Yesterday, the pusillanimous powder puff currently lounging in the Oval Office gave a speech on the “war on terror”. Below are some of the lines that struck me as interesting given the current maelstrom of power abuse scandals spinning around the great eared one.
“We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.”
Naturally, the “networks that pose a direct danger” is in the eye of the beHolder. Given the recent lens that many more now peer through to clearly make out this administration’s penchant for abusing power and disrupting networks of American citizens it’s hard not to know what else he’s referring to.
Those “networks” he’s seeking to “dismantle” evidently include various Tea Party and Pro Life groups, Christian and Jewish organizations, the Associated Press, Fox News, Jim Rosen in particular of Fox News and his parents. So far his “dismantling” efforts have at least worked in dismantling the efforts of these groups in having an impact on the electorate last November. So at least he’s competent in that area. Subversively sabotaging political enemies here at home, while simultaneously abandoning Americans abroad. His next bumper sticker: “Change you can believe in, just ask Ambassador Stevens and if you don’t agree, go abroad and we’ll help you meet him.” Or “To Drone or not to drone? With the question of how do you vote?” (Too harsh? Perhaps.)
“Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq”
“these deaths will haunt us as long as we live” Anyone buying this line? This bovine scat dropping from a president that was snoozing away while our Ambassador in Bhengazi was seeking refuge and help before being brutally assassinated along with the murder of three other Americans. A Commander in
chief Sleep who didn’t bother to even inquire as to the well being of those being brutalized, let alone risk his withered backside trying to help them.
I guess he views “haunt” as a relative term.
When I think of haunt, I think of looming IRS bureaucrats periodically infiltrating my business unannounced and demanding that I fetch more papers without providing any other reason that I may not be in compliance.
I can also see “haunt” as being a heavy and severe concern weighing over my every thought that my parents phone records were seized by the DOJ because their son is audaciously doing his job asking questions but had the misfortune to simply query about the wrong thing and is now a “co-conspirator” in some injustice yet to be divulged.
Haunt could also mean the forever recurring pang of guilt when hearing in your mind the ghostly words, “we’re under attack” from a friend and knowing that the Administration you worked for abandoned him and let him die because it was politically expedient.
Hey, but that’s me. “haunt” to him apparently means, being slightly disturbed with the incessant phone ringing while languishing supine and trying to get some shut eye before the ever important fundraising event the next day while the embassy burns. Damn, that’s inconvenient. Hauntingly so.
Then, of course he went on to talk about drones as an option:
“… It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.
Capture every terrorist, sheesh, he won’t deploy troops on the ground to save one Ambassador, let alone capture terrorists. Give me a break.
Interesting, one can infer that “major international crisis” translates into “leading from behind” which is a tactic used when one is either too wimpy to do the right thing or simply too obtuse and ill-bread to know what the right thing is. Usually the former is also accompanied by the unsophisticated inability to persuade others. (Ding! Bingo, that’s why he must coerce and use the force of the state to “persuade”.)
All of this presidenty-ness was finely punctuated with the news today that Oblow-hard didn’t return the salute of a Marine, then returned to shake his hand instead. God save us these next 3 plus years, this guy is an absolute moronic disgrace.