while accepting a prize he didn't earn for things not done:
Lots of people have been very approving of him pointing out, for a change, that the US is a good country that's done a lot of bleeding for the cause of freedom; BIG change from his usual speeches of apology and bows. Why?
I think it's pretty simple: He got the Peace Prize when he damn well knew he didn't deserve it; it was a last whack at Bush 43 AND that it was being used to pressure him to cut and run in Afghanistan. He can't openly cut and run as he'd like to, and he knew that if he danced to the tune the Euros wanted(and he's inclined to) he'd catch hell for it; so suddenly we have a speech that defends the US.
Up to a point.
He had to say something to defend himself against the lefty anger for giving McChrystal less troops than he needs, and this was it. And he STILL had to throw in crap like "I banned torture"(which already was) and "I closed Guantanamo"(which is still open) and "The US has to hold to a higher standard"(which gives terrorists the cover of the rights of US citizens and such crap).
What did you expect? He's playing triangulation. If the speech had held to his previously demonstrated thoughts and actions he'd have caught hell for it here in the US; so he said nice words about this country. Problem is, I have a hard time believing that he believes a word of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment