Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | May 1, 2012

The last thing you will need to read about Obama and the SEAL operation against bin Laden

Every American Officer and Soldier must now console himself for any unpleasant circumstances which may have occurred, by a recollection of the uncommon scenes in which he has been called to act, no inglorious part; and the astonishing Events of which he has been a witness–Events which have seldom, if ever before, taken place on the stage of human action, nor can they probably ever happen again. For who has before seen a disciplined Army formed at once from such raw Materials? Who that was not a witness could imagine, that the most violent local prejudices would cease so soon, and that Men who came from the different parts of the Continent, strongly disposed by the habits of education, to dispise and quarrel with each other, would instantly become but one patriotic band of Brothers? Or who that was not on the spot can trace the steps by which such a wonderful Revolution has been effected, and such a glorious period put to all our Warlike toils? …

[The Commander-in-Chief] presents his thanks in the most serious and affectionate manner to the General Officers, as well for their Counsel on many interesting occasions, as for their ardor in promoting the success of the plans he had adopted–To the Commandants of Regiments and Corps, and to the other Officers for their great Zeal and attention in carrying his orders promptly into execution–To the Staff for their alacrity and exactness in performing the duties of their several Departments–And to the Non-commissioned officers and private Soldiers, for their extraordinary patience in suffering, as well as their invincible fortitude in Action–To the various branches of the Army, the General takes this last and solemn oppertunity of professing his inviolable attachment & friendship–He wishes more than bare professions were in his power, that he was really able to be useful to them all in future life; He flatters himself however, they will do him the justice to believe, that whatever could with propriety be attempted by him, has been done. And being now to conclude these his last public Orders, to take his ultimate leave, in a short time, of the Military Character, and to bid a final adieu to the Armies he has so long had the honor to Command–he can only again offer in their behalf his recommendations to their grateful Country, and his prayers to the God of Armies. May ample justice be done them here, and may the choicest of Heaven’s favors both here and hereafter attend those, who under the divine auspices have secured innumerable blessings for others: With these Wishes, and this benediction, the Commander in Chief is about to retire from service–The Curtain of seperation will soon be drawn–and the Military Scene to him will be closed for ever.

George Washington’s farewell address to the Continental Army, 2 November 1783


Our citizen soldiers are unlike those drawn from the population of any other country. They are composed indiscriminately of all professions and pursuits–of farmers, lawyers, physicians, merchants, manufacturers, mechanics, and laborers–and this not only among the officers, but the private soldiers in the ranks. Our citizen soldiers are unlike those of any other country in other respects. They are armed, and have been accustomed from their youth up to handle and use firearms, and a large proportion of them, especially in the Western and more newly settled States, are expert marksmen. They are men who have a reputation to maintain at home by their good conduct in the field. They are intelligent, and there is an individuality of character which is found in the ranks of no other army. …

When all these facts are considered, it may cease to be a matter of so much amazement abroad how it happened that our noble Army in Mexico, regulars and volunteers, were victorious upon every battlefield, however fearful the odds against them. …

But our military strength does not consist alone in our capacity for extended and successful operations on land. The Navy is an important arm of the national defense. For the able and gallant services of the officers and men of the Navy, acting independently as well as in cooperation with our troops, in the conquest of the Californias, the capture of Vera Cruz, and the seizure and occupation of other important positions on the Gulf and Pacific coasts, the highest praise is due.


James K. Polk, message to Congress after the Mexican-American War, 5 December 1848



Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 19 November 1863


But it is not the physical scale and executive efficiency of preparation, supply, equipment and despatch that I would dwell upon, but the mettle and quality of the officers and men we sent over and of the sailors who kept the seas, and the spirit of the nation that stood behind them. No soldiers or sailors ever proved themselves more quickly ready for the test of battle or acquitted themselves with more splendid courage and achievement when put to the test. Those of us who played some part in directing the great processes by which the war was pushed irresistibly forward to the final triumph may now forget all that and delight our thoughts with the story of what our men did. Their officers understood the grim and exacting task they had undertaken and performed it with an audacity, efficiency, and unhesitating courage that touch the story of convoy and battle with imperishable distinction at every turn, whether the enterprise were great or small, from their great chiefs, Pershing and Sims, down to the youngest lieutenant; and their men were worthy of them,-such men as hardly need to be commanded, and go to their terrible adventure blithely and with the quick intelligence of those who know just what it is they would accomplish. I am proud to be the fellow-countryman of men of such stuff and valor. Those of us who stayed at home did our duty; the war could not have been won or the gallant men who fought it given their opportunity to win it otherwise; but for many a long day we shall think ourselves “accurs’d we were not there, and hold our manhoods cheap while any speaks that fought” with these at St. Mihiel or Thierry. The memory of those days of triumphant battle will go with these fortunate men to their graves; and each will have his favorite memory. “Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, but hell remember with advantages what feats he did that day!”

What we all thank God for with deepest gratitude is that our men went in force into the line of battle just at the critical moment when the whole fate of the world seemed to hang in the balance and threw their fresh strength into the ranks of freedom in time to turn the whole tide and sweep of the fateful struggle,-turn it once for all, so that thenceforth it was back, back, back for their enemies, always back, never again forward!

Woodrow Wilson, address to Congress after the end of World War I, 2 December 1918


On this Army Day, freedom-loving men all over the world rise with us to salute our fighting men and devoted women of the Army. Our American soldier is respected everywhere for his courage, admired for his fighting skill, and loved for his charm and simplicity. Like his gallant brother in arms in the United States Navy, he is the symbol of our traditions and our hopes.

Our Army has written many glorious chapters in the Nation’s history, but none so brilliant as the last. Its story in this war has been written in every corner of the globe–on the continent of Europe; in the wastes of the Arctic; over the vast expanse of the Pacific; in jungle and desert; on mountains and over the beaches. It is a glorious history of men against the forces of nature as well as against the forces of evil.

Harry Truman, national address on Army Day, 6 April 1946


I can’t say enough in praise of our military – Army rangers and paratroopers, Navy, Marine, and Air Force personnel – those who planned a brilliant campaign and those who carried it out. Almost instantly, our military seized the two airports, secured the campus where most of our students were, and are now in the mopping-up phase. …

May I share something with you I think you’d like to know? It’s something that happened to the Commandant of our Marine Corps, General Paul Kelley, while he was visiting our critically injured Marines in an Air Force hospital. It says more than any of us could ever hope to say about the gallantry and heroism of these young men, young men who serve so willingly so that others might have a chance at peace and freedom in their own lives and in the life of their country.

I’ll let General Kelley’s words describe the incident. He spoke of a “young Marine with more tubes going in and out of his body than I have ever seen in one body.”

“He couldn’t see very well. He reached up and grabbed my four stars, just to make sure I was who I said I was. He held my hand with a firm grip. He was making signals, and we realized he wanted to tell me something. We put a pad of paper in his hand – and he wrote ‘Semper Fi.’ ”

Well, if you’ve been a Marine or if, like myself, you’re an admirer of the Marines, you know those words are a battle cry, a greeting, and a legend in the Marine Corps. They’re Marine shorthand for the motto of the Corps – “Semper Fidelis” – “always faithful.”

General Kelley has a reputation for being a very sophisticated general and a very tough Marine. But he cried when he saw those words, and who can blame him? That Marine and all those others like him living and dead, have been faithful to their ideals. They’ve given willingly of themselves so that a nearly defenseless people in a region of great strategic importance to the free world will have a chance someday to live lives free of murder and mayhem and terrorism. I think that young Marine and all of his comrades have given every one of us something to live up to.

They were not afraid to stand up for their country or, no matter how difficult and slow the journey might be, to give to others that last, best hope of a better future. We cannot and will not dishonor them now and the sacrifices they’ve made by failing to remain as faithful to the cause of freedom and the pursuit of peace as they have been.

Ronald Reagan, after the Grenada invasion, 27 October 1983


Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your “lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.”

I think I know what you may be thinking right now — thinking “we were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.” Well, everyone was. …

All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland’s 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England’s armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard’s “Matchbox Fleet” and you, the American Rangers.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought — or felt in their hearts, though they couldn’t know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell

Ronald Reagan, address commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-Day, 6 June 1984


We hear so often about our young people in turmoil—how our children fall short, how our schools fail us, how American products and American workers are second-class. Well, don’t you believe it. The America we saw in Desert Storm was first-class talent. And they did it using America’s state-of-the-art technology. We saw the excellence embodied in the Patriot missile and the patriots who made it work. And we saw soldiers who know about honor and bravery and duty and country and the world-shaking power of these simple words. There is something noble and majestic about the pride, about the patriotism that we feel tonight.

So, to everyone here and everyone watching at home, think about the men and women of Desert Storm. Let us honor them with our gratitude. Let us comfort the families of the fallen and remember each precious life lost.

Soon, very soon, our troops will begin the march we’ve all been waiting for—their march home. … Let their return remind us that all those who have gone before are linked with us in the long line of freedom’s march.

Americans have always tried to serve, to sacrifice nobly for what we believe to be right. Tonight, I ask every community in this country to make this coming Fourth of July a day of special celebration for our returning troops. They may have missed Thanksgiving and Christmas, but I can tell you this: For them and for their families, we can make this a holiday they’ll never forget.

In a very real sense, this victory belongs to them—to the privates and the pilots, to the sergeants and the supply officers, to the men and women in the machines and the men and women who made them work. It belongs to the regulars, to the reserves, to the National Guard. This victory belongs to the finest fighting force this nation has ever known in its history.

We’re coming home now—proud, confident, heads high. There is much that we must do, at home and abroad. And we will do it. We are Americans.

George H.W. Bush, address to Congress after Desert Storm, 6 March 1991


The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ’em. …

We’ve come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

George W. Bush, address to the nation after the capture of Saddam Hussein, 14 December 2003


I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.

Barack Obama, on politicizing the May 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden by the US Navy SEALs, 30 April 2012

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.


  1. you pule a bit.

  2. And of course you could equally have carefully selected excerpts which would have conveyed the exact opposite impression to the one you are attempting to convey.

    But you know, what comes accross most strikingly from this mean, shallow, and transparent little exercise is how much you utterly hate our president. It comes as a shock, but one can only conclude that you would probably have preferred that his decision to give the go-ahead to the Seals had resulted in a failed operation.

    Shame. Shame on you.

    • Then you pick an excerpt of Obama’s which conveys his humble appreciation for what other fine men risked their lives to accomplish. Find an exerpt showing his pride in America, pride in those defenders of this country. Find an exerpt from any of the others which reflects the arrogance and disdain Obama’s does. No? Scream hate where there is none. Scream racism where there is none. But understand the difference between a leader with pride, honor, a true admiration for this country, its people and its military……and Obama.

  3. Paulite t:

    1. Please cite one such excerpt which would have “conveyed the exact opposite impression.” Just wishful, sycophantic thinking on your part.

    2. I don’t think OPTI’s posting shows that she hates our president. Rather, she simply assembled readily available evidence that Obama is totally out of touch with America. He doesn’t act like other presidents; he apparently doesn’t think like other presidents. It just “all about him.” All the time.

    3. As appalling as his egomania is, there may be a positive side to it. It should help lead to his overwhelming defeat in November.

    4. Your assertion that Opti would have wanted the operation to fail is, with all respect, baseless and demented. All she’s doing is criticizing a shameless blowhard.

    5. Shame on Obama. He is the anti-Washington, the anti-Lincoln, the anti-Truman, and the anti-Reagan. And now Obama is circling the drain.

  4. BHO “went after bin Laden”? With a nine iron or a fairway wood?

  5. Well done, a remarkable contrast. The Lincoln and Reagan quotes had me welling up, as the unabashed faith, love and pride in this country, both in it’s soldiers and citizens, shows through each word. This Obama speech is only one of many he has given totally void of these things he does not feel and cannot even fake on a teleprompter. America hungers for a leader who believes in this country and honors all of those who made her great, defended her as well as the oppressed of other nations. We are not Obama’s vision and will never be. And he, in his insufferable arrogance, will never be a Lincoln, a Reagan or a leader of a free people.

    • Welcome, Shawny, and apologies for the delay in your first comments. There’s a one-time “approval” to keep down the spam. Your comments should post automatically from now on. Don’t be shy!

    • I guess that you join our hostess in having a tin ear and not understanding the differences between speeches offering thanks for victory in a war of great battle and less formal remarks concerning a raid to take the life of a single vile person that brings to end to a war nor deserves any formal oratory as the dead skunkbag was without honor of any sort.

      • I believe it is a class (as in honor, dignity, integrity, respect…) difference. Please read the 2nd from last speech, when Saddam was captured, did the President once use 1st person singular
        ” I “? Formal oratory aside, give credit (and or take) where credit is due.

        • Saddam was a head of state and Bush was rather desperate to latch on to some sort of victory amidst the shambles of the Iraq invasion, Cindy.

          Elevating the end of bin Laden is in no way in our interests.

          • I am not sure if Foxtrot stands next to BHO in his attempt to arrogantly take singular credit for OBL’s death but it seems to me that it might be sort of a huge double standard to say that “Bush was rather desperate to latch on to some sort of victory amidst the shambles of the Iraq invasion” without applying the same banner to BHO as it relates to his recent comments on OBL, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and his whole foreign policy mess in that very hemorroidal region of the world.

            I am sure that if Earth ever needs an enema, it would be inserted in Afghanistan.

            I was not in agreement with our invasion of Iraq and I was not in agreement to invade Afghanistan either. The reason that I was not in agreement with any of it is precisely because our political system allows for things like this to be critically interrupted by the next clown in the Whitehouse and, also, because we don’t do these things to win outright in a quick and definite fashion (as we are quite capable of doing). The end result, in my opinion, is a lot of American deaths with very little real or measurable accomplishment to show for their sacrifice.

            And, no, I don’t think that our boys should die to democratize the Middle East or any other region, for that matter. That is their business, not ours. Besides, democratizing some countries can often be a very dangerous and counterproductive goal indeed. So, if that is the only end result being sought then God keep us from the naive fools that put us up to that.

            The next ten or so years will say whether I am right to feel that way or not but, if we take Vietnam and Korea as models of what a half-assed commitment gets us, then I would venture to guess that I am right on the money.


            • I was FULLY in favor of our invasion of Afghanistan and the fighting might have ended before Bush left office… or it might not have as Pakistan remains the nest of snakes that it’s long been.

              • That’s the problem with a den of snakes…kill one and others will prop up in its place. Kerosene and a match might be a much better tool for dealing with a den of snakes. Particularly poisonous ones.

                But, one thing’s for sure…a half-ass commitment to war brings nothing but pain as well as needless and prolonged sufering.

                How will the father and mother of a dead soldier feel when we declare a shallow, politically convenient “victory”, just to see the place go right back to being a cesspool fifteen seconds later?


                • we started half-assing things in Afghanistan when we decided that we were going to invade Iraq.

                  Rumsfeld’s “invasion on the cheap” theories failed miserably. someday there might be a real alternative to boots on the ground, but not quite yet.

    • But you have to admit that quoting these Presidents’ own words was a pretty low down thing to do to Obama.

  6. I’m with you, though not as optimisticly. Your selected speeches from these great Americans are a gift to read. I do not, of course, include the last one.
    There are so many more disgusting, egotistical blatherings you might have chosen from this man who calls our finest patriotic graduates “corpse-men” in his ignorance or perhaps by way of revealing his plan for them. 1275 dead in Afghanistan now since he took over and changed the ROE to ‘dont shoot until the enemy is out of range’. Paraphrasing his actual orders but to the same effect.
    Where’s the media on this outrage, or any of his other outrages? Silent. What’s going on in Iraq these days? Silence. What are our troops doing in Africa? Silence. How much American taxpayer money originally intended for NASA is now going to fulfill this man’s dream of building rocket launch capabilities among muslim nations? No one seems to care.
    The media now attacks Romney over his Mormon, by which they mean polygamous, heritage. Yet whose father was a practicing polygamist (and communist and muslim and drunk driver)? Why it was their favorite son Mr Barack Hussein Obama.
    And the Orwellian beat goes on.

    George M

    • We are all in debt to you for this sober, reasoned, and evidence-based exposition.

      • “corpseman” may be a verbal stumble or it may be a Freudian slip. But changing the ROE in a way that unavoidably places American lives at sharply higher risk is prima facie evidence. Where is your shame?

        Observing and asking, “Where’s the media on this outrage, or any of his other outrages? Silent. What’s going on in Iraq these days? Silence. What are our troops doing in Africa? Silence” is sober and reasoned inquiry and are evidence based concerns.

        Yet you disparage those questions, seeking to act as an apologist.

        “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

        • Have you no ability to comprehend a writer’s words? Me, an apologist for the media or obama? I should be ashamed that obama is putting our troops at risk as unarmed target practice fodder? Are you an ESL student?

          • George…
            I was replying to Paulite t. Check the thread above. Besides, quoting you and then taking your critic to task should have alerted you.

    • another paraphrase would be, “George. eat yourself and become gravely ill.”

      • What was the difference between the Nazi storm trooper and the French collaborator? Only a slight matter of degree. In your knee-jerk support for Paulite t’s cavalier dismissal of honest outrage, you participate in the avoidance and obstruction of truth, which places you within the camp of the enemies of liberty.

        Our parent’s admonition that we are judged by the company we keep still holds true.

        I recommend more reflection fuster, as when we can’t respond to a viewpoint with which we disagree with reason, logic and factual rebuttal, invariably one of two conditions must hold true; either we lack a solid enough foundation to support our viewpoint or we are on the wrong side of the issue.

        • GB—– I offered no support to Paul, I was addressing George’s wretched raving.

          go jerk some other knee a while,eh?

          and I’m not much afraid to be in poor company. I’m here, ain’t I?

          • “Wretched raving?” You must be a democrat to thus describe the truth.

            Perhaps, ‘mikefoxtrot’ you might consider changing you handle to ‘AbleHotel’?

            • why don’t you try showing that Obama changed the rules of engagement and then explain how it is that your characterization of those rules could be correct and be accepted by the professional staff of the military?

              you wouldn’t know the truth if it was hard in back of you and making your eyeballs bulge.

              • The changing of the ROE happened after Obama’s election, making it on his watch. The ROE’s are solely at the commander in chiefs discretion, so there’s no wiggle room here for avoidance of responsibility. There is simply no room for dispute that the ROE’s under Obama have greatly increased the risk to our troops.

                It is you that is in denial of the truth here, either out of ignorance or mendacity.

                • during his admin….is far different from what Georgie spewed.

                  although you’re right about the increased risk under the Obama admin…the war simply wasn’t being fought for a few years prior to Obama’s taking over…. our troops were sitting in their bases and the initiative had passed to the insurgents while our creep in Kabul was running a regime that did nothing other than steal from us and the citizens of the country.

                  the new administration decided that as we were losing maybe we ought to make some effort to fight a little and lose a little slower.

                  Geoffrey, pull your head out.

                  • Its true that the Bush administration allowed our momentum in Afghanistan to falter but given the constraints of Bush’s belief in the human aspiration for freedom leading to the erroneous expectation that M.E. societies would embrace democracy, the refuge the Taliban enjoyed from Pakistan, and a hostile press, with rabid democratic opposition, what real choice did Bush have?

                    That also applies to the choices Obama faced.

                    That said, the difference being that Bush wanted to win but saw no clear path to victory while Obama only gave lip service to carrying the fight forward. It’s disingenuous of Paulite t to assert that Obama ever intended to win the war on terror because he doesn’t believe in that fight.

                    Obama and those who support his view are insisting that Islamic terrorism is a reaction to the insensitivity of US dominance. That in time, good intentions can sway hurt feelings.

                    Some Islamic anger was reactive toward US policies, as no one likes to be pushed around. However, even if that was the original impetus for opposition and a continuing complaint (everyone resenting the top dog), religious fanaticism and the logistical support that oil revenues allow, have fueled the drive of Islamic radicalism within the region to the point of gaining ascendancy.

                    Iran’s coming acquisition of nuclear weapons capability is a ‘game changer’ and Obama and those who support him have their heads stuck firmly in the sand of denial regarding that threat.

                    We shall all pay the price.


                    • good point, GB…given that Bush’s beliefs were wrong and flat ignorant, given that he surrounded himself with people who amplified his mistakes, given their actions did lead us into a world of trouble and given that they failed to understand that the opposition to their objectives was strong and extensive and highly resistant to the level of force that they were prepared to use and able to bring to bear, once they started us down the road to ruin when we invaded Iraq rather than concentrate on cleaning up Afghanistan (and Pakistan)….yeah what else could he do?

                      Bush was a pretty amiable and well-intentioned president, and by 2005 I think he realized how much he screwed up and was mislead by Rumsfeld and Cheney et al, and tried to ameliorate the damage, but it was too late and too extensive.

          • My reply to Paulite t fuster, makes clear that George’s comment, while emotional was nevertheless reasoned, sober and evidentiary. For you to respond as if I had never demonstrated that to be the case is rebuttal without substance, mere repetition of groundless charges. That makes you a supporter of Paulite t’s position. Whether you originally were or not, your response places you firmly in the camp of his supporters.

            The ‘company we keep; refers to our friends, or in this case, those with whom we ideologically align.

      • I would prefer to eat a hockey Mom.

        • your peckishness during hockey might be sated in a more puckish manner.

  7. One thing that has become apparent from this string of posts is Paulite’s blatantly displayed obsequiousness towards his current Commander-in-Chief.

    Although I am sure that there are many willing boot lickers out there, Paulite should apply for that non-prestigious job now because, as it happens, most of the other willing applicants are busy occupying this or that lately.

    Furthermore, and to secure that his application is a shoo-in, Paulite should site his adoring willingness for doing his entire boot licking from the subservient supine position. That, in and of itself, might well guarantee Paulite’s chances of being selected as official Boot Licker for the Commander-in-Chief.


  8. In James Taranto’s “Best of the Web” in the WSJ today:

    “‘For Him’
    National Review’s Jim Geraghty notes a powerful anti-Obama ad by a group called Veterans for a Strong America. It makes excellent use of a clip from Obama’s recent ad boasting of the killing of Osama bin Laden. In the clip, Bill Clinton says: “Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there. . . . Suppose they’d been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him.”

    “Horrible for HIM?” read the words on the screen. This bolsters our theory that Clinton does not want Obama to win re-election and is subtly working to undermine him.”

    • Maybe, or perhaps Clinton is so self-absorbed and such a ‘political animal’ that every ‘downside’ is measured against the yardstick of political calculation. And maybe he judges Obama to be a kindred spirit with Hillary having confirming that assessment.

    • From this I infer (surprise) that deaths of SEALS matters MORE to a democrat like clinton or obama for the effect on their own reputation than the effect on the now-dead SEALS.

      • Cannon fodder would best describe their attitude toward the SEALS. The self-absorbed narcissist cannot comprehend a willingness to sacrifice “that last, full measure of devotion” because their devotion is entirely centered upon themselves.

  9. As the leader of our country, as its Commander in Chief, a President has a singular duty to honor the men and women in our Military and to behave in a manner that does honor to the sacrifices of those who have, through that sacrifice, bequeathed to us our liberties and way of life.

    We expect our military to be non-political and obedient to its civilian commanders. But obedience, to remain separate from tyranny, must be paid for with the coin of loyalty and respect.

    Obama’s paucity of praise and actions repeatedly demonstrate his disregard and disrespect for our military and in that behavior he reveals to “all with eyes to see” his unfitness to lead those men and women.

    Only those blinded by ideological loyalty fail to apprehend this reality.

    There is no higher calling than the military because no other profession makes so clear a demand that a member be prepared to render the ultimate sacrifice, “that last, full measure of devotion”, should the nation determine its necessity.

    In failing to sincerely render our military honor, Obama dishonors himself.

    And those who refuse to recognize his disrespect, placing ideology above the decency of gratitude, in turn dishonor all those who have served and reveal their own unworthiness.

    An ingrate is a particularly loathsome excuse for a human being and, in their attitude toward America and her military, Barack and Michelle Obama reveal all the signs of an ingrate.

    • @GB:
      I think I may possibly have mistaken your reply above as directed at me rather than at pauline. For this, I apologize.

      • No problem George, unfortunately, I replied to your reply above before reading this, so we’re even.

  10. “Others will ask why don’t we leave immediately. The answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost and al Quaeda could establish itself once more. And as Commander in Chief I refuse to let this happen.
    I recognize that many Americans are tired of war. As President nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family ofthe fallen, or looking into the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. I will not keep Americans in harms way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. But we must finish the job we started in Afghanistan and end this war responsibly”
    (President Obama, Bagram Base, Afghanistan 05/01/2012)

    “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we”
    (President GW Bush, Washington, 08/05/2004)

    These absolutely representative excerpts show conclusively (according to the unimpeachable Dyer criteria which applies to measuring these things) that our President is acutely aware of his responsibilities as our Head of State and Commander in Chief, while GWB was an idiot, unfit (in the immortal words of Winston Churchill) to run a whelk-stall.

    Je reste ma valaise.

  11. “we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost and al Quaeda could establish itself once more. And as Commander in Chief I refuse to let this happen.”

    “Once you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made” that’s an accurate criticism because by Obama announcing the date of our withdrawal, the Taliban knew that all they had to do was wait and keep up a moderate amount of resistance to win. Which they have done and Hamid Karzai’s behavior proves this assertion to be accurate. Obama sent half the troops requested and changed the ROE’s hamstringing our troops. Now after he’s established the political cover he felt necessary, he’s pulling out and allowing the country to become a haven for terrorists again.

    Obama is allowing both the Taliban and al Qaeda to return because he was never serious about ending the war responsibly. Political calculation is the sole reason why he’s stayed. None of us here are fooled by your apologist tactics.

    “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we”

    An assumption that the listener can complete the thought does not an idiot make. Though a failure to do so certainly may qualify.

    Adding the unnecessary words; “ever stop thinking of ways to protect our country and people”… to “and neither do we” makes his meaning perfectly clear. Articulateness is not a prerequisite for intelligence. Nor is being a scholar.

    Bush earned a bachelor’s degree from Yale University and a Master of Business Administration degree from the Harvard Business School. And, we have his transcripts.

    “One does not hide from sight, what one does not fear to see the light of day”

    • —“Obama is allowing both the Taliban and al Qaeda to return because he was never serious about ending the war responsibly.”

      this level of idiocy is not you at your best, GB..

      this is you talking tripe without a tiny bit of sense or truth. I KNOW that you’re capable of much better than that.

      • “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish!” Euripedes

        Obama has consistently demonstrated a pattern of behavior that supports my assertion. Your inability to acknowledge the obvious indicates how deep your denial extends.

