When George W. Bush proposed a troop surge in Iraq as a means to stabilize the situation, the Democrats and their Messiah vehemently opposed such a strategy. Although they controlled Congress and the purse strings for such a venture, they were inept in halting what they viewed was an ill-advised adventure by a reckless idiot who can barely utter sentence or read. It is more than obvious that the surge ended up working in Iraq, which the Left loathes to admit, including the Great Messiah, Obambi, who twisted himself in knots last week in an interview with Katie Couric trying to justify his inherently illogical position.
Despite their strong opposition to a surge that worked in Iraq, the Schwarze Kennedy has now taken the position that we need a troop surge in Afghanistan. He points to emerging violence from the Taliban and blames the Bush policies for the deteriorating situation in that troubled region. However, what he failed to mention is that during the 1990's when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan torturing and killing Afghans, the United States Government totally ignored the entire situation.
Although my knowledge of American History may not be as in depth as Obambi, I am pretty sure that the Democrats controlled our foreign policy and national security apparatus during the Taliban's reign. A matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that the President at the time was a cowardly, draft dodging, pot smoking, furniture stealing, pardon pimping, failure who allowed the Taliban to fester in power. I'm also pretty sure that 9/11 was planned in Afghanistan during the late 1990's while President Impeached and Disbarred Clinton was getting hummers in the Oval Office from an intern. Thus, to somehow claim that the Democrats are now going to get tough in Afghanistan is amusing at the very least.
George Bush may be a miserable failure as President, but since 9/11, there has not been one terrorist attack on American soil and Al-Qaida has been on the run. The latest CIA estimate indicated that their financial networks have been disrupted as has their capacity for a major attack. For such a miserable failure, Bush has done a far better job protecting us from terrorists than the last Democrat President. But, now the Messiah is going to right the ship of state and implement a troop surge in Afghanistan to protect us, even though Bush has done that adequately and at great cost.
You would have thought that Obambi would have learned something on his little trip last week when he visited Afghanistan for the first time and Iraq for the second time after a 900 day lapse. Instead of going to the gym and ignoring the troops in a military hospital in Germany, he should have considered why the surge in Iraq appears to have made significant progress. If he had, he might reconsider his surge idea in Afghanistan since such a strategy is ill-advised and will only exacerbate the situation.
The surge worked in Iraq because Iraqis took the lead in fighting the extremist Shiites and Sunnis. In Afghanistan, there is no such will among its population for such a to fight. Experts have suggested that a troop increase is more likely to inflame Afghan nationalism, rather than curb the Taliban. More importantly, President Hamid Karzai has made millions off the drug trade while U.S. troops have fought the Taliban and rebuild Afghanistan's infrastructure with billions of U.S. dollars. Thus, the thought of putting more troops in such a situation is even more ill advised than Obambi's decision to have a twenty-year affiliation with Reverend Wright.
When far-Left Democrats start trying to prove they are tough on national security issues, we all need to start getting scared. After all, it was the Democrats who escalated and lost Vietnam, while Nixon got us out. Obambi's latest troop surge concept is nothing but an election year stunt intended to endear him with bitter white people in small town America who cling to their guns, bigotry and religion instead of him. If that is how he plans to change course from the Bush years, we are in big trouble. Why should our troops be used to make Afghanistan safe so that its President can make more money dealing heroin?
Yesterday, there was a lot of fall-out related to Obambi's recent foreign policy tutorial where he obviously learned very little about the Middle East. McNasty has released advertisements attacking him for going to the gym instead of visiting troops. He also suggested that Obambi may be a socialist and was willing to lose a war in order to win an election. The New York Times is in a frenzy about these attacks and today published an editorial condemning their favorite Maverick for his low-road campaign. These attacks must be effective if the Left-wing Times decided to step in since they don't seem to want to provide McNasty with any coverage or publish his op-ed pieces. Poor McNasty! He spent all those years kissing the MSM's asses and now all he can get is chastised by a newspaper that employed Jason Blair and undermined our national security.
As for the McNasty allegation that Obambi may be a socialist, the Times went haywire and thought such a charge was beyond reason, even though the Schwarze Stalinist has a more liberal voting record in the United States Senate than Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont. Furthermore, Obambi may have thrown Reverend Wright under the bus like his typical white grandmother, but he can't distance himself from his 20-year affiliation with a church that practices Black Liberation Theology, which is a socialist doctrine that was popularized by James H. Cone.
Cone defines it as "complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary" and "Theologically," Cone affirms, "Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'" This sounds like some pretty strong stuff for someone who claims to be a racial healer and transformative figure who plans to "remake the world."
When the Schwarze Kennedy met with Congressional Democrats yesterday, he told them "This is the moment . . that the world is waiting for" and also noted that "I have become a symbol of possibility of America returning to its best traditions."
Is this guy kidding? Has all the media hype blinded him to the fact that he had trouble beating one of the most hated woman in American politics in his struggle for the Democrat nomination? Does he realize that McNasty is distasteful to most Republicans, yet he struggles to beat him in what should be a Democrat year? For someone so smart as the MSM has proclaimed, you'd think he would act with a little less arrogance and a lot more common sense, starting off with his reckless and naive troop surge in Afghanistan.
Maniac - - out