"killing al Qaeda plays into al Qaeda's hands", or some such nonsense
Yesterday Haystack took issue with deputy national security advisor John Brennan and his rather silly assertion that criticism of Obama’s policy of allowing the United States to be used as a piñata by terrorists forwards the goals of al Qaeda.
While Haystack rightfully points out the utter hypocrisy of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other democrats in their relentless hammering of the Bush Administration all the while professing their patriotism I think there is another point to be made here.
When Obama and his fellow travelers tried desperately to engineer American defeats in two wars, hamstring covert operations directed against terrorist organizations, and carry out a “slow bleed” of American forces in combat, they were acting as the domestic arm of al Qaeda for all intents and purposes.
Since Obama’s anointing last January, he has scrupulously avoided using the terms “win” or “victory” in regards to America’s wars. He has doubted that winning is possible as Emperor Hirohito is not available to sign a surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri (link provided for the benefit of those readers who think that *I* believe that Hirohito signed the surrender document) which was certainly encouraging to the men and women fighting in Afghanistan. His feckless management of the war in Iraq, subcontracting that responsibility to America’s Rain Man, Joe Biden, with no goal beyond a withdrawal of combat forces by this summer seems designed to ensure that Iraq will remain yet another suppurating sore in a region which desperately needs stable governments. One can only conclude that the Administration is staffed by idiots and geopolitical naïfs working under the direction of a man who believes all political difficulties can be overcome by blaming President Bush.
The difference between our criticism of Obama and the criticism directed by Obama against President Bush is this: Obama’s criticism was focused on ensuring American defeats in two wars and a curtailing of American power in the world. Our criticism is focused on ensuring that Obama cannot engineer defeats in two wars we are winning and on increasing American power.
If Mr. Brennan wants to make the case that our arguments for a more forceful policy in Afghanistan and bringing the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion plays into the hands of an apparently, in his view anyway, suicidal and self-destructive al Qaeda, then he’s welcome to do so. That lowers our burden of proof considerably when we assert Brennan is an idiot.
Redstate
While Haystack rightfully points out the utter hypocrisy of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other democrats in their relentless hammering of the Bush Administration all the while professing their patriotism I think there is another point to be made here.
When Obama and his fellow travelers tried desperately to engineer American defeats in two wars, hamstring covert operations directed against terrorist organizations, and carry out a “slow bleed” of American forces in combat, they were acting as the domestic arm of al Qaeda for all intents and purposes.
Since Obama’s anointing last January, he has scrupulously avoided using the terms “win” or “victory” in regards to America’s wars. He has doubted that winning is possible as Emperor Hirohito is not available to sign a surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri (link provided for the benefit of those readers who think that *I* believe that Hirohito signed the surrender document) which was certainly encouraging to the men and women fighting in Afghanistan. His feckless management of the war in Iraq, subcontracting that responsibility to America’s Rain Man, Joe Biden, with no goal beyond a withdrawal of combat forces by this summer seems designed to ensure that Iraq will remain yet another suppurating sore in a region which desperately needs stable governments. One can only conclude that the Administration is staffed by idiots and geopolitical naïfs working under the direction of a man who believes all political difficulties can be overcome by blaming President Bush.
The difference between our criticism of Obama and the criticism directed by Obama against President Bush is this: Obama’s criticism was focused on ensuring American defeats in two wars and a curtailing of American power in the world. Our criticism is focused on ensuring that Obama cannot engineer defeats in two wars we are winning and on increasing American power.
If Mr. Brennan wants to make the case that our arguments for a more forceful policy in Afghanistan and bringing the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion plays into the hands of an apparently, in his view anyway, suicidal and self-destructive al Qaeda, then he’s welcome to do so. That lowers our burden of proof considerably when we assert Brennan is an idiot.
Redstate
