About West Point

I listened to the Comrade's speech tonight about sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Surprised he mention 9/11 as a real event. I thought the liberals were regarding it as an action-disaster movie that was only so-so and entirely forgetable. I'm glad he's reinforcing our military in Afghanistan. We'll see how it goes. It's not the number McChrystal wanted, and the danger of too few is a possibility.

Anyway, what I found more interesting was media reaction to the speech. I listened to it on WLS radio in Chicago. This time slot usually belongs to Hannity, but local guy, Bruce Dumont, who has a regular show called "Inside the Beltway" on WLS, took reaction calls when the speech concluded.

Must say, I don't listen to "Inside the Beltway" very often. It's on when I'm not usually tuned into the radio. Anyway, I don't know which way Bruce Dumont leans on the issues, but tonight, he sounded very much like he was apologizing to liberals and defending the Comrade's decision to send more troops. I thought that was strange.

Most of his callers did seem to have a negative reaction to the Comrade's decision for one reason or another. One caller was deadset against it, and that's about the only intelligible thing the caller said. But Dumont seemed to be working from the liberal perspective, trying to assuage callers that the Comrade hadn't betrayed them. Since I'm not against the war in Afghanistan, I found that very weird.

I missed a large part of Greta Van Susteren's interview with Henry Kissinger, which I assume was about the speech. She started talking about something else, so I changed the channel to MSNBC, and watched a few minutes of Chris Matthews. He's really strange.

FYI Mr. Matthews -- West Point is located in upper New York State, well within the bounds of the USA. The cadets there are training to join the US Army. West Point is not an "enemy camp"; they're on our side.

Went back to radio and Mark Levin, who thought the Comrade's speech was really terrible -- self-serving for the Comrade, too stingy with military support, etc.

One point where I strongly agree with Mark Levin: How come every time the Comrade talks about anything at all, he has to refer to his actions as "cleaning up" or "mopping up" after the Bush Administration? The Comrade always, always, always has to attack someone. That's just nasty.

FYI Mr. Comrade -- George W. Bush has been out of office for almost a year now. And beside that, we didn't ask you "How did this happen?" We asked you, "What are you going to do about it?"

Comrade, please try to stay focused on the real issue rather than whining about it and feeling sorry for yourself. I, for one, would much rather have someone else in the position you occupy, someone who appreciates and loves the USA. I promise, you won't have to deal with it for any longer than the Constitution allows. And whoever follows you will assuredly have much more to "mop up" than you have. Let's just hope he or she has more grace about it than you do.

I'm glad McChrystal is getting some of the troops he needs. I hope the military can do the job with that.

The Comrade talked about money to fund the war, too. I was half expecting him to try to promote Dopey-Obey's surtax to pay for the war, so Dopey et. al. can continue to dispense what he considers "social justice." Suspected the Comrade was going to do something similar.

He still might. I don't really trust him. He lies too often, and he's dreadfully spiteful, his spite mostly directed at the US. You'd think he'd have more respect for the nation he presides over, wouldn't you?