I’ll admit I didn’t watch the president’s speech on Libya last night.
I had to um, uh, feed my imaginary dog. Yeah, that’s it.
Really, there were more important things to do than waste my time hearing vague platitudes and weak-kneed explanations for our kinetic military actions in Libya. And if I were to waste my time that way, I’d have to be well nigh two sheets to the wind. At least then, what this poseur said just might make sense.
It seems like the more this president speaks, the murkier any issue becomes. Contradictions abound in his speeches on the rare occasion when they are coherent. Clarity isn’t this guy’s trademark. So I’ll let others dissect his speech, which shouldn’t take very long for anyone with a fourth-grade grasp of American English.
I will, however, say this: I don’t like what I’m not hearing from this embarrassment of a president when it comes to the upheaval in the Middle East.
What I expect to hear is a full-throated determination to win anything that bears the slightest resemblance to war. When my friends tell me that their children are being sent into harm’s way, I expect to hear a damned good reason for placing their lives in danger. I don’t want them to be anywhere any longer than necessary. If they are sent into some foreign place that probably hates the US (except for our money), there had better be something tangible for us to gain from our sacrifice of American blood.
We go in it to win it or not at all.
Part of the reason, if not all of the reason, that we’re so despised by the world has been our insistence upon attempting to fight our most recent wars in a manner that the Left finds acceptable. Apparently, their notion of fighting somehow involves harming no civilians, no children, infrastructure, or the enemy. The rules of engagement that our fighting forces must operate under favor the enemy over the safety of our troops. Our efforts to fight a politically correct war will never succeed, and the result not only looks like weakness to our enemies, it is.
And when the Senate majority leader publicly pronounces any war lost, as the despicable Harry Reid once said, then the image of America as a weakling on the world stage is firmly fixed in the mind of the world.
But, that’s the way the Left wants it. So, with them in charge, that’s the way it shall be. American military bad, any other military good (like Egypt).
It’s all so simple. And it’s all backwards.
At least President Bush had an objective that was in the best interests of the nation: he wanted people to be free. He said so at every opportunity. There was no waffling, no hesitation, no wondering about his motives for foreign interventions. This was evident following the brutal attack of 9-11 and widely supported by the Left for about two months. Then progressive brainiacs in the DNC decided that opposition to aggression against the aggressors who aided and abetted the enemy in the 9-11 attack was the winning ticket to political power, reality be damned.
Then the criticism started. Each and every movement by Bush was wrong. Any military intervention was the result of the Bush-Cheney-military-industrial-oil-big-business cabal and therefore wrong, wrong, wrong! Anti-war protests started in places like Berkeley, organized by the usual useful idiots like Code Pink and the SDS. Bush never could find the cojones to defend his position, mistakenly thinking that reality would intervene at some point and calm the left’s spittle-flecked rants.
So, hitting the reset button was necessary to appease the appeasers on the Left. Obama promised a New World Order with America as merely one among many nations united under the auspices of that august body of unity and whirled peas, the United Nations.
So, thanks to that button, we’re now supporting the very enemy that we fought in Afghanistan. Providing them with arms and military support. Aiding and abetting, if you will.
That makes sense, how?
Where is the overarching goal, Mr. President? Astute political observers pored over your speech from last night and they can’t find it.
Why is it so difficult for you to articulate a position, Sir? Why can’t you say that you support the uprisings when they are in the name of freedom, liberty, and self-determination? Or is that what you want?
I’d like to hear this from you, just once: “It’s our clear intention to solve any humanitarian crisis with strength borne of freedom. When the voices of a people unite against despotism, we will answer with liberation. We will not allow one form of tyranny to replace another. If the goal is to be democracy, let it be of the type that forged this country into the greatest society the world has ever known, with freedom and liberty for all. If the goal is to be freedom, let it be pursued with all due diligence, never wavering from the course set by the Founders of freedom not so long ago. We will be a steadfast partner to those who wish for themselves the blessings of liberty, for no other outcome is worthy of us. We have our own history to offer, our own form of government as a template and the good will of our people as inspiration. Together we shall break the chains of tyranny upon the anvil of liberty, that all may benefit. We will spend our blood and our treasure on nothing less. ”
Anything else that falls short of this kind of language will fall upon deaf ears.
Come here, Fido…