Speaking to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama said there should be a "phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months."Let's turn back the page just a bit. The Democrats have always used their facility with language to paper over the real meaning of what they're up to. Magically, tax increases become "revenue enhancement." Fat people are "horizontally-challenged." An unfortunate person with a bad leg is no longer crippled but "differently-abled." In order to better discriminate against white people, we now describe everyone else as "persons of color." Democrats no longer tax and spend. They "invest in our nation's infrastructure." You get the picture.
The Democrats, as in Obama's clever recitation here, have already developed their "cut and run" reformulation, and Obama is only the latest 'Rat to enunciate it. The phrase above seems perfectly innocent. But Obama has not quite perfected or personalized this particular talking point, and, thus lets the real strategery slip here:
"I'm not suggesting that this timetable be overly rigid," he added, but said President George W. Bush should announce as policy a "gradual and substantial" withdrawal.Emphasis here is Wonker's. Note "redeployment" to Northern Iraq is essentially useless, since the Kurds are already operating their own democracy while the Sunnis and Shia continue to whack each other silly, the only thing they seem really good at. "Redeploying" to Northern Iraq is sort of like repairing to Italy to bask in the Mediterranean sun and sample the local chianti.
"Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional troops to northern Iraq and elsewhere in the region ... this force could help prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, consolidate gains in northern Iraq," and allow troop levels in Afghanistan to be bolstered, he said.
Obama also demonstrates his shallow understanding of the current situation in Afghanistan where the bulk of active military action has shifted to NATO troops, something rarely mentioned in the MSM since it shows that there's been at least some rudimentary cooperation here with our otherwise no-show European allies.
Obama goes on to betray his utter ignorance of Afghan history, or perhaps simply his willingness to bash Bush regardless of the facts, in this following near-moronic observation:
"The President's decision to go to war in Iraq has had disastrous consequences for Afghanistan," he said. "We have seen a fierce Taliban offensive, a spike in terrorist attacks, and a narcotrafficking problem spiral out of control."Excuse me? Didn't we see a "fierce Taliban offensive," once-removed on 9/11, when their well protected "guests" whacked over 3,000 Americans on our own soil. Haven't they continued their "offensive" ever since we returned fire later in 2001? And hasn't the Afghan narcotrafficking problem been spiraling out out of control since, maybe, before we got involved in Vietnam? Either Obama is completely ignorant of Afghan history, or he's simply chosen to adopt his party's usual stance of maintaining a false, self-serving narrative no matter what the actual truth may be.
But back to our original point: Always, always read or listen very carefully to what a Democrat says. Watch for the ways words are used to disguise a message that didn't sell very well in its initial presentation. The Democrats have become absolute masters of the verbal or written sleight-of-hand, and this is only the latest example of their hypocrisy.
Remember: For the Democrats, the term "redeployment" is merely "cut and run" in disguise. "Cut and run" hasn't been bought by the American people, notwithstanding Novemeber's election results. So the Dems are finessing the issue by selling the same old snake oil in "redeployment" bottles. This strategy has always worked well for them before. Our advice this time: Don't buy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment