A “Deadliest Warrior” match-up between Churchill and Obama

My kids — indeed all the kids I know — are enthralled by a show called “Deadliest Warrior.”  In every episode, the show takes two types of warriors (Israeli Commandos v. Navy SEALS; Al Capone v. Jesse James; etc.), and compares their weapons and techniques to determine which will be that episode’s deadliest warrior.  (Incidentally, the SEALS won, though the Commandos came a very close second.)  Although no one gets hurt, there’s lots of fake blood, lots of explosions, lots of guns, and lots of hand-to-hand combat.  It’s a rather enthralling show.

It occurred to me today that, because Obama is our nation’s Commander-in-Chief, it might be fun for us to do a “deadliest warrior” episode comparing his rhetorical skills and strategic thinking to those same attributes as evinced by another wartime commander.  Because Obama was sold to us as the greatest orator of our generation, not to mention the most brilliant leader since Abraham Lincoln, I’ve decided to pair him up against the greatest orator (and possibly strategist) of the last wartime generation.  That would be, of course, Winston Churchill.

Let’s start with Winston Churchill, whose war came first, and who has held the “greatest wartime orator” title for a few decades more than that up-and-coming commander-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama:

A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril. [Love of country -- check!]

All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. [Love of democratic ideals -- check!]

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old. [Unswerving commitment to victory -- check!]

You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, “come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.” [A willingness to commit all available resources to achieve full victory over a totalitarian enemy -- check!]

That’s some pretty tough competition, so let’s see how Obama steps up to handle the role of greatest wartime leader and rhetorician:

We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”  [Apathy and minimal goals -- check!]

“You’ve got to get the job done there.  And that requires us to have enough troops that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”  [Practical advice, crudely and insultingly phrased -- check!]

[Per the WaPo's summary of Bob Woodward's book]:  “Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page ‘terms sheet’ that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in ‘Obama’s Wars,’ to be released on Monday.”  [Ensuring greater risks for America's troops and, by ignoring his own crude advice, increasing the risks to civilians -- check!]

[Per the NYT's summary of Bob Woodward's book]:  “Privately, he told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to push his alternative strategy opposing a big troop buildup in meetings, and while Mr. Obama ultimately rejected it, he set a withdrawal timetable because, ‘I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.’”  [Putting party politics ahead of national security and troop safety -- check!]

Hmm.  I have to say that, while I had high hopes for our articulate president, I just don’t see him winning in this rhetorical (and strategic combat).  As you can see, right out of the box, it’s clear that he really see the war as end to the jihad on American soil, especially because Americans can suffer with the best of them.  (A complete aside here, but that type of apathy has a remarkably inshallah tone to it, which really does help contribute to the notion that he’s a cultural Muslim.)

As our post competition analysis clearly shows, Obama also completely ignores his own crudely given and tactless advice, which was that you win a war by having boots on the ground.  And lastly, he puts party politics ahead of national victory, which just has to knock him down some points in this competition.

On other other hand, Winston Churchill has managed to hit all the major factors citizens look for in a war time leader:  he loves his country, he loves what it stands for, he expresses unswerving commitment to seeing the fight through to the end, and he’s willing to use all available resources to emerge from the battle victorious.

Comparing our competitors’ performance statistics, I have to conclude that, in this week’s match up of wartime commanders-in-chief, the clear winner is Winston Churchill.  Unfortunately, having been dead for several decades, Churchill is not available to accept his award.  Even more unfortunately, life’s not a game, and the sorry, apathetic, cowardly, lazy, ideologically driven Barack Obama is this nation’s real commander-in-chief.

(P.S.  For a more serious post contrasting Obama’s weak leadership to past leader’s, check out the Mudville Gazette.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Indigo Red says

    Jesse James Gang, with only single action Colt .45 Peacemakers and Winchester rifles, defeated Al Capone armed with Thompson machine guns and Colt .45 semi-automatic pistols. The James Gang knew their tools and were calm under fire. Capone’s men didn’t.

    Churchill knew his tools and was calm under pressure. Obama has no tools and can’t handle pressure of any kind.

  2. says

    It’s a rather enthralling show.

    Bet you wouldn’t have said that back when you were in the Leftist cult ; )

    Obama liked seeing American casualties in Afghanistan. Gave him more of a boost in getting out, which was the real goal.

  3. says

    Sadie, remember how the Dems got indignant about being called un-patriotic? Guess voting in such a great “patriotic” President as Obama was their way to declare their true allegiance.

    What was funny was all the party followers on the Left and the Democrat party who got all confused and frazzled because they thought they were patriotic.

    They never realized that their so called leaders were pretending to be patriotic. They actually believed it was true. That’s why I call em dupes and tools. They don’t have a mind of their own. Astro turf, that’s all. Mown em down, cause we can plant better stuff instead.

  4. SADIE says

    Yes, I remember how indignant they became for a split second.
     
     
    Administrators at a California high school sent five students home on Wednesday after they refused to remove their American flag T-shirts and bandannas — garments the school officials deemed “incendiary” on Cinco de Mayo. [May 2010]
     
     
    Athletic planners should cease such exploitation for political purposes. They might at least consider how most Muslim students, American or otherwise, would respond to this nativist display; or better, Muslims and others that live their lives under the threat of our planes, drones and soldiers.
     
    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/david-green-911-patriotism-offensive-to-muslims

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply