Were you hoping, like DeVine Law Gamecock, to hear a Commander-in-Chief boosting the morale of U.S. armed forces last night, for the first time since President George W. Bush’s farewell? So was I, but all I got was a lot of hectoring to a silent room full of West Point army cadets.
No morale boost in sight, and we will detail the sheer arrogance and lies of the speech in a column later this week.
For now, lets concentrate on President Barack Obama’s war exit strategy as tax increase and the eerie silence of even the conservative media on the fact of General Stanley A. McChrystal’s troops request.
ObamaDems will levy a tax increase and call it fiscally responsible war exit strategy
DeVine Law truly believes that it was when Obama’s left wing anti-war Democrats in the House demanded that the Afghan surge they oppose be paid for that the President got animated enough to turn his attention from bowing to foreign leaders and health care reform.
One of the main problems with the Senate health care bill, for several so-called fiscally responsible Blue Dawgs, is that the bill adds to the deficit. Of course you know that when a Democrat is described as fiscally responsible it means that they favor tax increases, never spending cuts.
So, with that ammo in hand, Obama gained the confidence to turn an 80K troop request (more on that below) into a 40K request that he proposes to meet with 30K American troops and 10K begged from Europe, all while having an excuse for raising taxes to “end a war” to help supposedly pay for socialized medicine. But Obama deftly sidestepped the issue:
With the economy weak and the issue of jobs foremost on Americans’ minds, the president conceded that the new strategy would carry an expensive price tag, which he put at an additional $30 billion in the first year.
Yet with some Democrats talking of a war surtax, Mr. Obama offered no details of how he intended to pay for his new policy, saying only that he was “committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.”
White House advisers said they expected the administration would do so in the coming weeks, as officials including Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify on Capitol Hill starting Wednesday.
I guess an Obama Administration that doesn’t vet radical employees and party guests (I know, the Van Joneses and the party-crashers were welcomed with full knowledge, but follow me.) could be so incompetent to have gone months dithering over last night’s speech without having already decided on “paying for it”, but DeVine isn’t buying that.
Moreover, given all of the outrageous statements the President made that insulted the troops and the intelligence of the American people, one wonders what further damage could have been done by just going ahead and announcing a war tax.
But, instead of an “open and honest” assessment of paying for the surrender strategy (Democrats use the terms “end” and exit strategy”, but we know what they mean after 45 years…) we will get the usual leak of the new taxes 12 hours after Congress votes on a 2000 page bill.
There was nothing open and honest about the West Point address last night, but for the life of me I can’t understand why even Sean Hannity seems to be covering for Barack much like the Drive-by media and even scared moderate Republicans did back in the heady days of 60%+ approval ratings.
First it was going to be 39K troops
We also learn that the public insults to General McChrystal’s request for 80,000 troops has grown. Yesterday, we heard that Obama was going to send exactly 1000 troops less than McChrystal’s minimum request of 40,000. This was spun by the media (see below link) as “essentially” meeting the General’s request, despite being 41,000 less than the amount desired.
As we discussed yesterday, when Democrats speak of “exit strategies”, they really mean surrender/cut and run. They give the enemy a time schedule so they can better prepare their supply lines and plan their next attacks.
Now we learn that only 30K rather than 39K troops are being deployed.
Why overdo it now, when the Great Satan is telling you when attacks will be more fruitful.
The top military commander in Afghanistan is asking for up to 80,000 more American troops even as he warns that rampant government corruption there may prevent victory against the Taliban and al-Qaida, according to U.S. officials briefed on his conclusions.
His request outlines three options [10,000, 40,000 or 80,000] for additional troops…[with] [each] option [carrying] a high risk of failing, according to U.S. officials, although they said McChrystal concluded that fewer troops will bring the highest risks.
First of all, the President isn’t even giving McChrystal the 40K troops he said he could compromise on. Compromising wars is a Democratic Party oldie but goodie akin to “exit strategies.” Think the Brits and NATO will be anteing up 10K troops after Obama sent the Churchill bust of solidarity back to 10 Downing Street? Please. Of all the enemy nations that Obama has bowed and apologized to, it is our greatest ally that he has insulted ad nauseum and even failed to bow to their Queen! Patted her on the back like a coke snorting buddy from Honolulu.
Where is the Conservative media on the fact of McChrystal’s request for 80,000 troops?
But what is it that has the conservative media falling into line on the fiction that the General only requested 40K troops and that Obama has “essentially” met that request for “surge.”
No mention of victory and this is not a “surge”
No mention of victory as more troops get sent into a war zone. Oh no, merely ending “involvement”. Sounds like Obama thinks America was mere bystander as Afghans on horses scared Obama into Pakistan.
This is not a surge, even by Obama’s own terms. No! This is an exit strategy to end the war, complete with timetables!
It is not a surge.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson