Skip to content

Savoring the Left’s Tear-Stained Tweets Over Obama’s Afghanistan Speech

December 1, 2009

A tweet from leftist blogger Atrios near the conclusion of President Obama’s Afghanistan speech:

haven’t always agreed with obama, first time i didn’t think he believed his own spiel

And here’s what neo-communist Michael Moore (who I aggressively corrected this morning) had to tweet:

President Obama has now officially declared himself a war president. A sad moment indeed from an otherwise good man. More later…

Salon Editor-In-Chief Joan Walsh let one of the most openly-Marxist figures in congress sum up her emotions on Twitter:

Maxine Waters speaks for me: “I’m terribly saddened.”

Why did Obama shun the desires of his base? What could have persuaded him to allow a surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan? Is his heart really in this fight in Afghanistan? Is he really a pragmatic politician who isn’t going to lead America off a cliff? Is it all a political calculation in his dance between appeasing the Left and maintaining some degree of centrist support? Or does he really believe in the mission to defeat Islamofascism?

Frankly, these questions are all fairly irrelevant right now. We don’t know the answers and we’re unlikely to find out. So speculation serves nothing.

What does matter: the Left has failed in its continuing quest to sabotage the war against Islamofascism. The Afghan war is not lost and now it’s important in this trying moment that conservatives do not let their distrust of the president prevent them from rallying the country around continuing this all-important fight.

Conservatives are right to be weary of the President setting a timetable. (This does not bother me too much, though, because I don’t imagine it’ll be followed if 18 months down the line we still need to stay.) Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove were fair in their critique of the far-from-motivating tone of Obama’s delivery. (Though perhaps they were just a tad harsh.)

These are side issues, though. And we need to be sure we’re not missing the forest for the trees. On this particular skirmish the Left has lost. Just look at their tear-soaked tweets. Thus, this reaction seems appropriate from conservatives:

Cartman: "Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!... Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness!"

Every moment at which the Left is depressed that Obama fails to fulfill its self-destructive dreams should be savored. They are few and far between.

Read the entire text of the speech here.

Advertisements
33 Comments
  1. Carterthewriter permalink
    December 1, 2009 7:31 pm

    Well, how about them folks, signaling the end of the Republican party just a short while ago while forgetting the make-up of their own party.

    I watched Hillary sitting there dumbfounded, knowing what lay ahead.

  2. Harmon permalink
    December 1, 2009 8:27 pm

    Mr. Swindle,

    I’ve seen you picture on this blog, and you couldn’t anywhere close to 30. A young heathy guy like you could join the military and help us win over there in Afghanistan. You want to critize these people, show them you have the guts fight and die for your country.

    • December 1, 2009 8:39 pm

      From my previous post today http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/01/why-does-michael-moore-want-the-afghan-people-living-as-slaves-under-sharia-law-because-he-and-other-progressives-are-greedy/:

      2. The Chickenhawk argument: “Oh yeah? You think we should fight in Afghanistan? Then you go over there and fight.” This is, of course, an ad hominem logical fallacy, but as I’ve demonstrated before true believers of all ideologies fail to grasp the difference between this and legitimate intellectual discussion. Upon encountering the Chickenhawk argument you should immediately realize that you’re dealing with someone who is unable to think rationally.

      Even when I was a leftist I don’t think I ever employed the Chickenhawk Argument back when I was regularly pounding the anti-war drum against the Iraq War. It’s an ad hominem argument made by people who are too brainwashed to think properly. You should be embarrassed for having to resort to such a cliche.

      This link would also be instructive, if you could listen, which I have little reason to think you can:
      http://newsrealblog.com/2009/09/20/salon-screeches-intellectual-ad-hominems-in-smear-of-beck-horowitz-and-conservatism/

      • Harmon permalink
        December 2, 2009 3:03 pm

        “Upon encountering the Chickenhawk argument you should immediately realize that you’re dealing with someone who is unable to think rationally.”

        Really? You may think you are being rational, however I think that you might be singing a different tune if you were subject to the draft as Dick “Five deferments” Cheney was. You would not be as idealistic, if at all, if that was the case. Maybe I am crazy and unable to this rationally, but that what I think.

        You are a lucky ducky, you never have to serve our country in the military. You can sit on you duff at you computer and criticize others. Nice!

        • F. Swemson permalink
          December 2, 2009 3:39 pm

          Hey Harmon;

          Were you born stupid, or do you work at it ?

          I’m a former Marine, and I wouldn’t advise my kids to join the service these days… not the way THIS administration treats the military…

          Besides, David’s making a far more important contribution to his country doing what he’s doing, to help prevent jerks like you continue to screw up this country even further that it already is.

        • December 2, 2009 5:34 pm

          Do you understand what an “ad hominem argument” is and why it’s illegitimate in intellectual discussion?

          Apparently not.

          Ad hominem is when you attack the speaker to try and disqualify their argument. That’s what you’re doing right now by saying that because I’m not serving in the military I’m not allowed to advocate that we continue the fight against Islamofascism.

          As soon as someone employs an ad hominem argument in a debate then you immediately know that this is someone who does not know how to think. You’ve demonstrated yourself as such. Rather than dialogue — respond to the points raised in my response — you just took the opportunity to further your monologue.

          Thus you demonstrate that you’re not here to engage in honest intellectual discussion. You’re not here to expand your mind and your perspective through friendly engagement. You’re here to sabotage people you hate. This will not be tolerated very long.

          If you continue to respond to arguments with ad hominem attacks then you’ll be in clear violation of our commenting guidelines and your commenting PRIVILEGES will be revoked. You have been warned.

    • Louie723 permalink
      December 1, 2009 9:38 pm

      Forget Swindle. I’m still waiting for all those Dems who said Afghanistan was the good war to jump in with both feet!

    • In the Know permalink
      December 2, 2009 6:45 am

      They asked for 80000 combat troops, they got 30000 support personell. Anyone who actually studied history can see this a repeat of the Tet offensive by LBJ. The difference is, Tet was conducted by combat troops and we actually did win. You can bet Obama B. Johnson just condemned more of our troops to death because of lack of combat support. The rules of engagement are killing our soldiers. Win or get out. The politician in chief (he is no commander) is playing the middle and our soldiers are paying the price. It’s past time for this guy and his followers to be held accountable for their actions by some adults.

      • saja permalink
        December 2, 2009 9:52 am

        In the know, you are not. You obviously failed history. Tet was a broad attack by the VC and NVA regulars. Johnson and Westmorland had their pants down when it happened. After weeks of fierce battles, we won militarily. Westmorland asked for 200,000 troops after he realized the enemy’s resolve, and as they say , the rest is history.

        • In the Know permalink
          December 2, 2009 11:45 am

          Thank you for scanning my post and hastily commenting. I do not beleive my comment said anything about who attacked who. I know what the Tet offensive was and as such stand by my comment. Your interpretation of my meaning is incorrect. I will clarify. We are under attack by an enemy that has proven they are committed to our defeat. They are supported by other countries fighting a proxy war against us. Our forces desperately need support in order to win. Our inept leadership has seriously underestimated our combat requirements. Eerily similar to the circumstances surrounding the Viet new year attack. Thank you.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      December 2, 2009 6:53 am

      Nice personal attack, Harmon. Post your photo so we can add some more comments relevant to the issues confronting us all. You’ve exposed yourself, sir.

      • saja permalink
        December 2, 2009 9:59 am

        It seems, getcarter, you are becoming increasingly irrevelant. What do you write anyway, writer?

        • Carterthewriter permalink
          December 2, 2009 10:14 am

          Your opinion is accepted, though it makes no sense.

