Leave a comment

Comments 42

superversive July 26 2009, 19:47:55 UTC
At least he knows the surrender ceremony wasn’t broadcast on TV.

(Yes, this is what’s known as damning with faint praise. Obama is not necessarily quite as ignorant as his VP.)

Reply

dogmaticus July 26 2009, 22:16:58 UTC
To be perfectly honest Joe Biden can't speak to save his ass, he's a bit of a phony who need to bolster his own swagger. He doesn't know shit from shinola when it comes to economics or foreign policy (despite his bona fides) yet I would take Joe Biden over Obama ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Reply

gothelittle July 26 2009, 23:49:39 UTC
I actually have a mild fondness for Biden because he has a habit of telling the truth.

Reply


polaris93 July 26 2009, 20:07:29 UTC
It's things like this that make me believe he really wants to destroy America. I don't believe he could have gotten to the top slot in this nation if he had been as stupid as his remarks often make him out to be. I hope I'm wrong, but I've had this sinking feeling that's gotten worse and worse ever since he took office -- either he is that stupid, because of which he'll accidentally destroy this nation, or he isn't, in which case he'll do it deliberately. Either way, we're screwed.

Reply

gothelittle July 26 2009, 21:00:49 UTC
It could be that he obeyed his handlers as they groomed him for office, but now that he's in he thinks he got in on his own expertise and is increasingly ignoring them.

A president should never have to tell people that he's the president in his speeches.

Reply

polaris93 July 26 2009, 21:17:35 UTC
That's certainly true. It does mark him as stupid, at least in that respect.

Reply

jordan179 July 26 2009, 21:46:49 UTC
A president should never have to tell people that he's the president in his speeches.

Yeah, it's not as if anyone likely to be watching one of his speeches would fail to realize who he was! :)

Reply


heathen_wolf July 26 2009, 20:46:51 UTC
The man already used the word 'stupider' in a sentence. *facepalm*

Honestly. With all of his education and he uses 'stupider' on national television...as if things like grammatical correctness don't matter.

Reply

superversive July 26 2009, 21:07:53 UTC
Stupider is a perfectly sound and grammatical English word. OED and American Heritage both list it as the comparative of stupid without comment or stigma.

Expertis crede.

Reply


affablestranger July 26 2009, 22:00:54 UTC
Wow.

The more I see of him... the more I laugh at him. Go, Bamster!

Reply


dogmaticus July 26 2009, 22:13:29 UTC
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,"

Well with all due respect, then... Why are we there? If not to win some measure or objective (victory) why are we subjecting American military to a war with no tangible objective?

If we are there for a reason, I'll support the effort 100% but if he's going to start with that nuanced horseshit, fuck it, bring 'em home. Let the fucking bastards nuke each other.

Reply

firstashore July 27 2009, 00:57:48 UTC
I think Jordan explained the objective pretty well.

To create a pro-Western government with sufficient strength, capability and popular support to eliminate the Taliban from its borders.

That is why we are there.

Reply

ford_prefect42 July 27 2009, 03:16:39 UTC
Yeah. That is why we went. That is what Bush had in mind. I think O has something entirely different in mind.

Specifically, I think that it is his objective to lose badly enough that he can claim defeat and retreat in ignominy. Just like Clinton did in Somalia, Bosnia and every other thing that he did. The reason for desiring this is that if we win it, then he'll have to give props to bush for sticking it out, whereas if we lose it then he can say "I was right, it was an un-winnable mess". Additionally, victory then places a requirement on us to continue supporting and protecting the new government, losing does not.

Even more, Obama WANTS to hand the Muslims a victory over the US, he thinks of the US as the bad guys and the Muslims as oppressed innocent fluffy-bunnies. Whether he IS one or not is not relevant to this, they have his sympathies more than the US military does. If he can hand the Muslims a morale booster and all it costs him is some dead marines and egg all over the face of the US, then so much the better.

Reply

kishiriadgr July 27 2009, 16:55:31 UTC
You are wrong.

I'm in the Middle East right now, and half of every issue of "Stars and Stripes" is about what we're doing in Afghanistan. (My mission is related to Iraq.) If you think that we're fighting to lose there, you are insulting every last man and woman who are giving their all every day.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up