I Ran Out of Cheeks Way Before the C-in-C Did

Tom W., in a comment over at MilBlogs, expresses the anger of the Counter Insurgent Supportive Irregular Information Operator better than I ever had. The Jacksonian element among the die hard third of the country who won’t quit are pretty well disgusted.

Pelosi I understand. She’s all about power, and she doesn’t care about the country, our troops, or Iraq. One look at that repulsive mug tells you the whole story.

President Bush, however, clearly cares about the country and the troops, so he should have clamped down on this dried-up hag years ago. But he hasn’t.

President Bush has failed us. And I say that as a Bush supporter.

He has utterly failed in his duty as commander-in-chief to vigorously and forcefully defend his policies. Instead, he personalized the attacks against him, which he had no right to do.

He chose to “turn the other cheek” and “let history decide.” As a result, he allowed an information vacuum to form, which the Democrats filled.

Now, we all know–thanks to Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)–that the Dems never had any intention of surrendering in Iraq. They only said that to get elected.

I suppose President Bush knows this, too, so he chose to never defend himself or to refute the lies told about him, or to criticize Nancy Pelosi for her many seditious and defeatist statements and actions. It was more important to “get along” and be “gentlemanly.”

Bush knew that the Dems wouldn’t surrender in Iraq, but our enemies don’t know that. They’ve chosen to fight on, costing us thousands of more American lives.

President Bush has allowed this to happen. He has shown no courage or leadership in confronting Pelosi. In fact, he smiles at her in public as if he loves her. And she smiles back.

As angry as I am at Pelosi, I’m even angrier at President Bush.

His refusal to refute the worst allegations against him continues to this day. He said he has no comment about McClellan’s book. His former press secretary accuses him of lying us into a war, and he has no comment.

President Bush’s refusal to engage in information operations is pathological. He is mentally unbalanced in this area, and I don’t say that lightly.

He let us all down. He had no right to personalize the attacks against him. He has a duty as our president to refute the allegations that U.S. foreign policy is based on lies.

His decision to play the long-suffering martyr has negatively impacted our national security.

Bush’s failure to punish domestic enemies encourages them to multiply and discourages the otherwise well-disposed.

Carrying his water in a leaky bucket has been demoralizing to the only people left still trying to maintain national will for prosecuting the war.



Filed under Morale Operations

15 responses to “I Ran Out of Cheeks Way Before the C-in-C Did

  1. Jagganath

    Thats spells out about how I feel but the biggest thing to me is how it helps our enemies maintain morale foreign and domestic.

    I try to keep up my front and never say a discouraging word if only to bolster to my small area of public opinion but its real hard to go on the offensive when our leader can’t or won’t.


  2. I have taken up for him on many occassions, not because of any devotion on my part to him personally.

    I salute the rank, not the man.

    Now come January I expect to be designated a Former Regime Loyalist.

    Online anti-Obama activism will likely be demonized as resistance from the Fedayeen Bush. That will suck.

  3. This comment is right on. For years the Bush administration drove me crazy by its refusal to defend its own policies. It abdicated any effort to influence the narrative thus ceding the initiative to those who are campaigning for our defeat. But the problem is more than Bush and his administration. The Republican-led Congress was more concerned with robbing the treasury than winning the war.

    So here is our dilemma. If Obama wins and initiates policies that will lead to our defeat how do we weather that storm? I think that Strategic Citizen activity will be even more important in that eventuality because it may be the only means we have of championing our society.

    Whatever my disappointment with may be, the reality is that he is history. So I’m not thinking too much about him. How do we move forward? What is our long term goal? What is the next step after Iraq? We won’t be waging any big military operations any time soon, so I think our best bet will be to pursue “political operations”. I’m not sure how this is going to play out but I think we need to keep our options open and be willing to think creatively.

  4. Oops. The first sentence in the third graph should be:

    Whatever my disappointment with BUSH may be, the reality is that he is history.

  5. To conduct “political operations” one must develop some skills as a “political operative.”

    To develop skills as a “political operative” would normally require some training from organizations that employ “political operatives”, which would be political parties and special interest groups.

    How do “we” move forward?

    Step 1. Figure out who is included among “we.”
    Step 2. Figure out what “we” can all agree on.
    Step 3. Figure out what “we” will call our new special interest group.

    There are more steps, but those will get “us” started.

    I nominate “our” special interest group be called The Legion of Entrepreneurial Frontiersmen.

  6. suek

    Both parties are in trouble. Without knowing what is to come, I’d predict that the DNC will diminish, many Dems will move into the GOP and – along with McCain – take it over as a new DNC…that is, new name, but having the same goals as the DNC of about 40 years ago. That leaves Conservatives without a party. Barr now has the Libertarian Party nomination…Conservatives might effectively take over the LP as their new home, or they’ll have to start an entirely new party – which, due to organizational demands, will take considerably longer.
    Nevertheless, I suspect this is a turning point – I just don’t know what direction we’re going to be turning to!

  7. A coalition of JFK/Scoop Jackson/Zell Miller/Reagan Democrats and McCainiac RINOs are the best-case scenario right now.

    PC, multi-culti, tranzie, Watermelon, environmentalist whacko, Hate America First, Hate Whitey, Marxist-Leninist Liberation Theologist Soros operatives doing us the Chicago Way are the worst-case.

    I gave up on conservatism. I’m a Cultural Revolutionary, now.

  8. “I nominate “our” special interest group be called The Legion of Entrepreneurial Frontiersmen.”

    I like it.

  9. Entrepreneurial Frontiersmen from The Next American Frontier by MICHAEL S. MALONE

    The Legion of Frontiersmen of the Commonwealth

    Functional Westphalian nation-state representative republics don’t last forever.

    The time to make preparations for the future is now, while you still have some property rights.

    Entrepreneurial Frontiersmen must act while the environment is still permissive. They will be the producers in what is left of the economy upon whose back the welfare state will be tightly cinched. Gated communities and islands of light in a sea of socialist darkness, the capable seceeding from the needy, those who can separating themselves from the insatiable demands of those who can’t.

    The future will be a struggle between Entrepreneurial Frontiersmen trying to preserve the fruits of their labors from rapacious redistributionist totalitarians.

  10. suek

    Re the frontiersmen option…

    Where do you see the US Military in this?

  11. Individual service members might participate anonymously in such a special interest group. I would hope many would find such an organization philosophically compatible with their ideas.

    Some won’t. The US Military as an institution would avoid any overt association.

  12. Grimmy

    I wish I could join up with something like this. Unfortunately, I have nearly zero Entrepreneurial ability, tried it a few times, fell on my face with rapid regularity.

    I don’t even like the word for its frenchified soundingness. Probably latin, but it sounds french.

    A serious idea would be to start working in political parties at grass roots level. The GOP is rotted to its very core. Nothing of value remaining. It’s just another brand of herd appeasing populism.

    If you really want to build something, you’ve got to get out and find like minded folk who are motivated enough to be trying to fight the wind on their own. They’ll be in the usual places, precinct offices, and walking the beat in door to door campaigns. Unsatisfied, pissed off, but damnit!! They’ll have to be trying to do something about it.

    You find them. You link them up. From there you build something. That is how it’s always been done.

  13. Hey, Grimmy!

    Entrepreneur is a French word. One who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise.

    I’m not one, either, but I like the idea. Privateers were entrepreneurs. Great empires were founded by Gentleman Adventurers, risking their fortunes and lives on the success of the enterprise.

    Posted this over at Donovan’s:

    Give up on the idea of political parties. Build Coalitions of the Like-minded instead. Become a non-hiearchical, entrepreneurial, distributed swarm of attacking Irregular Culture Warriors, making life miserable for Cultural Marxists, and multi-culti carbon dispensationalist tranzies while providing aid and comfort to American Exceptionalists, rugged individualists, Constitutionalists, and the rest of the bitter clingers who have turned their backs on the Republican party but yet cannot abide what the Democrat Party has become.

    Don’t vote for incumbents. Period.

  14. Grimmy

    That’s a concept that could use some looking into. Distributed Ops for politicing.

    Pol Parties will always degenerate over time, regardless of the integrity or motivation of their original founding.

  15. Akira

    Regarding a common misinterpretation of Jesus:

    Turning the other cheek, in response to a slap, does not mean that if a Muslim rapes your son then you should offer him your daughter.

    Also, it’s possible to love your enemies even as you blow their brains out in self-defense.

    The best way to love your enemy would be to convert them.

    I’ve actually had so-called “christians” tell me that a Christian can’t have any enemies, since Jesus instructed us to love our enemies. Logic is not this kind of people’s strong point. How could we love our enemies if we didn’t have any?

    The real Enemy is the Devil. Jesus taught his followers to pray, “deliver me from the Evil One.”

    Pelosi et al being “seditious and defeatist” are not exactly Satanic, but close enough for Rock n Roll.

    St Francis of Assissi to a Mukmuk Sultan:

    “If your eye causes you sin, tear it out and throw it away” (Matthew 5 , 29). With this, Jesus wanted to teach us that if any person, even a friend or a relative of ours, and even if he is dear to us as the apple of our eye, we should be willing to repulse him, to weed him out if he sought to take us away from the faith and love of our God. This is precisely is why Christians are acting according to justice when they invade the lands you inhabit and fight against you, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and strive to turn away from his worship as many people as you can.”