Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that the only applause Obama got during that terribly weak speech last night was when he praised (paraphrased here) 'our brave soldiers working hard in the field to keep our nation safe'; and then finally when the speech was over? Oh wait - my paraphrase sounds more like something that President George W. Bush would say...and has said over the eight years of his presidency. I will need to look at the transcript to see what Obama actually said.
At the conclusion of the weak sermon...I mean
"speech", the young cadets at West Point were probably clapping because they were glad that Obama was done preaching at them!
Didn't most of what Obama said sound condescending and preachy? I noticed that Obama especially targeted those who might disagree with (the silly title of) his
"overseas contingency operation" decision. He verbally pointed his finger at the American people in the T.V. audience; blasting our objections to his stupid non-winning plan even before we had the chance to express them after the speech. After all,
Obama is all about protecting his image - more than anything (like, OUR NATION!) or anyone (like, OUR SOLDIERS, MARINES, AIRMEN, AND NAVY!) else.Did you hear him say
anything about winning the war over there? I didn't. Did you hear him say the word "victory" even once?
How utterly PATHETIC!!The looks on the faces of the cadets must have mirrored what the American people were feeling as we all watched just another one of
Obama's excruciatingly painful stage shows on parade in the West Point venue. I didn't see any smiles. I didn't see any looks of confidence in this bogus
POTUS being evident on the cadet's faces. I didn't see any looks of feeling that Obama GENUINELY CARES about our military - except for maybe that brief moment when Obama read the words off of his teleprompter that someone else inevitably wrote for him to say.
Isn't it creepy that the guy doesn't seem to have any real emotion(s) to express when he's up there lecturing all of us Americans?
At church this last Sunday, Pastor Miles McPherson did a wrap-up on his body language series of sermons. One point that stands out (and applies here) is the fact that most people share only 7% of what they really mean and are thinking - in a verbal manner; whereas the other 93% is done through body language.
What does
Obama's body language say?
I'm no expert, but I can trust my gut and say how his words and dour, unemotional body language made me feel.
I, as well as millions of other Americans are NOT confident in his ability to be Commander in Chief; and we are legitimately and highly worried that he is sending more troops into Afghanistan just for the purpose of being able to say that he "listened" to his military commanders in the field.
But what is this horribly weak strategy telling us? Reader,
what is your gut feeling about it all?This morning, during the Congressional hearings on the war, John McCain asked how is it that Obama can set a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan in 18 months without giving the American people pause about his commitment to win there? It's either one or the other!!
This continuing, sickening nightmare of an administration is just too much to listen to anymore. I'm about ready to turn off my radio, T.V. and Internet so that I can enjoy a Blessed Christmas season, concentrate on, and celebrate one of the greatest moments (the second was Christ's Resurrection) in world history - the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
There will most likely be hundreds of blog posts about the speech last night. However, one of the best that I have read so far is at
The Obama File: Setting Up Our Military To Fail. It is where I got the title for this post. [Hat tip and thanks to The Obama File.]
Here's a copy:
Setting Up Our Military To Fail
Col. Ralph Peters asks, if Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but, "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011," then why send them?
If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground? Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?
After eight years of failure to create effective Afghan security forces and a responsible government, does anyone believe we can do it in 12 to 18 months?
"Target the insurgency"? Does that mean our soldiers will finally be permitted to go after our enemies and kill them? Nope. Those troops are going to "secure population centers." We'll be passive and let the enemy choose where and when to strike.
When fighting insurgents and terrorists, if you're not slamming them up against the wall and breaking their bones, you're losing. Obama isn't sending more troops -- he's sending more targets.
Adding to the confusion, Obama qualified his timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground." If conditions of the ground are key, why announce a pullout date?
Obama is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault. He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam. Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?
Does the 2012 election ring a bell?
This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.
On the other hand, the stage lighting and the camera angles at West Point were terrific, Obama's delivery was superb -- but what he was delivering was a funeral oration.
Read Col. Peters complete observations here . . .
Simon Jenkins, writing in the Guardian (UK), believes Obama has no stomach for this fight, and his "strategy" is a frantic bid to rescue what promises to be a stumbling re-election campaign that must start in 2011. It oozes with his desperation not to be in Afghanistan.
I'll go further. Obama's "strategy" is nuts! His goals are to "deny al Qaeda a safe haven," and to bribe the Taliban to lay down their arms.
The only way to deny al Qaeda a safe haven is to invade Pakistan -- and he's not going to do that -- and you can't bribe a "true believer."
Obama used the word "I" 45 times in his pompous, political, and pathetic speech, but he never once uttered the words "win" or "victory."
In a related event, Chris Matthews, commenting on the speech, referred to the United States Military Academy, at West Point, as "the enemy camp," providing more evidence that MSNBC is, in fact, "the enemy camp."
Now that I got all of that off my chest, I am taking a deep breath and going over to the links included in The Obama File post.
I grieve deeply for our nation today. I grieve for our military to be in the hands of an incompetent dolt who pretends to listen to his military commanders, but cuts in half the amount of troops needed for victory. (
McCrystal asked for 40,000 - 60,000). All we can do is continue to pray that God will keep us safe until this bogus
POTUS and horrible Congress (2010 Congressional elections can't get here soon enough!!!) are all booted out of office!!
Hat Tip:
The Obama File Latest News*******
Additional Articles and Blog Posts:
NY Mag.: Almost Everyone Hated Obama's Afghanistan Speech(Note: Good thing the author said
almost everyone. I wonder whether or not Mike Rucker, GMPilot, John, Scott and the rest of the ObamaBORG Bots who wander in here from time to time will be in that small group who will praise Obama for this speech?)
Gateway Pundit: West Point Cadets Told To Applaud Obama Before Speech But Fall Asleep Instead (Video)(Not surprised...)
Gateway Pundit: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama’s Weak Afghan Surge Speech (Video)(Krauthammer, "Do we have the commitment of the president?" Answer: NO!)
*******
Update:
Nice Deb: Compare and Contrast: The Decider v.s. The Ditherer At West Point.
Excerpt:
Captain Ed has a few more thoughts on the speech:
The only sense of real mission I get from this speech is that we’re going to send 30,000 more troops now so we can start evacuating all of them in the summer of 2011. It sounds like a slow-motion Dunkirk, and it recalls what Winston Churchill had to say after being congratulated for rescuing the entire British Army and a good portion of the French Army in 1940 from that massive cross-Channel evacuation: “Wars are not won by evacuations.” And apparently Obama agrees, since he didn’t bother to talk about victory at all, but instead treated it as a massive responsibility that he reluctantly will fulfill.
What’s the point of sending troops into a far off war zone, if you know you’re going to be sending them home in a few months, win or lose?
Exactly!
