Democrats — sacrificing American lives for political expediency

Robert GatesThe last seven years of the Bush presidency had as their soundtrack “Bush lied, people died” or “No wars for oil.”  Democrats loved their troops so much that they couldn’t bear to see them die because a president had ulterior motives.  Bush left the White House and, magically, Democrats stopped caring about the troops.

Obama, however, did still care about the troops:  He cared that they functioned as political props to give him cover in his half-assed efforts to “be tough on terrorism.”  We know this because former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has written a book.  Sure, Gates could be lying in Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, but one suspects he’s not — at least as to this point.  If Bob Woodward (who reviewed the book) is correct, what Gates reports is entirely consistent with Obama’s actions; his speeches about troops, terrorism, and Afghanistan; and his political record before becoming president:

In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”  (Emphasis added.)

Assuming the above statement to be true (as I do), what Obama did was unconscionable.  Bush, who stood on Ground Zero right after 9/11, believed in the fight, even though he knew troops would die protecting America’s interests.  (And that statement is true whether one believes that Bush headed into war to keep America safe or headed into war to keep Big Oil safe.  I, of course, incline to the former view.)  Obama, however, believed only in himself and was willing to let people die to advance his political standing.  Ace spells it out:

Which is what is so galling. Men are being killed at three times the rate as they died under Bush’s leadership, and Obama is not even trying to win.

Those men remain there out of political cowardice. Men are dying for Obama’s political cowardice.

If he does not wish to fight the war– then he should save those men’s lives and bring them home.

It is one thing to sacrifice men’s lives for an important objective. The only objective sought by Obama is avoiding the “Weak on Terrorism” attack that would be lodged by the Right. And the attack that Obama claimed, in knocking the Iraq War constantly, that he would be tough as the Devil on Afghanistan.

So men are dying, to save Obama some short-term minor political pain.

Obama wasn’t the only Leftist politician who viewed America’s overseas wars against Islamic terrorism, not as matters of America’s existential survival, but as mere political props.  When Hillary found herself facing Obama in the 2008 election, she declared herself against the Iraq war, not for any principled reason, but simply because that was Obama’s position.  When Hillary saw which way the wind was blowing, that’s the direction she headed:

He [Gates] writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

One wonders how long it will take the MSM to bury that inconvenient truth.  Both of these people are the execrable Francis Underwood, from House of Cards.  Their primary motivation, always, is the aggrandizement of self, and they do not care who suffers or dies during their brutal slog to the top.

The revelations in Gates’ book might cost Obama a point or two in his already sagging polls, but I doubt most people will care very much.  Those of us who had already figured out what was going on will feel vindicated, his acolytes won’t mind (they felt the same way, no doubt), and the troops will have been screwed, as usual.  This is just one more in a series of Obama insults to the men who shed blood for a war that Obama never saw as more than a campaign prop. (Here’s a satiric take on Obama’s loss of Fallujah, where so many Marines fought and died; and here’s a serious look at the sacrifices Obama threw away.)

There’s something a little more interesting going on when it comes to Hillary.  The quotation above reveals that Hillary didn’t arrive at her position on Iraq by looking at the situation on ground and making a calculation about the benefits or burdens to America in continuing to stay there, either to fight or to police that nation.  Instead, she mapped out a campaign strategy.  Pretty foul, right?  But in the paragraph immediately after the one I quoted above, Woodward makes this observation:

Earlier in the book, he [Gates] describes Hillary Clinton in the sort of glowing terms that might be used in a political endorsement. “I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world,” he wrote.

Woodward is saying that Gates praises Hillary extravagantly in the beginning of the book and then reams her in the end.  What’s with that?  My current guess is that Gates wanted to make his attack on Hillary credible.  If he’d spent the entire book lambasting her, readers might have doubted the veracity of his attack on her integrity.  By praising her to the skies, though, Gates positioned himself as a man without a bone to pick who was making a straightforward factual observation about the woman who would be president.

Any other theory about Gates’s extravagant praise and brutal revelation makes Gates’ praise for Hillary impossible to understand.  She didn’t do squat as Secretary of State except for amassing frequent flier miles.  The one time something happened (Benghazi), she failed in her responsibilities before and during the attack, and lied afterwards.  If Gates thinks she was wonderful, than he’s a fool, and everything else he’s written should be questioned.  If, however, he’s giving himself cover for his attack on Hillary, maybe he’s crazy like a fox.

The book is also garnering attention because of Gates’ sweeping Biden indictment (“wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”) and his description of Obama’s efforts to make decisions about war without bothering to speak with the Pentagon first (or at all).

Overall, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War sounds like a worthwhile read, if only to try to figure out whether Gates is a fool who thinks Hillary was wonderful, barring her amoral approach to Iraq or if he’s a wily fox who seeks to discredit her but realizes that he can’t sound too hostile when he does so.  We’ll probably see a flurry of books now, most of them painting a picture of a White House with a self-involved, narcissistic, dishonest leader listening only to his core cadre of ideologues, none of whom care about America as she is (as opposed to the Leftist utopia they hope she will be), while assiduously avoiding any contrary voices.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    Some people asked me years ago why I hated the Left or why I always seemed to be on a steamed out run concerning disliking their Leftist, XYZB, etc.
    Are people kind of getting the picture now? They getting a little bit of that Feeling? The thing is, what most people think they know about the Left, doesn’t even break the 10% barrier. There’s all kinds of stuff happening that people have no idea about. No Idea.

  • Ymarsakar

    Btw, while some people are too weak in their beliefs that they need society and authorities to “vindicate” them, I have no such need. Just wanted to make that clear. I decided what I wanted to believe years ago, and nobody is going to change my mind because I originally never needed someone to validate my beliefs. I knew they were true. As time went on, that certainty became ingrained.
    There’s always that period after the completion of a theory that you think to yourself, “but this could be wrong, I need to recheck the numbers”. Then after you check them, and check them, and check them, and it still turns out to be right. Even if you forget about them and come back years later to see how it works, and it’s still right. Certainty is born, and from certainty, time produces solidness. Constantly, always, looking for something to prove it wrong, has failed.
    Meanwhile, people who still need 100 years of maturing, are too early to fight in this adult’s war. They’re still arguing about good intentions and forgiveness.

    • Matt_SE

      They’re still arguing about good intentions and forgiveness.
      I think many of the older Republicans are still viscerally clinging to a by-gone era; a time when Democrats had honest disagreements with Republicans, but still loved their country.
      I believe that time has passed.
      This is no longer a family spat. It has become an ideological war for the heart of America, and the other side is fine with playing dirty.

      • Matt_SE

        …and to expand on the “loved their country” thing:
        I imagined my response, if I were a presidential candidate, to Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America during the 2012 debates. The setting would be a town-hall forum, and I would be addressing some random, young woman in the audience (in order to address that important demographic):
        A man tells you that he loves you deeply. He loves you unreservedly. He loves everything about you.
        Oh…but, he doesn’t like your hair. You’re gonna have to change that.
        And he doesn’t like your weight. You’re gonna have to start “eating right” and lose some pounds. (no more 32 ounce sodas!)
        He doesn’t like your friends, either. We can’t be seen “slumming” with these types, can we? You’re gonna have to get some new friends.
        And even though you love your job, even though you worked your butt off to get it and have finally “arrived” where you want to be, he doesn’t like that either.
        If a man told you that he loved you, but couldn’t stand everything about you…that you needed to be “fundamentally transformed” into something other than what you are, it would take any woman two seconds to decide that the man didn’t actually love them. He loved some idealistic version of them that never existed.
        That’s how Obama “loves” America.


    Here goes my take on the book snips and revelations thus far: There have been many, too many generals and commanders who have been laid to waste by the administration. I believe the leaks, the Hollywood invites to the War Room and the attempt to belittle, dismantle, change the ROE, crap negotiations with Iran, Karzai, the PA, Libya, Egypt, Turkey …ad infinitum finally created the impetus for Gates to author his memoirs. Of course, no one saw this coming – they have their heads so firmly planted in a 1965 state of mind that they stopped recording history the day Obama was born.

  • Pingback: » January 9, 2014()

  • Ymarsakar

    Plenty of Southern Democrats refused to recognize this. There are still Southerners who are conservative, but want to resurrect the Democrat party affiliation their family has been in since the US Civil War 1861.

  • Ymarsakar

    Book, do you remember those various honor and award posts various people wrote up about Afghanistan and Iraq soldiers between 2008 and 2012?
    Every time one of those came up, I was silently howling and gritting my teeth. Because I know that they died because Obama wanted them to die, and they died so Obama could have a big phat smile on his face.
    But I had already resolved to not attempt to convince people any more. It was a waste of life. If people wanted to be convinced of the existence of the Left’s power, they should ask the Left to give them a boot up their A. I certainly didn’t a rat’s A what people thought they needed convincing. Let the LEft do the convincing, they are good at it.
    Most people are weak. They are afraid to be alone. They are afraid to die alone. They go with the flow of society. If a person believes A is true, but society refuses to believe it or claims the opposite, most people will change their minds to adapt to society’s authority. But sometimes that doesn’t work right, there’s an accident or mutation, and the individual goes the other way around.
    If a single person can weather the authority and disbelief of the entire world, and still resist obedience to the Power, it is a truly liberating training course. Also very harsh. It’s because only by finding a source of power internally as strong as if not stronger than every single human’s opinion on this planet Earth, can an individual resist and disobey the authority of Society. You can also lobotomize your conscience, but usually that’s a born trait not an acquired one.
    The Japanese have this cliche phrase that has a man courting a woman say, “even if the entire world was against you, I would still fight the world for your sake”. This is a representation of true love (similar to the Disney sense but not). It is meant to represent the existence of a bond so strong, no other attachments and authorities (temporal nor divine) can force obedience. In the modern world, it’s kind of unrealistic to expect a single man to take on the entire world in terms of economic or military power. So we bring it into the modern scene, using modern techniques to create a modern reality.
    Suppose every single black person in the US hates Bush as a warmonger and Republicans as the Slave Owning class. What kind of will power must it take for a single black person to speak in public the Truth that his society denies? How deeply must that person love the goal of achieving freedom for his slave race? How much would he need to care for the United States of America to take on the burden of that cross?
    Even if the entire world forces you to obey and think evil untrue thoughts about person A, there are some people whose emotions are strong enough that they can refuse to obey. That is one way to fight the world.
    In the years before when I said on the net that Obama loves seeing Americans killed and tortured to death, and gets a big fat smile on his face… I wasn’t kidding. Just in case anybody wanted to misunderstand it. It’s literal. 

    • Bookworm

      Ymarsakar, you often have a clear-eyed prescience.  I think most of us are unwilling to think as badly of the Left as you do, even though we know, as you do, that the Left is every bit as bad as it can be.

      • Ymarsakar

        I read some of the comments at Ace’s blog post. They felt really similar to what I was feeling over time.
        If you wrote that for my benefit, Book, just should know that this is basically what I wanted to say years ago, but couldn’t find the words to explain or couldn’t write it without sounding crazy. And it wasn’t because I was trying to convince people here. There were several places on the net that I visited and had talks with.
        Posts like this one just triggers that instinct and memory.