By Peter Andrew
ConservativeAmerican.org
Leading the way Right with unique & fun
Conservative American News & Views.

The President won’t use the word, “terrorism” in his address to the nation tonight.

He won’t say the word “victory.” He won’t utter the word, “win.” He also will be careful not to use the phrase, “troop surge.” He might not use the word, “war,” but likely will have too. It may sound silly if he just calls it an “overseas contingency operation.”

He will talk about “finishing” the war. For this commander in chief, that means quitting and coming home. In the upside down world of Barack Obama, a commander in chief is not required to desire a victory in battle.

Why won’t he say victory? From the Official Obama Administration Scandals List #517:

“President Obama Doesn’t Want “Victory” In Afghan War!!! 7/24/9 - NewsBusters reports: “You see, Barack Obama said on TV this week that “victory” isn’t his “goal” in Afghanistan. Why not? “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,” Obama told ABC News. It is telling that when Barack Obama pictures “victory” he doesn’t see in his head that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Times Square on Victory Day. Instead, what is immediately conjured up in Obama’s mind is the bedraggled figure of a beaten Japanese Emperor groveling at the feet of U.S. military might.” — ConservativeAmerican.org adds: This one is over the top, nutzoid, impeachable stuff! He doesn’t want us to win a war we are in? He worries about using the word “Victory?” Is this the Obama you liberals voted for?”

Will he talk about Osama Bin Laden? He certainly has changed his tune about capturing him. From the Scandals List # 89:

“Obama Flip Flopped on Capturing Osama Bin Laden January, 2009 - Politico: “During the presidential debates last year, Obama declared that capturing or killing Osama bin Laden “has to be our biggest national security priority.” In his first TV interview after winning the election, he said the terrorist leader was “not just a symbol. He’s also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against U.S. targets,” and that the additional troops being sent to Afghanistan would hunt him down because “capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda.” Bin Laden’s significance to Obama dissipated during the transition. By the time Obama gave another interview in early January, he said killing or capturing bin Laden was not necessary to “meet our goal of protecting America.” A few months later, when he announced his Afghanistan troop surge, he made no reference to the hunt for bin Laden.”

He will talk about adding troops, but will stress that they are being sent to stabilize the situation and train Afghan forces so that we can leave the work to them and get out. It will sound remarkably like the Bush Troop Surge Obama was so against! Only Obama won’t call it a troop surge. From the Scandals List # 141:

“# Obama’s Troop Surge Hypocrisy 2/18/9-Candidate Barack Obama was very vocal about how awful troop surges were. He stood firm in demanding the Bush surge was a mistake and only admitted to Katie Couric that surges actually worked after a good deal of badgering by her. Now, that he isn’t playing politics on TV anymore and actually has the job (wonder if he realizes that yet?), he has suddenly changed his tune! The Obama Troop Surge in Afghanistan suddenly is a good idea! The MSM aren’t even talking about this. UPDATE 2/20/9: Fox News followed our lead and did start talking about it!”

You might read that and ask, “What troop surge did Obama ALREADY have?” The answer is that he earlier agreed to send in a troop surge. Fox News reported back in February…

“Afghanistan was supposed to be the “Good War.” At least that what voters were told during the presidential campaign as liberals argued resources had been drained from Afghanistan to fight the war in Iraq. But when President Obama announced his first troop deployment to Afghanistan, he did so quietly in the form of a paper statement from a press secretary after he signed the largest stimulus package in U.S. history — a contrast to President Bush’s announcing his troop surge for the war in Iraq before a prime-time audience on TV. “We got a paper statement rather than a speech because this is not a surge,” said retired Maj. Gen. Ret. Bob Scales. “This is surge lite.” The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, had requested 30,000 troops. On Tuesday, the president authorized 17,000 troops and the Pentagon identified 12,000 to send. McKiernan said…., “2009 is going to be a tough year.”

It’s been 93 days since the request for more troops came in. 162 soldiers have died since the request hit the President’s desk. Since the President took office, there have been 439 military deaths.

The president likely will try to have it both ways. He’ll send more troops but claim it’s not a surge because their mission will be to hasten our retreat. He’ll expand the war but claim it’s a step to finishing (quitting) and coming home. The left will be mad. The right will be mad. The center will be disappointed. Independents won’t go for the idea of abandoning victory in favor of just coming home. He hasn’t even given the talk yet and Michael Moore-on is already calling Obama the “New War President!”

Leave a comment to let us know what you think.

Be sure to add us as a facebook friend (Peter Andrew) and Bookmark us so you can visit ConservativeAmerican.org often!

Will you consider helping us today?
Please consider a small contribution to help fund ConservativeAmerican.org
Even $1 will help ($50 is okay too!!). Thank you!

Peter Andrew

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 at 12:31 am and is filed under Barack Hugo Obama, Mid East, Military, Terror's War on Us. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. View Comments & Add Yours, or trackback from your own site.