Obama’s kind of war

Anyone who, like the neocons, thinks that Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize lecture shows that the alien in chief is somehow pro the United States and pro the use of force to protect the U.S. and its interests, should consider the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, which Obama’s talk was aimed at justifying. The real nature of that war is revealed every day by Diana West at her blog. Today she points to the effect on U.S. forces of Gen. McChrystal’s restrictive rules of engagement which are designed to avoid civilian casualties. What it comes down to is that when U.S. forces come under attack, they’re not allowed to defend themselves. Thus in an incident in September, a U.S. combined forces unit was ambushed, they repeatedly requested air and military support, the request was turned down because of the rules of engagement, and four American military personnel were killed. This is Obama’s kind of war. This is what he was defending in Norway. This is what the neocons are cooing about.

- end of initial entry -

Garrick writes:

Obama thinks he is the master of persuasion and spin but that’s wearing thin. People are getting sick of hearing his voice and seeing him on TV. It is sinking in that he merely a persistent salesman.

This speech was more rhetoric but said forcefully and macho style. 0bama played against type speaking to the Nobel Prize Committee doing a Sistah Soulja on them. He doesn’t believe any of those words but they sure did sound good. This empty head was advised to feint to the right, so he had Jon Favreau (his MVP speech writer who makes the top White House salary of $172,000) write a suitable speech

Joseph Kay called this “The empty black suit.”

Watch what 0bama does, not what he says

LA replies:

I agree with your main point, but, in this context, I disagree on “empty black suit.” An empty suit is simply a nothing, someone who shows up at work but doesn’t do anything. A person who carries off a successful scam to fulfil his own malign purposes is not an empty suit. These are two different and mutually exclusive criticisms; they can’t both be true with regard to the same person and the same matter at the same time.

A. Zarkov writes:

There’s a notable exception to the conservative cheering chorus for Obama’s Nobel speech: John Bolton. Appearing on Fox News yesterday, Bolton called the speech “shallow and sophomoric.” Watch him here. Bolton said the speech “contained fundamental errors that pose a grave dangers for the U.S.”

In my opinion, Bolton was about the only intelligent member of the Bush administration, and he was, of course, the target of a liberal smear campaign. So much so, that Bush needed to use a recess appointment to appoint him as UN ambassador. Since he left the UN Bolton has consistently demonstrated that he understands what’s happening in the political and international arena. He correctly identifies Obama as a “post American” president in that he does not put the interests of the U.S. first. I think Obama views himself as “a citizen of the world,” and as such is will to sacrifice American interests in service of some kind of global morality play. I don’t think his Nobel speech is an empty-suit speech—he’s telling us where he stands, and it’s not with his country.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 12, 2009 10:27 AM | Send