HE SPEAKS, AND NO ONE IS IMPRESSED!

Democrats are praying that very few people watched Obama’s speech from the Oval Office.  This speech was not merely bad, it was world class bad.  Obama looked like an undertaker reading a eulogy for someone he despised.  The speech started out bad, and then got worse.  At every step it was flat and boring.   He literally sat there staring at his TelePrompter, with his hands folded and a blank stare on his face.  I have no idea why he thought he needed to do this.  The only time he showed anything resembling enthusiasm was when he was blaming Bush.

 He started out by describing this as a historic milestone.  No victory.  No achievement.  Not even any goals.  The closest speech to this was when Ford took over for Nixon and said our long national nightmare was over.  But, Obama didn’t say that the Iraq war is over, he just said we were dumping the problem on Iraq and while we might continue to help a little, very little, we are out of there.

 He started by blaming everything on Bush and basically reminding us that he thought the whole war was a huge waste.  Then he explained why he thought George Bush was wrong about everything, but Obama had to admit Bush probably was just as much of a patriot as Obama.  Some people misinterpreted this as an act of class.  It was pathetic.  I am sure Bush would have prefered being ignored.  Please!

 It is clear that the primary goal of this speech was to avoid any potential for giving Bush credit for anything.  Sometimes this resulted in statements that, upon reflection, are bizarre.

 For example:

 They (American troops) defeated a regime that had terrorized its people.

 Apparently the unnecessary war “accidentally” removed Saddam from power?  Hmmm!  Bush gets no credit for defeating Saddam; it was apparently an accidental byproduct of a failed policy.

 Together with our coalition partners, who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.

 For years Democrat’s have complained that Iraq was the war where the U.S. went alone with absolutely no support from anyone.  Who were these strange people who made huge sacrifices of their own?  This actually shows that one of the big Democratic arguments against the war is and was a lie.  Obama is right; there were many countries that stood side by side with us at great cost, because they believed in our cause.  Its too bad Democrats only recognize this after over 6 ½ years of sacrifice.  Also too bad that Obama seems equally willing to toss them under the bus along with the people in Iraq.

 Then he is careful to give all the credit to the troops and ignoring the man who made it possible:

They (American Troops) shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces and took out terrorist leaders

 There was no “they,” there was only George Bush.  A President who refused to bow to political pressure from people like Barack Obama who were confident this change in tactics could not work.  Barack Obama kept telling people the surge couldn’t possibly work even after it was abundantly clear that it had worked.  Apparently Obama thinks that our troops got together in a huddle and just decided on their own to shift tactics.  Amazing!

Then Obama pretended that he had developed the plan to withdraw our troops.  That is absurd.  The plan to withdraw our troops was developed by George Bush and there was a signed agreement with the Iraqi Government before Obama even took office.  The only difference was that Bush refused to set an inflexible arbitrary deadline since he knew that would be very harmful for our troops.  Something like giving sustenance to our enemies.

 Then Obama flat out lied, but of course we are used to that:

 Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. 

 The opposite is true.  Violence has surged since our troops started to withdraw and the following article from CBS describes the situation as chaos:   

 http://www.keyc.com/node/41105

 The author, Joel Brown, CBS New, The White House ends with the following:

 Iraqis officials are hoping the violence is just a temporary spike . They say they’re confident the nation’s 650,000 security forces will eventually regain control.

 Either Obama was too busy golfing on Martha’s Vineyard to notice what is happening in Iraq, or he just decided to lie about it.

At this point, it is important to understand what Bush got right and what he got wrong in Iraq.   The campaign to remove Saddam Hussein was brilliant.  All of the military experts, like Wesley Clark, were predicting a long bloody conflict.  Instead the U.S. moved with lightening speed and threw Saddam out of power with record low casualties.  This Bush made a major mistake.  He listened to Democrats.  People like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were telling him he needed to win the hearts and minds of the people.  They were recommending that the U.S. military keep a low profile and instead we should invest billions in building infrastructure, avoid combat and invest primarily in training the Iraqi police and military.  We were also going to send in civilians to show how nice we can be.  It was a disaster, because al Qaeda just moved in full force and launched wide scale terrorist attacks against civilians and literally set off a civil war by blowing up a mosque.  Civilians soon learned that Iraq was death zone.  Al Qaeda didn’t view them as anything other than easy targets.  Iraq descended into near chaos.

Democrats were calling for us to just quit without regard to consequences.  But then Bush did something remarkable.  He refused to quit because he said that to quit would be to throw away the sacrifices of those who had fought there.  On numerous occasions he said he could not let those people die in vain.  Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought the situation was hopeless, so Bush keep searching until he found a General who thought he could win.  General Petraeus said we needed to reverse course.  He said we could not win the hearts and minds of the people until they felt secure.  He said we needed to send in more troops, relax the rules of engagement and take on al Qaeda and the insurgents.   Bush, in defiance of almost everyone with the possible exception of John McCain said he ordered the surge because he could not and would not settle for less than victory.  That is what a real President does.

 Here is Obama’s “new” plan:

 As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians, aid workers and advisors are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world.

 He is going to adopt the original Bush plan, that was a complete failure.  Perhaps it will work this time.  Perhaps our military has bought enough time so that Iraq can exert self control  Perhaps al Qaeda will avoid killing our civilians.  Perhaps aid workers won’t mind getting blown to pieces for the greater good, but somehow I doubt it.  But this time there is a big difference.  This time al Qaeda knows that Barack won’t fight back.  Unfortunately, that may be a fatal difference.  I sincerely hope that Iraq will be ready, willing and able to stand up to al Qaeda.  

Obama, who ignored giving credit to Bush for the surge in Iraq, announces that he is going to win the war in Afghanistan by ordering a surge similar to the one that worked in Iraq.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will notice that this is the height of inconsistency.

Finally, Obama goes completely over the top.  His speech is so bizarre it borders on delusion.  He says:

One of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone.  We must use all elements of our power – including our diplomacy, our economic strength and the power of America’s example – to secure our interests and stand by our allies.

 Really?  We tried that approach in Iraq and should have learned the real lesson.  The best way to defeat terrorist is to kill them.  It was only when we did choose to use our military force effectively that we began to make real progress in Iraq.

 The following line is delusional:

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners.

What planet is Obama talking about?  What old adversaries are now at peace because of anything Obama did since coming into office?  Where are those emerging democracies, other than Iraq?  Liberals keep saying you cannot create democracy with military force.  I wonder if any of them have ever heard of Germany or Japan?  And where is there democracy today, in South Korea, where we won or South Vietnam where we lost?

 Finally, Obama had to once again blame all the problems in the world on George Bush:

Unfortunately over the last decade we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity.  We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas.  This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.  For too long we have put off tough decision on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform.  As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

 With Obama, everything is Bush’s fault.  There is never any other option.  Just this week the CBO published a report showing that Obama’s failed stimulus plan spent more money in one year than the cost of the entire Iraq war to date.  In addition, Bush only increased military spending to 4% of GDP, the percentage many bi-partisan experts feel is appropriate to sustain our military at the appropriate level.  Of course Democrats blame our entire deficit on the Bush tax cuts.  The same Bush tax cuts that are due to expire this fall, resulting in the largest tax increase on the middle class in history.  Now if the Bush tax cuts only impacted the wealthy, why does reversing them result in a big tax increase on the middle class?  Democrats couldn’t have been lying about that, could they?  Now, of course, even Democrats are talking about extending the Bush tax cuts.  I wonder if Obama noticed that?

 The problem is that although this is pure hog wash, Obama believes every word of it.  That is why we have no hope of economic recovery as long as he remains in power.  He lives in a delusional world none of us can even recognize.  I believe the Republicans will win the House and the Senate this fall.  However, I doubt they will win a veto proof majority in the Senate.  The good news is that it is going to be much harder for Obama to do more damage after November 2.  The bad news is that he is likely to remain clueless and delusional and will continue to think he is right regardless of evidence to the contrary. 

 TDM