Once upon a time, in the early 1960′s, JFK’S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France when Charles de Gaulle decided to pull out of NATO. De Gaulle said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible. Rusk responded: “Does that include those who are buried here? De Gaulle did not respond.
After having watched the President’s speech last Tuesday night regarding the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, one of my initial reactions was to wonder whether any of the people down in that region feel like the Nazis must have felt on the morning of June 6, 1944.
No, really – think about it.
Although they were well-entrenched and held the highest of high grounds at the outset of the battle, the Nazis were facing an invading allied expeditionary force, led by the United States, that was intent on breaking the back of socialism. Wave after wave of soldiers willingly attacked this ruthless and well-armed enemy by running into explosive fire, and most notably, by scaling the 100-foot cliffs of Pointe-du-Hoc while the Nazis attacked them with grenades. Yet, the Nazis still could not hold them off.
Fast-forward 66 years, and the socialists are preparing yet again to defend against another storming of the beaches – this time against tarballs.
It’s obvious by now that in many ways with regard to perception, this administration is beginning to come unglued, mostly because of the unrelenting pressure that they’re beginning to feel to get the remainder, or at least some, of their destructive agenda passed before the November elections. The inexplicable lack of a cohesive response to the oil spill has resulted, in my opinion, in President Obama’s possibly beginning to approach the leading edge of punch-line status when history finally does come calling.
All of which, of course, apparently led to last Tuesday night’s attempt to somehow, someway, wrap this crisis – which, don’t forget, we can never let go to waste – in military terminology and to present it in the sense that we, the American people, are under attack.
Obviously, the captain of his PR (propaganda reinforcement) team, David Plouffe, was probably the genius behind this maneuver. Plouffe and the Obama team do not want this disaster associated with Katrina; heavens, no, that might look bad, and worse, it might make people re-visit the reasonably quick response of the Bush disaster relief (three days) and realize that, well….maybe it wasn’t as bad as the media made it out to be, after all.
No, President Obama’s team apparently opted to attempt to make their 57-day wait to present some type of a concrete response seem more heroic, more along the lines of…well…President Bush, after we’d been attacked on 9/11.
First consideration? Make a brief, seemingly direct and patriotic speech from the Oval Office, the traditional speaking venue for our President when he’s addressing the nation during a time of national….um….crisis.
I’m beginning to loathe that word.
Personally, I found the repeated and subtle use of military terminology cleverly interspersed throughout the speech to be particularly offensive. The primary consideration in my mind was his complete and utter disregard for the men who literally sacrificed their lives for this country in the hopes that no man would ever be a slave again. Secondly, I have to ask -
Is there actually anyone in America that is falling for this?
You want to talk military, Mr. President? Okay, fine, let’s do that. Look, I’m no expert and I’ve never served, but I have the highest form of respect for the men who fight to defend what we have here, especially now that I have a young son, with, I’d like to think, a bright future; however, you’ve already done enough to dash a good degree of those hopes. Thanks a bunch for that, by the way.
Like I said, I’m no expert, but I read quite a bit, so I know enough. So, you want to talk military when addressing the nation? Then do it for real, out in the open, not with half-hearted and disingenuous references to something that you think the little people want to hear. How about, some time, maybe referencing the Revolutionary War, the Union forces during the Civil War, the young men entombed aboard the USS Arizona, and the endless lines of white crosses that mark our dead in Normandy?
No, you won’t do that, because they were fighting for something in which you steadfastly do not believe – freedom.
Go figure that one out.
British Petroleum should in no sense be let off the hook if they are, in fact, guilty of the negligence that led to this disaster; make no mistake, however, this is war, at least in President Obama’s mind – war against big business (in this case, against the big businesses that contributed mightily to his own campaign for the Presidency, which I find truly strange – wait, didn’t he also dress down the Supreme Court for something like that?), the American people, and the American culture.
I’m wondering, though – does this invading force of tarballs have an Eisenhower-type figure as leader? How long did it take to plan the entire expedition? Is it an allied expedition of tarballs, led by BP tarballs but including tarballs from Exxon, Mobil, and Shell?
Maybe those National Guardsmen that the President is going to deploy to the Gulf would be more helpful to our country down on the Southern border.
I’m just sayin’.
The socialists have once again set up their defense perimeter on the beaches to prevent being taken down by an advancing expeditionary force – the Allied Tarballs.
This would be tear-jerking hilarious if it weren’t so true, sick, and dangerous.
That being said, I feel like I should close with one question in particular, although I’m sure the Left will jump all over it. Here goes:
Do I cheer for the socialists to stop the tarballs, or do I cheer for the tarballs to take down the socialists?