New England is awash in tourists during the autumn, at the peak of the fall foliage season. This first week of December 2009 is peak viewing season for Obama Boobery. Last night Americans witnessed golden, glorious examples of Boobery delivered, and Boobery yet to come.
And let’s not overlook the full spectrum of colorful lies, dripping like falling leaves, from Obama’s mouth.
* * * * *
Last night Obama said Afghanistan was so important, so very important, so very very important, and so very essential to American national security that he was going to do a Bush W. “surge” and then almost immediately bring the troops home. It was an “escalate to retreat” kazoo call. In the language of clichés: Escalate the buildup to get on the exit ramp.
During the Obama boobfest last night, Obama stated the troops would start coming home by Summer 2011, having arrived by May 2010. Before the Obama publicity stunt however, White House officials held many conference calls with Obama Big Blog Boy lackeys. They were told the opposite.
At the Hillary Hate sewer we term “Nothing Left” an Obama lackey was stupefied:
I just had a chance to talk with three senior Obama administration officials. [snip]
The answers made it clear that there is no actual timeline for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan:
* There is no defined rate for, or number of troops involved in, the 2011 withdrawal.
* They will be “taking conditions on the ground into account” in determining the withdrawal.
* The withdrawal is “a goal.”
So which is it? Who knows? Boobery is in full bloom.
* * * * *
Hillary Clinton was presidential today and made clear that there is in fact no withdrawal time line as far as she is concerned: “I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving” Afghanistan Hillary testified today. But Hillary Clinton is not in charge and she and we know:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
The New York Post noted, on its front page that Obama omitted one word in yesterday’s publicity stunt: “win”.
The Associated Press took note of other problems with the speech:
Obama’s speech Tuesday night did not always match the reality on the ground in Afghanistan. [snip]
A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: “Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.”
THE FACTS: When Obama says he is confident that allied countries will provide more troops in the weeks ahead he is setting aside years of mostly empty-handed American efforts to get others, including allies in NATO, to deepen their commitment to combat in Afghanistan. [snip]
OBAMA: The extra U.S. forces for Afghanistan “will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. ”
THE FACTS: The problem with Afghan forces is not just their lack of numbers. And it’s not an unwillingness to fight. The problem too often is their effectiveness, once trained for combat. Too many get into the fight but don’t remain or don’t perform.
Vietnamization did not work out so well for Richard Nixon. But Vietnam and its lessons are so “Boomer” to Obama. Perhaps that is why Obama did not bother to discuss the questions raised by his escalate-to-exit boobery. Americans are willing to be convinced but the issue needs to be addressed. Obama does not address the issue, just drips lies from his lips. Is there a chance that Afghan forces will perform as well as, what appears at first blush to be working in Iraq? Obama did not explain, he just lied.
OBAMA: “In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.”
THE FACTS: It’s true the Pakistani army this year has launched offensives against extremist elements in the areas cited by Obama. What he did not mention, however, is that the groups being targeted by the Pakistanis are those that threaten the Pakistani government — not those, also based in Pakistan, that are focused on attacking U.S. and Afghan forces on the other side of the porous border with Afghanistan.
Big Pink readers are now put on alert. Pakistan is the last refuge of Obama supporters. So bad was Obama’s speech, so confused was Obama’s speech, so laden with lies was Obama’s speech that Obama supporters are creating a new speech in their minds. In their minds Obama supporters are quickly creating the myth that the speech last night was really another complex Obama brilliant strategy on Pakistan. Afghanistan, to these Obama enablers, was merely a pretext. The Obama speech is a brilliant way to tackle and fight in Pakistan. We’ll write more about this in the future but for now we say one word: Cambodia.
Other Obama enablers, legs tingling, saw opposition to Obama as the enemy at work. West Point, with its young cadets training in defense of country, to Obama enablers is an “enemy camp”:
“It seems like in this case, there isn’t a lot of excitement. I watched the cadets, they were young kids – men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn’t see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that’s where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That’s where he went to rabble rouse the “we’re going to democratize the world” campaign back in ‘02. So, I thought it was a strange venue.”
Obama supporters at MSNBC are heard to chant agreement as Chris Matthews slobbered love on Obama [warning: Chris Matthews video below]
Other Big Media outlets from overseas saw what we saw:
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught. [snip]
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.
One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.[snip]
It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the “world’s great religions.” He promised that responsibility for the country’s security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai — a government which he said was “corrupt.” The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But “America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars,” he added.
It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.
Other Big Media outlets agree with us as to the boobfest which was last night’s speech:
Since his inauguration, Barack Obama has tripled the number of troops fighting in Afghanistan. [snip]
The rest, though, is a bit blurry. According to his speech, Obama is escalating while retreating, adding more troops while also setting a date for their departure. Obama said he was putting pressure on the Afghan government, but he didn’t suggest how. [snip]
Obama insisted that his deadline-that-isn’t-a-deadline would put pressure on the Afghan government. “The absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.”
But Obama said nothing in the speech that put actual pressure on the government. The surge can succeed militarily but won’t be worth anything if Hamid Karzai doesn’t change his behavior and the Afghan army doesn’t improve.
Obama knows the government in Kabul is corrupt or, more benignly, that Karzai’s goals don’t match America’s. President Obama wants to pressure Kabul but can’t be seen to be doing so too openly, or it will undermine Karzai with his own people. So President Obama announced no verifiable set of benchmarks or penalties for Afghanistan—the very requirements that Sen. Obama said were necessary for for Bush’s Iraq troop surge in 2007.
According to this analysis, Obama is waging war on our ally Karzai, not on the Taliban or those not to be mentioned terrorists. This analysis is in agreement with what many have observed: Obama attacks America’s friends and bows to America’s enemies:
The president’s strategy, according to administration officials, is to circumvent the Karzai government, inspiring regional agencies through financial incentives and basically avoiding the Kabul government altogether.[snip]
Obama’s escalation despite such a weak partner in Kabul marks the final stage of Obama’s evolution of opinion about the relationship between troop increases and the behavior of client states. In 2007, he faulted Bush’s surge in part because the escalation would weaken Iraq’s ability to take responsibility for its own future. The corruption and weakness of the Afghanistan government have only grown more apparent since Obama sent troops in March, and yet he is sending more.
Oboobery is in bloom. Weak, limp, pathetic:
Obama’s tone was methodical and emotionless. He often sounded like a reluctant warrior. He told the West Point students about signing condolence letters and greeting coffins arriving at Dover.
As the coffins continue to arrive, Obama enablers can marvel at their work.