        At the latest, the Taliban will regain control over Afghanistan
        within a year after we pull out. Probably much less and when they do, you will be the one standing in the corner wearing the dunce cap.

        • GB— your standard aphorism in reply doesn’t serve you any better than it usually does……

          There is no “pattern of behavior” that supports your assertion and you can’t show one that’s exists in the world because it resides in your somewhat hardened head.

          Gates , Petraeus and McChrystal reported the state of play in Afghanistan shortly after the end of the Bush admin and since then, we’ve had greater efforts than ever before.

          Do better and be less of a fool.

    • The point, GB, which you were obviously far too thick to get, is that what Dyer purported to do is a contemptable and utterly dishonest exercise, whether we are talking about Obama, Bush, or anyone else.

      What it shows most clearly – in addition to her own dishonesty – is the contempt she has for the intelligence of her target audience.

      • P— when you read Dyer’s stuff cross-posted from HotAir, I suggest that you should appreciate that she has more than sufficient reason to hold that audience in contempt. the commenters there were, when I used to look at the site before being banned, were utterly unresponsive to anything she posted that had anything nuanced in it and wasn’t dumbed down.

        On a site where half a hundred comments were common she would get half a dozen.

      • Stop projecting. Obama does not love this country. He’s a racist. He’s a radical transnational socialist. He shares the views of Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. You are in denial about the truth of Obama’s core beliefs.

        Comparing Obama to exceptional examples of expressed affection for their homeland by prior Presidents is only ‘despicable’ if its a false accusation, which it is not. It highlights just how much he fails to measure up to that standard.

        Dyer’s criticism of Obama isn’t in support of a political agenda. Your certain incredulity and inability to objectively evaluate that assertion demonstrates your obtuseness and partisanship.

        Dyer consistently explains why she disagrees with Obama’s actions and policies. Dismissing her rationale without directly addressing her points is a sure indication that you cannot rebut them and must resort to slander.

        • GB– you don’t know Obama’s beliefs any more than do I. Dyer’s criticism of Obama is due to the fact that she hates America, is a racist and a radical non-redistributionist, shares the views of Meier Kahane and David Duke and the first Duke of Marlborough.

          (for demonstration purposes only— do not try to believe this at home)

          this is the level of drivel that you’re offering.

          all your accusations are unsupported and your repeated assertions that I hold a great partisan loyalty and adherence to Obama is as flat dumb as the rest of what you’re offering.

          • Got it, Foxtrot. If it walks like a duck, cuacks like a duck and swims like a duck it must be a…a giraffe!

            Thanks for the enlightement.


            • it walks, quacks and swims like a lawyer/ politician, rafa.

              -fuster (for some unknown reason DBA mikefoxtrot)

              • Cool!

                But, tell me, Fuster, was it the lawyer part or the politician part that picked Van Jones? Which part befriended Ayers and his other marxist profesors and friends in college? And which part, while we are at it, paid homage to Jeremiah Wright for many, many years? I mean, for a simple lawyer/politician with a dream Obama does do one hell of a lot of quacking, doesn’t he?

                But I guess it must serve some other purpose, as yet undiscovered by all here, to be and act naive and unknowing about this simple issue. I say that because I know that you are definitely not a rabidly pro-Obama cheerleader.

                I mean, after all, you yourself said you weren’t…


                • it was the lawyer part that canned Jones. it was the politician part that gave him a ceremonial job. Politicians who win major elections pass out jobs to people…. ceremonial jobs go to people who ain’t real close buddies and ain’t real important or savory.

                  any reason not to be friendly with Marxist professors? They’re more sane than are professors who espouse the political theories of Hayek. and while there’s little in either camp of merit, the main reason for befriending people is the person not the political outlook.

                  • Uhu…yep…sure…aha…aha…ayup…

                    I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.


  12. Don’t you think that quoting Bush’s own words was a mean low-down trick against him?

    • Articulateness is not a prerequisite for intelligence. Nor is being a scholar.

  13. […]… […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: