Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

BAM THE REDEFINING MAN

Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009

Our Commander-In-Chief

Our Commander-In-Chief

Let’s say, for instance, a man – I’ll call him “Bip” – is suffering from a severe headache at work. Bip tries various things to try and ease the pain, but nothing has proven successful. Finally, after trying a host of new age medications and techniques to no avail, Bip decides to try some good old fashioned headache powder. He is no fan of headache powder – never has been – but killing the pain is his priority.

Twenty minutes after taking it, the pain has subsided and he is able to function “normally” again.

Now, let’s say another person  – I’ll call him “Pain” – comes along who is adamantly anti-headache powder, for whatever reason. Pain has a passionate dislike for the stuff. You might sat he is ideologically wired to hate it. In fact, for the sake of this argument, let’s pretend that Pain is so opposed to the use of headache powder that he has actually led crusades to do away with it in the workplace.

Pain finds out through the grapevine that Bip had the audacity to use the dreaded powder to beat back his horrible headache. Pain learns that others have done the same. He obviously isn’t happy. In fact, he is livid. Headache powder should never be used at work, he says with a raised fist.

Pain runs directly to the boss to protest:

The decisions that were made over the last several years to allow headache powder in the work place, when there are so many other methods to combat headaches, has established an ad hoc approach for fighting headaches that is neither effective nor sustainable.”

The boss nods.

Pain is smooth, articulate and always sounds like he knows what he is talking about. (You’d have to be to lead workplace crusades against headache powder, wouldn’t you?)

Despite the fact that the headache powder did take care of Bip’s headache, the assertion has been made by Pain that headache powder is ineffective. Despite the preponderance of evidence that shows how successful headache powder has been at combating painful craniums, Pain continues to stand firm. The fact that Bip is now walking around, functioning in the workplace, free of hurt thanks to the headache powder seems to be irrelevant to Pain. The use of headache powder, according to Pain, is “neither effective nor sustainable.”

Pain is not backing down even though the realities that contradict his claims keep smacking him in the puss.

Absurdity at its best, yes.

With this analogy in mind, let’s now move from the pretend world of a contrived headache powder controversy to the real world of adults and liberals. Let’s substitute Pain – the anti-headache powder crusader – with the President of the United States. I’ll call him Barack Obama. And instead of headache powder, let’s use former President Bush’s methods of prosecuting the War on Terror as the target of Obama’s criticism.

Said President Obama on Thursday morning:

“The decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable.”

Understanding that cold hard reality can be a tough thing to wrap one’s mind around – especially when that reality rains down on the childlike worldviews and fairy-tale parades that drive liberal thought – this goes far beyond making the case for “two-plus-two equals six.”

This is sheer denial.

This reflex on the part of Obama and his dancing Obamacrats to continually trash the previous administration at every turn is beyond tedious. To do so while asserting complete falsehoods is equally embarrassing. President Obama is not entitled to his own set of facts.

Mr. Obama, how many terrorist attacks on America have there been over the past eight years?

This matters.

That this point even has to be made is both tragic and laughable, but at the risk of stating the glaringly obvious, the lack of a terrorist attack in nearly eight years is a good thing Yet, this reality is something regularly dismissed by Leftocrats across the board as too simplistic to mean anything, grossly irrelevant in the grand scheme, and hardly the result of anything undertaken by President Bush. Obamacrats view the absence of a terrorist attack as being attributable to anything and everything but the initiatives undertaken by President Bush. 

It’s osmosis, or luck, or a Muslim awakening, or climate change, or something.

The fact of the matter is, the absence of a terrorist attack on this country since 9/11 is the primary indcator in measuring the effectiveness of the policies employed by President Bush in defending the American people.

bam and bushWith the same verve that President Obama has thus far used to redefine terms like “earmarks” and “tax cuts,” he is reconstructing – without challenge – the word “effective.” Thus, according to the fluidly opaque President of the United States, his predecessor was ineffective in the way he prosecuted the War on Terror – despite the conspicuous void of a single terrorist attack against the United States.

If one does not measure the level of effectiveness in the way the United States has defended herself since 9/11 by the lack of attacks against her, then how?

By how many people overseas say they love us?

How many attacks have been thwarted thanks to Bush administration initiatives like The Patriot Act? The answer is several – including a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.

How much information was obtained through the very selective use of waterboarding of three – yes, only three – individuals? The answer is plenty – including information that led to the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks.

If eight years of George Bush were “ineffective” in fighting Islamo-facist terrorism, what can be said for the previous eight years under President Bill Clinton, where American interests were attacked time and time again, including the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the first World Trade Center attack?

President Bush’s ability to draw unrelenting blame and ridicule for keeping the country free from further attack during the last seven-and-a-half years of his Presidency should be astounding to those of us who think, but it isn’t. His actions, which kept the country safe in the aftermath of 9/11, should be the object of universal high praise and gratitude, but they aren’t. While London and Madrid suffered devastating terrorist attacks, attempted strikes against America – including a comprehensive plot that included an attack against JFK Airport in New York – were snuffed out.

As talk show host Dennis Prager regularly says, “First tell the truth, then state your opinion.”  To deny the effectiveness of Bush administration policies in the ongoing War on Terror is to deny reality.

Of course, this is the modern liberal motif – to wish something was so, pass it off as reality, and then hope for the best.

In that context, I suppose an argument can be made that if one says it long enough, two and two may eventually equal six.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: