Monday, September 2, 2013

Let's play a game

This Labor Day, let's play a little game of "who said this?" Lend your mental muscle on this conundrum:

"First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.
And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.
Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom. We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world."

Perhaps presumptive Democratic nominee for 2016 Hillary Clinton from one of her highly touted policy speeches? Maybe her husband Bill, the first black President? Noted isolationist and fav of the Libertarians Ron Paul? Perhaps some thoughtful think-tank type?
Hmmmm . . .

Let's try something else from the same source:

"President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.
We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require "too much of a commitment."
President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?
The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?
We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.
Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, "Well, Bush did it." Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for "his wars," ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.
Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his "red line" promise regarding chemical weapons.
As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting "Allah Akbar" at each other, then let Allah sort it out."

Still no idea? One last hint:

"So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?"

Yes, now you have it, right? Sarah Palin. You know, the same but I thought she said she could see Russia from her house Sarah Palin. The bit at the top is from a speech given at Colorado Christian University in 2011. The quote in the middle is from her Facebook page the other day. And the last from her Twitter account last week.

If you read through her various speeches and policy statements without knowing who said them, it paints a completely different picture than the one put out by the left wing media and entertainment complex. You combine the relentless white noise of their character assassinations with a profoundly unsophisticated audience and you get a stumbling incompetent like Barack Obama in the White House and a talented executive like Palin as the punch line for pathetic comedians posing as newsmen.

And you wonder why we're in the mess we're in.

0 comments:

Post a Comment