◊ After procrastinating for about three months, President Obama finally committed to the request of General McChrystal and his request for more troops, but fell short by increasing troops to 30,000 instead of 45,000 (minimum) to 80,000.
Chuck Norris has a question about this topic:
How is it that President Barack Obama fast-tracks borrowing, bailouts and Obamacare but is slower than molasses when it comes to decisions regarding the military — especially this one, seeing as he basically is returning to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s 3-month-old solution?
Yes, Indeed, Mr. Norris how is it so?
Meanwhile, usual horse dung comes from MSNBC out of the mouth of Chris Matthews who described the visit by President Obama to the United States Military Academy at West Point as a visit to the enemy camp. When are the American people going to censure and boycott the socialist traitor? Chris Matthew quote:
President Obama went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that’s where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That’s where he went to rabble rouse the ‘we’re going to democratize the world’ campaign back in ’02. So, I thought it was a strange venue.
One of the media’s least accurate tropes is that, with the President’s speech last night, Afghanistan is now ‘Obama’s war.’ No, it isn’t. Nations go to war, not merely Administrations, and President Obama’s commitment of 30,000 more troops to that Southwest Asian theater is a national investment in blood and treasure on behalf of vital U.S. security interests. We support Mr. Obama’s decision, and this national effort, notwithstanding our concerns about the determination of the President and his party to see it through. Now that he’s committed, so is the country, and one of our abiding principles is that nations should never start (much less escalate) wars they don’t intend to win.
The full transcript of President Obama’s long-delayed speech on Afghanistan is here. You can watch it in full here. Bush-bashing? Check. Noxious complaining about the cost of fighting a necessary war? Check. Disingenuous denial that he dithered? Check. ‘Let me be clear’s = 9. Self-congratulations for sticking to Gitmo closure policy = 1. Self-referential ‘As your Commander-in-Chief’s = 2. References to global jihad = 0.
The issue isn’t whether a war is popular: either it has to be fought or it doesn’t. It is a president’s duty to define the war and lead the nation to victory. And if a war is worth one American life, it is — by definition — worth however many dollars it takes to win. Domestic spending must be curtailed to fund a war, not the other way around.
…Strategic success isn’t Obama’s ultimate concern. He wants political cover and is doing all he can to ensure that he’s not on the blame-line, no matter what happens. He wants to appear strong — but without unleashing our strength. He’ll send more troops — but won’t let them do more.
The blunt truth is: The United States needs to win in Afghanistan. Defeating the Taliban and destroying al-Qa’ida is in our vital interests. It is the price of peace in South Asia. It is the only way to prevent another 9/11. By dedicating the resources needed to win and by getting our fiscal house in order, we can keep our nation safe, free and prosperous. Any other talk is just politics.
The state tends to expand in proportion to its means of existence and to live beyond its means, and these are, in the last analysis, nothing but the substance of the people. Woe to the people that cannot limit the sphere of action of the state! Freedom, private enterprise, wealth, happiness, independence, personal dignity, all vanish. Frederic Bastiat, French economist, 1801-1850.
How many times has a liberal touted this or that government agenda with the idea that they’re doing it ‘for the children?’ When more Americans begin to understand that the more accurate phrase it ‘to the children,’ it will be the beginning of the end for these power-hungry thugs. Here’s hoping it happens sooner rather than later.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, 121-180 AD
Who would deny health care to all Americans? Well, there are a lot of those folks in Congress, including nearly all Republican lawmakers, none of whom have rejected their own generous government health care plans. The United States is the only country in the developed world that does not provide affordable health care for all its citizens.
Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from health care to unemployment to Afghanistan. His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.
The American people are increasingly questioning the president’s credibility. He says the stimulus has saved or created 640,000 jobs, but only 7 percent of Americans believe it has created any. And he’s repeatedly promised health care reform will not increase the deficit, but a mere 19 percent believe him.
People want something to be done about the deficit, and here he’s talking about spending a trillion more dollars.
As the Obama Administration convenes with the so-called “experts” in Washington, how many in the White House have actually created a job? … After 10 months and the authorization of $787 billion in government spending, the economic policies of the White House and the Democratic Congress have failed. 15.7 million Americans are out of work, 3.2 million of them since the stimulus was first passed in February. Unemployment, at 10.2 percent, is higher than the President promised it would be if he did nothing. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid economic policies are hurting, not helping. … The mainstream media roll their eyes and laugh at the term, but the Obama-Pelosi-Reid economic policies are genuinely secular-socialist policies. Their central purpose is not to create wealth but to redistribute wealth. The problem is this big government, high taxing, big bureaucracy and politician driven model simply does not work to create jobs. It was the model of the United States in the 1970s and the model of Europe today. It has never worked anywhere to create jobs and wealth, and it won’t work here.
As the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine attempts to force its secular-socialist model on Americans in the form of job-killing health, energy, and big labor legislation, American small business people are crying out for a very different set of solutions. … They are the solutions of Ronald Reagan and the Contract with America. Reduced taxes to spur jobs and investment. Controlled government spending to favor entrepreneurs over bureaucrats. Reduced regulation and litigation to produce jobs and create wealth.