The New Obama Model… With a Backbone

02 Oct

If they are wearing that uniform - they deserve a little love and respect from the rest of us.

President Obama siad something last night that the so-called commentators in the MSM should have been shouting from the rafters –

“We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the president of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don’t believe in that,” said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.

“We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens. We don’t believe in them being silent since. You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient. We don’t believe in a small America. We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot.”

Obama needs to include this in every speech. The inaction by the 8 people standing on that stage at the Republican Debate is despicable, and shows just how little of their opposition to President Obama, and their morality is based on any legitimate desire for change in policies. The 8 Republican dwarfs are nothing more than a pack of cheap political whores who would sell our service members down the river at a moments notice. Further – the Tea Party isn’t about America…It’s about racism, divisiveness, and hate.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 responses to “The New Obama Model… With a Backbone

  1. brotherbrown

    October 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM

    Call me skeptical, and this is the part of politics I abhor.

    The prez is now mister pro-military war hawk? Someone who announces certain high-profile killings? He was supposed to find a way to end the mess, now he’s using them for political advantage. The circle is now complete.


    • btx3

      October 2, 2011 at 11:53 AM

      The Prez never was “anti-war”. And what he promised to do – get us out of Iraq – he has accomplished.

      Getting us out of Afghanistan just isn’t going to happen.

      In terms of using the military to accomplish US goals – this President has been the most effective since Bush 1. He has also managed not to invade anyone else…

      Which is an improvement!


  2. brotherbrown

    October 2, 2011 at 9:32 PM

    What do you mean, isn’t going to happen? We are at the point in this war where 20 years ago, the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics collapsed under the weigh of an ill-fated excursion into Afghanistan.

    Why can’t we just call it a day? If you must fight Al Qaeda, do it with mercenaries.


    • btx3

      October 2, 2011 at 11:01 PM

      The issue isn’t Afghanistan…it’s Pakistan.

      If I had to pick the next point of conflict, it would likely be the “proxy war” between India and Pakistan supported by the US and China.

      If we pull out of Afghanistan, that conflict happens a lot sooner.


      • brotherbrown

        October 3, 2011 at 11:52 AM

        Help me understand: Are you saying the US should maintain the battle against elements in Afghanistan indefinitely so as to stave off a Pakistani-Indian conflict? A conflict, by the way, that has roots in a time before there was United States and seems inevitable anyway?

        What is option C?


      • btx3

        October 3, 2011 at 12:22 PM

        Pakistan- India conflict is only inevitable if radical Islamics take over Pakistan. Probably much sooner than later, and possibly nuclear.

        India, quite simply isn’t going to tolerate a radical Islamic government with nukes aimed at them.

        Our hold on Pakistan is in part, providing a “bad guy” for whom to blame in the elimination of Taliban and al Quaeda operatives and groups in Pakistan. A long as it is the bad ol’ USA doing the dirty work, the Government of Pakistan can maintain the fiction that their hands are clean.

        Other than that, the best thing we could do with Afghanistan is leave, nuke it flat, and pave it over.


  3. brotherbrown

    October 3, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    I have a problem with everything you wrote, especially the last sentence. I’m a practical man, and I understand why the US paternalistically tries to pull global strings, but we just don’t have it like that anymore.


    • btx3

      October 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM

      It’s not global interest. It’s our own financial and national interest. India is emerging as a valuable trading partner, although our trade with China currently dwarfs the current level of trade with India. The market potential is there with the world’s second largest population.


      • brotherbrown

        October 3, 2011 at 6:25 PM

        That’s almost a Weekly Standard take on the situation. Or a 1959 view of the world. We produce what that the Indians and Chinese don’t actually manufacture on behalf of American companies?

        The concept of a national economy gave way some time ago to a global economy, so in an environment of economic scarcity, the US standard of living must fall as that of China and India rises. Delaying that eventually by extending the war means valuable resources that can be used at home are being squandered in the Afghan theater.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: