Is this where the cookie begins to crumble?
This from the George Stephonopolous (boy the spell check will have fun with that name) Sunday morning show on ABC, "This Week", dateline 10/11/09:
“I don’t know how you put somebody in, who is as 'cracker jack' as General McChrystal who gives the president very solid recommendations and not take those recommendations if you are not going to pull out. If you do not want to take the recommendations then you put your people in such jeopardy.”
-Diane Feinstein (D) CA
George later asked four-star retired General Jack Keane if he were in a similar position to McChrystal and the President rejected his recommendation for more troops, would he resign? Keane said, “Probably, yes. Under those circumstances, yes.”
I explained to Jambo just the other day that in my estimation all of these "war councils" Obama has been convening were nothing more than brainstorming sessions to figure out just how they will sell Obama's refusal to "surge" in Afghanistan, that the decision he purports to be mulling has already been made, and it's "no." If my hunch is right Feinstein et al may be sending a very public "wait a minute bub, we (Democrats) own the outcome now" message to the president. And even more disturbing this means that whatever the case Obama is to the Left of Diane Feinstein on National Security matters ... and how small a sliver of space to occupy is that?!
Monday, October 12, 2009
Why is it ...
... that people so thoroughly enjoy my errors? In my defense I will only state that the blog's spell check SUCKS, THAT is a matter of record; and my kids did have Spongebob on in the room, so ...
Also a good suggestion (since Titus is handing them out): one should probably avoid committing grammatical errors while critiquing them. Perhaps someone can explain to me the meaning in how the second of these sentences ends?
"This is what happens when elitists delve into the world of the esoteric... if they can't show that they have earned what they get, their esteem and prestige diminish. So, let's all take a lesson from Obama and the Left and not let ourselves fall into the trap of making ourselves out to be more than we really."
Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you were quoting Yoda, that needs a little work before being rushed to press.
This is what happens when elitist NEPA bloggers whom take sinful pride in a colleague's mistake trip over themselves in a mad dash to post hollow critiques in order to fill the void lovers past named Trevor once occupied.
But fret not ... he may yet return. And your "void" may yet again be "filled."
Also a good suggestion (since Titus is handing them out): one should probably avoid committing grammatical errors while critiquing them. Perhaps someone can explain to me the meaning in how the second of these sentences ends?
"This is what happens when elitists delve into the world of the esoteric... if they can't show that they have earned what they get, their esteem and prestige diminish. So, let's all take a lesson from Obama and the Left and not let ourselves fall into the trap of making ourselves out to be more than we really."
Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you were quoting Yoda, that needs a little work before being rushed to press.
This is what happens when elitist NEPA bloggers whom take sinful pride in a colleague's mistake trip over themselves in a mad dash to post hollow critiques in order to fill the void lovers past named Trevor once occupied.
But fret not ... he may yet return. And your "void" may yet again be "filled."
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The high price of esotericism...
While I am the first to admit that the Left in this country revel in their esoteric ways, and that many are undoubtedly celebrating Obama's new title of Nobel Peace Laureate, I don't hold the prize against Obama. He had no hand in winning it, he had no say in his nomination, and he certainly hasn't made a big deal of it since finding out he won.
This is a HUGE distraction for him, however, and his opponents will get a lot of mileage out of the award and the manner and timing that it was given. He had, in the first two weeks of his Presidency (which was the deadline for his consideration for the award), done nothing to warrant the award... in my opinion... and the conservative right in this country will hold that over his head for the rest of his term.
This is what happens when elitists delve into the world of the esoteric... if they can't show that they have earned what they get, their esteem and prestige diminish. So, let's all take a lesson from Obama and the Left and not let ourselves fall into the trap of making ourselves out to be more than we really.
That is why I can't pass up the chance to point out that the term I think Ryan was going for in his last post is "exorbitant" and not "absorbent".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a HUGE distraction for him, however, and his opponents will get a lot of mileage out of the award and the manner and timing that it was given. He had, in the first two weeks of his Presidency (which was the deadline for his consideration for the award), done nothing to warrant the award... in my opinion... and the conservative right in this country will hold that over his head for the rest of his term.
This is what happens when elitists delve into the world of the esoteric... if they can't show that they have earned what they get, their esteem and prestige diminish. So, let's all take a lesson from Obama and the Left and not let ourselves fall into the trap of making ourselves out to be more than we really.
That is why I can't pass up the chance to point out that the term I think Ryan was going for in his last post is "exorbitant" and not "absorbent".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
An addendum ...
I just wanted to make clear ... some people may think it's rather erroneous for a father to entice his son into playing a game of chess with an absorbent amount of money (as $100 is for a child). However, once the challenge is laid down, if he loses, he must deliver to me by the end of the following day a 3 paragraph summary of a US president from my The US Presidents biography book. And after 3 such reports I have found him practicing on his brother before again challenging me.
It's a win/win.
It's a win/win.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Disturbing ...
Afghanistan.
Do you know how many quotes, speeches, critiques (of Bush), interviews, sound bites and statements that one can pull up within minutes of minimal searching online of the president waxing on about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity", that he fully supports that war, that with Iraq Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, that it was the "true" front in the war on terror? That we can not let the architects of 9/11 to reclaim a nation state and on and on and on.
You know its getting bad for the administration when NBC is asking, "If President Obama believes this is a war of necessity, then why would he not fully source his commander's requests?", as David Gregory asked an administration official (the US ambassador to the UN) on Meet the Press, after playing that clip of Obama speaking those words to the VFW as a candidate.
And every time a trooper dies, as 8 did yesterday, it will highlight his indecision and resistance to McChrystal's request of 40,000 additional troops. Get ready to hear the phrase, "he dithers while our troops die." I've heard it no less than 3xs on talk radio in the last hour, on 2 different programs.
Of course to grant this "surge" is to indirectly endorse the Iraq surge, as if the success there isn't enough for any rationale person, which of course precludes the likes of Pelosi, Reid & Obama. But we all know what this is ... it's much more insidious then simple "indecision", or dithering.
What we 3, and scores of informed people across the nation know, is that liberal politicians have for 4+ years now used Afghanistan as a cover from which to hit Bush over the head from with Iraq. Afghanistan was mildly contained when Iraq was at its' worse and partisan, hard left Democrats (which encompasses all of the congressional leadership & "candidate" Obama) continually made the claim, "see, see we aren't weak, we want to fight our enemies, we support the Afghanistan mission, we just think Iraq is wrong." By supporting the then less controversial of the 2 theaters they played the game of criticizing Bush at nauseam over Iraq while clinging to some sliver of national security credibility as a Party by "supporting" Afghanistan. WELL, they walked out on that plank to the extent that the entire Party, especially the president, is lock stock and barrel on record supporting the Afghanistan effort. And I'm editorializing here, but I honestly believe that people as FAR, far left out of the mainstream as the president is, supported the war for only that political posturing, and never truly supported our invasion of any nation post 9/11, or an American military response of ANY KIND. They thought it was "safe" to support Afghanistan thinking they'd never have to actively be in command of redoubling our efforts there, or in other words Obama never thought he'd be have to actually FIGHT that war. I have always been of that opinion and I think his vacillating now on McChrystal's request bears that opinion out - he flat does not believe in projecting US force in the world. He played politics with war making to promote the facade that he could be trusted as the CiC, that he could be tough on our enemies, and now our enemies have called his bluff.
He was bent on drawing down as his administration progressed, not "surging" and with every fiber of his being he does not want to prosecute this war. Not just for Party politics, but rather his entire orientation towards America and more directly "Americanism" is one that believes our history unjust, unworthy and our future in need of "fundamental change." We are no better than any other land in this warped ideology, it is historical revisionism to the point of dislike of their own nation, bathed in the economics of Marx. He does not want the US to project force by any means. He is there, in his mind, to "set America straight." To apologize and attempt to "correct" our course, making up for our failed history. Knowing he does not want to fight this battle I grow very concerned when I hear administration officials describing Al Qeada as "disrupted", and "fundamentally dismantled" and "perhaps our troops mission there should change." I see a "we beat Al Qeada, we can leave now" talking strategy emerging from the administration, and that is a woefully sophomoric analysis and fundamentally dishonest.
I truly think that he believes America has no right to the title of "world's lone superpower", and moreover that we arrived at that status unjustly. But what this misguided, ill informed novice fundamentally does not grasp is the utter chaos and tragedy that will follow if we relinquish it.
