The Sad Case of General Stanley McChrystal

As much as it hurts, I must admit that this is actually something Obama has finally gotten right. There can be no dissention in the chain of command, and even though most agree that Obama should not be in charge of a popsicle stand, he was absolutely correct in relieving McChrystal of his command, if for no other reason but to show our enemy that our resolve and commitment is still strong.

My biggest question is this: why are we waiting until July, 2011, to give up and come home? Why not give up today, right now? It would save countless lives, billions of dollars, and will accomplish exactly the same thing - absolutely nothing.

We have spent over 9 years now, chasing an insanely impossible dream to rid the world of Islamic extremists. Setting a time limit ensures that the idiots who originally pretended this cause was important enough to throw away young American lives on will be the only ones to make themselves believe that their goal was met.

The day after we leave, the Taliban will return, the puppet Afghan government will crumble, and it will be as if none of this had ever happened.  As if we have any right to dictate to any country as to how they should conduct their business in the first place.

Anyone who doubts this is a fool, perhaps an even bigger fool than the idiot Bush, who put us in this mess to begin with.  Assume we do finally catch Bin Laden (if that was indeed the real reason behind the invasion).  Who really thinks that Al-Qaeda or the Taliban will just quit and go home?  There will never be an end to the radical Islamic extremists, who live for a single purpose: the enforcement of shari'a (strict Islamic) law and bring death to all who oppose.

It has been especially sickening to realize the useless waste of lives and resources while being subjected to the populist rhetoric about establishing justice and democracy in Afghanistan, as spewed forth by both parties. Of course, most Democrats saw the presumed righteousness of this conflict only after Obama adopted it in 2009 as the "Good War", the "Bad War" being Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, but now we're splitting hairs.  And we are still fighting both.

So we now have a new General to continue our rousing success in Afghanistan.  When the July 2011 deadline comes, will we have succeeded?  How do we even measure the success of our mission?  I believe it was our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who claimed that one measure of success in Afghanistan would be when a functional government was established that the people could trust.  I could not help but think that, although this is a noble cause, shouldn't we really establish something like that here, in our own country, first?

Jobs Fo' Shizzle

Jobs, jobs, jobs. Where have I heard that before? I believe it was early in 2009. Poor delusional Joe Biden tries to wrap his feeble brain around the lie that the Obama Spending Bill was anything but a poorly disguised bailout.
Joe's handlers feed him scraps of information, like the 2.8 million jobs saved or created. Jobs created, Joe? Nothing has been created, and no jobs have been saved, either. Merely postponed. The layoff of millions of state employees was delayed by Obama's bailout, nothing more.

Guess what, Joe? When the money is spent, the jobs will disappear. How will you spin that? Somebody underestimated how serious our problem was again? And, as for our Campaigner-in-Cheif, Obama's answer is to travel around the counrty and make more speeches. Predictably vague and empty speeches, where each sentence seems to contradict the next.
In classic Obama double-speak, most speeches sound alike: "...we must reduce our debt to a sustainable level..." is always followed by "...we must increase government spending to sustain the recovery..." Please, would somebody tell this idiot that massive goverment spending means either debt or tax increases - you can't have it both ways. Also remind him that it is impossible to borrow and spend one's self out of debt.

This is the same leadership Obama showed in his two years as a senator, where he voted "present" 163 times. The man is too smart to take a stance, and wants to play both sides of any argument. Too smart, or too spineless - the jury is still out.
Obama is not a leader - he is a dreamer. He should stick with something he has actual experience with - defrauding the taxpayers out of money as a community organizer. Does it seem odd to anyone else that the organizer gets rich while the community stay poor? As people are starting to discover, Obama's economic strategy for this country seems to be another Acorn scam on a national level.