Cutting Through The Crap

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Make It Stop!!!


And there he goes again, making stuff up, attacking the imaginary Obama while countering that straw man with meaningless platitudes. They say god never gives us more than we can handle (tell that to cancer victims, among others). But I'm not sure I can take much more:

"This president has done something I find very hard to understand. Ever since FDR we've had the capacity to be engaged in two conflicts at once. And he's saying, 'no we're going to cut that back to only one conflict,'" Romney said, hitting Obama again on the congressionally-backed military cuts (for which his running mate voted, adds your blogger) set to kick in this January.

Romney said as president he would "restore our military commitment."...

..."And I intend to be a President that provides the leadership that America respects and will keep us admired throughout the world."

Okay, anyone see or hear the part where Obama said we should only be prepared to fight one war at at time? Is he referring to the defense "cuts" that were approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs, which will still leave us spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined? Is that a lack of commitment?

Is he hinting that as long as he's president we will be fighting two wars at a time? Unless we're out of Afghanistan, guess we will, since he seems all ready to invade Iraq Iran. And he's said that military spending is about job creation (stepping on another claim, that government doesn't create jobs). Good message? For teabaggers, maybe.

And what about "keeping us admired...?" Now I doubt even Mitt thinks we were much admired by the time Bush was done with his geopolitical horror show; so by "keep" I guess he acknowledges what most foreign policy people have said: Barack Obama has succeeded in improving our image around the world. In which case, what changes is he contemplating?

Well, we've seen pretty clearly that words don't mean much to Mitt. They roll out of his head like nickels from a slot machine: someone pulls a lever and out they come, if he's lucky. So there's no reason to give any more credence to these than any other of his silly claims. But this one is a little unique: a lie, as expected, and hollow vagueness, but also an unintended but implicit admission that he's full of crap. What a piece of .... work he is!

[Wrote this one a while back, so it's not entirely timely; but, as usual, it's accurate.]


5 comments:

Ed, Carol and Gopher the dog said...

all ready to invade Iraq.

Did you mean Iran?

Sid Schwab said...

Yes, I did. I corrected it. Thanks.

Sid Schwab said...

Thanks for your comment, Trish, which I didn't post as you requested.

Amazing, isn't it, how certain talking points get embedded and there's no reasoning possible thereafter. As you know, BHO wasn't the first to use the term Czar to describe people appointed to oversee certain issues. Think she'd be as worried if they were called "special deputy?" Or "administrator in charge of..."

Frank Drackman said...

invade Iraq?
thats so 1983...

Frank

Frank Drackman said...

Dammit, I think I'm catching your senility...
I meant
"Invade Iraq?, thats so 2003"
lets see, 100, 93, 86, something else, whatever,

Frank