Obama In No Rush To Support The Troops
Oct 20, 2009 Military, Political
Barack Obama made it clear that the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity and that the war in Iraq was a war of choice. He said, time and again, that he would fight the war in Afghanistan and that it was necessary. Obama’s hand picked commander has submitted a request for the support he needs to fight and that request includes more troops. All of the sudden the war of necessity is not so much so. The request was sent to the White House nearly 80 days ago and no decision has been taken.
Obama is pondering what to do and has stated that he wants to see how the recent Afghan election pans out with either a run-off or co-governance before he decides on sending troops. He is deliberating and giving it thoughtful consideration. At least that is what the White House wants us to believe.
The only thing that Obama has taken his time on since taking office is selecting a family pet. It took him six months to select a dog. He gave it careful consideration.
The stimulus had to be passed immediately, the health care take over must be done now (even though the only thing that will take effect before 2013 is the taxing part of it), the cap and trade bill must be done now as, it would seem, must every other item on the Obama hit list. He wants all the things done by the end of the year and this is an extension of earlier deadlines. The simulus was rocketed through Congress because Obama said now and the Democrats did it now. Then it sat on his desk for four days while he went on a date with his wife.
He is pushing for his agenda items to get through at the speed of light but he is stifled by some Democrats who are worried about their jobs.
The support of the troops in Afghanistan is quite another thing though. Obama received the request nearly 80 days ago and has been stonewalling his commander and the troops. Secretary Gates says we need to act now and not later but Obama is quite busy wetting his finger and sticking it out the window to see which way the wind is blowing. His assertions about the war of necessity and his repeated assertions that this was a war we needed to win have hamstrung him because he would dearly like to appease (he did win a Nobel for that quality) his base and withdraw in defeat. That is what Democrats do.
But he does not want to be seen as a person who trumpeted the war in Afghanistan and vowed to support the troops only to let them down. He does not care about letting them down, he just does not want it to appear that way. So instead of being the Commander in Chief (a job he has no experience to do) he is waffling and stonewalling. He is looking for any reason not to honor the request of General Stanley McChrystal, the man he hand picked to run the war. Obama would love nothing more than to find some reason, any reason, to dishonor our troops so he can appease his leftist loser base.
Obama would not look so bad if he had taken the same stance on Afghanistan that he took on Iraq but he went the other way. He told us it was the war of necessity.
What he needs to do is act like a man instead of the weaselly, limp wristed, metrosexual that he truly is. He needs to man up and honor his commitment to the troops and to the war. He needs to stick to his word and win the war of necessity not only because supporting the troops is the right thing to do but because he told us he would. He needs, for once, to keep his word.
But then again, all Obama promises come with an expiration date.
I loved my 24 years of service to this country but I would not serve in the military under this so called man. He is fortunate that he is wrecking the economy because that has driven enlistments up. People join the military when times are tough because it is a job and it pays. If he had not wrecked the economy and caused such high unemployment then the services would have trouble recruiting.
Who would want to serve under this wishy-washy man? I can’t imagine any of our service members staying in with this guy abandoning them. And it is a certainty that the liberals who support him will not join to protect this country (they will wait for Obama bucks to make ends meet). They live under the blanket of protection provided by better people than they and they like it that way. If Obama does not act like a leader and do it soon then he is going to harm the military worse than Jimmy Carter did.
It might take decades to get the nation’s military strong again.
Obama, man up and take a decision. Do the right thing and support the men and women who were sent to war by the US government. You (the government) sent them there, now support them.
Also:
al-Reuters
UPDATE: What has Obama done since the request for troops was submitted.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.
Look For Troops To Be Disenfranchised
Oct 6, 2008 Political
The members of the military are overwhelmingly conservative and have been a solid Republican voting block for a very long time. The Republican party holds values that most in the military find in line with their own and the members cannot stand liberals who always wave the white flag of defeat. Liberals lost Vietnam and if they have their way they will lose Iraq.
I have been told by Obamabots that members of the military are donating more to him than to McCain. I think this is incorrect and it would be hard to demonstrate because Obama has some shady bookkeeping practices. He has a lot of small dollar donors who have given small amounts that add up to 3 or 4 times the legal limit. Obama has also received huge sums of money from people overseas who are NOT American citizens. So when he says that more people in the military have donated to him I would ask, which country’s military?
A recent poll shows that McCain holds a 68%-23% lead over Barack Obama in support of military members. McCain’s support among black members is down and given that many of them are experiencing a chance to vote for a black man, it is not surprising. Not all blacks in the military support Obama and many of those who do seem to be doing so based upon his color. There are those who don’t hold that view:
Army Sgt. 1st Class Derriel D. Collins, who is black, said he was influenced by McCain’s service record, though he acknowledges black friends question his decision.
“I’m not going to give [my vote] to you just because you’re black,” he said. “It doesn’t work like that.” Military Times
The huge amount of support McCain receives means that military votes will once again be targeted by liberals. In 2004 Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania disenfranchised a lot of military voters by disallowing their votes and in 2000 Al Gore worked to exclude the absentee ballots of our men and women serving around the world. These liberals are well aware that a close election could be decided by the absentee ballots of those who serve this country. Since the votes will overwhelmingly go to the Republican, those voters become enemies of the Democratic party. The liberals will do everything they can to keep the votes of our military from counting.
This, of course, is reprehensible. Who would have thought that the very people who protect our freedoms would be denied the rights they ensure others may practice? This should surprise no one because liberals hate the military and believe that money spent on defense would be better off spent on welfare moms who squirt out babies and refuse to work as well as ILLEGALS who break the law to enter this country and steal from the taxpayer.
The military should get a roster of all members who voted absentee and then send liaison officers to every state to ensure that the ballot was received and counted. Any person found disenfranchising those members should receive a mandatory 20 year jail sentence.
Who do you trust in this country, the party that wants to give convicted felons the right to vote, allow people to vote 3 or 4 times, and allow dead people to vote Chicago style, but works to deny military members the right to have their votes counted or the party that wants only those who are legally allowed to vote to do so? After all, Democrats are the party that opposes an ID requirement to vote. Why do you suppose that is?
In an earlier interview Obama said he had to earn the trust of the members of the military. I’d say he failed to do that by a 68-23 margin.
Perhaps our military does not like Obama because he associates with terrorists?
Other Sources:
Washington Post
Newsweek
Tags: disenfranchise, McCain, Military, Obama, support
Debt to Clinton was Paid Long Ago
Apr 20, 2008 Political
A number of people who were huge supporters of the Clintons have recently signed on to the Obama train and are casting their long time friends, Bill and Hillary, aside. This is particularly distressing to the Clintons because they both believe that they are owd by just about every Democrat. Admittedly, there are quite a number of Obama supporters who received appointments to very high paying and high profile government jobs and there are quite a few Democrats who owe Hillary for campaigning for them and helping them win.
Bill Clinton is particularly upset about those who worked in his administration and now support Obama. He was furious with Bill Richardson and as a result their friendship is strained. Surrogates of the Clintons have called people names and have questioned the loyalty of people that received a lot from Bill Clinton when he was president. Bill believes that people owe him but someone should explain to Bill Clinton that he received all that he was owed by any Democrat when they committed malfeasance in office and failed to vote for impeachment. Bill Clinton was paid in full by every Democrats who supported him during the impeachment process. Bill Clinton should have been removed from office. He lied under oath and charges were brought against him. Democrats paid him big time by opposing impeachment. Some Democrats said the charges did not warrant impeachment. Some of these people were in favor of impeaching Nixon and his charges nearly matched Clinton’s word for word.
As for Hillary, sure she has campaigned for people but she has made some of those folks mad along the way. She has piled on Democrats who have made mistakes if piling on made her look good. She piled on John Kerry when he insulted the troops. Hillary was right to pile on because Kerry actually insulted the troops despite what he said about it. However, he was upset she did not back him. She could have just kept silent on the matter but the Clintons are unable to keep quiet. They have to jump in and take the focus group position in order to look “good.”
It is interesting though to see how people have turned on the Clintons. They were once the darlings of the Democratic party. Democrats overlooked all kinds of criminal activity and defended the Clintons every time they were accused. The media ignored major stories in order to help them out (Drudge broke the Monica story that the MSM was sitting on) and they were usually treated as if they were pure as the driven snow. Now they are being beaten up by people who once loved them unconditionally. Amazingly, there are many former Clinton supporters who are now upset with them because they have been dishonest, negative, harsh, demanding, and unrelenting. These are the same people who ignored this kind of behavior from the Clintons for years and who would still be ignoring it if it were not for a charismatic empty suit named Obama.
Loyalty in DC only goes as far as the next election and politicians will disregard friendship if they think backing someone else will help them in any way, shape, or form. As far as Bill Clinton goes, he was paid quite handsomely long, long ago.
It will be interesting to see how much support Democrats get from the Clintons after this election. In a perfect world the Clintons would just fade away but in reality they could still have some value for people who need help getting reelected.
Source:
New York Times (read about Chelsea whining)
Tags: Clinton, debt, impeachment, liars, Obama, support, whining
Pelosi Supports Tibet, but not our Troops
Mar 22, 2008 Political
Nancy Pelosi and a Congressional delegation visited Tibet to offer support in wake of the continuing crackdown by China. Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese for protesting. Pelosi gave her support and thus the support of the US to the Dalai Lama:
While standing next to the Dalai Lama, she denounced “China’s oppression of people in Tibet.”
“If freedom loving people don’t speak out against China’s oppression of people in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak out against any oppressed people.” ABC
Notice here that Pelosi did not tell the Dalai Lama that he and his people should retreat. She did not tell them that they should cease fighting against oppression and she did not tell them to give in to the terror of the Chinese. She even offered support in the struggle and said we will have lost our moral authority if we don’t speak out.
This is the same Nancy Pelosi who does not believe that we should be offering support to the Iraqis and has no ideals about moral authority when discussing leaving them at the mercy of the bad guys who are just waiting for the US to leave a weak Iraq in place so they can swoop in and take over. This is the Nancy Pelosi who has not said that our troops need to continue to fight on and she certainly has not offered her “support” to them by letting them finish their job.
Perhaps it would be nice if Speaker Pelosi spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan meeting with our troops and telling them she supports them and is with the Iraqi people in their struggles. Maybe she could indicate that we will have lost our moral authority if we fail to support the troops in the mission of ending the war by winning it.
When donkeys fly…
Additional source:
My Way News
Tags: dalai lama, moral authority, nancy pelosi, support
Loading ...
Loading... 