Tragically a US defeat will embolden Al Qeada and the Taliban for generations to come. Think about it - in under 30 years the radicalized, militant Islamic incarnation of the Mujaheddin will have routed the USSR and the United States - the 2 loan superpowers of the last 60+ years. For generations they will believe themselves unbeatable. And if we retreat in defeat ... they will be right.
Do you know how many quotes, speeches, critiques (of Bush), interviews, sound bites and statements that one can pull up within minutes of minimal searching online of the president waxing on about Afghanistan being a "war of necessity", that he fully supports that war, that with Iraq Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, that it was the "true" front in the war on terror? That we can not let the architects of 9/11 to reclaim a nation state and on and on and on.
You know its getting bad for the administration when NBC is asking, "If President Obama believes this is a war of necessity, then why would he not fully source his commander's requests?", as David Gregory asked an administration official (the US ambassador to the UN) on Meet the Press, after playing that clip of Obama speaking those words to the VFW as a candidate.
And every time a trooper dies, as 8 did yesterday, it will highlight his indecision and resistance to McChrystal's request of 40,000 additional troops. Get ready to hear the phrase, "he dithers while our troops die." I've heard it no less than 3xs on talk radio in the last hour, on 2 different programs.
Of course to grant this "surge" is to indirectly endorse the Iraq surge, as if the success there isn't enough for any rationale person, which of course precludes the likes of Pelosi, Reid & Obama. But we all know what this is ... it's much more insidious then simple "indecision", or dithering.
What we 3, and scores of informed people across the nation know, is that liberal politicians have for 4+ years now used Afghanistan as a cover from which to hit Bush over the head from with Iraq. Afghanistan was mildly contained when Iraq was at its' worse and partisan, hard left Democrats (which encompasses all of the congressional leadership & "candidate" Obama) continually made the claim, "see, see we aren't weak, we want to fight our enemies, we support the Afghanistan mission, we just think Iraq is wrong." By supporting the then less controversial of the 2 theaters they played the game of criticizing Bush at nauseam over Iraq while clinging to some sliver of national security credibility as a Party by "supporting" Afghanistan. WELL, they walked out on that plank to the extent that the entire Party, especially the president, is lock stock and barrel on record supporting the Afghanistan effort. And I'm editorializing here, but I honestly believe that people as FAR, far left out of the mainstream as the president is, supported the war for only that political posturing, and never truly supported our invasion of any nation post 9/11, or an American military response of ANY KIND. They thought it was "safe" to support Afghanistan thinking they'd never have to actively be in command of redoubling our efforts there, or in other words Obama never thought he'd be have to actually FIGHT that war. I have always been of that opinion and I think his vacillating now on McChrystal's request bears that opinion out - he flat does not believe in projecting US force in the world. He played politics with war making to promote the facade that he could be trusted as the CiC, that he could be tough on our enemies, and now our enemies have called his bluff.
He was bent on drawing down as his administration progressed, not "surging" and with every fiber of his being he does not want to prosecute this war. Not just for Party politics, but rather his entire orientation towards America and more directly "Americanism" is one that believes our history unjust, unworthy and our future in need of "fundamental change." We are no better than any other land in this warped ideology, it is historical revisionism to the point of dislike of their own nation, bathed in the economics of Marx. He does not want the US to project force by any means. He is there, in his mind, to "set America straight." To apologize and attempt to "correct" our course, making up for our failed history. Knowing he does not want to fight this battle I grow very concerned when I hear administration officials describing Al Qeada as "disrupted", and "fundamentally dismantled" and "perhaps our troops mission there should change." I see a "we beat Al Qeada, we can leave now" talking strategy emerging from the administration, and that is a woefully sophomoric analysis and fundamentally dishonest.
I truly think that he believes America has no right to the title of "world's lone superpower", and moreover that we arrived at that status unjustly. But what this misguided, ill informed novice fundamentally does not grasp is the utter chaos and tragedy that will follow if we relinquish it.
Tragically a US defeat will embolden Al Qeada and the Taliban for generations to come. Think about it - in under 30 years the radicalized, militant Islamic incarnation of the Mujaheddin will have routed the USSR and the United States - the 2 loan superpowers of the last 60+ years. For generations they will believe themselves unbeatable. And if we retreat in defeat ... they will be right.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
I have no bishops left?
I feel like my 10 year old playing me in chess (by the way, there's a $100 bounty on my head whenever he can muster the defeat of his old man ... I'm challenged nearly weekly as of that declaration).
I must offer a correction. For some reason, perhaps never to be known by mankind, I misinterpreted "His Most Catholic Majesty Juan Carlos of Spain" to be a Catholic Bishop rather than the heir to the royal Spanish line. Titus text me itching to pounce, and given his refrain I thought it only honorable to thrust myself upon the entrails aimed short sword.
In my defense (Titus asked, "Why would a Bishop advocate an Olympic city?") I am of the Mormon faith, and my Church certainly was enthusiastic about receiving the Salt Lake games ... but at any rate, mistake acknowledged.
Oy ...
I must offer a correction. For some reason, perhaps never to be known by mankind, I misinterpreted "His Most Catholic Majesty Juan Carlos of Spain" to be a Catholic Bishop rather than the heir to the royal Spanish line. Titus text me itching to pounce, and given his refrain I thought it only honorable to thrust myself upon the entrails aimed short sword.
In my defense (Titus asked, "Why would a Bishop advocate an Olympic city?") I am of the Mormon faith, and my Church certainly was enthusiastic about receiving the Salt Lake games ... but at any rate, mistake acknowledged.
Oy ...
Friday, October 2, 2009
That's mostly right, however ...
No you're right, he's not at all "in the pocket" (I would say "indebted" - they know where his bodies are buried) to the Chicago political machine. I mean with names like Daley & Blagovich how could corruption be possible in Illinois?
Look, first Rummy & Cheney weren't THE president. And if Bush went to bat for Dallas (where he now resides) as president with a infamous political machine / mayor nmae like "Daley", believe me, people would be talking. But that aside here is why I think this is relevant: He could of sent Michelle & Oprah (both of whom who went with him), whom are perhaps the 2 highest profile native Chicagoans after Obama himself, but he didn't. So you say "big deal", there are more important things he's dropping the ball on ... well I agree. But I think it is worth pointing out that it has been traditionally seen as "beneath" the president of the United States to do what at most (in government) Hillary's assistant should of done. You can mention those other heads of state, the Bishop, all you want - but they simply aren't on the level of a sitting US President (we're not talking morally in terms of the Bishop, I think you know what I mean here). But he doesn't care about "tradition", in particular traditions unique to the US, and I think it's worthy to make note of that.
My point is between that and the fact that the Chicago presentation lasted 45 minutes and he met with General McCrystal only 25 minutes on Air Force One while still in Copenhagen, is relevant because it tells us volumes about the Commander-in-chief. And while you or I have all the info we need on him to form an educated opinion, it is THESE sort of incidents that "everyone" gets - you have time to fly to Denmark for the Olympics but you've only spoken to McCrystal twice in 70 days, once for 90 minutes, the other for 25, forcing the general to take his case to 60 Minutes? I think the average Joe gets that on a gut level and thus it is worth illuminating ... that's all.
Look, first Rummy & Cheney weren't THE president. And if Bush went to bat for Dallas (where he now resides) as president with a infamous political machine / mayor nmae like "Daley", believe me, people would be talking. But that aside here is why I think this is relevant: He could of sent Michelle & Oprah (both of whom who went with him), whom are perhaps the 2 highest profile native Chicagoans after Obama himself, but he didn't. So you say "big deal", there are more important things he's dropping the ball on ... well I agree. But I think it is worth pointing out that it has been traditionally seen as "beneath" the president of the United States to do what at most (in government) Hillary's assistant should of done. You can mention those other heads of state, the Bishop, all you want - but they simply aren't on the level of a sitting US President (we're not talking morally in terms of the Bishop, I think you know what I mean here). But he doesn't care about "tradition", in particular traditions unique to the US, and I think it's worthy to make note of that.
My point is between that and the fact that the Chicago presentation lasted 45 minutes and he met with General McCrystal only 25 minutes on Air Force One while still in Copenhagen, is relevant because it tells us volumes about the Commander-in-chief. And while you or I have all the info we need on him to form an educated opinion, it is THESE sort of incidents that "everyone" gets - you have time to fly to Denmark for the Olympics but you've only spoken to McCrystal twice in 70 days, once for 90 minutes, the other for 25, forcing the general to take his case to 60 Minutes? I think the average Joe gets that on a gut level and thus it is worth illuminating ... that's all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
