Absolutely. Obama's indecision. I have written on this many times and Kent Blackwell at American Thinker says this:
"Cost of indecision about Afghanistan is mounting." That's not a headline in Human Events, or some conservative blog. It's the title of a column by the dean of liberal Washington pundits, David Broder. Even David Broder is concerned about President Obama's failure to decide on a proper course of action in the war the President himself called "a war of necessity."
Broder points to the drawn-out indecision as making the war on the ground more dangerous. He believes that the American people and, most significantly, America's allies, are being demoralized by what the White House calls a process.
Our NATO allies joined us in Afghanistan because the U.S. had been attacked by Al Qaeda. It was an acid test of the NATO alliance: For the first time since 1949, NATO went to war. Can we afford this extended failure to act?
What will become of NATO, the most successful example of Democratic Party leadership? Let's not forget, it was Harry Truman and his party that put NATO together. Ohio's "Mr. Republican," Sen. Bob Taft, wanted no part of NATO. That's why Ike challenged Taft and beat him for the 1952 Republican Presidential nomination. [...]
Go read the rest of that article and then read the rest of this next one.
The Leftinistra have by a long shot been in control of the media, schools and especially the vocabulary. However, this is all changing. We have been able to turn the tide, as it were. It's all about the Liberal Pathology.
In the prophetic 1984, George Orwell described the purpose of Newspeak, the language of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. Newspeak was designed not only as a medium of expression for the Ingsoc worldview, but also "to make all other modes of thought impossible." Once Newspeak was fully adopted, "a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent of words."
The ability to control the political vocabulary bestows enormous power on the possessor. For decades, progressives have had a monopoly in this sphere. It is unlikely that they will be able to make "heretical thought" unthinkable, but their ability to control the terminology gives them a tremendous advantage in any political debate. Even conservative commentators have adopted the progressive terminology.
The term "moderate" is part of a continuum that includes "left," "moderate," and "right." While "left" and "right" can often be described as extreme, there are few examples of extreme "moderates." Opposition to "moderates" is by definition immoderate or extreme. Moderation is the position we should all strive for because it is considered reasonable. In the current political landscape, there are "conservative Republican," "ultra-conservative Republicans," and "moderate Republicans." These designations are universally accepted, even by "conservative" commentators. Republicans who adopt positions that can be described only as progressive are exclusively labeled "moderates." If Republicans holding progressive beliefs are described as "moderates," who then are the progressive Republicans? In the current terminology, there is no such thing as a "left-wing" or "progressive" Republican. They do not exist. [...]
Well, they do. That's why I call them the Democrats In Drag. Read the post. It's well worth the read.
See these posts: Obama's Indecision - Soetero's Mind On Afghanistan: I Quit - The Sites and Sounds of Afghanistan - Obama, Afghanistan and the Impossibility To Make a Real Decision - that should do it for now.
The Snooper Report. Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum