Skip to content

Things That Make Your Head Explode: Martha Coakley on 2010-01-11

12 January 2010 @ 08:50

In the debate between the candidates in the Massachusetts Senate Race last night, Attorney General Martha Do-Nothing Coakley made the following statement [tip of the fedora to Gateway Pundit]:

I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.

Huh???  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!  As Jim Hoft puts it:

She’s not just wrong- She’s dangerous.

Now, normally this kind of moronically naive, idiotic, and stoopid statement would not cause my head to explode—just cause the blood vessels to enlarge dangerously in my skull.  However, if you combine it with her answer from a debate in October when she was asked about her lack of foreign policy experience, the vessels in my head give way under the intense pressure:

I have a sister who lives overseas, and she’s been in England and now lives in the Middle East.

She also said she had travelled overseas, but did not name the destination.

BOOM!!!…SPLAT!!!….. AHHHHHH!

3 Comments
  1. 12 January 2010 @ 18:40 18:40

    I am as much an enemy of radical islam as you are, and as much an enemy of the Democratic Party as you are too. (It’s sad I have to add this disclaimer). I’m an old school conservative … anti-State.

    That said, Alexander the Great once tried to conquer the land known today as Afghanistan. He failed. In fact, it has never been conquered! So seriously, what are we doing there (almost 9 years later)?

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe the U.S. has the most powerful and capable military in the world. I believe they possess the power and might to have utterly destroyed bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in less time than it took to win WWII (let alone over twice as long and still counting).

    Isn’t it conservative to question just what the hell our politicians have wrapped American lives and taxpayer dollars into without any meaningful success? Isn’t it conservative to question this multi-trillion dollar Big Government program that has cost thousands of American lives? Or is war a government program we just fund and fund and fund until it “works?”

    I’m not so sure there is a way for the military to win a religious war anyways. There’s more sharia in America today than pre-9/11, and our federal government is broke! So who’s really winning?

    I know I’m a lone-wolf on this matter, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out why most conservatives are so trusting of the State and its politicians on this matter. Even the so-called anti-war candidate Obama sent more troops to war. Doesn’t that tell you something?

    Is it possible our progressive policy of ‘policing of the world’ (read welfare for countries who can’t defend themselves) is really more about wealth distribution than protecting America? The war has certainly done more to violate the American Creed than defend it.

    Today, the 545 in Washington are a more urgent and dangerous threat to individual Americans than radical islam will ever be (unless we turn into Europe which Bush and Obama set out to do). I don’t trust the Washington bureaucracies, the politicians, and the government can’t keep us safe in the first place! Attacks on foreign soil are problems for the countries attacked, not us. No welfare at home. No welfare abroad.

    I’m not anti-pro-war, but until someone can provide historical evidence that gives me reason to trust these bozos in Washington (either party), I have to go with my gut which says bring them home now! We’re heading into a severe depression. Soldiers need to be with their families, not on the other side of the globe.

  2. bobbelvedere permalink*
    12 January 2010 @ 19:37 19:37

    TheCL: I agree with a lot of what you wrote. There is no point in fighting a war unless your aim is victory because, in war, there is only victory or defeat.

    President Bush went into Afghanistan without a formal declaration of war or a solid and formed vision of what the end of it would be. Whether he needed, constitutionally, to obtain a declaration of war is for another discussion, but going for one would have forced him to define a concrete objective. It may have made him think about the foolish labeling of the War as a ‘War On Terror’ [that term is just plain silly: how can you wage war on a thing?]. It might have forced him to confront the fact that Islam has been waging a long war against non-Islam since Mohammed concocted his gutter religion. Our soldiers are paying the price for his political correctness and refusal to sharply define our objectives.

    Whether we like it or not, we are deeply involved in the world and, ultimately, for our own security, considering the weaknesses of our allies and the dangerousness of our enemies, we have to stay active in world affairs. I agree with you about welfare abroad: it must stop. The theory that such aid would give us leverage has been proven a bad dream.

    Our goal should be to ruthlessly destroy all terrorists nests in Afghanistan and anywhere else. We should be prepared to strike anywhere, at any time.

    If the Paki’s nukes look like they’re going to fall into Muslim hands, then we must destroy their nuclear capabilities and weapons.

    None of this matters if we do not stop Iran and North Korea.

    Sadly, we cannot wipe Islam off the face of the Earth–too many innocents would die. Our only hope to save The West is to do what we did before: deliver them such a devastating blow that they will not be able to bother us for several centuries.

  3. 13 January 2010 @ 12:20 12:20

    Whether we like it or not, we are deeply involved in the world and, ultimately, for our own security, considering the weaknesses of our allies and the dangerousness of our enemies, we have to stay active in world affairs.

    So what would happen if we didn’t “stay active in world affairs?” The old USSR had the power and capability to wipe us off the face of the Earth, you can’t get more powerful than that! So another behemoth like the old USSR is the worst case scenario, and we more than survived it (sort of (commies in the White House)).

    Our country doesn’t have the money to fight this war. It doesn’t exist. The only thing they can do is to a) default on the debt or b) keep inflating until we become the Wiemar Republic all over again. Of course ‘b’ will be the favored choice of politicians … Score (a big) one for radical islam!

    We could kill ’em all, but if we’re broke and/or not free … who cares?

    I was strongly in favor of all these wars at one time, but we’re fighting under a progressive policy (read fascist), and history tells me we’re on the wrong path … a very evil path.

    God help us all!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: