Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Why Is He Sending Them? - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

Why Is He Sending Them? - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online:

"What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war while announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn’t have his heart in it. One who doesn’t really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground — meaning, the political cover — for failure."
Well, clearly a bad one. Maybe due to incompetence, maybe due to naiveté, maybe due to fecklessness, probably due to all, but in the final analysis, does it really matter?

Good column by Charles. I think we all know that the Democrats had no stomach for Afghanistan ever ... when it was taking A MONTH back in Nov of '01, they were already concerned about "cost, prospects for victory, etc". The posturing about Afghanistan by Kerry, BO and other Dems about "the right war" and "Bush taking his eye off the ball", were just political posturing of the worst kind. Now we have the worst kind of political posturing with more troops dying to cover an exit by a bad president.

In Democrat philosophy, is it not ALL a "lost cause"? We randomly exist on this random ball in a random purposeless universe, with their best shot at a "purpose" so far being "the most pleasure/least pain possible for the greatest number". Their purpose is inconsistent with their premise for existence. Not very much about "survival of the fittest" would lead one to believe that avoidance of pain and a maximization of pleasure was somehow randomly selected as being salubrious for advancement of anyone or anything.

The nihilistic liberal outlook is at the core of their central tenet: "consistency is not an issue". This worship of the convenient seems to lead directly to some corollaries:
-- Anything hard or painful is not worth doing.
-- Find a small group, and get them to bear the pain ... "the rich" are a current favorite, but "The Religious Right" was recently popular. Historically, Jews, Slavs, Blacks (prior to 1964 for Dems) ... the small groups to bear the pain so the "many" can pleasure themselves.
-- If someone stronger comes along and tries to take your pleasure by force, let them ... then pout. The French were a great example of this in WWII. John Lennon summarized it nicely "nothing to fight or die for".

One realizes that our current leadership is tailor made to be destroyed by Islam. For the Muslim, pleasure in this life is not high on their priority list. They are very clear on what is worth fighting and dying for -- and not at all squeamish about a whole lot of others dying either. They have done away with that nasty concept of "innocence". Those that fail to worship allah and live under sharia are infidels -- convert or die are the only options.

Is BO a Muslim? In the words of Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does". If he persists in playing right into the hands of those that seek our destruction, does it really make a difference?

No comments:

Post a Comment