Friday, December 4, 2009
I guess if he shows up too early he won't be able to make an 'entrance'.
When the hell does he spend time pondering the major issues of our country? He's everywhere! Enough already!
The fact of the matter is that Obama’s speech was political in front of a military audience. If his goal was to muster the troops like a Commander & Chief is supposed to do, he failed. Once again, instead of a Commander & Chief, Obama was the Campaigner & Chief.
Never before has a speech by Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.
Obama, known for his oratory skills fell completely flat. Or was it the teleprompters fault? Not only was the speech uninspiring, it was all over the place.
Just minutes before he took the stage, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.
One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
The West Point cadets acted with all the respect that they have been trained; however, with the nature of the speech and the more than lacking vigor that Obama used with this photo-op at West Point … how could cadets not use their time for better things like reading or sleeping. Frankly, it almost put me to sleep as well. He opens mouth and nothing comes out…….
Between those BIG EARS is nothing but AIR.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
He's talked about his "values." If you have values you don't trash your wife and kids by having affairs. If you're famous you have to remember that the night has a thousand eyes. "The little people" are cleaning up after you and they see it all.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
A COCKTAIL waitress has claimed she enjoyed a 31-month affair with Tiger Woods - as cops today revealed they will be charging the golf legend with careless driving.
Jaimee Grubbs has told American magazine Us Weekly she met Woods in Las Vegas in April 2007 and has voicemails and text messages proving her affair with the star, who married Elin Nordegren in 2004.
The magazine claims Grubbs, who says she was 21 when the romance started, has over 300 texts from Woods who was involved in a bizarre early hours car crash last weekend outside his £1.7million mansion.
The beauty, who recently appeared on VH1 show Tool Academy, has gone on to claim she's had 20 sexual encounters with the star
At West Point tonight, when Barack Obama formally announces he is sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan, he’ll be doing so against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party. Sending more troops will fulfill a key Obama campaign pledge, but it will also expose a deep rift in the party — and highlight its habit of dissembling on the war.
A Gallup poll last week asked Americans about four possible options in Afghanistan. Would they prefer to see the number of U.S. troops increased by 40,000, as top military commanders proposed?
Would they prefer to see the number increased, but by some smaller amount? Would they prefer the number remain unchanged? Or would they like to see the United States begin to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan? 57 percent of Democrats want to reduce the number of troops, and another 10 percent want to see troop levels remain the same. That’s 67 percent — two-thirds — of Democrats who want the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to go down, or at least go no higher. Which means two-thirds of Democrats likely oppose the president’s decision to send more troops.
And yet, in the 2008 presidential season, from the Democratic primaries to the general election, Democrats felt required to promise to step up the war in Afghanistan. Was it because the Democratic base that now opposes escalation supported it back then? No. A Gallup poll in August 2007 — in the midst of the Democratic primary race — found that just 41 percent of Democrats supported sending more U.S. troops to fight in Afghanistan.If the base didn’t support it, then why did candidates promise it? Because Democratic voters and candidates were playing a complex game. Nearly all of them hated the war in Iraq and wanted to pull Americans out of that country. But they were afraid to appear soft on national security, so they pronounced the smaller conflict in Afghanistan one they could support. Many of them didn’t, really, but for political expediency they supported candidates who said they did. Thus the party base signed on to a good war-bad war strategy.
“One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq war but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda,” Obama said at a Democratic candidates’ debate in New Hampshire in June 2007. The war in Iraq, Obama continued, “is an enormous distraction from the battle that does have to be waged in Afghanistan.”
“There isn’t any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected,” said chief Obama rival — and now Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton at a debate in April 2008. “It has not gotten the resources that it needs.” Other top Democrats adopted the get-tough approach, at least when it came time to campaign. In September 2006, as she was leading the effort that would result in Democrats taking over the House and her becoming speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said George W. Bush “took his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. “We had a presence over there the past few years, but not to the extent that we needed to get the job done,” Pelosi said. The phrase “took his eye off the ball” became a Democratic mantra about the supposed neglect of Afghanistan — a situation that would be remedied by electing ready-to-fight Democrats.But now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan. “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently. There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.It is in that atmosphere that Obama makes his West Point speech. He had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.
You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth and remain coherent ; an example of political dyslexia which has afflicted the Democratic Party since its inception . This guy is the LAST GUY, to be the Commander in Chief. Remember who we're talking about. He began his Political Career in the living room of a man and woman, who used to set off BOMBS at Recruiting Stations, Police Stations, and the PENTAGON. He HATES our MILITARY. He hates them with every fiber of his being. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger. Khaleed Rashidi and The Black Panthers. THIS is who he is. THESE are his inspirations. And like them, he HATES our Armed Forces almost as much as he HATES this Country. It's not rocket science. SCUM hang out with other SCUM. And this 'THING' in the White House is a White Hating, Anti-Semetic, America Hating, MARXIST. Don't take it from me. READ HIS STUPID BOOKS. It's all right there, in Black and White. Like him.
President Obama to order 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in next six months, White House officials say.
more BS from the king of BS
During the Bill Clinton impeachment idiocy of 1998, many on the left said that if Clinton were removed from office, let it be for gutting welfare or for imposing sanctions on Iraq, and not l'affaire Lewinsky.
This squeaky-clean reputation has helped Woods become the richest athlete in history. His career course earnings are $92 million. When you factor in advertisements, corporate appearances and other off-course aspects of "Tiger Inc.," it makes sense that Tiger Woods is America's first athlete to reach billionaire status.As the saying goes, behind every great fortune is a great crime.
“Senior Administration officials tell ABC News tomorrow’s speech will include a new way of doing business that President Karzai is unlikely to welcome. Instead of U.S. funds going to Karzai’s central government as they do now, much of it will go to the provincial and district level and to specific ministries such as those devoted to Afghan security.
Investments will be based on performance, a senior Administration official told ABC News. And if Karzai continues to run a government that’s full of corruption and fails to provide basic services, he may find himself out of the loop entirely. *** The era of the blank check for Karzai is over.”
I hope Obama’s performance-based strategy works. Why not do the same with the American government?