Analysis of speech
Part 1 of 6
Following is an in-depth analysis of the speech. The analysis is contained in the ENDNOTES. I recommend that you read the endnotes as the reference appears in the transcript of the speech (don’t read them all after the speech, but read them with the speech). In this manner you will get the most out of it. I encourage WELL-THOUGHT-OUT comments and for clarity and benefit to us all could you please reference the endnote number to which your comment applies. If your comment is general in nature then please preface the comment as “general.”
Thanks for your intelligent comments and I hope we all can learn something from a robust conversation about this.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 10, 2014
Statement by the President on ISIL1
My fellow Americans, tonight I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL. As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people.2 Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq,3 and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.
Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain.4 And one of those groups is ISIL – which calls itself the “Islamic State.”
1 This is an analysis of the speech given by the President. It may seem to some observers that this analysis is executed with a scrutinizing eye. Well it is. The author of this analysis believes there is reason to be suspicious and therefore, while trying to be fair, gives no benefit of the doubt. It can be likened to the time-tested American ideal of “innocent until proven guilty” but in this case nothing is assumed, therefore there is neither assumed innocence nor assumed guilt until proven. Since this is an analysis and not a court of law, the preponderance of evidence, to include past behavior can be the determining factor.
Several opinions are expressed (hopefully respectfully) in this analysis and most, if not all, of them are supported with evidence, which is presented. Oftentimes that evidence is overwhelming.
If the reader of this analysis is in complete denial of the author’s opinion as stated above that there is sufficient reason to be suspicious, I would strongly suggest that person not read this analysis because your mind is already made up and you have “drank the Kool-Aid” to a point that you probably cannot recover. If you are only in partial denial of that opinion then this analysis is for you. On the other hand if you are in complete agreement with that opinion then perhaps you wrote this analysis.
The President refers to the term “ISIL” while this analysis refers to the term “ISIS.” The difference is not all that clear yet but there is ample evidence to suggest that the term “ISIL” refers to a condition where the nation of Israel does not exist (a specific and stated goal of many Arab countries).
Israel is our most important ally in the region; contrary to the respect they get from President Obama. As such in this analysis, other than inside quotation marks where the term “ISIL” was used by Obama in his speech, the term “ISIS” will be used.
This started with a transcript of the speech as downloaded from the Whitehouse website. The text of the transcript has not been altered with the single exception of numbered references to end notes. The endnotes contain the analysis. Sometimes there are several endnotes for one sentence in the speech.
2 It is actually comforting to see that he is at least aware of this. Not a single one of his actions over the last six years indicates that he practices this.
For absolute and unquestionable proof that this is the highest priority of the President and Commander-in-chief please refer to the Declaration of Independence.
Briefly that document spells out our rights, which are bestowed upon us by our creator, as being the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Declaration goes on to state in the very next paragraph “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
This says that the purpose of government is to “secure these rights.” Notice that it does not say that the purpose of government is to hand out cell phones to welfare recipients. Nor does it say that the purpose of government is to involve itself in anything related to health insurance.
A brief note for clarity. Many believe their only rights are those listed in the “Bill of Rights.” Not true; these are specific and detailed rights but if you give it some thought, you will quickly see that all of those rights in the Bill of Rights are included in the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
If there is a single thing that could drastically improve this country it would be a thorough and competent understanding of that phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” because that basically states that you have the unalienable right to do anything you want to do as long as you acknowledge that I have those same rights. We cannot deny those rights of each other so the only limit on your rights is my rights. If you let that guide your life you will do well.
3 It is arguable by most rational people that had you not prematurely ended the war in Iraq, ISIS would not exist today and this entire speech would not happen.
President Bush set out to force the Iraqi regime to allow access to the United Nations Weapons Inspectors so that they could prove to the world either the existence of WMDs or the lack of WMDs. Saddam Hussein declined that request and instead opted for war with coalition forces.
That war, which was not wanted by the United States and I would debate anyone who says it was desired but that is beyond the scope of this analysis, was to designed to rid Iraq of suspected WMDs (or prove that they didn’t exist because Hussein would not allow the United Nations to prove it) AND eliminate the support given to terrorist groups by Saddam Hussein.
In the process the majority of Iraq’s defenses were taken out. Iraq could not be left defenseless in a dangerous world for obvious reasons so the United States, under the leadership of George Bush set out to build, train, and equip the Iraqi defenses. This was going to take time and Bush clearly warned about what would happen if we pulled out too early.
Pulling out early is exactly what Obama did and EVERYTHING Bush predicted would happen, in fact happened. The current state of degradation in the Middle East is 100% the fault of Barack Obama and his actions or lack thereof.
4 Actually, Mr. President our greatest threat comes from your inability to correctly identify the threat. You have consistently misidentified the threat and as such you are never in a position to correctly act against the threat.
You have incorrectly identified the threat once again and this will cause you to not be able to deal aggressively and effectively with that threat. This is due (respectfully) to none other than an ongoing leadership deficiency on your part, but that’s nothing new, the entire world knows about this leadership deficiency.
For clarity, those deficiencies include:
Misidentifying the target in the economy -‐ specifically the wrongheaded notion that government provides jobs when the only sector that provides real jobs that contribute to the economy is the private sector. All government jobs, even the few necessary ones, are a financial drain on the economy (some of that drain is necessary, most is not). Spending money on the government sector was a drain on a damaged economy and creating unnecessary regulations which burden the private sector further damaged and prolonged the recovery.
Minimum Wage – government raising of the cost of labor to business is irrational in an economic sense. Business will produce and sell widgets in the marketplace as long as there is a profit to be made. That profit isn’t calculated until expenses are paid. If the government randomly raises those expenses with no consideration for the market, that profit might disappear or become so thin as to no longer justify the risk of being in business.
If the business owners decide that is the case they will close their business, or maybe reduce the total number of employees through automation to reduce their total labor expense. Either way raising the labor cost with no consideration for the marketplace is like trying to place a tourniquet on a wound that does not exist. Unfortunately that unneeded tourniquet will then cause a severe wound and can kill the proverbial patient.
Syria with the “red line.” You severely misidentified the target here and almost committed murder on a grand scale as a result. As bad as things were in Syria a year ago when you wanted, or threatened to go in if certain conditions were met (and they were met), that was an internal civil war and was none of our business. Syria was and still is a sovereign nation and going-in uninvited is an act of war.
That said if our national security is threatened then their “sovereignty” becomes a moot point and we act in our national security interest (and we no longer care about their sovereignty). Ironically our national security was threatened by Syria having WMDs that could fall into the hands of terrorists and be used against us.
Using this rationale we had EVERY RIGHT to get involved. However you made it very clear that we would specifically NOT go in to secure those weapons. You took away the ONLY legitimate reason to get involved. Absent that only legal reason, all other reasons were illegal. Ironically, had we gone in for that legal reason we could have done a lot under the guise of “self-‐defense” to eliminate the “bad” guys which would have legally accomplished that which you wanted to illegally accomplish. Next time you might want to consult a competent defense analyst.
Libya in 2011 (prior to Benghazi): Similar to Syria discussed above. This was an internal civil war inside a sovereign nation. We may not have liked the notion that civilians were being killed in this civil war but unless we were invited by the sovereign nation of Libya, our involvement would constitute a violation of Libyan sovereignty, an act of war.
An act of war is a serious thing and should be avoided if reasonably possible. An act of war should be avoided ESPECIALLY if our national security was not threatened. The killing of civilians inside Libya was not a threat to our national security.
Similar to the case in Syria, Qaddafi’s stockpile of weapons was indeed a threat to our national security and would have been a legitimate reason to get involved. Weapons cannot be secured by airstrikes alone, only by “boots on the ground.”
You refused to put “boots on the ground” which meant that we were NOT there to secure those weapons (the ONLY legal reason for our involvement). Every person, good or bad, who died as a result of our airstrikes was MURDERED and with all due respect, you sir have blood on your hands. The unfortunate part is that you soiled our proud military with your ill-conceived actions.
By the way, those weapons we refused to secure in Libya are being used against our soldiers on many battlefields today to kill our people. That is not leadership but it could be considered “aiding and abetting the enemy.”
Benghazi 9/11/2012: Extreme misidentification of the target. Forget the cover-up because even though that was blown on day one it is still used to create a smoke screen for what really happened that day. The blown cover-up still serves to detract the public’s attention from an extremely gross dereliction of duty. How do you say it “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
The terrorist attack on the United States in our United States compounds in Libya, as bad as it was, is not the worst thing to happen that day. The death of four Americans, to include the official representative of the United States in the nation of Libya, as bad as it was is not the worst thing to happen that day.
The worst thing to happen that day, and unfortunately most Americans don’t understand this, is that their president/commander-in-chief, whose sole responsibility it is to defend our nation, our freedom, and our way of life (you admitted this in the opening of your speech) DID NOTHING TO DEFEND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA when we were attacked.
It’s not as if you tried and failed, you might get some credit for that. The worst part is that you didn’t even try to defend the United States when we were attacked. The idea that it took the most powerful nation in the world nearly 30 days to secure the site so that FBI investigators could get in is ample evidence of leadership failure, but sadly there is more.
There are many more examples of you misidentifying the target but in the interest of time I will forgo the long list.