The Talibanistas Are Dancing in the Streets

By Rick Saunders
America’s Right

Yesterday evening, President Barack Obama addressed a crowd of military cadets and personnel and laid out his plan for disengagement from the War on Man-Caused Disasters and for the flight from the fight against those poor, misunderstood radical Islamic jihadists who populate the rank-and-file of al Qaeda and the Taliban.

You know, the same troublesome, enthusiastic youths who want to effectuate a man-caused disaster on your pitiful, infidel head by separating it from your neck with a scimitar or rusty crosscut saw. You know, the same products of poverty and bigotry who recruit children to become C-4 plastique martyrs, even before they know what is meant by flying to paradise where 72 virgins purportedly await their arrival. You know, the same freedom fighters who countenance “honor killings” for females who stray from Sharia law or who “shame” their families by becoming the victims of rape.

Yes, these are the folks your emissary of hope and change wants to know will now have to face “serious consequences” on the battlefield — at least if those consequences arise in the next eighteen months or so. Because, you see, the 30,000 troops he has brilliantly authorized–otherwise known as a mere three-quarters of the minimum number of troops his hand-picked general on the ground, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, recommended and requested to avert disaster–are already scheduled to begin their withdrawal from Afghanistan beginning seventeen months and thirty days from today.

Nothing, after all, inspires fear in enemies and loyalty in potential allies than the knowledge that a mere year-and-a-half down the road, we’ll be gone quicker than you can say “Barack Obama needs his far-left base to get re-elected.”

With that kind of a withdrawal timetable telegraphed to the enemy, al Qaeda and Talibanistas from Kabul to London to Dearborn and even to Washington, D.C. must be dancing in the streets. Earth to Obots everywhere: For a battle against a man-caused disaster that has persisted for eight years, eighteen months represents even less of a percentage (19 percent) than the 25 percent liposuction of General McCrystal’s minimum troop request that osteopath Obama performed last night.

In fact, to al Qaeda and the Taliban eighteen months is like a nap in the caves, after which they can emerge again, rested, reinvigorated and ready to behead. Listen up, sports fans — to fully understand the stupidity of cutting his own hand-picked general’s troop request by one-quarter, elevating political expediency over military need, think of it this way: that’s like pitting two football teams in the Super Bowl, allowing the home team a full eleven players, but handicapping the visiting team by capping the number of players at eight; or going into the World Series with one team at full strength of nine, and the opposing team limited to seven. You get the picture. Does that sound like a blueprint for victory, or a feckless scheme for defeat?

Frankly, A Charlie Brown Christmas–which ABC bumped for the rambling excuse Obama delivered (and from West Point, no less … how gauche)–would have made more sense. This president truly does not have a clue. Not a single clue. Instead, as noted briefly in advance here at America’s Right yesterday, he merely voted “present,” committing few enough troops and articulating pullout enough to assuage the far left, and providing enough assistance and boots on the ground so as to give the impression that he cares.

—————
Rick Saunders is a freelance writer who splits his time between endeavors in southern California and the American southwest. He began writing for America’s Right in December 2008.

Share

Comments

  1. momathome says:

    Here are some of the Rules of Engagement for the troops in Afghanistan….(and, no, this is NOT a joke!)

    *No night or surprise searches.

    *Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

    *ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

    *U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to
    fire first.

    *U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

    *Only women can search women.

    *Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

  2. Monica says:

    It is easy to understand what Obama is doing if you remember that his cocaine use affected his brain and therefore his thinking ability. He might be "smart" compared to others of his "race", but he is not smart compared to the average IQ of normal Americans (black+white+asian+hispanic – did I miss anyone?). Stop thinking this man is smart, and all the ridiculous things he says start to make sense. This is your 4 year old talking.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Jeff:

    I notice you haven't posted two of my notes for the subject of Huckabee, but I know you will read this nevertheless.

    I will even help you out, if you want to put down Huckabee for his parole decisions, why don't you do it for his parole of Green who raped and murdered an 18 year old? To me, that crime is more heinous no matter if you catch him at future crimes or not, than the other man you were complaining about being paroled with only 4 burgleries in 6 months when he was 17. (the later burglery was after Huckabee's action, and somehow he was paroled again I don't think kby Huckabee?)

    Is it because four police officers were killed and somehow their lives are more important than four regular people on the street? The fact that people were killed because somehow Huckabee had notice of this possibility when the guy has committed four robberies in 6 months when he was 17 years old is not a convincing argument.

    However, if you want to argue that Huckabee had notice that he shouldn't have paroled Green when he raped and murdered a woman, that the same man would do it again, isn't that a convincing argument? You look at the evidence a person has when they make a decision, not the future acts of the criminal.

    How did Clemmons (or whatever his name is) get Paroled a second time, according to your article after he was let out in 2000 or 2001? Obviously he needed to be in jail/prison, was that Huckabee's fault he was let out?

    If you are going to blame Huckabee, at least get a convincing argument showing what you are saying is his bleeding heart.

    from Huffington POst regarding Dumond, the other rapist he let go, "Little Rock, Ark — As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a convicted rapist despite being warned by numerous women that the convict had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. The convict went on to rape and murder at least one other woman."

    I have two questions for you:
    1. Why is the crime of robbery committed four times in 6 months by a 17 year old more convincing that the same person will kill four people (than the crime of raping convincing that the guy will rape and possibly murder again)?

    2. Are you more excited about this case because it was four policemen that were murdered and not innocent women raped and murdered?

    If you are going to slam Huckabee, at least do it with convincing material.

    mmm

  4. Anonymous says:

    Jeff:

    Okay, I apologize, it was my mistake, you did post my comments on the previous section (I must have looked in the wrong area or have been impatient, that is possible).

    Thank-you. You have my faith restored somewhat, but I still need you to be more objective and consider emotions before you start slamming a GOP person, for the future of the imperfect GOP (it will never be perfect, but at least it is not Obama).

    Help save our country.

    mmm

  5. Boston Blackie says:

    momathome – I heard those rules yesterday and was disgusted by them. It is Johnson and the rules of engagement in Vietnam all over again. Don't forget that our soldiers / marines must read them their Miranda rights when captured and be prepared to be court martialed when a struggle ensuses and smelly arze taliban gets a dope slap across the face. So let's recap, it will take six months for the additional troops to get up to the 30,000 and then be out in another twelve months from that. A drop in the bucket for these cave dwellers to wait out. It is also about the time the bulk of the stimulus dollars get released, right before the next presidental election cycle, how convenient and a coincidence I am sure.

  6. momathome says:

    Boston -

    And still nothing in the MSM about the SEALs who are being brought up on charges because a known terrorist came up with a fat lip after capture! If more Americans knew about the way this admistration is micromanaging our troops, they would be appalled! Despite his "tough" talk yesterday, he DOES not want our military to WIN and the majority of those who are serving know it and are very worried about what their future holds.

  7. William A. Rose says:

    Hi Boston Blackie. Nope, it' not a coincidence. Obama is planning everything he does as a true master of his craft. Those rules of engagement are really something, aren't they? All this will lead to is another attack on American soil. This is what Obama wants and needs to further execute his plans. There will be a One World Government headed by one person. It is going to happen. It's jsut a matter of when. We shoudl enjoy every day we have as our lives here in America are still quite cushy. We have it made as compared to so many other countries/peoples.

  8. Gail B says:

    Glenn Beck would have a field day with these comments!

    I think I'll email him a heads up!

  9. Sharon Maxwell says:

    To William Rose… I agree with your comments 100%. BO knows exactly what he's doing and knows that eventually (sooner than later!), the USA will be destroyed. And that is his goal.
    Sharon Maxwell

  10. Dee says:

    I thought it was rather convenient that he will bring the troops home right before he will be up for a second term. Why send them if the goal is not victory? Why tell the enemy when we will be leaving? BO should never be called Commander in Chief.

Speak Your Mind

*