How the GOP shoots itself in the foot

I understand that our polity is generally ignorant……Obama has a second term, after all, and fed tabloid pablum by a media bought and paid for by both parties. But I don’t understand the strategy of claiming an intellectual preeminence by virtue of a superior ideology [at least some parts]….and then patronizing the lowest common denominator of that polity, by offering outright lies and obfuscation, in order to throw stones at the current Administration.

It’s a lack of integrity that has gone a long way in keeping me from every rejoining the GOP.

First, the usual subjects from 2002-2003 are in the media spotlight lying about the decision to withdraw forces from Iraq in 2011 [decision signed in 2008 of course]. Now throughout the media and blogosphere, we have public questioning of the ‘timing’ of the capture of Ahmed Abu Khatallah, perpetrator of the Benghazi attack…..alleging that we knew where he was the entire time, but chose this moment to deflect from the VA, Bergdahl, ISIS, IRS e-mails, etc….

Now I don’t know the operational details of that mission, and wouldn’t speak of them if I did. But the fact that nobody in our media, or in the party that claims such an affinity for the military, is raising unclassified institutional reasons for why we wouldn’t roll him up right away. We don’t have a great picture of the Jihadist networks in Libya. To undertake that effort, we focus on key leaders and facilitators with the end state of kill/capture. But to do so we use the various intelligence source [signal, human, open, cyber, etc..] to establish a ‘pattern of life’. This pattern of life will also yield acquaintances,  bed down locations, transit routes, accomplices, funding sources, etc.

A very good reason for why we might have known Khattallah’s whereabouts, was to use his pattern of life to illuminate more of the Ansar al-Shariah network, finally rolling him up when that discovery was as complete as we could hope for, or other time-sensitive matters made it practical.

I suppose it’s too much to ask for a media who’s business model is wholly built on the left-right divide, and a public who will know more about Honey Boo-Boo than foreign policy……but damn, it’s maddening to watch our society to devolve intellectually.


23 thoughts on “How the GOP shoots itself in the foot

  1. Jersey: *eye roll*

    If you had been saying the same thing during the Bush years you might have some credibility, but you weren't, so you don't.

    Obama and his trained ape Biden have managed to make an even bigger mess that Bush (and who thought that was even possible a few years ago?)


  2. That reason would be retardation. Liberals sometimes will clamor for action if there is a clear and attainable opportunity to alleviate suffering. That's about it. Any chance of quagmire or lack of clarity, and liberals will always be dead set against it. No liberal was for the war in Iraq. A few cowardly Democrats, yes. But no liberal. Hell, why do you think Obama won the Democratic nomination in '08? It was the liberal anger over the war. Liberals in the party still haven't forgiven the Dems who went along with that. Hence, Hillary, in the run-up to '16, has begun the hedge away from her cowardly decision to give the Bushies, the most inept administration since Nero's, that stupid blanket authorization.



  3. ” Liberals sometimes will clamor for action if there is a clear and attainable opportunity to alleviate suffering.”

    Yet, the reality doesn't reflect this at all. They “clamor for action” to ram through Obamacare, which results in people losing insurance (more suffering) but more important to the liberal cause, increases the power of the rulers. Much more than Republicans, the Democrats tend to side with those who rule against those who are ruled.

    ” Any chance of quagmire or lack of clarity, and liberals will always be dead set against it.”

    Unless it is a liberal/left President, such as Clinton, Obama, etc.

    “Hell, why do you think Obama won the Democratic nomination in '08? It was the liberal anger over the war.”

    No, he won because he was a “fresh face”, and had a vague message of “hope and change”. Also, he was just about the least qualified/experienced of anyone running, and this had a very thin resume that made him hard to attack that way. Thus he was a “blank slate”.

    “Liberals in the party still haven't forgiven the Dems who went along with that”

    Half of the liberals in Congress voted FOR these efforts.

    “Hence, Hillary, in the run-up to '16, has begun the hedge away from her cowardly decision to give the Bushies,”

    Her decision was not cowardly. She made the best decision at the time. If anything, she was brave to risk angering the pro-terrorist “ANSWER” type fringes in her party.

    “Bushies, the most inept administration since Nero's”

    At least until an even more inept admin was elected.


  4. Also, the Pew site says the overwhelming reason Obama won was the economy. They don't even mention Iraq, war, etc issues:

    Inside Obama's Sweeping Victory

    “As expected, the economy dominated the voters’ agenda this year: More than six-in-ten (63%) voters, including comparable majorities of Obama supporters (65%) and McCain backers (60%), cited the economy as the most important issue facing the country”

    Foreign policy related to Iraq/etc comes on the radar in the terrorism issue, and McCain actually did better on that.


  5. I also found a Gallup poll from 2003 that showed that 55% of Democrats supported the Iraq effort at its start. More than half: a majority. The claim that liberals always opposed it is a myth, not supported by evidence.

    So we compare Jersey's statement: “No liberal was for the war in Iraq.”

    to the actual facts here

    showing, depending on the time period, you can easily find between one-third and a definite majority of liberals being “for” this. A far fry from “lo liberal”

    Facts: 1
    Jersey: 0

    (Not sure how he will react? Jersey might mumble and call me some vague and idiotic insult such as “psychopath” like he did in the past when pointed out he was flat-out wrong on everything. Or he might re-define “liberal” away from the usual definition in order to support his arghument…, say, perhaps re-define liberal to mean only the far fringe 10% of the left. I've seen that too.


  6. “I certainly think there's enough blame to be shared by all.”

    Certainly, such as the millions of jobs lost under Obama also (accelerated by a “stumulus package”) and the budget/debt problems being much worse under him, also.

    And whatever Bush was, the alternative was even worse.


  7. “Without the election of George Bush, I don't think there ever would have been an invasion of Iraq.”

    Under the Clinton-Gore regime, there were extensive bombing operations of Saddam's WMD and terrorist infrastructure. While not as large as the force ordered into that country in 2003, by 1999, US the Department of Defense had flown over 200,000 sorties over Iraq (large numbers of pilots an crew in expensive aircraft). So the country was already invaded, so to speak, and Gore, as part of the Clinton-Gore administration was part of it.

    Bush did not invade the country. He did, however, order a significantly increased intervention after Saddam Hussein flat out refused to comply with the cease fire agreements. Entirely justified and legal (just as Clinton's actions against that terrorist kingpin were). But in my view, and the view of most othere here, handled badly.


  8. I think you raise a fair point, but I would disagree that sorties [regardless of the number] in an environment of air supremacy…in any way equates an invasion. THE key component of an invasion is going to be holding terrain with ground forces.


  9. I would accept that submission and correction, CI. Because even though the definition of invasion does not preclude an invasion of air forces, there just doesn't seem to be any usage precendent for such a usage.


  10. Yeah, Silver. ObamaCo inherited a jobs crisis, and considered it to be an emergency stimulus to shovel out even more money to overpaid government union thugs (instead of making more jobs), they went to war on the side of unions against workers and tried to abolish the secret ballot, and they rammed through “health care reforms” that have specific provisions to force companies to fire people and cut hours.

    That is just some of how they made an even bigger mess than Bush made…


  11. If Bush is a moron, based upon his record, then Obama is an even bigger moron.

    He's racked up more debt that Bush, more frustrated workers have left the work force than any other time in our nation's history, and Obummer presides over the absolute worst economic 'recovery' on record.

    He's a historic president, in the same way Carter was. At least ol' Jimmy can now claim he is our nation's second-worst president.

    Bush's destruction and Obama's doubling down on it makes me long for Bill Clinton. He was our last good president.


  12. Silver: Clinton was grossly irresponsible on the budget, remember. He ran 8 years of deficits. He inherited a large debt, and chose to increase it by one-third (not reduce it). Adding $1.6 trillion to the debt is very bad, no excuse.

    But he was much better in this regard than GWB and Obama, very true.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s