Praises Our Enemies, Blames Bush, Tells Troops, "We can't afford you."
Hey folks,
I just posted the entire Obama West Point Speech. If you saw it last night, you already know it was predictable and pathetic.
First, this type of announcement by a President, should go something like this.
Lights come on, President sitting at his Desk in the Oval Office.
"Good evening. We have a request by our Lead Commander on the Ground in the War Zone, For more Troop support. He has sent me a report detailing the need for more Troops due to the escalate in Violence and Attacks on our Troops who are fighting there. He gave me a clear cut plan, and one that I'm sure has a great chance at achieving Victory. I am sending him the number of Troops he requested.
This is an enemy that killed 3000 Americans, while they we going about the normal daily routines. 9-11 will never be forgotten and we will make sure that we do ANY and EVERY thing that we need to, to ensure that another 9-11 NEVER happens again.
Thank you.
God Bless our Troops. Our men and women who have volunteered to pay the ultimate price to keep this country safe. God bless their families. And God bless the United States of America."
Picture goes dark, "We know join our regularly scheduled broadcast, already in progress."
But that's not what Obama did. Obama, flies to West Point Military Academe to give the impression that he is Pro Military. He used our young Men and Women as backdrops, props, to give the illusion that he cares.
Then he goes on with his speech.
In it, he DOES remind everyone of 9-11. An attempt to satisfy those that WILL never forget. Then he says this.
"As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents."
I really am starting to wonder about that. Seems EVERY attack, long in history, with the exception of WW2, have been by Muslims. Where is the proof that Islam IS a religion of piece, and why would our President call it " one of the world's great religions?" Is it, in his eyes, greater than say Christianity? Judaism? You know, what this country was founded on? Then he blames Bush. {Sigh} Blah, blah, blah.
"Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here."
You just did, you Moron.
"It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world."
Then THIS outright LIE!
"Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period."
Absolute BS. Over 100 days ago, your Commander on the ground cried out to you for more Troops. 105 US Service Men and Women have been killed, while you partied with "Earth Wind and Fire" in the White House, played Golf, and attended $30,000 a plate fundraisers. Your Commander says he needs 40,000 extra Troops. You said this.
"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."
Really? So no matter what, in 18 months the Troops will start coming home? Really? So all the enemy needs to do is be patient? Brilliant.
More Blame Bush Iraq garbage.
"I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war."
I, I, I, I, I, did a lot of photo opts. He did get this right.
"This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region."
This would be a whole lot easier if Obama would stop offending our Allies. He said this.
"And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world."
Stop offending our long time friends and MAYBE they would be more willing to help out. Don't ya think?
"In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust."
Wasn't it YOU Obama would talked about invading Pakistan during your campaign? Change of heart?
Addressing some of the Kooks, He gets THIS right as well.
"First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."
To another group of Kooks that want to just leave the Troop level where it is today, to hell with the fact they are being KILLED.
"Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over."
Then I have a question.
"Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, 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."
You just went on and on about how we can not leave. Your RIGHT. So they do not meet this 18 month goal? Then what? We do what you just said we can't do? Then he said that his decision to stay there will be based on cost and how it will effect Obamacare and his other agendas. I'm not kidding. Here is something you may not hear that much about in all the praises of how Brilliant this Speech was. He said this.
"I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.""
"Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."
So if you start costing me more than I can spend and still do the things I want, screw you. Is THAT what he just said to the Troops?
"And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks."
Were you not on the same band wagon calling Bush a terrorist because of programs like the Wire Tapping? Did you know say that the CIA were shipping people of and torturing them. Were you not one of the ones that want to END Homeland Security? Now you say we must INVEST in it? Do not worry folks, I know that Homeland Security is only a front for Obama to funnel money to friends.
Then more Blah, blah, blah. Bush Tortured, America will be better and we will live in a Nuke Free world. Then Franklin Roosevelt again. Then 9-11 again. Then we will have peace again.
Like I said, predictable and pathetic.
Peter
Hey folks,
I just posted the entire Obama West Point Speech. If you saw it last night, you already know it was predictable and pathetic.First, this type of announcement by a President, should go something like this.
Lights come on, President sitting at his Desk in the Oval Office.
"Good evening. We have a request by our Lead Commander on the Ground in the War Zone, For more Troop support. He has sent me a report detailing the need for more Troops due to the escalate in Violence and Attacks on our Troops who are fighting there. He gave me a clear cut plan, and one that I'm sure has a great chance at achieving Victory. I am sending him the number of Troops he requested.
This is an enemy that killed 3000 Americans, while they we going about the normal daily routines. 9-11 will never be forgotten and we will make sure that we do ANY and EVERY thing that we need to, to ensure that another 9-11 NEVER happens again.
Thank you.
God Bless our Troops. Our men and women who have volunteered to pay the ultimate price to keep this country safe. God bless their families. And God bless the United States of America."
Picture goes dark, "We know join our regularly scheduled broadcast, already in progress."
But that's not what Obama did. Obama, flies to West Point Military Academe to give the impression that he is Pro Military. He used our young Men and Women as backdrops, props, to give the illusion that he cares.
Then he goes on with his speech.
In it, he DOES remind everyone of 9-11. An attempt to satisfy those that WILL never forget. Then he says this.
"As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents."
I really am starting to wonder about that. Seems EVERY attack, long in history, with the exception of WW2, have been by Muslims. Where is the proof that Islam IS a religion of piece, and why would our President call it " one of the world's great religions?" Is it, in his eyes, greater than say Christianity? Judaism? You know, what this country was founded on? Then he blames Bush. {Sigh} Blah, blah, blah.
"Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here."
You just did, you Moron.
"It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world."
Then THIS outright LIE!
"Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period."
Absolute BS. Over 100 days ago, your Commander on the ground cried out to you for more Troops. 105 US Service Men and Women have been killed, while you partied with "Earth Wind and Fire" in the White House, played Golf, and attended $30,000 a plate fundraisers. Your Commander says he needs 40,000 extra Troops. You said this.
"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."
Really? So no matter what, in 18 months the Troops will start coming home? Really? So all the enemy needs to do is be patient? Brilliant.
More Blame Bush Iraq garbage.
"I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war."
I, I, I, I, I, did a lot of photo opts. He did get this right.
"This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region."
This would be a whole lot easier if Obama would stop offending our Allies. He said this.
"And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world."
Stop offending our long time friends and MAYBE they would be more willing to help out. Don't ya think?
"In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust."
Wasn't it YOU Obama would talked about invading Pakistan during your campaign? Change of heart?
Addressing some of the Kooks, He gets THIS right as well.
"First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."
To another group of Kooks that want to just leave the Troop level where it is today, to hell with the fact they are being KILLED.
"Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over."
Then I have a question.
"Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, 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."
You just went on and on about how we can not leave. Your RIGHT. So they do not meet this 18 month goal? Then what? We do what you just said we can't do? Then he said that his decision to stay there will be based on cost and how it will effect Obamacare and his other agendas. I'm not kidding. Here is something you may not hear that much about in all the praises of how Brilliant this Speech was. He said this.
"I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.""
"Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars."
So if you start costing me more than I can spend and still do the things I want, screw you. Is THAT what he just said to the Troops?
"And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks."
Were you not on the same band wagon calling Bush a terrorist because of programs like the Wire Tapping? Did you know say that the CIA were shipping people of and torturing them. Were you not one of the ones that want to END Homeland Security? Now you say we must INVEST in it? Do not worry folks, I know that Homeland Security is only a front for Obama to funnel money to friends.
Then more Blah, blah, blah. Bush Tortured, America will be better and we will live in a Nuke Free world. Then Franklin Roosevelt again. Then 9-11 again. Then we will have peace again.
Like I said, predictable and pathetic.
Peter
No comments:
Post a Comment