    • politicalmoxie permalink
      December 2, 2009 9:35 am

      @ Harmon

      An attack on Mr. Swindle or Mr. H is not taken lightly by those who frequent NewsReal. An opinion, you’re entitled…an attack, get over yourself. The best line of defense is not always offense. It is rational, educated, intelligent discourse.
      Your should learn Sir/Madam, Mr Swindle is VERY good at this game.

      Did I get that football analogy correct, I don’t know a damn thing about that barbaric game?

      • F. Swemson permalink
        December 2, 2009 10:03 am

        What football analogy ?

        • politicalmoxie permalink
          December 2, 2009 11:53 am

          @ Swemson

          I thought the defense/offense thing was stolen from football.

          Listen Swemson, I’m a Princess. I’m doing the best I can with what I have to work with…and since I am a Princess, I’d like Mr. H and Mr. Swindle to arrange spell-check and a way to fact check (only for loyal subjects) before hitting Submit Comment!

          With great anticipation I await your reply!

          • F. Swemson permalink
            December 2, 2009 12:07 pm

            Sorry;

            I’m just an old Marine, & to me, defense/offense means a hell of a lot more than just a game…

            Had you been referring to one of the parties involved as the quarterback, I would have gotten it right away…

            Defense/offense is too generic to associate with football alone….

            But then again, I haven’t watched one single football game in the last 50 years or so, & that might be a contributing factor to my rather dense way of looking at things.

            I assure you that no offense was intended ! 🙂

            • F. Swemson permalink
              December 2, 2009 12:22 pm

              PS: The 2 Davids have no control over the technical functions of the WordPress blog software. And I think it’s safe to say that none of the blog software system out there have those tool attached to what it basically a rather simple messaging software.

              There is a way to do this for yourself however.

              There’s an incredible piece of (inexpensive) spell checking software called Spell Catcher, that I use, and which I highly recommend to everyone. You can find it here:

              http://www.rainmakerinc.com/

              Spell Catcher positions itself between the user and anything on the computer that you write in, including all word processing software (It beats the hell out of the spell checking tool in MS Word) you mail software, your browser and any blogs you might be posting on. So wherever you type anything, the software is always there to correct virtually all the errors that you make. The best thing about it IMHO, is that it’s super easy to teach the software the correct spelling for any mistake you may make, and regardless of what program you make the mistake in, it then automatically corrects the same mistake, no matter where you make it in the future. This means that the software gets smarter and more useful, the more you use it.

              You can download it for a free 2 week trial, and if you decide to buy it, it’s only $40.

              • politicalmoxie permalink
                December 2, 2009 1:17 pm

                @ Swemson

                You Sir are my Prince, and all this time I was thinking…FROG!

                Am on my way to rainmaker…

                • F. Swemson permalink
                  December 2, 2009 1:27 pm

                  Don’t be intimidated by your first look into the software.. It takes a little getting used to..

                  It probably took me about 2 to 3 days to get the help I needed from the company to learn what I needed to learn.

                  It was rather extraordinary, because the president of the company actually replied directly to my questions.

                  If you have any problems, I’ll help you through them as best I can… The big trick is to get your preferences panels set up the right way.

                  Ribbit ! 🙂

                  • politicalmoxie permalink
                    December 2, 2009 2:50 pm

                    So true…it is sketchy in the beginning. I love it though….you will
                    find me on twitter @politicalmoxie let me know if you’re on and how
                    to follow you. If you aren’t on Twitter, join…you will fit right
                    into the conservative scene. Again, thanks…

                  • F. Swemson permalink
                    December 2, 2009 3:34 pm

                    Sorry.. I don’t twitter…

                    I don’t even have an iPod, & I’m a classical pianist……

                    Well… maybe that’s WHY I don’t have an iPod…

  3. Marylou permalink
    December 1, 2009 11:38 pm

    30,000 sudden troops (six months) seems like it may overwhelm the country/situation and bring things to a head sooner than later. About time.

    To my thinking, there’s just no comparison (though frequently repeated ad nauseum) between the Russian soldiers and ours. We’ll see.

    • F. Swemson permalink
      December 2, 2009 10:09 am

      I’d prefer it if the general in charge was allowed to make such decisions, rather than Obama, or others who probably know even less about this than Obama (if that’s possible)

      As for comparing our troops to the Russians who were there, you’re way off base. They cannot be compared at all.

  4. babaje2 permalink
    December 2, 2009 5:09 am

    Thirty thousand troops is a gesture. Not enough to win.

  5. saja permalink
    December 2, 2009 5:12 am

    Swindle, good reading. However, after basking in the warm glow of your Pyrrhic victory, please explain to the underlings how the surge will be paid for.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      December 2, 2009 6:54 am

      Ask your man, not David.

      Seems to me no one in Washington cares about spending money, though?

  6. December 2, 2009 6:02 am

    This discussion is not about politics, it is about whether our sons and daughters live or die the most horrible of deaths terrorists can imagine and create for them. It is about abandoning the Afghan people to 3 more years of hell followed by worse when and if we leave. It will bring things to a head only in that the enemy will increase its attacks and their intensity while our soldier’s hands are tied. McCrystal sent out the cry, “Officer down!,” and Obama is playing politics. Neither he nor anyone writing here seems to understand this enemy or the purpose of terror as a war tactic.

    • In the Know permalink
      December 2, 2009 6:47 am

      Agreed.

  7. Chuckie permalink
    December 2, 2009 3:03 pm

    We had a Democrat in office when we split Korea into two countries,a Democrat in office when we sent advisors into Nam, a Democrat who started a Draft to feed the Gods of War in Nam and a Democrat who lost VietNam. Some where in all of this how does one equate the Democrats as the PEACE PARTY. Now we have a Democrat who Voted against the War before he was FOR the War.
    As those who have been in the HELL HOLE of War have told me,”Either go in and win or get the hell out!
    Nothing will help the cause of Peace more than the Democrats starting the Draft and being Politically Correct, as they are, start DRAFTING all those Pretty little Girls 18 and over!

  8. Len Powder permalink
    December 2, 2009 10:21 pm

    Let’s suppose that Obama had decided not to dispatch 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. What would the result have been? His only other option would have been to set a withdrawal timetable in order to keep too many American soldiers’ lives from being sacrificed in a losing cause. The Left would have gleefully supported his decision. Who would have opposed it? Most Americans would have accepted the decision although their impression of Obama as a Commander in Chief would have diminished even more. The military community, especially, would find it difficult to view him as a Commander, even if it experienced relief because soldiers would at least be removed from Harm’s Way.

    Is it possible that Obama felt compelled to establish his credentials as Commander in Chief? He probably never took this role seriously, even during his campaign. One has to wonder why he didn’t simply appoint a surrogate Czar to fulfill this role. Perhaps he has no surrogates in his past experiences who would be willing to serve in this capacity. After all, Marxists and Communists are generally opposed to waging ‘imperialist’ wars. In this case Obama had to reluctantly accept that being a community organizer is not sufficient to fulfill the role of Commander of the Armed Forces. Reality may finally be sinking in and his inflated ego may have finally been forced to confront a challenge it was not prepared for.

    • F. Swemson permalink
      December 2, 2009 10:30 pm

      Len;

      You’re giving him far too much credit.

      The military to him, just like the poor, the rich, & everyone in between are merely pawns to be used & discarded when it suits his needs to enhance his political prestige…

      He’s a sociopath… please don’t assume that he’s doing anything that might be considered normal by a rational observer.

  9. politicalmoxie permalink
    December 3, 2009 6:54 am

    Mr. Swindle,

    Now’s a good time:
    After reading the above comment by Chuckie, perhaps a From the Pen with info on how many civilian were slaughtered thanks to ALL those decisions. Make sure he includes the lack of outrage by those who purported to care so much about humanity.

    At News Real: I laugh, I’m inspired, I weep… above all I am educated by some of the best editors and commenters on the net.

Comments are closed.