Update: Obama’s short, limp, weak, speech is over. Short version of the speech (which had no details – what did Obama do for three months?) is: “we’re accelerating in to accelerate out”.
A pictorial representation of the speech is here:
If you elect a boob, expect boobery. A while back we made our “Julia Child” analogy regarding universal health care. The “Julia Child” analogy is also apt for the situation in Afghanistan:
Think of it this way: A hungry person gets two invitations for dinner. The first invitation is from Julia Child. The second invitation is from Jeffrey Dahmer.
With the first invitation from Julia Child (a.k.a. Hillary Clinton) the hungry person is sure to get a delicious nutritious dinner from an experienced and knowledgeable and trustworthy cook who knows the pitfalls of the kitchen. With the second invitation from Jeffrey Dahmer (a.k.a. Barack Obama) the hungry person will be on the table as the dinner.
The above was from Obama Holds Press Conference At Waterloo. That was the presser that ended with Obama insulting the Cambridge Police Department. That press conference was supposed to force the U.S. Senate to vote on health care before the August recess. That press conference was a failure.
Tonight we have yet another Obama publicity stunt. The stage props tonight will be cadets at West Point Academy.
We’ll wait patiently for the publicity stunt words to roll out of Obama’s mouth tonight. But we don’t think things will go well. If you elect a boob, expect boobery.
* * * * *
There is a reason why Americans are so concerned about the White House “party crashers”. The story is interesting not because of people sneaking into a state dinner. It’s not even about all the misspellings on the White House menu for a state dinner. It’s about the disarray people sense and things unraveling.
Many Americans are upset at the lavish Obama party spending in the face of so much economic dislocation. Even so, with all the assistants Michelle Obama has hired to keep her high on the hog, with all the employees dedicated to state dinner jobs, how do such “mishaps” happen? What do the little things say about the big things?
A little noticed Newsweek story clues us in to the fact that the Secret Service is taking all the blame when clearly something else is going on:
The White House staff member whose job was to supervise the guest list for state dinners and clear invitees into the events says she was stripped of most of her responsibilities earlier this year, prompting her to resign last June.
The account of Cathy Hargraves, who formerly served as White House “assistant for arrangements,” raises new questions about whether changes that she says were made by President Obama’s social secretary, Desiree Rogers, may have contributed to the security lapses that permitted Virginia socialites Michaele and Tareq Salahi to crash the state dinner for India’s prime minister last week and get themselves photographed with the president.
Hargraves tells Declassified in an exclusive interview that although she had originally been hired as a White House political appointee in 2001, she landed a new position on the White House residence staff in 2006 and was specifically detailed to the social office to work on state dinners.
Her job duties included overseeing the invitations for guests at state dinners and keeping track of RSVPs, she says. On the evening of state dinners, she says, she physically stood at the East Gate portico entrance and greeted each of the guests as they arrived, checking their names off a computerized printout of those who had been invited.
But when she met with Rogers last February and went over her job responsibilities, she says, the new social secretary told her, “We don’t feel we have a need for that anymore.” Rogers’s explanation, according to Hargraves: “In these economic times, I don’t think we’re going to have very many lavish expensive dinners. It wouldn’t look very good.”
Yet the lavish Marie Antoinette entertainments flourished with sleeveless Michelle presiding.
The lavish wit of yesteryear, Dorothy Parker, was once asked to use the word “horticulture” in a sentence. Parker replied, “You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.” In the same way you can give Obama a perfect plan but it won’t work. You can give Obama a Julia Child recipe but what he produces will not be edible. Obama may or may not have a perfect plan for Afghanistan, but boobery will ensue.
Think of it this way: In any Three Stooges short film, the Stooges might be wealthy and dressed in Tuxedos, but the end result will be the same – a pie fight will ensue. Larry’s hair will eventually be yanked by the fistful, and Curley is sure to have a hammer clammer on his head.
It does not matter what Obama does or says at 8:00 p.m. tonight. Expect boobery.
Obama’s post-dither speech tonight will not exude the resolve nor the patience to inspire American troops in the field. We expect Obama will announce a “surge” of troops to Afghanistan, while focusing on withdrawal. It will be a double message which will not radiate confidence. There will be promises a plenty too. We don’t expect the latest Guantanamo-style promises on Afghanistan to be kept.
Later this week there will be yet another Obama publicity stunt. That one will be about job creation. Expect lots of flowery words and boobery, but no results
The Dimocrats who enabled all this boobery will continue to make excuses for Obama. When a vote for funding of Obama’s War comes to a vote we hope Republicans will stay in their seats and not vote until the Dimocrats who called Hillary a “war-monger” are forced to produce the votes all by themselves to fund Obama’s War. Only then should Republicans get up off their seats to vote.
Elections have consequences and only now will Dimocrats begin to understand the boobery they have enabled and inflicted on the nation. Unfortunately those troops that will put their lives on the line will be the ones to suffer.
On land, on sea, in the air, the consequences of tonight’s speech will be made manifest.
This Christmas season, we’ll just have to muddle through somehow. We could have had a real commander-in-chief who knew what she was doing.