Sunday, November 15, 2009


The New York Times, in a breathtakingly obtuse move, is trying to spin Obama's indecisiveness about Afghanistan. So what ridiculous excuse are they tossing in a trial balloon and floating out through their favorite neo-pravda media outlet?


That's right, the administration that has been and is still attempting to spend our money like drunken sailors is citing budget constraints as a reason to not send troops.

Of all the arguments they could have used, this has to be the lamest. How about the old 'Vietnam-like quagmire' argument? Or maybe the loss of life is too precious and the outcome too uncertain?

No, they chose the money argument.

If they were at least trying to be more frugal in other policy areas, they might have a chance of persuading people to this argument. But they are flagrantly spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars in just about every other sector, and yet, suddenly, the only thing they are NOT throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at is the war. The war that Obama himself called the 'good war'.

Let's not forget that they are adding pork to the military funding bills, to the tune of billions of dollars. Stopping that practice alone would pay for 2,000+ boots on the ground for a year at the NYT's quoted cost estimate of $1 million per soldier per year. A number which is suddenly three times larger than the amount used just a year ago under the Bush administration. The Times cites increased cost due to mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment, as well as the large cost involved in transporting fuel and supplies in the mountainous region.

Just imagine the army we could have fielded with the $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus bill - not to mention the $1.7 trillion health care bill! Plus there's Cap and Tax in the chute and I'm sure amnesty isn't going to be as free as it sounds....

All in all, I'd have to say Mr. Obama has made it very clear that, although he loves the global adoration, that is all foreign policy is for him - an ego stroke. He doesn't want to get involved, because he's too busy "fundamentally changing" the United States of America. Allowing us to leave in defeat from Afghanistan plays into the far-left world view anyway. America should not win under any circumstances because it makes us seem arrogant and superior, apparently. It's okay with them if we leave a power vacuum that will breed more terrorists and undermine, discourage and demoralize our military yet again. Incompetence is apparently preferred to perceived superiority.

It's this sort of nonsensical thinking that must have lead them to offer budget constraints as their asinine argument for not increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

The blatant hypocrisies of this administration boggle the mind.

1 comment:

  1. talk about hypocrisy...

    SHANGHAI - Politely but firmly pressing for greater freedoms on China's own turf, President Barack Obama spoke against censorship Monday, saying tough criticisms of political leaders should be allowed and the free flow of information on the Internet "should be encouraged."

    It's truly mind-boggling that words and actions can be continously opposite extremes.