"There is no doubt that the prospects for success in Afghanistan are so bleak right now because former President George W. Bush failed for seven long years to invest the necessary troops, resources or attention to the war. But it is now President Obama’s war, and the American people are waiting for him to explain his goals and his strategy.
Mr. Obama was right to conduct a sober, systematic review of his options. We all know what happens when a president sends tens of thousands of Americans to war based on flawed information, gut reactions and gauzy notions of success. But the political reality is that the longer Mr. Obama waits, the more indecisive he seems and the more constrained his options appear.
It has been more than eight months since Mr. Obama first announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, warning Americans that, for them, the border between the two — where Taliban and Qaeda forces have found safe haven — is 'the most dangerous place in the world.' And it has been more than a month since his top general in Afghanistan asked for 40,000 more troops, warning that 'failure to gain the initiative' over the next year could make it impossible to defeat the Taliban."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=1
Let's translate this doublespeak a paragraph at a time.
Paragraph 1:
The blame belongs to Bush. If that buffoon had sunk billions more dollars and sent thousands more U.S. troops to their graves in this "graveyard of empires" as did the Soviets, all would be well. Now it's time for Obama to show us the light, but whatever happens, it's still Bush's fault.
Paragraph 2:
Obama was perspicacious and pure while cogitating, contemplating and otherwise considering the mysterious, muddled mien of this morass; however, if he doesn't act fast, he could be proven a false messiah.
Paragraph 3:
We raced to support Obama when The Washington Post derided his foreign policy and were rewarded with an op-ed written by or for the president. Our editorials are in lockstep with the administration's policy or lack thereof, Obama has put everyone on notice that the stakes in Afghanistan are high, and if Obama delays any longer, he's a lame duck and we're a cooked goose.
Moral of the story: There's no correlation between intelligence and leadership, ethical, journalistic or political.
Did Obama prove his intelligence yet? I may be missed it. How do you know, Jeffrey, that he is intelligent? What was the most intelligent thing he said or did?
ReplyDeleteLooking back at his campaign rhetoric, it was all the same for me: whites are right, blacks are right, so let us all unite in loving me. He stack on it, and can not move any further. He keeps telling everybody who may not like us that they are right, and expect them to love him in exchange. And what about us, what about America?
Intelligence was required to become editor of the Harvard law review. He is also a marvelous orator and campaigner, but he is not a leader, as even The New York Times circuitously implies in today's editorial.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey,
ReplyDeleteI would be very curious to find, how he became the editor? What were his scientific achievements? This information is not widely available.
Is he a marvelous orator or marvelous reader of teleprompter?
In my view, his talent is the talent of a con man: he gains confidence to defraud people, makes naive people to trust him. In a way, every successful con man is a marvelous campaigner.
One more scary question: What if this is the talent one needs to become an American President in our time? Probably, there were more deserving people among candidates.
As I recall, only the top law students are invited to participate in law review, and the editors are elected.
ReplyDeleteReading from a teleprompter is also a talent: this is why news anchors receive so much money. But it is a Thespian skill, having little to do with leadership.
What is required to be president today? Usually much money, a narcissistic personality probably helps, family connections, and an excellent PR team. Do deserving people go anywhere near politics?