GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Administration Aggrandizes President, Demonizes Others

by

Look, it’s entirely fair to criticize the Bush Administration for not adapting our military strategy to meet changing circumstances in Afghanistan, but it’s unbecoming for the incumbent Administration to act as if they’re the first ones to ask critical questions while the previous one did not:

One of President Obama’s top advisers said Sunday the Bush administration failed to ask critical questions about the war in Afghanistan, leaving the Obama administration starting from scratch — and leaving the war “adrift.”

“The president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Emphasis added.  This response is almost narcissistic.  Questions that have ” never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side”? Oh come on, now.

Instead of trying to portray Mr. Obama is a bold and daring leader, doing what no president has done before, why not simply say, “the President has been asking a lot of tough questions to make sure we have a strategy that leads to a decisive victory and advances our long-term national security”?  Instead of attacking the previous Administration for not asking tough questions, why not simply focus on what you’re doing?

Why this persistent “need” for Administration officials to find an adversary to attack?

I mean, why did the President attack insurance companies on Saturday instead of making the case for his healthcare reform proposal?   Moe Lane calls it a “two-minute hate“*:

The President doesn’t handle opposition to his will all that well, does he? Even the New York Times is forced to admit that this was ‘unusually harsh;’ Instapundit was harsh himself, but mostly just accurate when he called this ‘desperate.

Via Instapundit.

The more they attack, the more people question the President’s commitment to that new kind of politics he touted so regularly in his campaign last fall.

Comments

  2. BTW, I couldn’t stomach watching the video. Did Emanuel ever say what the hell the “questions” even were?

    Here’s my fav:

    Success in Afghanistan will not be defined by military objectives, [Sen.]Kerry said. “There is no military success ultimately to Afghanistan.”

    Sooooooo………we’re gonna pack up and go home this week then?

  3. Obama conveniently neglected to note in his Saturday schtick that a lot of people in those eeeeeeeeevil insurance companies he demonized….voted for him last November.

    I’ve got a sawbuck that says most of the aforementioned people won’t make the same mistake twice in 2012.

  4. Is it possible that following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals works in “organizing” selected neighborhoods and target groups, but causes independent thinking and responsible people to break out in hives?

    Every day that passes the Obamanauts edge closer to “taking control” of the people who won’t be herded and “organized.”

    If you are Obama, what do you do with people who “don’t know what’s good for them”?

  7. “Almost narcissistic”?

    Seriously, everything this man-child with serial abandonment issues does is narcissistic. Its like the entire world was “less than” until he showed up.

    This is not going to end well.

  9. To listen to Rahm, the President of the United States (Bush 43), the SecDef, the JCSs and the theater commanders had no plan for Afghanistan…they were just randomly invading, bombing and killing for the last eight years. And that exactly what the liberals-in-power think… Did they not attend ANY of the hearings or briefings? Or read a newspaper? …..Excuse me, but wasn’t Rahm a VOTING MEMBER of the US Congress during that entire time, and current-Pres. Obama in the US Senate for nearly a full-term?

    Can we get some grown-ups running the White House?…