It's a Generally Speaking Thing

Dear America,

good morning USA!

with regards to "The GOOD war" -- as stated by our president (over and over again... while knee deep in the trenches under friendly fire of a presidential campaign) -- we must cue the sea change; welcome to "The Eh War."   and if you say it with a little new yorkeh in you and we might get somewhere.

after the killing of 16 civilians by an army soldier over the weekend, our president gets tangled up in what sounds like totally unprepared remarks anchored only by mixed emotion.   He says it is "absolutely tragic and heartbreaking" but "proud generally" of the troops.

Compounding upon the continuing narrative:   The Left's innate ability to lump one bad actor into the whole -- unless of course, you are from the Left, and then you get a pass, or it gets overlooked, or there must be some logical reason for it and it's unapologetically excused.

But the president doesn't separate this rogue army soldier from the whole -- he purposely pools the attack into the larger scale by tossing out a blanketed, all encompassing, 'generally speaking' opinion on the entire bunch; and, generally speaking, calling into question his overall commitment and battle fatigue; and generally speaking, lighting a fire under our enemy, leaving room to doubt our military strength and overall conviction.  The Good War is becoming something of an enigma.

eh, I'm still generally proud of you guys...

you know, I remember way back when, when a rogue military dude gunned down his fellow officers and civilians, our president was quick to protect him -- ...we don't know all the details as of yet...let us not jump to any conclusions...he said (eventually).









The president didn't characterize Nidal Malik Hassan as one in the same with the finer details of the whole -- he didn't besmirch the entire global force of good, leaving it's integrity in question, you know 'generally speaking.'

No.  For Hassan, it was an entirely different situation room.  Hassan was protected in his own little bubble.

For this army soldier in Afghanistan, not so much; the Commander-In-Chief leaves us in muddied waters, and basically -- generally speaking -- begging our foes for forgiveness and leniency.  He left room for doubt all the way around -- within and without.

Now battle fatigue is real; but rogue shooters who choose to terrorize his fellow officers, in the name of Allah, is a totally different breed.

Let's just see how these two guys will eventually be "treated" in "the system" -- for they do seem to have one thing very much in common:  there were signs! which were... for the most part...generally speaking...widely ignored!   but details, right?  I'm pickin' on a pin cushion.

All in all -- generally speaking -- the war in Afghanistan has been thoroughly marred with a really bad image problem; the leader of the free world seems to be missing in action, more interested in following the narrative for re-election rather than leading with conviction.   but have no worries, all you troops out there, for he is still 'proud generally.'   aw.  so sweet.  so encouraging, really.  wow.

Cardboard images of the Commander-In-Chief's mug are being burned by the masses (in Afghanistan) as we speak.

Consider this:  could it be that our president is leading the battle fatigue, simply by -- you know, generally speaking -- failing to lead, apologizing for the ill-effects and consequences of war, illuminating our weaknesses, questioning our mission, undermining our strength and integrity, and for all intents and purposes, making the United States appear as if we have no idea what we are doing there???

talk about battle fatigue -- I'm exhausted just thinking about this.  whiskey tango foxtrot.  what's it spell?

"The truth is incontrovertible.  

Panic may resent it; 

ignorance may deride it; 

malice may distort it, but there it is."  

Winston Churchill

just a guy who knows a thing, or two, about battle 

(and protecting democracy, generally speaking)

Make it a Good Day, G

Context 2008 -- Obama in his own words (albeit, only a Senator at the time); words that we now recognize as 'generally speaking' and clearly co-dependent on the political tide:

"Afghanistan, NATO's first major mission beyond the borders of Europe, has been overlooked and undermanned by many members of the alliance, including the United States.   

Success in Afghanistan, I believe, is critical to American national security and to the security of the entire world, and a failure there would not only endanger our nation and global stability, it would cast serious doubt on the ability of NATO's military and political architecture to uphold our security in the 21st century."

is it the good war anymore, mr. president -- or is it just a wittle-bit bad?