Tag: Political positions of Barack Obama

Timely post on Syria from a military perspective

Strategy Page has an awesome post about why the public in Western countries have turned on their leader’s decision to intervene in Syria, because of the supposed use of Chemical weapons by the Assad regime on the opposition. Now, remember that these leaders suddenly feel compelled to act because of some hard to verify attack that killed some 300 to 1000 people, depending on the source, in a conflict where over 100,000 people have been killed through conventional weapons. My opinion of why Obama is so gung-ho about doing something in Syria is well known, and I am willing to bet, dead on too, but the reason why people in general are against any military intervention at all, even when WMDs have been used, is something that has not been properly explored. And the Strategy Page article seems to do a decent job of explaining the why. From the article:

Western leaders have been slow to accept this unpleasant news but the voters, who pay for these attacks in money and blood, have a veto power and they are exercising it. The Internet has spread the personal experience of Western troops far and wide and the mindset of Arabs in conflict areas is now widely known in the West. The continued popularity of Islamic terrorism among so many Moslems, including many living in the West, adds to this sense of disgust and distrust.

This shift in attitude has been building for over a decade. Iraq demonstrated that, as has the after-effects of the Arab Spring, where Arabs, freed from log-time dictators, voted Islamic radicals into power. That was stupid even by Arab standards and the Arab public is now trying to repair that damage. But the corruption and lack of responsible leadership and general unreliability of Arabs has put off the West, even in the face of a great humanitarian disaster in Syria. It’s not the first time this has happened. The West pulled out of Somalia in 1993 because of frustration with trying to help people who won’t make much of an effort to help themselves and were more interested in killing and stealing.

The West is learning why the Turks were so glad to be rid of their Arab subjects after the Ottoman Empire collapsed a century ago. Then there is the corruption and intense hatreds found among the Arabs. It’s a very volatile and unpredictable part of the world and always has been. For centuries, the West was shielded from this reality because the Ottoman Turks ruled most of the Arabs.

And that in a nutshell is the problem in the Middle East: corruption, clannishness, ineffective leadership, and general unreliability of both the people and their leadership simply makes any attempt to bring order and prosperity of any kind to these countries a futile effort. These people are their own worst enemy. More frightening is their belief that the Islamist somehow, because they preach it, at least in their minds, will provide the solution. Instead, what they end up with are things like Khomeini’s Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Brotherhood in Egypt, and even more pain and problems as the corruption now is coupled with brutal and randomized abuses of power.

The fact is that we now see that the Arabs are basically dysfunctional people. Sure we can blame colonialism and borders created by the old colonial empires for this dysfunction, like the marxist academicians that hate the West for not succumbing to the collectivist yoke have been doing, but it would all be a stupid simplification of a much uglier and bigger problem, if not, and outright lie. Nobody, including these Arabs, can function on a scale beyond the family or clan. When you consider everyone outside your clan or family to be a mark, there is no way to create the concept of a country. That’s also why these Arab states do not function without a dictator and Muhammad needed Islam to bring some order to them in the hopes that combining religion with politics would yield an answer. Never worked out well, and it only left us with a death cult.

That Strategy page article goes into some great detail about all the problems in the ME and how the Western people are finally wising up to these facts. Consequently, we are far less likely to get public support for action, even when our leaders pretend the reason they want to bomb someone is humanitarian, instead of to provide cover for their own corruption and abuses of power. We may not yet be at the point where everyone is comfortable saying that the Arabs, because of what they believe and how they deal with the world around them and other people, are their own worst enemy yet, but we are almost there. And don’t let the idiotic meme currently pushed by Obama sycophants in the LSM that the reason people are much more cautious and less inclined to support intervention in Syria, even when we are promised that they will not put boots on the ground, is because of Iraq, and particularly their rewriting of history about how Boosh lied to get us into Iraq (since everyone knew there were no WMDs), fool you. It is a giant pile of bullshit. If Iraq plays a role it is that people have wizened up after seeing that after all the sacrifices we did to rid them of their tyrant and his oppression, they went right back to business as usual and turned the place into a shithole. That’s the story there. People no longer want to waste treasure, time, and blood on people that revert to stupidity when given a new chance.

Besides, people aren’t stupid. Most of us clearly see that this attack is nothing but a diversion. An attempt to distract us from all the bad shit they are doing. And the “they” are both democrats and republicans. Leave Syria alone. Let those fuckers do their thing. If anything, arm both sides and let them wipe each other out. That’s the only win-win for those of us that have wizened up.

Obama the Decider

You know, if our politics were in any way sane, this piece, about how the Obama Administration decides on drone strikes, would be a big fucking deal. It came out two weeks ago and I’ve been tossing it around in my head while I waited for the liberal explosion of rage that would accompany an article indicating Mitt Romney was even planning something like it. I’m still waiting.

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.

You really really should read the whole thing. It’s not just about the drone strikes, although that is the heart of the article. It shows how Obama addresses almost every aspect of the War on Terror. It talks about how he left loopholes in his “bold” closing off of Bush policies, how they keep civilian casualties down in drone strikes*, and how they have navigated the legal waters. It is an absolute must-read if you are going to debate the War on Terror.

(*They, no kidding, conclude that any male of military age near a terrorist target is also a terrorist. By that standard, if Ted Kaczynski has decided to revisit his old haunts at Berkeley, any professors killed in a drone strike … well, we won’t go there. But I’m reminded of cops questioning and arresting people in the wee hours because they must be up to something if they’re out at that hour.)

On the one hand, I’m encouraged that the President knows what’s going on and is making decisions based on pragmatics, not on ideology. It’s nice to know that there is a process to this and the President ultimately is taking responsibility. On the other hand, this “pragmatic” approach has led us to a point where the President of the United State and a Noble Prize Winner now has an enemies list from which he designates people for assassination. It has expanded the executive power of the President even further into regions that, according to an excellent piece by Andrew Napolitano, are unconstitutional and dangerous.

It’s important to remember, in this discussion, that evil is not usually done by people rubbing their hands together and cackling insanely. It is done by people who think their actions are justified and for the best. And for all the Obamaites who read this and are impressed by the process … imagine that process in the hands of someone else. Imagine Sarah Palin making these decisions.

This is not about Obama. It’s never about Obama. It’s about the process. People like me focus on process — sometimes obsessively — because we believe that a good process will, in the long run, produce better results. When a President assumes this kind of power, you never know what will happen five, ten, twenty years down the road.

There’s one other thing that bothered me about the article and it took me a week to put my finger on it. It’s the overwhelmingly positive spin. We get sentences like this:

Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counterterrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions. And he knows that bad strikes can tarnish America’s image and derail diplomacy.

Student of Augustine and Aquinas. Nicely done. This frankly reads like a piece written by Obama’s staff. There is little, if any, criticism. And much of the information comes from classified, unnamed sources — the kind of sources Obama would come down on like a ton of bricks if they were leaking something he didn’t want coming out. So in the end, this is not a hard-bitten piece of investigative journalism. It’s a puff piece aimed at re-election.

Look, taking out terrorists is a nasty business. They hide in crowds and among innocents. They claim the mantle of God and declare holy wars. Their biggest leaders don’t strap on bombs themselves but inspire younger dumber people to do so while they surround themselves with women and children. No on ever said this was going to be pretty.

But I’m not convinced it has to be quite this ugly.

Update: All you need to know about the Left wing response to this: Democratic Hub’s list of Obama accomplishments? Half of it consists of people he killed.

Liberal flip-flop on terrorists and constitutional rights.

In a clean reversal of what the left told us all during the hate filled 8 years of Boosh-Hitler’s reign of terror about how the US constitution should apply to everyone, including terrorists at Club Gitmo that needed to be tried in civilian court, where Holder also guaranteed guilty verdicts I remind you reader, we now find out that Holder thinks terrorists are no longer eligible for constitutional protection now that his boss wants the right to just shoot them dead. Let me first point out how happy I am that Holder and Obama have seen the light and finally discovered that extending constitutional protection to enemy combatants at war with you that specifically hide behind the guise of being a civilian until they can strike at you is suicidal and stupid. I knew that once they had to deal with the mess and the consequences they would see the light. Reality still wins out sometimes.

Now for the fun part, and that is bashing the hypocrisy and pointing out how dangerous the left really is. By now it should be obvious that the only reason they wanted to extend constitutional protection to terrorist when Bush was president was because they felt it would undermine his administration and yield them potential political gains either way. By “they” I mean the cynical leftist power mongers like Obama and Holder that pretended to be morally superior and advocating that constitutional protection be given to terrorists when it brought them political advantage only to reverse themselves now that they stand to reap the fruits of their earlier stance. These people are beyond scumbags. They pretended to be for this insane concept that produced all kinds of problems for the people fighting the Islamist radicals and put American lives in danger, telling everyone that it was out of some higher moral reasoning and lofty idealism, but now that their asses are in the cross hairs and this stance is inconvenient, we find out that it all was for show and pure personal gain. However they didn’t stop at that:

Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago that the government is within its rights to kill citizens who are senior leaders in al-Qaeda or affiliate groups who pose an “imminent threat” of attack against the USA and whose capture is “not feasible.”

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a U.S. citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Holder said, according to a text of his speech. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

Get that? Not only do terrorists not get that constitutional protection these leftist twits once, when it hurt the other side – and I should point out so harshly criticized the previous administration for doing – were for, yet now are against, because it hurts them, but they take it one step further and make the case that citizens that they deem to be terrorists are out of luck too. Look, I believe no terrorist should be granted any kind of constitutional or Geneva Convention protection, especially when they are financed and harbored by foreign entities that are hostile to our way of life, and indubitably they all seem to fall in that category. I also believe we need to start killing traitors, and someone that joins the terrorists and declares war on the US is a traitor, like the constitution told us we should. But I also understand the legitimate concern some have with this practice/power that it can and will be abused, but my bet is that the abuse, as we see now, will come from the power centers on left, which as I pointed out already complained really hard about it then, but now are mostly silent when it gets expanded to include citizens too. And that is fucking hypocritical.

Anyway, their reversal seems to come from this:

The attorney general’s remarks come as civil rights advocates have condemned such killings, including the fatal military drone strike in September against Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader of al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. U.S. government officials have asserted that al-Awlaki helped direct the failed Christmas Day bombing of a commercial airliner over Detroit in 2009 and the failed effort to blow up U.S. cargo planes with explosives planted in printer cartridges in 2010.

Awalaki needed killing. I applaud Obama for ordering that hit. There is no doubt this guy was an enemy of this country, worked hard for the other side, and had blood on his hands. Awalaki even told us so himself. Maybe the people that are angry he was shot by a drone have a point that he every attempt to capture him instead was not exhausted, but considering the ridiculous stance the left took on terrorist and their treatment as prisoners of war, I can see why Obama and Holder, staring at having to deal with that problem themselves, decided that killing this guy was probably less of a headache for them. We need to remain vigilant though. I would not put it past leftists like Obama and Holder to take this a step further and declare Rush Limbaugh a terrorist, then have on of those drones they have now flying on US soil hit him with a hellfire missile. After all, they mean well unlike that cowboy Bush, whom I do have to point out never did anything like this, despite the lefts beliefs that he would be capable of far worse, while Obama did. And no, that wasn’t because the left was vigilant and prevented Bush from doing bad things, despite how hard they pretend that was the case. Most of them are however now unconcerned when one of their own did what they would have found intolerable from the other side and portends to go much further. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

It’s Bush’s fault!

In typical fashion the Obama administration has again chosen to do something that costs jobs and hurts the economy of America, and then laid the blame on others for the impact of their decisions. The geniuses that brought us such successes as Solyndra and numerous other questionable renewable energy investments which benefit them and their friends, but not the consumers, whom they have been very clear they believe should have to pay far more for energy of the kind they approve of, have decided that the Canadian oil pipeline is not good. And they blame congressional republicans for codifying law that prevented Obama from killing the project by delaying the approval for so long that the Canadians would choose to go elsewhere.

In a decision sure to re-ignite a fierce energy debate, the Obama administration was announcing on Wednesday its rejection of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline because the 60-day deadline imposed by Republicans did not allow adequate time to review an alternate route through critical wetlands in the Midwest.

Deputy Secretary of State William Burns was to make the announcement on the project that would carry oil from Canada’s carbon-heavy tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast and would indicate that TransCanada, the company seeking to build the $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline, will be able to reapply with a new route avoiding an ecologically sensitive area of Nebraska, sources told National Journal.

Put more simply, the Obama administration is hitting Republicans back by saying no because of their forcing him to decide on the project in just 60 days. Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail promptly painted the decision as a rejection of thousands of American jobs purely for political reasons.

So instead of blaming the Canadians for not wanting to wait forever for the “environmental impact studies” – that is code for I am going to drag this out until you give up or the cost forces you to go elsewhere – that Team Obama wanted to use to kill the project, now they blame republicans for trying to prevent them from playing that card. Don’t be fooled. Team Obama never, ever, intended to let this project go through. Now the Canadians whom despite their embrace of socialism are not insane will sell this valuable resource to the Chinese, and we will not only get to pay more for our energy, but lose out on the benefit of getting a valuable resource from our neighbor to the North and further breaking any possible dependency on countries that are hostile to us.

Yeah, sure. Bush was worse than this moron and his circus, and it is his fault this went bad too. And Obama really meant to improve the economy from the start, but he got handed a shit sandwich. It’s not the policies and other decisions, like this one, that are hammering our economy hard. In the mean time we can all cheer up at the fact that our gas & heating oil prices will now go up as this valuable source of energy goes to power China and the Chinese economy. Evil market speculators will all profit from the rise in prices too. We should dump them all these watermelons without any technology in a tropical jungle, preferably one with the highest number of natural predators, and let them fend for themselves. That might give us a little bit of justice for the disservice this movement is doing people. Especially those poor people they pretend to so care about.

Goebbles’ wet dream

That’s what this new propaganda front by some organization called “Obama for America” smacks of, to me. This stuff is some serious bullshit man. I had a good laugh at some of the nonsense being showcase as I wondered if anyone there even realized how frightening this kind of thing looked like. Seriously, this is basically a government reporting program, set up to look as if it isn’t run by those in government, so they can then use it to attack their opposition. Like the title of my post implies: this smacks of closet fascism.

So I was originally just going to leave the post at that, the implications of this whole thing was frightening enough IMO, but I decided to take a deeper dive into that cesspool. In particular I wondered WTF the whole “President Bush, not Obama sign TARP into law” deal was about. Yeah Bush signed TARP, but Pelosi’s congress – where spending originates from – is the one that took the original $300 billion proposed by the assholes in the Bush administration and raised it to $700 billion, against Bush’s wishes, daring him to then not sign it. Are you trying to absolve Obama from the fact he was one of those democrats? Maybe he was not there to vote present. What’s the point here? Who do they think said Obama signed TARP anyway? Or is the point of this idiotic thing to deflect blame from both the Pelosi congress that originated the ridiculous sum assigned to TARP and the Obama administration, which supervised much of the spending, to Bush by claiming that since he signed it, he was the one responsible? Are they trying to say that Obama buying out GM for the unions basically didn’t happen because if you need to lay blame it lies with Bush for signing TARP? I don’t get it.

Next one. And man, my bullshit meter went off on the whole marxist gun grabbing crap. Maybe they think they can fool people with shit like “President Obama believes in common sense gun control laws compatible with Second Amendment rights”, but we already know that they think “common sense gun laws” are laws that prevent everyone but the state from having guns, and they are on record stating that they also believe the second amendment rights only apply to state sanctioned militias and not the public at large. They must think people are idiots. Last I remember those that believe in the same common sense laws and interpreted the second amendment to apply to militias and not the citizens lost in that SCOTUS decision, thankfully, and the constitution prevailed. Personally I also find little common sense in laws that disarm everyone but the criminals unless the common sense is to keep the sheep from being able to fight a tyrannical government off.

Then there was the bit on how “friendly” Obama is to Israel. I believe that played out in the NY-9 election where the democrat was trounced last night in a predominantly Jewish district. If Obama was so friendly to Israel one would have to wonder why the Jewish vote was deserting him in record numbers. Obama HAS thrown Israel under the bus. No US president since Carter has been this condescending and outright hostile to Israel. Then again, Obama also pissed on the leg of British people and told them it was warm rain. He seems to have made it a habit of dissing our closest allies and kissing the ass of the vilest and most evil villains out there, so maybe one could argue he wasn’t singling out Israel for this kind of shit treatment.

I just laughed at the whole Immigration reform piece. After admitting that Team Obama is looking for some kind of amnesty program – that’s what that “smart and fair” is code for – they tried to make him look good by claiming he was however going to kick out those people that posed a risk to national security. If very few, if anybody, meets that set of criteria these goons will come up with, and thus, only some token people get deported, this will still be reported as Obama getting though on illegal immigration. The fact that others now get to stay, a clear reward for breaking the law, is ignored.

I do have to admit that I was saddened that they didn’t have a Solyndra post up. Maybe they need one claimign that porkulus bill also created all those jobs the WH claimed it did. Or that this one will be the magic bullet. Those ones would have been fun to watch. Low brow doesn’t even pass muster.

Obama talked. And we got just more of the same…

Well it’s what? Some 961 days since he took office, and now Obama finally has decided he needs to tackle jobs – or appear to be doing so is what I see this as being – because he is heading for an epic ass kicking in 2012, even if his opponent is Dracula himself. Obama and his groupies are warning the republicans to pass this bill, and pass it fast, or else. I admit that I didn’t bother watching the community organizer in chief’s speech last night, but I did go read up on what he said, and as far as I can tell, while the left and the LSM are all talking about a bill, it is obvious that we have no bill whatsoever, but just a plan. Is this more of that special “Hope & Change” magic?

What I do know is that the price for this non-existent bill climbed from the $300 billion in new stimulus that was touted at the beginning of the week to a staggering something closer to another half a trillion. Fox news puts this new Keynesian stimulus plan that democrats are trying real hard not to refer to as stimulus part deux at $450 billion, but since there is no real bill, and I suspect that’s the number the WH gave them, I certainly wont be surprised that if we ever do get a bill, the price tag ends up being far costlier. Seriously, we waited over 30 months for Obama’s people to produce this junk?

The plan, touted as a bill, supposedly is a mix of tax cuts, tax credits, infrastructure investments and other measures – heavy on the infrastructure investment and other measures, and tax cuts and credits that I bet again only target those private sector industries the left wants to be the winners instead of those that actually would produce jobs immediately, I bet – needs to be nailed down, but so far, there is very little I see that will do any real job creation. And from the response by others that are not desperate democrats, it is obvious they where not very impressed. The problem our economy is facing right now is directly tied to the insecurity that the private sector feels because of what has been done so far. That’s because of a combination of things. The first is the myriad of crazy and unpredictable collectivist regulations coming from those things that Team Obama focused on, while ignoring jobs I should add, during its first 2 years. That coupled with a palpable hostility towards the private sector from these elitist academics playing political games, leave practically all small business owners feeling that it is simply too dangerous to expand and hire on new people, when the cost to them is nebulous and likely to just go up every damned time these democrats do anything. And that’s why trillions of dollars of government spending later, with even more debt being made we have no honest, real, and enduring job creation.

And this plan they claim is a bill? Well it is more of the same failed recipes of the last 30 months. Seriously, at this point Obama might want to take a page from my job plan. Topless coffee shops might actually do more to grow the economy than this idiotic plan of his that smacks of nothing more than another attempt to have tax payers subsidize the campaign coffers of countless democrats for the coming 2012 elections. Some people are advocating that we should let them actually create a bill and the pass it, because it is a victory for those that want these people out of power when it fails – and have no doubt it will fail – but seriously, the price tag is freaking frightening.

One set of rules for us, another for them

Want more proof that when the democrats where all undignified and blaming “bad language” from the opposition for inciting bad people to do bad things after the whole shooting incident of Kathy Giffords, demanding that the conservatives on the other side basically never again say anything bad about them, that it was all bullshit political posturing? Well, check out Obama and the democrats “new army” spokesman at work:

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa had some profane, combative words for Republicans while warming up the crowd for President Obama in Detroit, Michigan on Monday.

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” Jimmy Hoffa said to a heavily union crowd.

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,” Hoffa added.

Despite any attempts to polish this turd up, what we have here is one of Obama’s big guys talking war. Don’t fall for the attempt to pretend that the other side is the one that started it and they are just nobly fighting back: that’s just a big lie so they can then pretend that the dirty tactics they are about to employ are justified. See, when democrats say shit like this, they are fighting for the little guy! If people take this Mafioso at his words and do things to conservatives after hearing these words, then they are just fighting for their rights. The left after all, can never do wrong, and the left are the ONLY ones that care about little people. Maybe the little people should tally up how well the left has served them these last couple of years again.

We should never let these crooks & shysters tell anyone what they can say or not say, and we should point out how what they really are after is one set of rules that totally favors whatever they do for them, and another, which completely handicaps the other side and basically leaves them mute, for the people they hate. Don’t expect anyone in the LSM to actually apply the same standards they did when they figured they could milk the Giffords tragedy for political advantage to these people BTW. The left after all uses scorched earth tactics and demands the other side fight like a timid 50 pound 12 year old girl. Where is Tony Montana and his “little friend” when you need it, huh? Bet you that statement will irk them and get them to decry the violent rhetoric on the right. Fuck them.

It’s not my bad priorities, lack of understanding about economics, stupid beliefs, or incompetence: it’s bad luck!

That’s what Obama told people on the campaign trial when discussing the horrible economy we are straddled with under his presidency. So, if you will follow along here, and allow me to set this up with some facts, I will put some perspective on this claim. First off, according to Obama and the left’s reckoning, the economy went south because of evil Boosh. W’s his tax cuts for the rich and his wars to steal oil – do they still call it that these days? – being the main reasons, and not the growth of the entitlement nanny state, though. Those of us that know better know we had an implosion in the housing market because for 3 decades democrats pushed laws and guaranteed government backing to lenders to get them to go along with the insane practice of forking over huge sums of money to bad risks – because they believed that homeownership, like healthcare, was a right – then tried to hide the bad loans using Freddie & Fanny and a whole lot of trading schemes and scams, until the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

They will also tell you evil Boosh threw a whole bunch of money at Wall Street when this happened. The fact is Bush’s people wanted $350 billion, Pelosi’s congress jacked it up to $700 billion. We should have spent exactly $0 and let all these banks go belly up. It would have hurt for a year or so, but we would have been fine after that. And most of that money went to bail out friends of the democrats. That was followed, with Obama as president by then, by a stimuluspatronage bill that’s going to cost tax payers over a trillion dollars when said & done, that served primarily to help service the usual democrat constituencies – federal & state workers, lobbyists, big donors, and eventually campaign coffers – at the expense of over one million private sector jobs according to economic analysts that understand how dumb the Keynesian bull is.

But they did not stop there. While they where siphoning massive quantities of money from the private sector, pissing away tons of money we don’t have, tacking on about 2 trillion of new debt every year, and letting the very architects of the regulatory morass that led to the housing collapse rewrite the rules of the game, they also wanted to push a massive “Cap & Tax” bill – for the environment and to push green jobs! – created the most hostile anti-business environment ever, ratcheted up the class warfare, and passed what will likely become the final nail in the American coffin, Obamacare, on a purely party line vote, after throwing billions in bribe money at their own party members to get them to go along and setting up a scheme for their friends to get exclusions to the law.

The class warfare rhetoric & anti-business agenda has been so evident and thick, against the people most needed to invest and grow the economy that it is an insult to hear any democrat, and especially the president, pretend they give a rat’s ass about anything but government control of the markets, and certainly their track record proves that what they did was anathema to job creation of any kind in the private sector. Hence the tour to convince people that the problem isn’t them, but bad luck:

At a town hall meeting on his campaign-style tour of the Midwest, President Obama claimed that his economic program “reversed the recession” until recovery was frustrated by events overseas. And then, Obama said, with the economy in an increasingly precarious position, the recovery suffered another blow when Republicans pressed the White House for federal spending cuts in exchange for an increase in the national debt limit, resulting in a deal Obama called a “debacle.”

“We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again,” Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. “But over the last six months we’ve had a run of bad luck.” Obama listed three events overseas — the Arab Spring uprisings, the tsunami in Japan, and the European debt crises — which set the economy back. “All those things have been headwinds for our economy,” Obama said. “Now, those are things that we can’t completely control. The question is, how do we manage these challenging times and do the right things when it comes to those things that we can control?”

Let that sink in. After owning government for 2 years and focusing on anything but getting the private industry to create jobs, they blame the fact things have gotten worse not on their actions, policies, and beliefs, but on bad luck! Anyone that believes this nonsense deserves this economy. The problem isn’t bad luck: it’s the downright hostility towards the private sector, job creators, and anything not controlled and run by the academics in government, coupled with a heavy dose of incompetence, if not outright malicious forethought and action, all while pissing away trillions of dollars, that has basically pushed investors, job creators, and even the American people into playing tortoise, hoping this ill wind blows over sooner than later.

If Obama wants to blame things on bad luck, blame it on the bad luck that we had so many people fall for the propaganda that turned a community organizer/academic with a resume that’s thinner than that of the average college grad into the second coming. I guess the adage that history repeats itself is playing itself out. People forgot the Carter years. Obama is hell bent on making those of us that do remember those finally say someone did worse than Carter.

I am with Obama on this…

What do you ask? Well, he is about to disregard his generals advice and pull troops out of Afghanistan so he can say he did so before the next election regardless of the consequences.

Barack Obama is set to reject the ad vice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, in time for the US presidential election. The move comes despite warnings from his military commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013.

The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives. “This is not something we feel entirely comfortable with,” a Whitehall official told the Guardian.

Obama’s nationally televised address, the sixth he has given since becoming president, is intended to mark the beginning of the end of American military deployment in Afghanistan, from a present high of almost 100,000 troops.

And that’s because the man is desperate and his concern that he has to overcome stuff like this so he is not doomed in 2012, is now his most paramount and only concern.

Americans are growing more dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.

By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy “substantially better” by the end of 2012.

Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate.

Anyway, I am with the generals that this is a disastrous decision that will only guarantee us more pain in the future, but I now am convinced that these democrats do not give a rats ass about the sacrifices made by the troops, unless they can claim the victories made possible by their betters or score political points, and if their concern is always their own political viability over our security, at least I would then prefer they pull our troops out of harms way. I also doubt this move will help him that much with anyone, because they will see it for what it is: political maneuvering. The insane base will still hate the fact that he hasn’t just pulled everyone out, disbanded the military, begged the UN for forgiveness, and disbanded evil America. Most of the rest of us will know that he just did that to bolster his reelection campaign chances because while he did escalate the fighting originally, his heart has never been in it. And then there will be the few that might fall for this, but they are going to be of no consequence.

If we are not going to fight to win against an enemy that has declared war on us, at least pull the troops out so they don’t have to die in vain. Hopefully someone that understands the consequences of not fighting to win will come along in time to save us from the impending disaster those that think running away is an option. I leave you with a couple of quotes by Mr. Churchill that pretty much sum up the problem we face.

“England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame and will get war.” –Winston Churchill

“Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature.” –Winston Churchill