Home  »  Afghanistan  »  Transcript Of Dumb Bastard’s Speech

Transcript Of Dumb Bastard’s Speech



Dec 1, 2009 37 Comments ›› Pat Dollard

r325137992

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans, I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan, the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusions.

It’s an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point, where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these important issues, it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.

We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.

Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington and killed many more.
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. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1.

For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies, and the world were acting as one to destroy Al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan.

Within a matter of months, Al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.

At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

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. 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.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.

Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, Al Qaiea’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it’s been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with Al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.

After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we’ve made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we’ve stepped up the pressure on Al Qaeda worldwide.
In Pakistan, that nation’s army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and although it was marred by fraud, that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain: Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years, it has moved backwards. There’s no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.

Our new commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short, the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service.

And that’s why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

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. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military, and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.

And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
This review is now complete. And as commander-in-chief, 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. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.

We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you, a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.

As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I’ve 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. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qadda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.

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.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, Al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny Al Qaida a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010, the fastest possible pace, so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They’ll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I’ve asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we’re confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.

Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. 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.
Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

We’ll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over.
President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.

We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

Now, the people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They’ve been confronted with occupation by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign Al Qaida fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.

So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand: America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect, to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave, and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We’re in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. And that’s why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who’ve argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.

But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, and there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. And 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. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.
America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

And I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I’ve heard and which I take very seriously.
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.

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.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe 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 timeframe 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.

As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one.

Indeed, 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.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.

Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce, so we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. And going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I’ll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military; it underwrites our diplomacy; it taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry; and it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last.
That’s why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open- ended: because the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear. None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict, not just how we wage wars. We’ll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where Al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
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.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that’s why I’ve made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them.

We’ll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I’ve spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world, one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And, finally, we must draw on the strength of our values, for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That’s why we must promote our values by living them at home, which is why I’ve prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades, a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.

What we have fought for, what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we’re not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people, from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue, nor should we. But I also know that we as a country cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It’s easy to forget that, when this war began, we were united, bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe…

I believe with every fiber of my being that we, as Americans, can still come together behind a common purpose, for our values are not simply words written into parchment. They are a creed that calls us together and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.


  • http://holgerawakens.blogspot.com Holger Awakens

    Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.

    He told the Taliban and al Qaeda when we are leaving. He surrendered.

    • mike3481

      Yup.

    • ZenDraken

      Worse, he plans to first get a bunch more of our young men and women killed, *then* surrender.

    • saepe expertus

      Zen,
      OOOH…sad but oh so true. How can you ask people to put their lives on the line for this “mission”? I support the war, but not this. Win or pull them out now. Who wants to be killed or wounded for another freaking police action?!? He has spent all our money and now wants to run this war like freaking Mcnamara did – like a business. He will be busy checking if we can “afford” this or that aspect. Money is NOW a consideration because he is worried about, healthcare, crap and trade, immigration and a whole host of other Marxist crap other than his main job which is national security. Disgusting.

    • cold soldier

      Maybe not “surrendered”, but now I’m convinced he grew up playing American little league soccer. I bet he quits counting the dead on either side, and then gives the taliban a trophy when we leave. :wink:

  • politicalfish

    Now let me be clear, Barack H. Obama, you are a coward and a traitor. Fuck you and your collection communist assholes. You are an embarrassment to the American People.

    • saepe expertus

      PF,
      I am constantly amazed at your succinct and perspicacious grasp of the One’s true nature. Your penetrating plan of action for he and his cronies to take is commendable as well. Thank you.

  • http://amusingbunni.blogspot.com/ Bunni

    What Political Fish Said! And Holger. What kind of a moron gives away the timetable to our enemies???? WTF, He’s America’s enemy combatant. In wars of past, he would have been hung for treason for aiding the enemy…giving away all our secrets. He makes me want to puke, or drink :beer: or target practice :gun:

    PS: It was fun live tweeting with you Pat, I did a blog post of the live tweet stream and I retweeted some of your pithier comments, so you’re in my blog post just up. :razz:

  • idi amin dada

    I sneer at the to thought of Hussein addressing West Point.

    He is not worthy. Period.

    • karl anglin

      AMEN!!!!!

  • mike3481

    …”one of the world’s great religions…”

    I couldn’t read any further.

    obama owes his Teleprompter a blowjob tonight, without it he could never lie as seamlessly as he did tonight.

  • Randy

    From another news story…

    “US officials said Obama wants almost all the US troops out before the end of his first term in office in January 2013, leaving behind a small contingency force. Gibbs said the president did not want to leave the problem to his successor.”

    Did Gibbs just say Obama is a one-termer?

    • Kentucky Jim

      Excellent observation! Let’s pray Gibbs is right for once.

    • saepe expertus

      Pity there is not a Constitutional way to ensure that he is a half-termer. I had enough of this guy 2 1/2 years ago. Do I get a credit for time served with him?

    • mike3481

      :arrow: saepe expertus

      There is, however it requires an intellectually honest Federal Judiciary to carry it out.

      Apparently, sadly AND presently, there isn’t one.

      I don’t know what it will take for the aforementioned Federal Judiciary to realized they are being played as useful idiots and therefore, they are expendable/disposable, after all, Liberal Lawyers/Judges are a dime a dozen.

      Never-the-less, the Liberal Judiciary desperately needs to know the clock is ticking…THEIR CLOCK IS TICKING :!:

      Tick…Tick…Tick.

  • Sully

    Disgusting.

  • Winston

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The Joker is not a smart man. He sure is a good reader though.
    The cadets were falling asleep listening to his monotone reading. If this is our CIC then I’m Santa Clause!
    God forbid something really bad happens to our country. The Joker will take 3 months to figure out what to do then change his mind. I have never seen a more inept individual. Hillary has more balls then the Joker.

    • saepe expertus

      :beer:

  • JayMS

    I am going to dissent here. I thought it was a decent speech and I am damn happy he has decided to send more troops. Sending more troops may be the only good decision he will make during his entire presidency.

    • Blade Runner

      You gotta be fucking nuts, Jay. That treasonous motherfucker is incapable of making any decision that would benefit America. He is setting us up for a major body slam. But, hey, if you wanna swallow the lies, be my guest.

    • killczar

      he tells the enemy when we are comming and when we are leaving. what will stop him from telling the enemy what we will do when we are there? and you think this is good? you are a fucking lunatic dude.

  • Sully

    Barry had a Code Pink version of this ‘speech’ written before McChrystal ever made a recommendation. Surrender and withdrawal.

    The only reason this took 90 days and we got the speech that we got tonight is Barry’s submerging poll numbers. He has NEVER supported the troops. Believing that He does now requires a ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ and is just naive .

    This puke as a CinC is a fucking sick joke.

  • http://n/a rightside

    Did we have a timetable in WW2? NO. Did we have a timetable for the Korean war? NO. Send 500,000 send what ever it takes and none of this PC crap. We are losing to many good men and woman to PC.

  • Suzanne Weller Hayes

    Repudiation of Bush Presidency YAWN zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :???:

  • Tellicorick

    Ovomit’s Speech to the Tolly Bahn the AQ:

    1. I’m sendin in another 30K troops, but the surge will take 6 months, so continue to kill our boys.
    2. Once the surge is totally in place, just hunker down in the mountains or among the populace and I’ll make sure our operations are half-assed with ridiculous ROE and imaginary lines that can’t be crossed – just like Viet Nam
    3. Use the time wisely to build your forces because I will pull out prior to the 2012 elections so I look good to Code Pink, the radical left and the Muslims and their sympathizers in the US.
    4. After we are gone, you can sweep down and re-take the country and re-establish the AQ training camps without fear.
    5. I’ll make sure we never come back to your country as long as I”m president because I’m scared of the “V” word and a fight.

    Mr. Teleprompter; did I miss anything?

  • Sgt Rock

    :arrow: Awright, Talibans, remember I did you this favor when I need a hideout! You can still knock off Infidels for another 18 mos.! Rahm will be there shortly with my Swiss Bank account number for my share of the smack profits- and don’t short us- I’m a muslim, but I’m a CHICAGO muslim.

  • http://HBCIndy.com Dr. Jerry

    It is even more stupid when you read what he said!

    We are doomed and are young men and women will bear the initial brunt of Obama’s foolishness and treachery.

  • ArchInfidel

    Another hour long speech bashing Bush with these back handed immature comments, Iraq…took our eyes off the ball…yadayadayada. Here I am the savior, I’m fixing this bullshit.

    I cant take it anymore :evil:

  • Sully

    Barry Obama, the Geraldo of Federal rule, probably just had a videotape of lines in the sand He wanted to share with the man-caused disasterers.

  • hank

    STILL WILL NOT USE THE WORD TERRORIST, NOR THE WORD TERROR. spit.

  • josephus

    As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service.

    As your Supreme Leader
    As your Anointed One

    I mean..have you seen the NFL commercials? Are we gonna start seeing portraits of this guy airbrushed onto the side of every building next?

    As my Commander in Chief….

    What’s next? A grey jump suit and funky sideburns? Maybe some gold Elvis style shades?

  • josephus

    Some dude on the Bill Bennett show said his kid was at West Point in 97 and they shook Clinton’s hand. They were warned to behave prior to his appearance.

    When they got back to the barracks, they all held a ceremonial “washing of the hands” to purify themselves.

  • http://logistory.blogspot.com/ Noway2no

    The current occupant of the White House is many things but first and foremost he is an elitist. He gets to whine and complain all-the-while acting intellectual without an original thought. His life experience validates his lofty impression of himself; done nothing yet has risen to a high position (however illegally).

    Simply put, he offers nothing new and is of below average intelligence yet because of The Peter Principle has risen to the highest levels. Since his limited intellect does not allow for introspection or self-actualization the glass house he lives in must continually be polished by endless verbal dribble and self-aggrandizement.

  • Sully

    The Peter Principle?
    Please explain His being plucked from Occidental College and ‘advanced’ to an Ivy League fast-track of Columbia/Harvard Law.
    And then to the streets of Chicago politics, notorious for it’s mob-like ‘Who sent ya?’ vetting, and fast-tracked into national politics.
    I dunno…. i’m sure it’s just me but I found His own characterizations of His ‘success’, as quirks of fate, somewhat lacking.

  • http://logistory.blogspot.com/ Noway2no

    One has to believe in conspiracies to fit all that together. Easier to drink Kool-aid.

    The truth is that whatever we think we know about the usurper’s past is a myth. He is not what he appears to be to many of his supporters of that I am sure. I really doubt if he knows his true early past, too many strange events.

    My reference to The Peter Principle was to point out his incompetence which would exist even if he were not illegally squatting in The People’s House.

    The man would be pitiful if he was not so dangerous.

  • Sully

    Conspiracies happen every day and they take every shape and form.

    • http://logistory.blogspot.com/ Noway2no

      and this is a big one, the biggest of all time in my estimation.