Defending Obama

I have a friend, executive type, VERY capable, and she's a native Kenyan, now back living in Nairobi sparkplugging an air-charter company for cargo and clients. She's very enthusiastic about Obama, and her enthusiasm was catching, so I set out to argue Obama's case, promote him, speak well of him, and started a list of good things about Obama.

First of all, there's the abundance of Dark Cloud Dispersion that follows Obama everywhere, and the leveling of seas and the cooling of the polar ice-caps when he needs it. Or their warming, as need be. Obama's rainbows make it easy for me to practice the Om Mane Padme Hum of Obama-Life and chant quietly, "See, Say Pwethay!"

Above that, there is the rational feminine pulchritude and the response of women at Obama's rallies and speeches, who logically insist that their hearts go pitty-pat and their thighs tingle. Its a level-headed, passionate and unrehearsed reaction to Obama's Plans for Hopeful Change. Hopeful women hear his plans and then realize they must change, their knickers and all, twisted or knot!

Better than that is Obama's effect on the sharp, hard-boiled reporters of our nations media. They grin and blush and ask Obama questions that Obama can answer without taking his eyes from the teleprompter! This is amazing! These brave, level-headed men and women KNOW HOW TO ASK the tough questions Americans need to make an informed decision, and by golly, those journalists and reporters KNOW the questions that need asking! And if they ask, Obama shifts gears and reminds them that 'we can CHANGE!' The reporters KNOW to avoid asking questions that might reflect poorly on Obama's principles, his vision or his cognitive ability. We must be Perfectly Clear, hey?

Further up the list is Obama's outreach to America in words such as 'never', 'the worst' and 'the most'... He has a knack for verbal spin, each little phrase a gyroscope toddling along a thread of not-really-Marxist better-than-Marxist social justice, which Obama and Michelle will impose on us for our own good, all ten years of his presidency. Or nine, whatever, but I never need to doubt that Obama is the one to 'fix' these 'worst' problems, Obama is the one Hillary's waiting for in Denver.

Just below middle on this list of attributes and characteristics that make Obama a force to be reckoned with is his ability to spend 20 years in a racist, 'black' theology church with an obviously hateful, bitter white man pretending to be black while he shouts 'God DAMN America!' and yet Obama WAS NOT INFLUENCED even a little bit. Honest. And Obama's life-long, unreconstructed bomb-using anti-American friends? Wow, what a guy! He supports ACORN without being a nut!

Just above middle in my list of things I'm trying to support in Obama is Michelle, his wife. Golly, she is a real piece of stuff, isn't she?

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

I mean, there it is, right? Michelle has figured it all out, seen that all of us are 'uninformed, uninvolved'; she saw right through 280 million American adults' hypocritical denial and phony productivity and self-reliant personal responsibility and she's going to be sure Obama DEMANDS and REQUIRES us to get with his program! Or else!

A few positions from the GREATEST THING about Obama on my list, is Obama's assurance and virtual assumption of the American presidency already! Holy mackerel, Obama is practicing positive imaging, and he uses that fake 'presidential seal' and Obama's dismissive non-pledge of allegiance and revisionist change of American protocol even BEFORE being elected, that lets him NOT place his hand on his heart and NOT recite the Pledge, because 'everyone KNOWS' Obama is a good citizen, and can change America hopefully, even when lesser creatures sneer that 'Change and Hope is NOT a plan!'

Near the top of this list is Obama's removal of the American flag, Old Glory, from the tail of his campaign airplane! Hey, that is DECISIVE, and classy! Better than Old Glory is the Big Red O, now on the tail. Let the 'Story of O' begin! Obama is bigger and MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than America, can't you SEE?

Just below the number one position on this list of Obama's good points is his refusal to waste time visiting American troops in Germany. That is just, well, words fail me when I try to find descriptions of how much this should rock America's complacency! Obama didn't want to frustrate or upset those wounded troops by telling them of his "End the War in Iraq No Matter What!" plan to withdraw troops on a timetable known to all the world. Obama knows that some of those small-minded losers who enlisted because they had no other options would probably have knee-jerk reactions against such a bold appeasement, so he decisively avoided the whole problem. Obama will continue in this strong, bold manner in his role as Commander-in-Chief-Executive.

And the number one positive attribute is Obama's ability to speak the foreign language of the Muslims, taqqiyeh, the forked-tongue language noted by Native Americans as 'politician-speak'. Other politicians speak evasively on things like national security, top secrets and critical national defense, but Obama has the demonstrated ability to lie convincingly about, well, nearly everything.

These are Obama's good points. I'm studying ways to let everyone I know hear of these. America should KNOW before making that November Decision, eh?

More Courageous Than the New York Times!

The full text of McCain's opinion piece rebutting Obama's New York Times op-ed:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Hussein, Can You See?

Hussein, Can You See?

Hussein, can you see, to the media's delight
o'er the rambling bad talk
they're so callously skimming?

Missing swipes and light scars,
pitching softly-sweet lobs
Seeing nothing but good
in your um, ah, ad libbing?

And deep pockets drained bare
Jesse cutting your pair
Give proof through the fog
that you're simply NOT THERE!

Oy vey! Does your star-strangled
rhetoric yet stave
off the criticisms of the right
and the moans of the brave?

Frances De Tolkien Mule - circa 1951
Apologies to Francis Scott Key

Freedom Under Fire!

An excellent post on American freedoms, what they are and what we're protecting them against:

Freedom to THINK!


(cross-posted at http://www.ICallBS.net)

Obama, Remember Their Efforts!

The South was attacking from the north, and the North was defending from the South, and the battle was in its third day when General Lee ordered Longstreet to send General Pettigrew's, General Trimble's and General Pickett's brigades into the Union center.

Approximately 12,500 men in nine infantry brigades advanced over open fields for three quarters of a mile under heavy Union artillery and rifle fire. Although some Confederates were able to breach the low stone wall that shielded many of the Union defenders, they could not maintain their hold and were repulsed with over 50% casualties, a decisive defeat that ended the three-day battle and Lee's campaign into Pennsylvania.[1] When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed, General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it


You DO recall reading of this, don't you Mr Obama? 12,500 men waiting out their own artillery barrage against the Union lines, then bravely marching out over the more than a mile of flat land leading up to the Union's lines... These were Americans -Confederate Americans, granted- who were fighting with all they could bring to bear, in order to win the right to have THEIR States be left alone to carry on enslaving other humans, mostly blacks, for commercial and racist purposes.

Before the nine brigades neared the Union lines, more than 20 Union batteries -unharmed by the Rebel barrage- opened fire at 400 yards range, with explosive shot and shell, ripping holes in the lines of advancing white men. At about 300 meters, the left of the line was getting hit with canister, cannon shot that sent out a 1-meter cloud of lead marbles, Obama, so that when that fast-moving cloud hit the Rebels, 3 or 4 men disappeared completely in a blast of bloody mist, and several more were injured.

Over 1,600 artillery shells were fired into the Confederate brigades that day, this day, years ago... the left of the line never got much closer to victory than several hundred meters (the strong fence at the Emmitsburg road) but the center of the line made it to The Angle (in the Union's defensive position) and there engaged the Union in ferocious, hand-to-hand, bayonet-in-the-gut, muzzle in the face fighting...

Until it became apparent to the Rebels that the Boys in Blue HAD been reinforced (8th Ohio and 72 Pennsylvania) and apparent that the Rebels had lost half their number AND there would be NO reinforcements coming...

Why is this important, you ask? Well, Mr Obama, those fierce, determined, brave and courageous white men REALLY WANTED TO WIN, for "States' Rights" and for slavery and for their own regimental colors and for honor...

But the Union ALSO wanted to win, and despite losses and despite the courage of the men attacking, the white men DEFENDING the Union WON the field, and history later marked July 3, 1863 as the high-water mark of the Confederacy.

The Union HAD to defeat the Confederacy in order to restore the Union, and the Confederacy had only to NOT LOSE in order to win, but the forces fighting for the principles of unity, harmony and the oneness of humankind WON the day. Slavery in America was defeated, although some Arabs around the world would continue it legally until the late 20th century and illicitly to this day.

That war, Mr Obama, was a defining moment in America's life. The grand American experiment stumbled through the horror and pain of fighting itself, 3 million 5 hundred thousand uniformed combatants, and 600,000 deaths, Obama.

Like others before them, they died for YOUR freedom. Honor them, and honor America in your efforts to lead America now, in THIS time of war. Lead for ALL Americans!

Cross-posted at I Call BS!