Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2019/01. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Our Nameless and Blameless President

Posted on March 24 2011 7:47 pm
Wendy K is a former leftist and a writer who hails from California.
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

Somehow I’m still on the Democrats’ radar, even though I left the Party a few years ago. Because, despite my best efforts to get off their list, keeps sending me emails.

Usually I just delete the mail, but I couldn’t resist opening this one, since the subject heading shouted,  “Tell Congress:  Not One Dime for Libya.”  I thought:  finally! A major Democratic organization is taking Obama to task for instigating a new war without congressional approval.

Imagine my shock when I saw that the missive makes absolutely no mention of Obama.   Not a single word about the dude!  Judging from the email, one would think that Obama was innocently partying in Rio when, unbeknownst to him, the “Tea Party Republican henchmen,” as the writer puts it, started a war.  The email even names names;  the men behind the Libyan attack are that evil troika,  “McCain, Graham, and Joe Lieberman.”

According to the email, the organization opposes another war partly because Afghanistan is costing a fortune.  Yet, they also fail to utter the O word when condemning war with Afghanistan.  Through some bizarre mental gymnastics, the organization implicates the “rightwing billionaires Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers.”

The sad thing is that most Democrats will read this baloney and believe it.  Why shouldn’t the average liberal?  The MSM won’t tell them otherwise.

Excusing Obama from any responsibility for Libya actually insults the man, when you think about it (which the Democrats will not bother to do.)   What are the implications of Obama’s apparent cluelessness?  Let’s consider the possibilities:

  • One implication is that Obama had nothing to do with missiles being dropped in Libya.  But doesn’t this suggest that Obama is some sort of dimwit?  (Of course, the Dems would be horrified at this insinuation since it’s a racist one.)
  • Another possibility is that the president is naive.   Here, the affable Barack simply went on a well-deserved vacation, leaving the country in the hands of the Congress.  These nefarious legislators went ahead and, behind his back, started a war.   But doesn’t this intimate that Obama is a doe-eyed innocent?
  • Okay, then;  another possibility is that Obama does know what’s going on, but he has deferred to the powerful McCain, Graham, and Lieberman.   The peace-loving Obama did not want this war, but he gave in.  Yet, what’s the implication here, that Obama is a 98-pound weakling?
  • Or perhaps Obama is just a victim of circumstances (yet again).  The economy, Afghanistan, etc. etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with him.  But doesn’t it defy logic that the President of the United States is a perpetual victim?
  • Frankly, what I read between the lines is the following: yes, Obama started a war, but the Democrats can’t mention his name because he is special.    If mistakes or wars happen, Obama shouldn’t be held accountable.   But isn’t this stance the most paternalistic and racist of all?

While the Left’s thinking is distorted and nonsensical,  the tragedy is that most Obama supporters won’t care.  The average liberal in the street will not change his or her views about Obama, no matter what he does.

And since Obama is never to blame, the left needs their boogeyman, and any conservative will neatly fit the bill.  Usually it’s Sarah and Rush;  today it’s Lieberman, et al.   Meanwhile, Democrats have absolutely no qualms about coming across as paternalistic and, yes, racist, each time they let Obama off the hook.

Be Sociable, Share!
13 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry