I just don't think the folks over at The Federalist actually know how to read. Take a look at this from The Federalist:
During a press conference detailing his administration’s strategy to destroy ISIS following several devastating terrorist attacks in Paris, President Barack Obama said he’s not interested in “pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning[.]”Of course the right wing crazies (perhaps even some of your friends and family) went nuts over this.
But what the the president mean?
Let's take a look at what he actually said:
I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.Pay extra special attention to that middle paragraph. He is talking about real leadership, just not the political sloganeering of it that's designed to make the speaker look tough.
But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.
We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that.
Why? Because there's always some 25 year old kid with his legs blown off for some "I got a bigger dick than you, you evil doer." slogan.
That's what he's talking about.
And it's amazing to me the otherwise intelligent folks who simply can't read deeply enough to see it.
3 comments:
This reminds me of
"In the Pennsylvania Democratic primary debate, Obama refused to answer a question about his opinion on the Heller case; he claimed he had not read all the briefs, and that he does not comment on pending cases."
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/when-obama-wrestles-with-heller.htm
The progressive response
Can't you read want he said. He is not dodging the Gun Control issues, He did not read the briefs.
Amended to:
“Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=91538
When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”
HTTT - thought pioneer or ______________?(fill in the blank)
Asked and answered. Time to move on.
The linguistic construction of history as such highlights the disintegration of power.
Post a Comment