Obama Betraying Military, Causes Troops to Die in Afghanistan

From one of the mouths on one of his faces, Obama NOW says that his worries about military spending are delaying his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan.  That’s funny.  He wasn’t worried about too much spending when he signed the $787 Billion (which we didn’t have) porkulus package into law.  He doesn’t seem too worried about spending TRILLIONS more dollars we don’t have on a freedom destroying takeover of the American health care system.  He doesn’t seem too worried about spending TRILLIONS more dollars we don’t have, and completing the destruction of our economy by pushing his cap-and-charade climate change agenda, and vowing to sign the Copenhagen Treaty.  He doesn’t seem too worried about the BILLIONS of dollars that are being funneled to his cronies and union buddies in the form of political payoffs.

The amount of fraud, waste, and abuse of the Medicare system last year would fund the 40,000 troops that General McChrystal is requesting for an entire year.

Here’s a Nancy Pelosi, “Are you kidding me?” moment if I ever saw one.  During his current Asian “Apologize for America” tour, Comrade Obama stopped at Eielson AFB in Alaska.  There he told the 1,000 some-odd troops in attendance the following:

“I want you guys to understand that I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people and our vital interests,” Obama told the troops. “But I also make you this promise: I will not risk your lives unless it is necessary to America’s vital interests.”

“And if it is necessary,” Obama added, “the United States of America will have your back. We’ll give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We’ll give you the equipment and support you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home.”

I wonder if he includes the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in this statement, because he is using military force, and he is risking American military lives in those places.  Does he consider Afghanistan and Iraq to be “America’s vital interests?”  If he did, he would give them a “strategy and the clear mission” they deserve, and he would indeed “have their back,” and would be giving them “the equipment and support” they “need to get the job done.”

He has delayed for 3 months giving the General THAT HE APPOINTED the men and material that he has requested, so what does that say about Obama’s attitude toward Afghanistan?  What does it say about his attitude toward the military in general when looked at in the larger context of his military spending plans?

It appears to me that Chairman Maobama is attempting to destroy the military just as he appears to be intentionally trying to destroy the economy.  What will fill the void?  Remember that “civilian security force” Obama spoke of during his campaign?  The one that he said would be “just as well funded and equipped as the military?”  The current military swears to protect and defend the constitution.  Obama’s new “military” would swear allegiance to him.

Didn’t we learn ANYTHING from the second world war?  Brown Shirts, anyone?


 

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. Hi so terrified of making the politically incorrect decision that he is stuck in analysis paralysis … and fabricating lie upon lie in lame attempts to explain his dithering. He is embarrassing the US – again!

    I hope he has a strong soap to wash the blood off his hands!

  2. Freedom destroying take over of the health care system??????? Yes it is important to have the freedom to have Insurance companies take 30% of the healthcare dollar for their UNEARNED profits, important to have the freedom to have millions uninsured and dying for lack of care, the freedom to be denied needed healthcare so insurance company profits meet wall street expectations. This is real freedom U$$$$$$$A style.
    More war!!! Less health care!!!! I say. Afghanistan War is only about profits for the corporations that own our government. I must have the freedom to die for one of these corporations profits!!! More real freedom I say.
    Rightwing nuts who don’t read are the only ones believe the crap like the article above.

  3. Let an unread, rightwing nut take a stab at refuting your thoughtless, talking points fueled attempt at political discourse.

    I don’t think the status quo with insurance companies is the answer for health care either. Why do you think we have the system we have that makes it NECESSARY to have insurance? What do you propose as the answer?

    The biggest culprits of high health care costs, and in turn high insurance rates, are TRIAL LAWYERS. The answer to this problem is TORT REFORM. No one disagrees that a plaintiff should be awarded actual monetary damages for lost wages, medical treatment, etc. when a defendant is at fault. Where the argument comes in is the nebulous and MASSIVE “pain and suffering” awards, the size of which is determined by the skill of the lawyer in manipulating the EMOTIONS of the jury. Should a STUPID woman who burns herself with coffee in a McDonald’s drive through get a multi-million dollar settlement because unlike 99% of functional adults she apparently did not know that HOT coffee is ACTUALLY HOT? Should John “Breck Girl” Edwards be able to channel the spirit of a tragically killed girl to garner a multi-million dollar “pain and suffering” award? Before you answer these questions, realize that the trial lawyer on average gets 54% of these awards. They are getting rich while costing ALL OF US money because the companies we buy things from must pass on the costs to us in the form of higher product costs. As the likelihood of getting sued, and the likelihood of losing those suits increases, the necessity of having insurance to cover you from being sued increases, as does the necessity to have insurance to protect you from those who do not. Limiting these “jackpot justice” awards is a COST FREE way to bring down the costs of health care. Why not try the free stuff first before mortgaging the future of the next 4 generations?

    Millions uninsured and dying for lack of care?” Really? That’s a liberal talking point that has already been debunked. Princess Pelosi and the Court Jester Harry Reid tell us that there are approximately 40 million people without health insurance. Proving that statistics can be made to say anything you want them to say if you don’t tell the whole story, once you take out those who CHOOSE not to spend their money on insurance (young, invincible, want BMW’s more than health care insurance, etc.), those who are eligible for various state programs and Medicaid but who have not signed up for them, and illegal aliens, you are left with at best 10 million people without health insurance. So, let me see if I understand you. Since conservative estimates (that’s “cautiously moderate,” not politically conservative) peg the cost of the democrats health care takeover at $2.5 Trillion, you’re saying you think it’s OK to take that money from people who have actually EARNED that money and essentially pay $250,000 EACH for those 10 million people to have health care insurance? And in addition to the confiscation of $2.5 Trillion of American wealth, you think it’s OK for the government to then decide who gets what health care, how much of it they get, and when? The democrats even admit that after this plan goes into effect, there will still be 4 to 6 million UNINSURED. That basically doubles the amount per person “insured” under the democrat plan to HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. Can you use “government” and “inefficient” in a sentence? I knew you could.

    On average, a pretty good health care insurance plan costs about $5,000 per year. For all of the 10 million supposedly uninsured and “dying” people in the country, you could just outright buy them insurance for $50 Billion for a year. That’s $500 Billion for 10 years worth of insurance. That’s still less than 1/4th of what the Obama/democrat plan will cost, yet you would still have CHOICE in your health care. Can you still justify a blind support for this “reform” plan?

    Less government = MORE FREEDOM

    As for Afghanistan, it started as an attack against Al Qaeda who attacked us, and who were hiding in Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Both G.W. Bush and Obama have let it evolve into a quagmire because both lacked/lack the political will to do what was/is necessary to secure VICTORY. IF the military will be allowed to do what is necessary to win, then let’s stay and finish it. However, it’s becoming pretty obvious that the Campaigner-in-Chief isn’t going to allow that to happen. We have rules of engagement that prevent us from engaging the enemy who is right in front of us. We have our own government PROSECUTING Navy SEAL’s who captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. This is a terrorist who brutally tortured, murdered, and burned 4 U.S. contractors, and was the leader behind the Fallujah uprising causing hundreds of Iraqi and American deaths. What atrocity were these SEAL’s guilty of? Giving this son-of-a-female-dog a bloody lip.

    Contrast FDR’s “Infamy” speech following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to that of Obama announcing his “strategy” for Afghanistan. You have FDR and the American people united to do anything necessary to DEFEAT the enemy. That means WIN, or to achieve VICTORY. Then you have Obama saying we really don’t want to be in Afghanistan, and we’re going to send in more troops but we’ll bring them home in 18 month, or begin our reevaluation or something in 18 months. With his strategy, the only thing that will result is hundreds, perhaps thousands more dead Americans, a defeated withdrawal from Afghanistan, and an emboldened enemy not afraid to bring the fight to us. If he’s not going to let us win, skip the dead soldiers part and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: