What is an “adviser”?
Well, it is someone who advises you, right?
So how many people who advise you show up in full combat gear?
See, Barack Obama, who could not figure out how to force Iraqi President Maliki to allow a residual contingent of US forces in his country to keep its army trained and generally make sure it would not fall apart, has told us, definitively, that he would not put any boots on the ground there.
But since it is clear that those boots have to be on the ground or Iraq will become the Middle East version of Rwanda, Mr. Obama is going back on his word, and sending 360 fully armed combat troops in – with the obvious possibility that more will follow.
Now: how do his accomplice media sell us on the premise that he was not stumbling, bumbling and lying to us again?
By calling them “advisers”, that\’s how.
Just like the 18,000 “advisers” John F. Kennedy sent into Vietnam a half century ago – which, in their continuing adoration of JFK and the Kennedy Family, media rarely refer to as the combat troops they actually were, thus enabling them to pretend that JFK had no responsibility for the war in Vietnam, it was all Lyndon Johnson.
Is that why the New York Times\’ front page headline this morning is “Obama Orders 300 Advisers To Iraq”? Is that why the lead story at CNN\’s web site is “Who are the advisers going to Iraq?”. Is it just possible that the idea is to “cleanse” Mr. Obama of going back on his word (as if this is something new)?
Maybe it\’s just me. But when I think of “advisers”, I picture men and women in business clothes, with Ipads and/or laptops. When I think of combat troops, I picture men and women in military uniforms with weapons.
Let me know which group shows up in Iraq, then tell me which of the two they are…..and when, if ever, media will start honestly reporting about President Obama.
