Saturday, August 9, 2014

BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, Rush employed a historical recap to underscore exactly how poorly the incumbent’s performing in just about every aspect of governance that exists. He used that premise to propose a hypothetical suggesting that the incumbent might be employing the bombing he authorized in Iraq as a distraction from his miserable performance regarding everything else he’s touched.  
 
El Rushbo pointed out, regarding the war in Iraq that, “Obama was one of the holdouts. He didn't vote for it. He made a speech before it even happened condemning it, that Bush was just dredging it up as a distraction. He makes a speech at the Democrat convention in 2004, called it a dumb war, continued with that theme, and now look where we are.”
 
Then Rush posed this question: “Would it be too cynical to suggest that Obama might be bombing Iraq to distract us from his numerous problems?  I mean, we've got an immigration disaster taking place.  Our economy is a disaster.  Obamacare is a disaster.  It turns out that very few people are actually going to have to pay a penalty for not having insurance because they qualify as hardship cases and are not going to have either. And it's well over 50%.  I mean, it's another financial hit.  One of the primary revenue sources is not going to happen, is not gonna step up.  This is even a bigger mess than people thought it was gonna be.” 
 
Then Rush hit the nail on the head by placing blame for the Iraq debacle on the incumbent, by saying, “And the reason it's entirely of his making is because he just assumed that this war was over. He proclaimed victory and got out, but he did not leave anything behind that would enforce the circumstances on the ground that we were calling a victory.  We pulled out of there. We had no military might anywhere near.  We got out.  It's what his party wanted him to do. It's what his base wanted him to do. We got out and everything went to pot real quick.  It was entirely of his making. War in Iraq.  Can you imagine how bad things must be?”
 
Rush then went on to point out what I myself have written here many times: that the vast majority of explanations the incumbent provides are double-talk, primarily designed to cover-up errors and pander linguistically to his base, as follows: “Well, then what are we doing here?  Did you hear that?  This is another one.  It zips right by, but that's the kind of thing that's outrageous. Then what are we doing with even limited air strikes?  And we're not gonna call that a military action.  Oh, no, no, no.  Because apparently there aren't boots on the ground.  American combat troops are not returning, and so this is not military action, and therefore it's not gonna work. That's essentially what he was saying.” 
 
In that regard, New York Times Middle-East News Analysis, Peter Baker quoted the incumbent as saying on Thursday that, “I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these. I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.”
 
However, his current actions are saying something else, and he’s also losing support from high-ranking members of his own party who are stepping up and facing the facts that exist.
 
Yesterday, according to thehill.com/policy/defense,  “US Military warplanes hit Islamic militant mortar positions and a convoy hoping to stop advance on Kurdish capital of Irbil, but militants reportedly advanced on a more northern town despite the limited US military airstrikes.”
 
That event caused, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Diane Feinstein, on Friday to say that the extremist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL) must be confronted forcefully by the U.S., though she stopped short of calling for boots on the ground.
 
She went on, “It takes an army to defeat an army, and I believe that we either confront ISIL now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future.” Adding, “The group is operating with military expertise, advancing across Iraq and rapidly consolidating its position.” And, “Inaction is no longer an option. "
 
Furthermore, and most importantly, she also stated that, “it had “become clear” that the group is recruiting and training fighters from Western countries and possibly sending them back to cities in the U.S. and Europe in order to “attack us in our backyard. Warning that, “We simply cannot allow this to happen.”
 
Therefore, while even formerly dedicated supporters in Congress are facing reality and clearly understand that effective governing takes considerably more that pleasing a political base, its certainly not surprising that so much of the incumbent’s time is spent on other subjects in attempts to distract the voting public, such as climate-change and global warming. 
 
But alas, just like ISIS, the Syrians, Vladimir Putin, the IRS, the Treasury Department, health care tax cost misjudgments, hordes of illegal immigrants and the economy, to name a few, even Mother Nature is not cooperating.  
 
Jennifer Bain and Sophia Rosenbaum in the Metro Section of the New York Post titled a column, “Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade.”
 
The text says, “Only four days have hit 90 degrees this summer, three in July and one in August, with the hottest temperature on the books clocking in at 91. The last time the city went without a heat wave – classified as three consecutive days of temperatures higher than 90 degrees – was in 2004.”
 
Which mean that its likely that the only folks dumb enough to believe that global-warming actually exists are probably  the same ones that buy the story from Bill Clinton’s wife about their being “broke.”
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment