Why did Dempsey say what he said about Ramadi? Is it what he really thinks? Was he thinking in some limited strategic sense which caused his answer to be 'misunderstood'? Or were his thoughts merely a reflection of what the Obama administration has instructed him to say - or rather a reflection of his attempt to make sense of Obama's policy without sounding like a complete idiot? Therefore: Ramadi falling to ISIS would obviously be a bad thing so now I have to try and find some way to talk about it as if that isn't the case. I'm guessing that's it - if you have a flawed policy and Ramadi reveals that yet you have no intention of altering the policy then you really have no choice but to act as if Ramadi is not that big a deal. You see the same song and dance with Iran - they can't admit that they're wrong, they have no intention of altering policy, so they just keep changing the definition of what a successful deal will look like - we're making so many concessions that eventually Iran agreeing to limit its future nuclear arsenal to a parity with Israel's will be celebrated as an historic success. I mean shit Obama just yesterday opened the door to lifting all sanctions on the signing of a deal - exactly what Iran has been demanding since the 'framework' stipulating a gradual lifting of sanctions was released. Obama seems to be putting an absolutely ridiculous amount of faith in 'snapping' back on the sanctions if [when] Iran cheats - but the guy is such a cynical self serving schemer and serial fabulist that I wouldn't be surprised if he intends to squirm away from responsibility for this mess by blaming the failure of others to 'snap' back on those precious sanctions for things going awry - you just know this guy has his excuses already lined up. That's the way people like him are: it's always someone else's fault - has to be that way - an absolutist ideology is a house of cards: you dare not admit to even a single flaw for fear the whole illusion comes tumbling down. This is why dictatorships suppress dissent - they can't defend their policies and ideas so all that's left to them is to insist on the illusion of perfection - and if anyone challenges that perfection you put a bullet in their head. Don't doubt for a second that progressive elitists like Obama would love to wield the kind of power Stalin did - if the far left had their way people like me would be marched into re-education camps [thought prisons that increasingly America's universities resemble] - ultimately suppression of free speech and dissent are the only sure means progressives have to protect the illusion that sustains them. Media bias is nice, fine, and is certainly the enabler of a lot of idiocy from the left - but media bias isn't a guarantee and unfortunately there are still some ill mannered reporters and thinkers out there who actually value integrity and objective analysis. Nope - it's tough running a leftist state without gulags and firing squads - such limitations must bother Obama no end.
