polling by an organization called The World Values Survey posed the question, “Is it OK to cheat on your taxes?”

    Fifty-seven percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said “yes”, compared with only 20 percent of those calling themselves “very conservative.” That same survey in the Washington Examiner found those on the left were more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that one knows are stolen.

    Another questionnaire done by the Culture and Media Institute’s National Cultural Values Survey posed a scenario in which an employer would be willing to pay someone in cash in order to avoid taxes and allow a worker to collect unemployment benefits. Forty-nine percent of self-described progressives said they would go along with the plan, while only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.

    Conservatives are also more generous, and give of their time and their money more cheerfully than liberals. The fact is that Republicans give away a bigger share of their wealth than liberals. The studies are quite clear on that one.

    So if I’m going to argue that one group of people by political affiliation “have accomplished little in life” on the basis of fact rather than Marxist ideology, whether “accomplishment” be measured as success in one’s career or success in one’s attaining personal honor, it would be the leftwing, not the rightwing.

    Then Ben goes on to say something even more ridiculously false and outrageous. “Few of them have a four year college degree and many have no higher education at all. When you talk about education to a right-winger, they think of grade school and high school. Talk about education to a liberal and they think about college.”

    Is there any truth in this, or is Ben just a truly unhinged liar? Again, it is pretty easy to document that Ben is a personally dishonest lying weasel.

    Here’s a chart connecting education with political party that CLEARLY shows that those with the very least education OVERWHELMINGLY voted Democrat rather than Republican. The uneducated, ignorant masses Ben Hoffman tried to attribute to Republicans are in fact about four times more likely to be DEMOCRATS. In other words, it shows the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Ben falsely claims:


    Here’re some 1990 Gallup poll numbers relating education to political affiliation:

    Rep = Republican
    Dem = Democrat
    Ind = Independent/Unaffiliated

    Grade school education:
    23.4% Rep, 54.6% Dem, 22.5% Ind

    Some High School:
    22.8% Rep, 51.3% Dem, 26.0% Ind

    High School Grad:
    29.4% Rep, 40.5% Dem, 30.2% Ind

    Some College and/or Tech:
    36.0% Rep, 35.0% Dem, 29.3% Ind

    College Grad:
    42.0% Rep, 30.7% Dem, 27.7% Ind
    (Source: The World Almanac of U.S. Politics, 1991-93 edition, p.25)

    As you can see, in 1990 the better educated you were the more likely you were to be a Republican, and the less likely you were to be a Democrat.

    A Gallup poll taken in 2008 shows an exact similarity between McCain and Obama supporters as to college graduates, with 46% of college grads supporting McCain, and 46% Obama. There was a 10 point gap at the postgraduate level, but that is relatively easy to understand today, given the fact that postgrads overwhelmingly go into education, and liberals have ideologically targeted and purged conservatives. These days, conservatives aren’t allowed into education because liberals are biased and vindictive.

    But even given the moderate advantage in postgrad degrees and the left, Ben’s statement is destroyed.

    Now, one area that conservatives – who have “accomplished nothing” on Ben’s view – excel in is personal happiness. Conservatives are happier people than liberals. That’s a confirmed fact as well.

    And, yeah, I attribute that fact to religion. Living my life in the spirit of the will of my Creator gives me a sense of happiness, compared to living like a Darwinian slug.

    Which brings to the last point, about religion. Ben says, “Right-wingers also tend to be religious, which means accepting ideas on faith alone with no critical thinking.”

    Really, Ben? Are you that ignorant and dishonest?

    Let me name Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and one of the greatest scientists alive, as a committed Christian. I have his book, The Science of God. Right-wingers also tend to be religious, which means accepting ideas on faith alone with no critical thinkingYou don’t think the guy who mapped the human genome is capable of critical thinking? It takes someone who is incapable of critical thinking to even assert something that stupid.

    Let me point out that the man who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived, Sir Issac Newton, was a deeply, profoundly religious man who wrote more on theology than he did on science.

    The scientific (or inductive) method – which emerged out of the Church-created universities and monasteries – was itself formulated by a publicly confessed Christian. Francis Bacon was a member of the Salomon House, which considered science as a religious observance. And virtually every single major branch of science was likewise discovered by Christians who followed the Judeo-Christian view of the world.

    Science would never have got off the ground without Christianity, because SCIENCE DEPENDED UPON CHRISTIANITY FOR ITS FOUNDATIONAL PRESUPPOSITIONS:
    Scientists today take for granted that their whole enterprise is based on a very Christian and faith based idea: the universe operates according to intelligible laws. The universe has an order to it and we can perceive and understand that order. Nature is mathematical. There is no logical or rational necessity that this should be so. It was Christianity (building upon the tradition of the pre-Socratic Greeks) that advanced the idea of a rational cosmos because it holds that God is rational (Jesus is the Word, the logos, which also means “reason” in Greek). At the same time, “science” as anything resembling the inductive method did NOT come from the Greeks, the Chinese, or anywhere but Christianity. The scientific method arose once in history, from Christendom, and spread from the ideas of Christendom to the rest of the world.

    A guy worth reading: Dinesh D’Souza, author of What’s So Great About Christianity.

    In any event, I am simply not willing to keep dealing with Ben Hoffman’s dishonest pattern of lies. It’s one thing to have a position, and have some grounds for it. But this guy doesn’t bother with that. He just spouts patent falsehoods and lies.

    He can lie all he wants somewhere else. But I’m not going to have him doing it here.

    I have better things to do with my time than continuously correct a documented and pathological liar.

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    It’s worth posting. A big part of what I want to do is leave a record. When things truly go to hell – as I believe they will – I want there to be left behind as big of a finger as I can point that conservatives saw it coming and tried to stop it.

  22. hl Says:

    For what it’s worth, I think you demonstrated GREAT tolerance, patience and LONG SUFFERING in your communications with Ben Hoffman. You provided him with enough facts and truth to enlighten, inform and educate him IF that was what he really wanted.
    He does not want the truth……..he likes lies.

  23. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks a lot for taking my side and sticking up for me – and for the truth, HL. It’s always easier to keep fighting when you know you’re not alone.

    I’ve blocked people who’ve said terrible things. I’ve never just blocked a guy for lies. Until now.

    It was the sheer volume of deceit – and postings – that made me decide to pull the trigger.

    When I first started blogging, I got all kinds of liberals attacking my articles with a few sentences of ad hominems. It was strange and depressing; liberals were everywhere, like cockroaches in a filthy apartment building.

    Even now, I still get a lot of driveby comments from liberals who rarely comment on the actual article they’re posting to (because they didn’t even bother to read it), but merely leave a few snide and asinine ad hominems, like dogs. Liberals seem to post to conservative blog articles like dogs who have to urinate on every tree they walk by.

    I wasn’t trying to enlighten Ben; I don’t think such people are capable. Rather, I was trying to defend the truth for future readers. But when somebody just unloads comments containing all kinds of factual lies without regard for the truth, it gets real old, real fast. I only give myself a limited amount of time each day on blogging, and came to realize I had better things to do than expose lie after lie after lie in comments.

    There are liberals who look at the world and at the facts and come to a liberal (and I would argue wrong) conclusion. But we are seeing more and more liberals who frankly don’t give a damn about the facts at all, and simply create their own “proofs” or attack fabricated strawmen. It’s the postmodern world for these people; “truth” is whatever they can get away with, and “right and wrong” are whatever advances their ideology.

  24. Randall Kimm Says:

    Obama has been the most incompetent self-centered Commander in Chief in American history. He is a disgrace to all the brave men and women who serve your nation courageously. The sooner this man completes his term and is finally evicted from the White House cannot come soon enough. More American blood will be wasted because this President is more interested in his ego than the nation he was elected to lead and the critical international alliances he has neglected and abused. This President will be remembered as a dithering self-centered incompetent. It will take 10 years for America to recover its reputation in the Free World after Obama’s suffering from his non-productive dialogues with terrorists and demagogues.

  25. Michael Eden Says:

    Ten years? At this point, I’d take that.

    My fear is this: Obama and an overwhelming liberal majority came in at a critical turning point moment in American history, when the nation was more vulnerable than at any time since its founding. And they made all the wrong decisions, and stabbed our entire system with a wound that it won’t be able to recover from.

    The liberals running America don’t love this country. And they don’t see its vulnerability. They think they can keep gaming the system forever. And frankly, if the entire US system comes crashing down, they think they’ll be able to benefit from that, too.

    When you look at Obama, particularly at wife Michelle’s finances, you see the Chicago Way. Liberals have been running Chicago forever. And they have screwed the poor there forever. Michelle found herself on a number of cushy boards as a direct result of Obama’s offices. She took all kinds of money from slumlords and from hospitals that dumped patients.

    These people literally screw the poor and enrich themselves on the aid packages dedicated to the poor – and then pat themselves on the back and give themselves awards for their “work” for the poor.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: