A couple of months ago, Rolling Stoned, did a hit piece on Obama's main man, General Stanley McChrystal, in an effort to undermine the war in Afghanistan - Obama's war in Afghanistan.
And what does Obama do? Why, he seeks out the magazine that should be regarded as his "enemy" and uses its audience to advance his partisan agenda.
Besides the words of the interview, themselves, the fact of the "interview" is a clear statement from Obama to his military leadership -- "I don't care about your opinions, your strategies, your rebellion. I am in charge and you are not."
A true Commander and Chief would do little more than cross the street to spit on the steps of this magazine's offices, BUT !! , of course, he is no "Commander and Chief." He is a man who won an election that delegates the command of the most effective military in human history to the winner. He is anti-military but not a pacifist. He is a renaissance man, one who is stuck in the fantasies of the Enlightenment. He believes in the ultimate goodness of mankind - or, at least he did on January 20, 2009.
It is clear that he no longer believes such things. In this Rolling Stoned article, he goes after FoxNews, the TEA Party and half the American population supporting conservative/traditional values. He is determined to win the war against these forces and he treats these philosophical opponents as if they were dangerous to the goals of his regime.
During the interview, he made this statement, speaking of FoxNews, " . . . . .
It's (FoxNews) a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world."While he gives credit to the notion of a free press, his words are exposed as untruths in that he supports "card check" and the "fairness doctrine." Understand that "card check" is the unionization of a company or shop without allowing for a secret ballot. Understand that the "fairness doctrine" is a rather involved strategy designed to limit conservative talk radio.
In the article, Obama begins with an untruth. In the following words, he pretends to be a believer in bi-partisan cooperation, when , in fact his version of "bi-partisan" is the agreement of the opposition to the wishes of the majority,
He makes this statement with regard to the stimulus bill:
"The recovery package we shaped was put together on the theory that we shouldn't exclude any ideas on the basis of ideological predispositions, and so a third of the Recovery Act were tax cuts." The implication is that the GOP pushes for "tax cuts" and "we" accommodated that thinking in the stimulus bill (aka "the recovery act"). The fact of the matter is something very different. He fails to mention that he met with the GOP caucus only three times throughout his first year in office and one of those meetings was the televised joint discussion he conducted with the GOP regarding the healthcare bill, a meeting he described as "productive," but made absolutely no follow-up effort.
As regards his claim of "tax cuts" - understand that not a single penny of tax cuts can be found in the stimulus, not if one uses the accepted definition of "tax cuts" to mean a reduction in an individual's tax rate. What Obama did in the stimulus was to give
rebates to various segments of the population. Our family received $250 dollars. We had to claim that "tax cut" as income on our 2009 tax report, costing us approximately $130 in federal and state taxes. Soooooooo, was it a tax cut or income ?
At any rate, the interview is what it is. Obama is no good when talking off "the top of pointie head" and, as a consequence, makes a number of serious gaffes during the interview. In short order, this interview will become fodder for the coming election . . . . . . . . . . . . . not to mention 2012.
You can read the full interview at this
Rolling Stoned link.
