And when President Obama comes to realize that a ‘surge’ requires far more than just troops, I will support him. More troops on their own is the Lyndon Johnson answer, and not a good one for the mountain warfare in Afghanistan. Yes, I would support him if he had a decent plan for this, and I do point out the necessity of the fight there and what a good way forward would be to start confronting the regional issues. He has neither the regional knowledge, military knowledge or background to do these things and his ever-conflicted foreign policy agenda will not help him one bit.
He is not even trying, and yet I do support him if he does try and do his job in that venue. He is not, however, looking to be the first President to cut military spending during a war when it is one of the cheapest endeavors in warfare that we have ever witnessed, far outshadowed by his signed spending package that is larger than all of Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina aid for the last 7 years. That is horrific.
Where is his unity with us? Where is his unity with the Nation? Where is his understanding to do the job of President as Commander of the Armies and the Navies and Head of State?
Mind you I’m the exact, same guy who called foul on Sen. McCain’s concept of COIN, but he, at least, had a clue. Barack Obama, not so much as even that.
And when I see the ill things he is putting forward in place of doing his job, I will speak out against them, too because these are not part of the job we give to government. He wants to do things we don’t hand to the government and ignore the job we DO hand to government, and I stand united with that and my Nation. The President is welcome to do his job any time he pleases, and we have had many a President who decided not to do so much of it… and busy bodies like both Roosevelts, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Carter who want to do some other job that we have not created in this Nation because it is not the government’s to do.
So, please, put aside the childish idea that we are to unite behind a *leader*: that is a path to authoritarianism and making the citizens of the United States *subjects* of a government. We did fight a war over that to the tune of 10% dead and 15% fled – we are a Revolutionary Nation that dares to stand for the rights of man as an individual and limited government to give the freest, largest exercise of those rights to build a better Nation outside of government. That this is the best way is self-evident as Jefferson and Franklin got through to us via the Declaration. The the current occupant of the Oval sees government in the leading role is also self-evident. He is welcome to be in unity with those at any time, just as I awaited his predecessor to do the same, and the President before that, and before that, and before that, and before that….
That is the actual unity to keep unification with government out of the picture and see it as a necessary evil that must be kept cicumspect of what it does and not intrude on our lives to remove liberty from us.
And a reminder on President Jackson: he got rid of the National Bank, which would be very much like our Federal Reserve, because it was incompetent, run by cronies and did not serve the American People. It took President Wilson to bring that back… can’t say as it has done us much good getting things wrong in the 1920′s through ’40′s and 1990′s to present. Democrats used to understand the concept of less government that is fair and just to all of its citizens was good government… one that did not support ill-institutions used against her citizens. Unfortunately no party supports that, and soon, very soon, we will see the true cost of that.
