Would A SEAL Club A Liberal?
May 4, 2011 Political
Liberal talk show host Mike Malloy asked a question on his radio program (I am surprised anyone heard it) wanting to know when SEAL Team 6 would drop in on George W Bush. SEAL Team 6 is the team credited with the killing of Osama bin Laden. Malloy said that Bush has killed more innocent people so the team should pay him a similar visit. In other words, Malloy wants to know when a military team will KILL George W Bush. That is the only message one can get from this:
“So when does Seal Unit 6, or whatever it’s called, drop in on George Bush? Bush was responsible for a lot more death, innocent death, than bin Laden. Wasn’t he, or am I wrong here?,” Liberal radio talk show host Mike Malloy said on his show Monday evening. Real Clear Politics
Yes Mike, you are wrong here and so much for the civility the liberals cried for.
But let’s look at this. The military loves George Bush and they know he was a genuine leader. Before some liberal twit links to some soldier or soldier’s parent (like Cindy Sheehan) expressing disgust, keep in mind that any group has people who feel differently than the majority. Believe it or not, some liberals do not like Obama but that does not negate the statement that liberals love Obama. If it makes you feel better, add the word most.
If the SEAL Team had the opportunity to drop in on two people and those two were Bush or Malloy, who do you think they would drop in on?
It would not be Bush.
But this also begs the question, if Bush is responsible for these deaths and should be visited by the SEAL Team, should not they visit Obama? He is responsible for the deaths of lots of people and a lot of those folks are our military members. When Bush was in office we got daily death counts from the state run media but now they ignore the mounting deaths piling up under Obama. Obama is responsible for the deaths of innocent people in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, just to name a few. I wonder if Malloy would like to see Obama get a visit for all the deaths he has caused.
And to top it all off, Obama received a Nobel Prize for Peace.
Obama killed Osama (or so the story goes), and he killed the children of leaders as well as some of their other family members.
Mike Malloy is another liberal moron who is a follower of the failed policies of liberalism. He is another in a long line of liberal morons who blame everything on Bush.
Well, except the good things that happen. Then it was a liberal triumph.
Fortunately, our military does not take out our own people (even though liberals seem to desire this) but if they did Bush would not have to worry.
Malloy, on the other hand, might be swimming with Osama and the fishes…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, mike malloy, Obama, osama, seal team 6
Obama’s Right War Not Right Anymore
Sep 25, 2009 Political
Campaign promises are easier to make than they are to keep and no sane person expects much from a politician once he wins office. Those promises become so yesterday as the politician works to keep the office he has obtained. During the next election cycle there are more promises, more people who believe them and then disappointment as the cycle starts over.
During the campaign last year, then candidate Obama, said that George Bush and John McCain became too focused on Iraq, a war he contends was wrong, and took their eye off Afghanistan. Obama told us that Afghanistan was the right war, that the bad guys must be defeated and that he would put less focus on Iraq and move the required number of troops to Afghanistan to win a war he claimed we had to win.
Democrat Barack Obama said Monday that as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attack in three years on Sunday.
The proposed force increase – about 7,000 troops – is part of Obama’s plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
“As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan,” Obama said in an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, a day before he plans a speech here on his vision for Iraq and Afghanistan.
“We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there,” Obama said.
Obama argued the emphasis on Iraq placed by the Bush administration – and supported by Republican presidential candidate John McCain – stands in the way, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds CBS
[note]As an aside, Obama also told us that he would get bin Laden.
As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.” [emphasis mine]
In January Obama lightened up on that said it was not really necessary to get him if the noose [is that racist?] was tightened sufficiently. I guess after he was elected the national security priorities changed. Like I said, they will say anything to get elected. Obama suffered from (and still does) the wimp factor and needed to show some testicular fortitude. Once he was in, well you know the rest.[/note]
This year Obama made it clear that he was still focused on Afghanistan and that winning there “[That] is a cause that could not be more just.
That was then and this is now and now contains a 180 degree turnabout from Mr. Obama. The guy who said that he had to earn the trust of the military and would listen to the commanders on the ground has turned a deaf ear to those very commanders now that he has “focused” on Afghanistan.
General Stanley Mcchrystal has stated that he needs about 30-40 thousand more troops and that the war could be lost in the next year if he does not get more manpower. This is in his assessment report that has been delayed (but leaked) and it is quite clear, the commander on the ground needs more boots on the ground.
The campaign Obama made it clear he would put resources in Afghanistan and he continued with that theme after his coronation. He shifted some troops and his half baked plan was put into action but it is not working. His commanders are asking for more troops and Obama is stonewalling them. It is reported that his peeps have asked that the Generals scrub the report because Obama is reluctant to send any more troops to Afghanistan.
The man who vowed to do what it takes to win, who said Bush took his eye off the ball, who said that he would listen to the commanders, who said that winning was a cause that could not be more just and that has to be our BIGGEST national security issue, is turning his back on the troops and waffling on honoring his commitment to listen to the commanders and to provide resources to win.
No one expects a Democrat to have the will to fight because it is not in their blood. The only thing they will fight to the death for is their office and abortion. The country, not so much. The left has always thrown our military under the bus and Obama is no different. He wants one world order with a global community rather than keeping the separate and distinct identity that has made America the greatest nation on Earth.
But when that Democrat is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces he must, regardless of his personal feelings, do everything to support those troops. The politicians put the men and women who serve this country in harm’s way and it is their duty and they are obligated to give them everything they need to succeed. Failure should never be an option and neither should vacillating with resourcing the troops. The lack of forces could result in more deaths of US service personnel.
He talked like a Hawk but flies like a Dove, Obama lied. Let’s hope our troops don’t have to die because of it.
The only exit strategy is WINNING.
Resource the troops now.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: afghanistan, campaign, lies, Obama, osama, respurces, war
Obama Will Finish What Osama Started
Feb 15, 2009 Political
Osama bin Laden is not a stupid man and his plan to attack America was brilliant from a tactical standpoint. He could never hope to beat this country in a head to head fight so he used airliners to kill nearly 3000 of our countrymen. He became emboldened when Bill Clinton withdrew from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident. Osama believed that America was a paper tiger. He never expected the response that we gave him.
He attacked us on 9/11 but that was the opening salvo in a protracted war. Bin Laden’s real goal is to bankrupt America. His belief is that he engaged the Soviets in Afghanistan for 10 years and they went broke fighting. He believes that he can do the same thing to America. The big difference is that the major part of his plan will not play out on the battlefield. No, bin Laden banked on us spending a fortune to keep our country safe and he was right. We have not been attacked since 9/11 but we have spent a fortune keeping safe. Many times when we needed to spend money 9/11 played into the thinking and the amount of debt we incurred was great.
Bin Laden was banking on us spending and spending while he sat back and watched us go bankrupt. Despite tax cuts and increased revenues we continued to spend more than we took in. The deficit rose and, as Pastor Wright would say, our financial chickens came home to roost. Years of policies like the Community Reinvestment Act came back to bite us in our hind parts.
As a result we have been in a recession, not the worst of all time and not the worst since the Great Depression despite what the Sainted One has said. He and his minions have their talking points and part of their job is to scare people into submission. Terence P. Jeffrey at the Washington Times has a great piece describing this rhetoric. He lays out the numbers which refute the claims made by those hell bent on our economic collapse.
Claims Mr. Obama, “We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression.”
But the historical figures for the gross domestic product (GDP), calculated by the U.S. Bureau Economic Analysis, say something else. After growing by 0.9 percent and 2.8 percent in the first two quarters of 2008, GDP declined by 0.5 percent and 3.5 percent in the third and fourth quarters of the year. Is that “an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression”?
Well, 1949 was far worse. GDP declined by 5.8 percent in the first quarter of that year and 1.2 percent in the second. It rebounded by 4.6 percent in the third, but then dropped 4 percent in the fourth. America did not start an irreversible decline that year. In 1950, the economy grew by an amazing 17.4 percent in the first quarter, 12.5 percent in the second, 16.6 percent in the third and 7.5 percent in the fourth.
In 1953-54, there was also a downturn worse than the one Mr. Obama “inherited.” GDP declined by 2.4 percent in the third quarter of 1953, by 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter and by 2 percent in the first quarter of 1954.
The rhetoric about catastrophe is nothing more than the politics of fear that Obama railed against during the campaign. He is ignoring history and sound policy in order to advance an agenda designed to funnel taxpayer money to his special interests. Many have claimed that Obama made a mistake by letting Pelosi and Reid write his plan but I believe his decision was calculated in order to give him plausible deniability. He stayed above the fray while the large number of Democrats in Congress were able to absorb the blow. They are already unpopular so why tarnish the Messiah?
We cannot spend our way out of the problem. Obama and his sock puppets keep saying that the stimulus plan is a spending bill because that is the point. If spending is stimulus then we should not have a problem because George Bush and Congress spent a lot of money. Using Obama’s logic we should have an unemployment rate of 0%. He blames George Bush for doubling the debt and causing the economic collapse (that did not cause it) but then says that the way to solve the problem is to spend more and go deeper into debt. If what Bush did caused it, how is doing more of what Bush did going to fix it?
Obama’s future generation bankruptcy plan will increase inflation and unemployment while doing little to stimulate the economy. During the times discussed by Jeffrey, the country was able to rebound fairly well after each of the past problems and none of them involved spending a TRILLION dollars. Passing a small, targeted stimulus or letting this play out is not in the cards because doing so would deny the Democrats the opportunity to take advantage of this crisis and get what they want. There is no doubt that this is what they did just as Rahm Emanuel said they would.
The unfortunate thing is that Obama and the Democrats are aiding and abetting the enemy. Osama bin Laden said he wanted to bankrupt us and he certainly got us to spend a lot of money.
Barack Obama is hell bent on finishing the job bin Laden started by saddling future generations with monumental debt.
One
Big
Assed
Mistake
America
If Obama takes control of health care he will probably force everyone to take one of these. He will need to in order to get reelected because this plan will bring nothing but bad memories.
Related:
Wall Street Journal (very good at debunking Obama)
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Obama Opens Path To Own Believability
Sep 28, 2008 Political
During this election Barack Obama has been using guilt by association to paint John McCain as a third term of George Bush because McCain votes with his party 90% of the time. Barack Obama votes with his party 97% of the time and shock of all shocks, most politicians fit in that pattern. But Obama is willing to associate John McCain with George Bush because they are in the same party and have agreed on some issues. Since McCain has discussed things with the president and has agreed with him then McCain must be a third term of Bush, they are one in the same. Obama wants this to stick with the electorate and he shows McCain and Bush together in many of his ads.
A friend sent this in an email and it is right on target:
From the Debate:“So to stand here and after eight years and say that you’re going to lead on controlling spending and, you know, balancing our tax cuts so that they help middle class families when over the last eight years that hasn’t happened I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow.”
But BHO somehow missing the venomous ravings of his mentor/pastor for 20+ years, and the public pro-terror pronouncements of his political guru Ayers is supposed to be easy to swallow?
This is great. Obama wants voters to believe that since McCain was there during the eight years that Bush was and did not do anything to fix things, it is unbelievable but Obama wants us to further believe that when he spent 20 years at a radical church with a racist pastor and did not leave or change things, that is OK.
So, now that Obama has made it clear that the standard is if you were there you should have changed things, I want to know why Obama (the so called candidate of change) did not change things at that church or change his participation? I want to know why Obama did not change his associations with a known domestic terrorist. I want to know why he did not change his association with Rezko, who might now cooperate with prosecutors.
You see, Obama has set the standard with what is to be believed and what is not. Since he has spent years with shady people, racists, terrorists, and other corrupt politicians it is only fair to conclude that Obama knew about all these people, what they were doing and he stayed with them either because he agreed with them or they could help him politically, or both.
One thing is certain, Obama cannot claim that it is unfair to use guilt by association because he has set the standard.
It is also fair state to Obama:
“So to stand here and after twenty years say that you don’t hold the radical views of Pastor Wright and, you know, never heard him talk like we have seen on the videos and that is why you are now leaving the church when over the last twenty years that hasn’t happened I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow.”
Or as someone who recently wrote to me said:
Note the subtle message also: You, Senator McCain, have been president for eight years because you are George Bush so I am going to make you responsible for everything this administration has done. Since I, Senator Barrack Obama, have never done anything, I can be held responsible for nothing. Yes, Wright did stuff, Ayers did stuff, Rezko did stuff. But I have never passed a bill, proposed an idea that became a law, administered nothing. So since I never did anything and all these other people were doing stuff which I have no responsibility for, I am perfect. I am the anointed one.
Osama and Obama both have friends who bombed the Pentagon and speak about hatred for America and that, my friends, is the most unbelievable of all.
Big Dog Salute to Phil
Tags: association, belief, Obama, osama, pastor, radical wright, terrorist ayers