Time for Thorns

An independent view on life.

Posts Tagged ‘strategy

Schiff melting…

leave a comment »

Anyone who thinks Rep. Adam Schiff is an  honorable man  is insane.   Anyone who believes he is not pathological in his pursuit of the extermination of Pres. Trump has not been paying attention.   The man is a lie machine, and he produces untruths deliberately,  even though he has been caught repeatedly.   Like most of his colleagues,  he calculates that if the lies are accepted as truth by some voters, or catch fire from the media’s endless endorsement and repetition it might prevent Orange Man’s re-election.   He  is claiming  that Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz is not a “reputable constitutional law expert.”   He apparently also thought  staring at  the Trump team as they rattled off his lies would somehow either intimidate them or make himself appear innocent.

Democrats believe ordinary Americans are simultaneously gullible as hell and as corrupt as they are.  I do think Americans are far too trusting of government and those who run it,  but I don’t find them to be corrupt or venal in their everyday lives.  Most of us try to do the right thing.  Too few of us are suspicious of politicians who claim to be doing the right thing for the children or the undocumented,  or the country,  or the working man ,  or the climate — you fill in the blank — you’ve heard them all.

News flash — politicians generally do “the right thing” for themselves,  but very seldom for Americans or America.  Every Democratic presidential candidate wants open borders,  free everything for their voters, dissolution of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and government control of everything.   Adam Schiff is a fine representative of the Democratic Party.   He lies,  he misstates,  he misquotes,  he  makes false  claims.   And he  does it  repeatedly.  It is who and what he is,  not merely what he does.  You can stir in Pelosi and Nadler and Schumer and the brew tastes just as bitter.   If I had the misfortune to be as U.S. Senator during this tawdry process,  I would seriously consider creating a medical emergency for him or me just to relieve the torture of the  Schiff display.   I’ve seen male peacocks strut their stuff to impress females,  but their tail feathers make a fan of beauty so impressive that they have earned their vanity. The only person  Schiff impresses is himself.

Written by timeforthorns

January 23, 2020 at 11:33 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , ,

Other views of the worst speech ever…

leave a comment »

I probably read 300 different pieces on THE SPEECH.   I failed to find even one which was fulsome in its praise and proclaimed it a triumph.  Some of the usual suspects attempted to be enthusiastic,  but their efforts rang hollow.

Open with  your biggest lie  —  that sums up Stu Tarlowe’s view.   There were  plenty  of other whoppers  to go  along  with  the first  one.   David Frum puts the  pathetic speech  into plain English,  while Breitbart was  much less  kind.   John Fund focused on Obama’s lack of credibility,  which the address did nothing  but add  to.    Jennifer Rubin pointed out his continuing   lack of seriousness  about ISIS.   No one can doubt the President’s total seriousness about  his poll  numbers.   Make no mistake  —  this was  a purely  political speech,  which is one reason it was so awful.   It is a kindness to characterize his attitude as half-hearted.   Nothing said will help burnish  his legacy.

Howard Kurtz  pondered  the question,  but Brit Hume needed little time to use  leading from behind   in reference to public opinion,  an analysis  shared by  Rick Klein.    Janet Dailey gives the President a little credit for  finally doing  what he should already have done.   Tom Rogan found the speech succeeded in tone,  while  failing in  substance.

Rich Galen said he’d be looking for three things: ” The Vision for this operation – WHY we need to do it and when will we know we’ve been successful?   The Strategy for this operation – WHAT do we need to do?   The Tactics for this operation – HOW will we accomplish it?”   I believe it’s safe to say Rich went unsatisfied.

Roger Simon  skewers him  as the Nowhere Man of Beatles’ fame.   Keith Koffler wrote of Obama’s  fatal ISIS  delusions.   Peter Kirsanow saw the entire  speech as  delusional.

Perhaps the most widely panned portion of the speech was Obama’s declaration that ISIS was not Islamic.   Jonah Goldberg wants to  know whether  it’s Mormon, or perhaps Lutheran.   Even  CNN found,  as  did MSNBC,   spinning this galloping stupidity beyond its ability.  It is,  of course,  100% Islamic,  as Daniel Pipes and Andrew  McCarthy correctly note,  and most  Americans agree  with them.   The best The nation could do was to babble on about how he should have  talked about  diplomacy.

The Washington Post asserted their favorite  guy had  laid out a strategy,  but after watching it twice and reading it three times,  I still couldn’t find much of one, other than a reference to non-existent successes in places like Libya and Syria.   Neither could Rich  Lowry,  while Michael Gerson called it a “careful”  war,  despite the initial refusal of the white House to call it a war,  an approach USA Today  evidently agrees  with.   Investors Business Daily observed that  war-lite  wasn’t a winning strategy against ISIS,  a view shared by  Frederick and Kimberly Kagan.   Bruce Ackerman used a New York Times op-ed to claim Obama’s actions and plans were a betrayal of  the Constitution.   Bing West termed  it impossible  promises.   David French wrote that the  only promise  was not to destroy ISIS, but not to use ground troops.   Paul Gregory dismissed it  as brave words.

Jim Geraghty suspects His Oneness  doubts his  own decision.   Charles Krauthammer said the President had  finally found  his Syria strategy:   F-16s flying air support for pharmacists in tanks.   Let that image swirl in your mind for a moment before reading his entire piece.   The most devastating critique came from Walter Russell Mead, who bleakly entitled it  “A President Surrenders.”  (h/t to Michael Barone for the pointer).   The best advice  comes from  Sarah Palin:  War is hell,  so go big,  or go home.




Written by timeforthorns

September 14, 2014 at 11:31 pm

Bipolar Obama…

leave a comment »

Peter Wehner has an  excellent piece  which neatly lays out the two conflicting parts to the political strategy of His Oneness.   The question is,  will the electorate see the ploy of I’m-waging-war versus the  claim of I’m-above-the-war?

So far,  few appear to have realized the entire Democratic Party is employing the same methods.   Obama fooled a lot of people in 2008,  and big media is still firmly glued to his ass,  because they share the same progressive vision.  Don’t believe me?   Read the New York Times   acknowledging the  mood of the country is down, while failing to hold Obama responsible for any of it.   Chris Horner points out an  amusing example  at Politico.com,  and Andrew Wilson  grabs another  on gas prices..

Republicans are largely too wimpy to fight the Chicago way.   The only thing which may save the nation is that His Oneness is very thin-skinned,  and prefers not to do his own dirty work  if it involves more than words and condescending tones.  There are some conservatives and libertarians who are not afraid of labor unions or the hysterical House chihuahuas of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Anthony Weiner,  or the snarling Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.

Finish with  a column  by Jonah Goldberg which puts the incredible smallness of this petulant president into proper perspective.

Written by timeforthorns

April 23, 2011 at 9:14 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , ,

Obama’s Afghanistan speech….

leave a comment »

I hate listening to Obama when he’s being professorial,  which he is, giving us his version of recent Afghan history,  including the side-pointing finger.    A small shout-out for the military, which gathers applause,  as you would expect at West Point.

Does he think we don’t know that the president signs a condolence letter to the family of each military member killed,  or does he think he’s somehow special because HE is doing it?    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton looks bored out of her mind,  as do many others.

His Oneness actually used the word “defeat” in speaking about the Taliban,  but I’m not holding my breath until I hear “win.”     He’s announcing 30,000 troops,  which MSM is telling you is near the 40,000 Gen.  McChrystal wanted,  but a number of reports say 40,000 was the MINIMUM McChrystal wanted.

I am unsurprised by the repetition of all  done wrong under Bush,  or by the rather whining , defensive tone Obama is using.    In remarks about the  “ongoing struggle against  violent extremism”  why are we also hearing  about  “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression” ?    But it was interesting that he mentioned the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars  “approached a trillion dollars ”  by the time he took office,   and said he’d address  “the costs openly and honestly.”    Gee,   if we kill the health reform bill,  we will have paid for the wars,  won’t we?

He excuses his inclusion of a withdrawal timetable by claiming it’s needed to instill a sense of urgency in the Afghan government,  but in the preceding sentence he had said Afghan security was important for the world.    Of course he mentioned Vietnam  — how could he not?   We can’t prosper by military might alone – —  so he wants to expand Homeland Security,   a worthless enterprise in my view,  but it will serve to expand the government.

Now we’re on to closing Gitmo, and he’s claiming we’ll speak out against tyranny  — so where was Obama when Iranian dissidents in the streets of Tehran called out for him,  borrowing Pres. George W.  Bush’s phrase,  “You’re either with us or against us”?   Our president has been a “Nowhere Man” on promoting democracy.

His strategy is basically:  a military surge,  a civilian surge,  and a new relationship with Pakistan,  even though he didn’t articulate them.   Of course, if you don’t defeat the Taliban,  the other two won’t happen.     And what is this new relationship with the Muslim world he’s claiming to have brought about?   Is he mistaking the sound of laughter for applause?

Now he is lamenting the  “rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.”     Since he is directly responsible for the foregoing,  including  calling Americans who disagree with him un-American,   I have no faith in his willingness to overcome all that.

Overall,   I found it a weird speech,  peppered with items not at all on point.    He never really explained the strategy,   probably because he is absolutely clueless about military strategy.   It was a curiously passionless oratorical event and full of  the rhetorical fence-straddling he has performed all his life.    As a call to action it was a big,  fat F.

And no,  he never used the word “victory”.

UPDATE:  Here’s  a link to the text of the speech.   And here is a comparison of Obama’s speech to that of LBJ’s on Vietnam.

Written by timeforthorns

December 2, 2009 at 3:06 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,