Obama Massively Failing In Afghanistan

This is nothing more than an effort to hold Obama accountable to the very same standards he used to demonize George Bush in Iraq:

Afghanistan violence is soaring, U.N. says
Afghanistan is increasingly dangerous for troops and civilians alike, a report says, citing an ‘alarming’ 94% increase in bomb attacks in the first four months of 2010, compared with last year.

By Laura King, Los Angeles Times
June 20, 2010
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan

Afghanistan has become a far more dangerous place for Western troops and Afghan civilians alike, with an increase in suicide attacks, roadside bombings and political assassinations in the first four months of 2010, the United Nations said in a report released Saturday.

The gloomy assessment comes on the heels of congressional testimony last week by senior U.S. military officials who acknowledged that efforts to stabilize Afghanistan’s volatile south are proving more complex and time-consuming than anticipated.

With the U.S. troop numbers in the country approaching the 100,000 mark, the Western military toll has been rising sharply as the summer “fighting season” unfolds. More than 1,000 U.S. service members have died in the nearly 9-year-old conflict.

“There has been a great deal of ‘kinetic activity'” as Western and Afghan forces confront insurgents in the south, German army Brig. Gen. Josef Blotz, a spokesman for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s International Security Assistance Force, told reporters Saturday in Kabul, the capital. That is the term the military uses to describe battlefield clashes.

The U.N. report, submitted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Security Council and released by the world body’s mission in Afghanistan, notes a near-doubling in the number of attacks involving roadside bombs.

It describes an “alarming” 94% increase in bomb attacks from the same January-April period a year earlier. Roadside bombs planted by the Taliban and other insurgents are generally aimed at foreign troops, but because they are planted on routes used by everyone, they kill and maim many civilians as well.

The report also cites an average of three suicide bombings a week across Afghanistan, a growing number of them attacks involving more than one assailant, sometimes in combination with use of rockets, mortars and gunfire.

Targeted killings of Afghan officials had increased by 45%, the report says, with most taking place in the south, where the insurgency is strongest. The killings tend to target locally influential figures, such as tribal elders and other dignitaries who might be able to rally villagers and townspeople to resist the Taliban.

In one recent example, the district governor in Arghandab, a strategic gateway to the city of Kandahar, was killed in an insurgent bombing. NATO had touted the district as an area in which headway was being made in winning over the populace and improving security

Western officials have been describing their own campaign in the south as a combined political and military effort, and systematic assassinations appear aimed at sapping the will of local officials and others seen as cooperating with foreign forces or the Afghan government.

The U.N. report takes a more hopeful tone about some recent political developments, including nascent efforts by the government of President Hamid Karzai to woo Taliban foot soldiers away from the fight.

It notes, though, that “in general, the Taliban have reacted negatively to peace and reconciliation.”

Let’s reflect on this disastrous report, in light of Obama’s demonization and demagoguery of George Bush’s successful attempt to prevail in Iraq.

Obama attacked and undermined Bush’s incredibly successful troop surge:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he told MSNBC. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

And then recently tried to take credit for it’s magnificent success via his Vice President:

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Obama is the consummate demagogue who demonized Bush in Afghanistan by claiming:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

Condemn him as a failure and a disgrace according to his own demagogic standard.  He demonized Bush, when Bush succeeded.  How much more should we demonize Obama, as he’s utterly failing???

But this is worse than merely a failure of leadership.  Far worse.

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.  In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Afghanistan was just a way to demagogue Bush in Iraq by describing Afghanistan – where Obama is failing so badly – as “the good war” and Iraq – where Bush won so triumphantly – as “the bad war.”  It was beyond cynical; it was flat-out treasonous.

George Bush selected Iraq as his central front for sound strategic reason.  Iraq had a despotic tyrant who supported terrorism.  Saddam Hussein needed to be removed to mount any kind of successful peace effort in the Middle East.  Iraq is located in the heart of the Arab/Islamic world.  It has an educated population relative to the rest of the region.  It also offered precisely the type of terrain that would allow American forces to implement their massive military superiority in a way that mountainous, cave-ridden Afghanistan would not.

Bush was determined to fight a war where he could win.  Obama foolishly trapped us in a war that would bleed us.  Why?  For no other reason than pure political demagoguery.  And he needs to be held accountable.

And where are we now under Obama’s failed leadership???

An article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

See my piece from last year predicting this failure.  Read that article and explain to me where I was wrong, liberals.  I dare you.

American casualties under Obama in 2009 more than doubled compared to the total in 2008 when Bush was commander-in-chief.  And they are set to more than double this year compared to 2009.

From iCasualties, accessed June 21, 2010:

We’re paying attention to Obama’s massive, massive failure of leadership in the Gulf Coast.  That’s all well and good.  But don’t forget Obama’s massive failure of leadership in Afghanistan.

And just as we should rightly condemn Barack Obama for his demonization and demagoguery of Bush in Katrina, we should likewise condemn him for his demonization and demagoguery of Bush in Afghanistan.  We should hold Barack Hussein accountable to his own hypocritical, two-faced standards, and demand his resignation as a failure and a fraud.

Update, June 22: Heck, I wrote this yesterday, and hadn’t even published it yet when I discovered I needed to update.  Because now we now that Stanley McChrystal, commanding general in Afghanistan, thinks that Obama – and virtually every single man Obama has appointed in Afghanistan – are a bunch of clueless clowns.

McChrystal sided with his troops against his Failure-in-Chief once before.  I think he did it again to let his troops know that he understands the real problem facing them.

MSNBC has some of the highlights:

• McChrystal has seized control of the war “by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”
• One aide called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four star general, a “clown” who was “stuck in 1985.”
• Obama agreed to dispatch an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan only after months of study that many in the military found frustrating. And the White House’s troop commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011, in what counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.
• The article portrayed McChrystal’s team as disapproving of the Obama administration, with the exception of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who backed McCrystal’s request for additional troops in Afghanistan.
• It quotes a member of McChrystal’s team making jokes about Biden, who was seen as critical of the general’s efforts to escalate the conflict and who had favored a more limited counter-terrorism approach. “Biden?” the aide was quoted as saying. “Did you say: Bite me?” Biden initially opposed McChrystal’s proposal for additional forces last year. He favored a narrower focus on hunting terrorists.

This, too, is another example of liberal hypocrisy.  What happened when Bush was depicted as not listening to his generals?  From the Washington Post, after Bush decided to pursue the (in hindsight) magnificently successful surge strategy:

This impulse may well expose Bush to more criticism from Democrats on Capitol Hill, who have sharply condemned him for not listening to Shinseki’s counsel in the beginning.

What’s it like to have your own fingers of demonization now pointing back at you?

Like I said, Obama is massively failing in Afghanistan.  Just like he’s massively failing everywhere else.

Update, June 26, 2010: Oh, by the way, get ready for what might be Obama’s “Abu Ghraib moment,” as videos of a mass slaughter of Afghani civilians makes its way to the public.

Even Liberals Realizing Obama Has Been Total Bust At Creating Jobs

This article is in many ways typical New York Times.  It comes from a distinctly liberal perspective, and views solutions to the problems that America faces through a liberal prism.

The big difference in this case is that it really takes a critical look at a Democrat.  It slams Barack Obama as being basically disinterested and uninvolved in – and even uncomprehending of – the biggest crisis facing the country.

Does Obama Get It?

By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 5, 2009

The big question on the domestic front right now is whether President Obama understands the gravity of the employment crisis facing the country.  Does he get it? The signals coming out of the White House have not been encouraging.

The Beltway crowd and the Einsteins of high finance who never saw this economic collapse coming are now telling us with their usual breezy arrogance that the Great Recession is probably over.  Their focus, of course, is on data, abstractions like the gross domestic product, not the continued suffering of living, breathing human beings struggling with the nightmare of joblessness.

Even Mr. Obama, in an interview with The Times, gave short shrift to the idea of an additional economic stimulus package, telling John Harwood a few weeks ago that the economy had likely turned a corner. “As you know,” the president said, “jobs tend to be a lagging indicator; they come last.”

The view of most American families is somewhat less blasé. Faced with the relentless monthly costs of housing, transportation, food, clothing, education and so forth, they have precious little time to wait for this lagging indicator to come creeping across the finish line.

Americans need jobs now, and if the economy on its own is incapable of putting people back to work — which appears to be the case — then the government needs to step in with aggressive job-creation efforts.

Nearly one in four American families has suffered a job loss over the past year, according to a survey released by the Economic Policy Institute. Nearly 1 in 10 Americans is officially unemployed, and the real-world jobless rate is worse.

We’re running on a treadmill that is carrying us backward. Something approaching 10 million new jobs would have to be created just to get back to where we were when the recession began in December 2007. There is nothing currently in the works to jump-start job creation on that scale.

A massive long-term campaign to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure — which would put large numbers of people to work establishing the essential industrial platform for a truly 21st-century American economy — has not seriously been considered. Large-scale public-works programs that would reach deep into the inner cities and out to hard-pressed suburban and rural areas have been dismissed as the residue of an ancient, unsophisticated era.

We seem to be waiting for some mythical rebound to come rolling in, magically equipped with robust job creation, a long-term bull market and paradise regained for consumers.

It ain’t happening.

While the data mavens were talking about green shoots in September, employers in the real world were letting another 263,000 of their workers go, bringing the jobless rate to 9.8 percent, the highest in more than a quarter of a century. It would have been higher still but 571,000 people dropped out of the labor market. They’re jobless but not counted as unemployed. The number of people officially unemployed — 15.1 million — is, as The Wall Street Journal noted, greater than the population of 46 of the 50 states.

The Obama administration seems hamstrung by the unemployment crisis. No big ideas have emerged. No dramatically creative initiatives. While devoting enormous amounts of energy to health care, and trying now to decide what to do about Afghanistan, the president has not even conveyed the sense of urgency that the crisis in employment warrants.

If that does not change, these staggering levels of joblessness have the potential to cripple not just the well-being of millions of American families, but any real prospects for sustained economic recovery and the political prospects of the president as well. An unemployed electorate is an unhappy electorate.

The survey for the Economic Policy Institute was conducted in September by Hart Research Associates. Respondents said that they had more faith in President Obama’s ability to handle the economy than Congressional Republicans. The tally was 43 percent to 32 percent. But when asked who had been helped most by government stimulus efforts, substantial majorities said “large banks” and “Wall Street investment companies.”

When asked how “average working people” or “you and your family” had benefited, very small percentages, in a range of 10 percent to 13 percent, said they had fared well.

The word now, in the wake of last week’s demoralizing jobless numbers, is that the administration is looking more closely at its job creation options. Whether anything dramatic emerges remains to be seen.

The master in this area, of course, was Franklin Roosevelt. His first Inaugural Address was famous for the phrase: “The only thing we have to fear. …” But he also said in that speech: “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” And he said the country should treat that task “as we would treat the emergency of a war.”

Now that’s the sense of urgency we need.

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on October 6, 2009, on page A31 of the New York edition.

Not to dive into the genetic fallacy, as so many liberals so often do, but it is nevertheless significant that the Economic Policy Institute is a distinctly liberal think tank.  And Hart Research Associates aint exactly Rasmussen.  So while I don’t know that they aren’t right in their survey about Obama vs. Congressional Republicans, I would point out: 1) that I wouldn’t regard it as gospel; and 2) don’t forget that as LOW as Bush got in the polls, he STILL outperformed the Democrat-controlled Congress throughout his entire presidency.

In fact, Bush had more than DOUBLE the ratings of the Democrat Congress:

Bush’s job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month’s record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade, tying last month’s record low.

So in terms of net differences, Bush actually fared quite a bit better when pitted against a Democrat Congress than Obama is faring when pitted against Congressional Republicans.  And I would submit that the public thinks a lot more highly of Republican ideas than this smoke-and-mirror statistic would otherwise indicate.  Just sayin’.

I made that point just to demonstrate the statistical sleight of hand going on.

Now, Bob Herbert is a big government, rah-rah FDR guy, who sees the big public projects of the WPA as the model for our country’s salvation.

For what it’s worth, I – and Congressional Republicans – agree(d) that that would have been FAR better than Obama’s $3.27 trillion pork-laden employment bust known as the stimulus.

A New York Times story points out why Republicans opposed the porkulus so fiercely:

But the committee’s ranking Republican, Jerry Lewis of California, asserted that the program would do far too little to finance road construction, flood control projects and other works for the public good.

“Facts are stubborn things,” Lewis said, describing the package as a recipe for bloated government programs that would saddle taxpayers with a debt burden “well, well into the future.”

And now even the New York Times is essentially acknowledging that the Republicans were right and Obama was wrong.

I would also point out that the Hoover Dam is named the Hoover Dam because Herbert Hoover was doing public works projects before FDR.  And Herbert Hoover was the guy that every Democrat loves to blame for the Great Depression.

And while we’re on the subject of what happened in the 1930s, I might as well point out that things didn’t go so good under the leadership of FDR.

In fact, FDR’s Treasury Secretary had this to say as he looked back over the decade:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” — Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

A look at the graph of unemployment should help you understand what Henry Morganthau understood:

It shouldn’t surprise you when you take the time to learn about what FDR attempted that he actually prolonged the Great Depression by seven years.

Having mentioned the massive yet mysteriously ignored failure of FDR to solve unemployment or get the economy going, allow me to return to Obama’s current failure.

Still another liberal publication, Time Magazine, ran an article back in July entitled, “Obama’s Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure.”  It begins:

Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983.

And of course, it’s currently 9.8% – and almost certain to keep rising.

Now contrast what the Obama team predicted – a ceiling no higher than 8% unemployment – and then see what the administration is trying to pass off now:

Vice President Joe Biden delivered a rousing review of the government’s economic stimulus plan in a conversation with the nation’s governors. “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well,” he said. “Thank you, thank you.”

I mean, is this a statement that when team Obama said that they believed their stimulus plan would keep unemployment under 8% that they were being fundamentally dishonest with the American people?  And that 9.8% unemployment is better than their wildest dreams?

And don’t just say Vice President Joe Biden is an idiot and dismiss him.  He IS an idiot, of course.  But he is the official spokesidiot of the Obama Administration.

Having affirmed that significant public works-style projects would have been a massive improvement over the failed Obama stimulus, allow me to briefly point out a few other things that would have helped the nation restore confidence in the U.S. economy and the jobs that would have gone with it.

For one thing, tax breaks would have helped, but we didn’t get them.

Contrary to Democrat fluffery, there really weren’t “tax breaks” in the stimulus.  Rather, the people who got the “breaks” didn’t actually pay federal income taxes.  The “tax breaks” were really welfare breaks.  Lowering taxes stimulates more investment and more productivity by allowing investors to keep more of what they earn, rather than incentivizing them to shelter their money, which raising taxes invariably does.  Transferring money from the pockets of tax payers and giving it to those who didn’t pay federal income taxes – even if you euphemistically call it a “tax break” – simply doesn’t accomplish that goal.

Another thing that would have helped was targeting stimulus toward the businesses that actually do most of the hiring.

Small businesses which employ 20 or fewer workers are responsible for 50% of the jobs in this country.  And businesses defined as “small businesses” are responsible for nearly 3/4ths of the total jobs in the USA.

And what did small businesses get from the stimulus? Butkus.  The porn-loving National Endowment for the Arts actually got more stimulus funds than all the small businesses in the country combined.

If Democrats wanted to create jobs, they might have considered giving the money to businesses that actually created jobs, rather than to their politically connected liberal special interest groups.  Again, just sayin’.

It also would have helped if the stimulus had been something that actually helped more than it hurt.  The Congressional Budget Office, hardly a conservative bastion, reported that the stimulus bill would lead to a lower GDP 5 to 10 years out than if Congress had done absolutely NOTHING.  The enormous government spending will ultimately crowd out private investment which would have had a much higher chance of increasing GDP than the spending in the stimulus bill.

Obama Furious McChrystal Supporting His Troops Instead Of Obama

The general whom Barack Obama handpicked only months ago is trying to stand up for his soldiers.  And Obama is furious at him for it.

Here’s the gist: Obama wants to put off a troop increase which would anger his liberal base because he knows he needs his base to ram his unpopular health care through.  He didn’t want to anger and dishearten his base until he got his health care agenda through Congress.  So he ordered that the report be shelved until – well, who knows how long?

What does Gen. McChrystal want?  He wants a commitment from the commander-in-chief that this isn’t going to be just another throw-away cut-and-run Democrat war.  And so far the Pentagon is legitimately deeply concerned about a lack of commitment from Obama.    McChrystal wants a decision so he can know how many troops he can expect – and when they will arrive – so that he can plan his operations.  If he knew what to expect in the future, it would help him plan for the present.  In short, he wants what ANY good commander wants: he wants to know what the hell is going on.

It’s just such a shocker that Gen. McChrystal isn’t willing to send his soldiers home in coffins so Obama can win his health care “victory.”

So Obama is playing politics, and McChrystal is dead-serious about matters life and death.

Suggestion: perhaps Obama should fire McChrystal and appoint a weak, pandering ditherer like himself?

White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal’s comments on strategy for the war.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 7:00AM BST 05 Oct 2009

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.  [Because God forbid that a general should ever be blunt.  A general who has no clue what he wants to do is always much better].

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.  [Because 25 minutes – and speaking twice to your most significant combat commander in 100 days is MORE than enough to know exactly what’s going on in such a CLEARLY simple situation as Afghanistan].

In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said: “It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.”  [In other words, BUTT OUT, Stanley!!!  The fact that you’re the commander of the effort in Afghanistan doesn’t mean SQUAT to us Chairborne Rangers!].

When asked on CNN about the commander’s public lobbying for more troops, Gen Jim Jones, national security adviser, said:

“Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.”  [Just submit your paperwork to the bureaucracy so it can sit on Gate’s desk for six weeks and counting.  Please stand in line and shut the hell up until we call your number].

Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: “I wasn’t there so I can’t answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views.”  [Actually, Barack Obama probably gave McChrystal a 25 minute speech on why he was so wonderful, and McChrystal never got a single word in edgewise].

An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”  [Mind you, people also aren’t sure whether Obama is being naive or a pathetic weakling.  And if you want to talk about someone not being ready for their damn job, maybe you should take a good long look at your boss].

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.  [But hey, who wouldn’t go with Biden?  I mean, it’s not as if he’s ever had any truly stupid ideas (and see here for how that brilliant stratagem worked out) before, or anything.  I mean, if I were running a war against insurgent terrorists, the first thing I’d do would be to fire my country’s foremost counter-insurgency expert and put Joe Biden in charge].

When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”  [Another short answer would be, “So either start pissing or start getting your troops out of this pot, Obama”].

He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.” [In other words, PLEASE STOP DITHERING AROUND PLAYING POLITICS AND SEND ME THE TROOPS I NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY WIN OVER HERE].

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House. [BECAUSE IT IS, YOU MORONS!!!].

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second “principals meeting” on the issue last week.  [And guess who didn’t get his engraved invitation to the “principals meeting”?  You guessed it, the general whose assessment should matter the most].

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.  [I.e., until after Obama passes ObamaCare so he can stop ignoring Afghanistan and start ignoring the liberals he had just counted on for health care].

A military expert said: “They still have working relationship but all in all it’s not great for now.” [I’ve seen enough action movies to know that every time you set a pathetic selfish bureaucrat up against a hero, the pathetic selfish bureaucrat goes into a tizzy.  It’s pretty much an established plot device of the whole action genre].

Some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.  [You know, the mainstream media commentators who got thrills up their legs when they heard Obama give speeches].

Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements.”  [And as commander-in-chief, Barack Obama has no business allowing his most important field commander to twist in the wind ad nauseum.  That in addition to the fact that an expert would know that the Constitution doesn’t put a muzzle on anyone, let alone generals].

He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to “pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy”.  [Because it’s highly unusual for a president to dither around after being confronted with such an urgent military need in time of war].

Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general’s recommendations.  [And the general had the gall to say something rather than throw himself on a landmine?  The nerve!].

The general has responded with a series of candid interviews as well as the speech. He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: “You can’t hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn.”  [If Democrats truly think “half-measures” are a good thing, maybe they could start with their health care plans].

As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.  [Having a clue what to do and actually bothering to talk with your senior field commander would go a long way, Barry].

They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban.  [Mind you, we basically voted for failure and the return to power of the Taliban when we voted for Obama in the first place].

“They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong,” said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defence.  [And they might even want – and this is a shocker – to prevent things from going horribly wrong in the first place].

Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June.  [And if that isn’t pathetic, then nothing is].

Here’s a chart for those of you keeping score of the war at home:

We are shaping up to have easily twice as many American casualties in Afghanistan this year as we had last year.  We’ve had another 20 soldiers killed just five days into October, plus two more long months to go.

My theory: the Taliban smell weakness, indecision, and lack of commitment – and Barack Obama is utterly reeking with all three qualities.  And the mullahs in Iran smell the same thing that the Taliban in Afghanistan smell.

Either send Gen. McChrystal his troops – and do it fast – or just cut-and-run and pull them out so we can have another massive terrorist attack on our soil in a few years.

I’ll tell you what: maybe Obama is outraged at McChrystal for speaking out.  Maybe the White House is furious.  Maybe Democrats are angry.  But if I were a solder hunkering down in a foxhole in Afghanistan, I’d be glad my commanding general stood up for me and demanded the resources we need to succeed.

Obama Reveals His Porkulus Was Bogus In His Own Bogus Claims

Pardon my language, but the Obama stimulus bill was crap.  It hasn’t produced squat.  It was a gigantic $3.27 trillion socialist spending giveaway that has rightly been called “the Generational Theft Act of 2009.”

First we had Barack Obama, then Joe Biden, falsely claiming that they had the porkulus plan had created or “saved” 150,000 jobs.  There is no proof that any such number of jobs have been created (the figure is actually merely an estimate of what Obama’s own economic advisers say they think the stimulus bill is doing, and not based on any evidence whatsoever of its actual effects).  And for what it’s worth, I can claim that I “saved” 150,000 jobs – and you just try to prove that I didn’t.

Any rational human being has to mock Obama for claiming he “created or saved” jobs.  The national media would NEVER have allowed George Bush to get away with such pinheaded partisan polemics.  By contrast, the mainstream media wouldn’t even allow Bush to claim he kept America safe in spite of the obvious fact that he clearly did.  Even five years after 9/11, fully two-thirds of New Yorkers said they were still “very concerned” about another terrorist attack on the city.  Everybody thought we’d be attacked by terrorists again.  Bush kept the American people safe by carrying the fight to the enemy on foreign soil.  Yet the media that has blithely allowed Obama to claim he “saved” jobs has bitterly resisted allowing Bush to claim he “saved” lives.

Obama’s arguments that the stimulus worked have increasingly come to sound like Hitler’s claims that the invasion of the Soviet Union worked.

Among other problems is the fact that only 3% of the stimulus funds have been actually spent so far, which precludes it as a factor in any discussion of “economic recovery.”  Particularly when the states and regions that were hardest hit by the bad economic conditions didn’t even get any money.  And please don’t forget that conservative predicted that the funds wouldn’t go out fast enough to make any difference in any short-term economic recovery, and complained that the people weren’t given enough time to pass a better bill.  Congressional Democrats didn’t even read the bill that they rushed through the process.

Obama’s own rhetoric proves how terribly flawed his arguments and ideas were.

Obama promised Caterpillar workers in Peoria, Illinois that laid-off workers would be rehired if his “Death to America Act” (aka his stimulus bill) passed.   Not only was that a complete fabrication, but 2,400 additional workers have been laid off since the passage of porkulus.

But now there’s an even BIGGER bogus ‘Bama baloney claim that has been utterly refuted by actual reality.  In a March 7 speech in Columbus, Ohio, Obama said the following:

Now there were those — there were those who argued that our recovery plan was unwise and unnecessary. They opposed the very notion that government has a role in ending the cycle of job loss at the heart of this recession. There are those who believe that all we can do is repeat the very same policies that led us here in the first place. […]

So for those who still doubt the wisdom of our recovery plan, I ask them to talk to the teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan. I ask them to talk to the nurses who are still able to care for our sick, and the firefighters and first responders who will still be able to keep our communities safe. I ask them to come to Ohio and meet the 25 men and women who will soon be protecting the streets of Columbus because we passed this plan. (Applause.) I look at these young men and women, I look into their eyes and I see their badges today and I know we did the right thing.

These jobs and the jobs of so many other police officers and teachers and firefighters all across Ohio will now be saved because of this recovery plan -– a plan that will also create jobs in every corner of this state. Last week, we announced that Ohio would receive $128 million that will put people to work renovating and rebuilding affordable housing. (Applause.) On Tuesday — on Tuesday I announced that we’d be sending another $935 million to Ohio that will create jobs rebuilding our roads, our bridges, and our highways. (Applause.) And yesterday, Vice President Biden announced $180 million for this state that will go towards expanding mass transit and buying fuel-efficient buses -– money that will be putting people to work, getting people to work. (Applause.)

Altogether, this recovery plan will save and create over three and a half million American jobs over the next two years.

Well, what has happened since the applause lines?  What has happened since the Teleprompter of the United States was packed up and hauled away?

The AP article covering the event noted that Obama “suggested that critics talk to 25 police recruits in Ohio’s capital city who owe their jobs to stimulus spending and ‘talk to the teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan.’”  It also described how “Obama touted the 114th police recruit class as proof that the stimulus plan, which drew scant Republican support in Congress, is paying dividends.”

That article also presented the Republican prediction that the stimulus would be a failure, and why it would be a failure.  The very last sentence in the article says:

Breann Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for Rep. Pat Tiberi, one of eight Ohio Republicans who voted against the stimulus, noted that the money that saved the recruits’ jobs will run out next year. [Columbus Mayor] Coleman hasn’t said how he’ll pay the officers’ salaries after that.

Look what has happened since:

Without tax increase, 300 police officers to be laid off
By Robert Vitale  May 26, 2009   THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Nearly 300 Columbus police officers – 17 percent of the force – will be laid off next year if voters don’t approve an income-tax increase on Aug. 4, Columbus Police Chief Walter Distelzweig said this morning.

“If we receive additional revenue, these cuts would not be made,” Distelzweig said.

The 2010 budget plan he unveiled this morning is based on revenue projections without the proposed tax increase. The Police Division would shrink by 324 officers, with 297 layoffs and 27 retirements, according to the chief.

If the cuts happen, the division would have fewer officers than in any year since 1993. Columbus had 91,000 fewer residents then.

Potential layoffs would affect the 25 recruits whose class was saved by federal stimulus money this year. Officers hired during the past four years likely would lose their jobs, Distelzweig said.

And I’d be willing to bet the jobs of all the firefighters and nurses and teachers Obama talked all that smack about are in the same boat.

In other words, Obama created 25 jobs and saved about 300 others – until they were told to expect their pink slips less than 3 months later.  And it only cost $3.27 trillion dollars.  There’s your tax dollars at work.

How is it that jobs that have already been “saved” by Obama’s gargantuan stimulus plan now have to be “saved” again by a massive state tax increase?

About the only jobs that are being created by porkulus seem to be making the road signs that falsely advertise currently nonexistent construction projects.

We’ve also learned the poor are getting poorer under Obama’s “stimulus.”

Obama’s stimulus was based on bogus and failed economic theory that won’t work.  The President of the European Union has called Obama’s plan “the road to hell” and argued that it “will undermine the stability of the global financial market.”  China’s Director General of the Chinese Banking Regulatory Commission has expressed fear that Obama would
“devalue not only your [US] currency but the currencies throughout the world.”  Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned Obama about his country’s own failed experiment with socialism and urged against “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence.” And “analysts are increasingly concerned about the Treasury’s ability to fund costly economic rescue measures that are expected to drive this year’s budget deficit to $1.75 trillion.”

Don’t take my word for it that the stimulus was the gargantuan fraud that Republicans claimed it would be; just look at what Obama promised would happen, versus what actually HAS happened.

Gallup: Four Months Into Obama Rule, Republicans Now Tied With Democrats

If you’re a conservative, you’ve just gotta like this.

In the wake of a poll released after April 24, 2009, Democrats were loudly proclaiming a study showing Republican identification had dropped to 21%. The mainstream media pundits all agreed that the Republican Party was clearly dead. What the talking heads failed to mention was the fact that both parties had declined in identification (with independents growing and now representing the largest group), and the actual difference from the earliest poll result shown from January 2008 showed the Democrats had only picked up two points.

But get a load of what has been happening since:

Selected Trend on Party Affiliation: 2004-2009

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats	Republicans (including “leaners”)	Democrats (including “leaners”)
	%	%	%	%	%
2009 May 7-10	32	34	32	45	45
2009 Apr 20-21	27	36	36	39	50
2009 Apr 6-9	24	40	35	34	53

Just who has been losing, and just who has been gaining? With independent leaners factored in Republicans have pulled even with Democrats. And Republicans have gained 8 points while Democrats have lost 6 in just a month’s span. If you go back to April 9 – just a little bit over a month ago – the Democrats (who were 16 points up) have lost 14 of those points. And while the polling isn’t specific enough regarding independents, I don’t doubt for a nanosecond that conservative federalist-loving Libertarians are swelling the exploding ranks of independents, either.

Where are all of you mainstream media talking heads? You know, you guys who pronounced – and who are STILL pronouncing – the death of the Republican Party and conservatism based on the other poll a month ago? Where are you now? Where’s your “fair, accurate, and objective” reporting? Are you still mocking the Tea Parties with sexual innuendo that only you perverts understood in the first place? Where are your pronouncements of the demise of the Democratic Party now? You damn nest of dishonest propagandist demagogue snakes.

Nothing revitalizes the Republican Party like Democrat control of both the executive and the legislative branches. In just a few short months of hyperactive and incredibly expensive liberal unchecked power, Democrats no longer represent a majority of the nation, for the first time since 2005.

We’ve seen the worm turn just like this before: following the disaster of Jimmy Carter in 1980; and again following the disaster of the first Clinton term in 1994. People begin to realize that giving liberals power is rather like giving kindergartners loaded guns.

This comes on the heels of another beautiful new poll that shows 51% of Americans now identifying themselves as “pro-life” versus only 42% who identify themselves as “pro-choice”.

Democrats and the mainstream media have been ever so eager to pronounce the death of conservatism, but we aint going anywhere.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have a Speaker of the House who is having an increasingly difficult time keeping her various stories straight even as she undermines national security by falsely claiming the CIA lied to Congress. The Democrats have a Senate Majority Leader who is very unlikely to win reelection in 2010. They’ve got a Vice President who stupidly revealed the location of the VP’s bunker. Most political analysts outside of the mainstream media establishment would likely agree that such behaviors are not the best way to build the party brand.

Obama also faces looming catastrophes on the international front. A single terrorist attack and the President’s own Democratic Party may turn on the commander-in-chief who relabeled the “war on terror” the “overseas contingency operation” and then relabeled “terrorist attacks” as “man-caused disasters” to save their own political skins. Iran will almost certainly develop nuclear military capability under Obama’s watch. Pakistan – along with its nuclear arsenal – is looking more vulnerable to collapse almost by the day. North Korea has thumbed its nose at the U.S. and has restarted its nuclear weapons program. And there are literally more international crises developing than you can shake a stick at.

It is with that background that Democrats – who relentlessly demagogued and demonized George Bush over Gitmo – are now cringing their way into the very Bush policy they previously worked so hard to undermine.

As the world collapses, don’t think that Americans will continue to listen to the Democrat’s claims that it is all George Bush’s fault. The world is their baby now.

But what will likely ultimately most undermine the Democratic Party is that Democrats rammed through a porkulus package which is accomplishing little or even nothing – and which is actually locking out the counties that needed stimulus the most while giving the most funds to counties that needed it least.

While many economists believe that the economy will recover (including many economists who predicted that the economy would recover as well or better without a stimulus), there is an increasingly likely probability that any recovery will be temporary. The more than $12.8 trillion the administration has spent, loaned, or committed will ultimately devalue the currency and lead to economy-crucifying stagflation (a condition whereby inflation rises while the economy remains stagnate seen in the 1970s under Carter).

There’s little question that the anvil will fall on the US economy due to the near doubling of the national debt as Obama adds a projected $9.3 trillion to the $11.7 trillion hole we’re already in. Obama is borrowing 50 cents on the dollar as he explodes the federal deficit by spending four times more than Bush spent in 2008 and in the process “adding more to the debt than all presidents — from George Washington to George Bush — combined.” And most terrifying of all, Obama’s spending will cause debt to double from 41% of GDP in 2008 to a crushing 82% of GDP in 2019.

What will be the result of all this insane spending, and not very far off?  A quote from a CNS News story should awaken anyone who thinks the future will be rosy:

By 2019, the CBO said, a whopping 82 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) will go to pay down the national debt. This means that in future years, the government could owe its creditors more than the goods and services that the entire economy can produce.

We may literally be already doomed.  How are we possibly going to repay this?

Obama promised again and again that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut (which actually just means more welfare for the 43.4 percent who already don’t pay any federal income tax at all even as our small business owners who employ most American workers are increasingly taxed into oblivion). But Obama is going to make your upcoming new car dramatically more expensive; he’s going to make your energy dramatically more expensive; and just for your information the average 30 year old will pay $136,932.75 just for the interest of just Obama’s 2010 budget over the course of his or her working lifetime. Americans will be paying FAR more of their money to the government – and we will have only Democrats to thank for it.

The only two questions are 1) how soon the ten trillion ton anvil will fall on the U.S. economy, and 2) whether it will be too late for conservatives to save the country by the time the electorate return to their senses and realize that they voted for a gaggle of fools in 2008.

President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

There’s a coming crisis looming that may make every situation the world has faced since World War II look like a children’s game.  President-elect Obama isn’t ready for it.  Are you?

There is already historical precedent that Israel will attack Iran during the U.S. Presidential transition.  Israel attacked a target in Lebanon in December of 1988 – during the Reagan-Bush transition.  In a Jerusalem Post article  Historian Benny Morris describes that operation, and notes:

The operation took place one month after US President George H. Bush was voted into office, and a month before he was sworn in, replacing the popular Ronald Reagan, a leader widely viewed as a staunch ally of Israel.

Operation Blue and Brown says nothing about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran today. But it does show that IDF operations have been ordered in the interim period between the election of a new American president and his inauguration.

And it is this same period in 2008/09 that provides an “attractive date” for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear program, according to historian Benny Morris.

In June, Morris wrote an op-ed for The New York Times in which he theorized that Israel would likely strike Iran between November 5 and January 19, the day before Obama is sworn in.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post this week, Morris said he continued to believe that time period was a “reasonable” one for Israeli action.

“There is certainly a friendly president in the White House until January 20. There is no certainty over what will happen after that, in which direction the wind will blow.

The second thing is the advancement by the Iranians in creating the bomb,” Morris said, speaking from his home in Li’on, southwest of Beit Shemesh. Morris said the Iranian regime was guided by messianic clerics who could not be trusted to act logically in a state of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

“These men are not rational like the men who ruled America and Russia during the Cold War. When [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad talks about destroying Israel and denies the Holocaust, we hear no contrary voices from the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei saying that Ahmadinejad is crazy,” Morris said.

“So long as Iran makes progress, we are under pressure, if we plan on doing something. Iran is supposed to purchase advanced anti-aircraft guns from Russia at the start of 2009. All of these point to the fact that if the US provides support, an Israeli strike is reasonable,” he said.

Acknowledging the lame-duck nature of the Olmert administration, Morris said the difficulties posed by a weak government could be overcome by notifying the leaders of the major political parties in advance of the attack. He even raised the possibility that a date had already been chosen.

Joe Biden warned of an “international crisis” to test a young and inexperienced President Obama:

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

And, somewhat disturbingly, Biden said, “we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Biden went on to say:

I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

“Gird your loins,” Biden warned.

Have you “girded”?  I have a feeling you’ll be using your girdle for a much-needed diaper when this mess hits the rotary oscillator.

Former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton flat-out stated that if Obama won, Israel would have no choice but to attack Iran.  He said:

(IsraelNN.com) John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the United Nations, told a London newspaper Tuesday that Israel will attack Iran if Senator Barack Obama is elected President. He predicted the attack would take place between the day after the elections, in early November, and January 20, when the next president succeeds George W. Bush.

The interview with Bolton continued:

Bolton told the newspaper that if Senator Obama is elected in November, Israel cannot afford to wait until he takes office on January 20, before taking action. “An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy,” according to Bolton, who served as ambassador to the U.N. for less than two years until 2006.

“My judgment is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election,” he added. “The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defenses by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations.”

He said that Israel might be able to delay a strike if Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain is elected. Bolton said the Republican candidate’s position is “much more realistic than the Bush administration’s stance.”

It’s not just John Bolton.  The former head of the Israeli Mossad – one of the most esteemed figures in the Israeli intelligence establishment – has also openly advocated an major strike against Iran in the immediate future.  And Western intelligence sources are saying, “An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program “will most probably take place before 2009.”

And Israel’s Debka File has stated that US intelligence is warning that Iran may have the bomb as early as February of 2009.

Israel has been practicing for something big.  On June 20, more than a hundred Israeli aircraft staged a massive exercise.  The Jerusalem Post, in an article titled, “Iran: IAF drill jeopardizes global peace,” opened by saying, “Iran criticized on Saturday a recent Israeli military exercise that US officials said was designed to show Jerusalem’s ability to attack Teheran’s nuclear sites.”

Hot dang, would it ever get have-a-massive-coronary-terrifying if a major ally of the United States attacked a major ally of Russia to attack nuclear facilities (as in unleashing massive radioactive debris?).  The world would go to hell in a hand basket so fast it you’ll have to lie down or else fall over, and all this with that naive young appeaser President Obama not even sworn in yet!  I mean, Israel would be bombing stuff in Iran that Russia built for them.  Iran is already ranting and raving about Israel, and Israel hasn’t even done anything to them yet.  How close do you think we’ll get to World War III, sports fans?

I hope you’re ready to ride that roller coaster, because, judging by the polls, it is more probable that you voted for it than that you voted against it.

You voted for it in spite of watchmen on the wall like me have been shouting, “We warned you! We warned you! WE WARNED YOU!” over and over and over again.

I have been writing about the problem of Iran for months.  Given the fact that we will now have a President who fundamentally opposed the reasoning of the Iraq War, how on earth can he justify a war with Iran?

Sanctions haven’t worked, and they won’t work.  The United Nations – which has never done anything useful anyway – will again be no help, with key Iranian allies Russia and China wielding veto status as permanent members of the Security Council.  Both nations have already repeatedly blocked US and European sanction efforts against Iran’s nuclear program.  They will continue to guarantee that no international measure with any teeth passes.  And Europe – which relies heavily on Russian and Iranian oil, can hardly be counted upon as a strong ally.

Europe doesn’t want Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  But that doesn’t mean all that much.  I didn’t want Barack Obama to be elected President.  Fat lot of good “not wanting” did me.  Only a steel-eyed unyielding commitment to the use of massive military force has any chance of swaying Iran from its goal.  And Europe simply isn’t willing to go that far.

This would be comical, if the stakes weren’t so incredibly deadly, and if this same game hadn’t already been played before in Iraq.  The United States was ultimately forced to attack Iraq because there was no chance of passing international sanctions that would have been able to force Iraq to demonstrate that it had disarmed.

Barack Obama, by having opposed an attack on Iraq, fundamentally opposes any attack against Iran.  The situations are nearly identical politically.  Just as with Iraq, the United States can never know for certain that Iran has nuclear weapons, and isn’t merely bluffing, as Iraq was alleged to have done.  Every major intelligence service in the world believe Iraq had WMD; and even senior Iraqi officials believed Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion.  Given the persistent failure to get any meaningful sanctions passed against Iran – just as was the case against Iraq – there is no reason whatsoever to believe that we will be able to do so in the future, whether President Obama is personally charming or not.  And – just as was the case against Iraq – we have a coalition of enemies actively aiding and protecting Iran in international diplomacy efforts, just as we have weak European allies that benefit from the product Iran is producing.

If you believe that Barack Obama is going to be able to talk Iran out of developing nuclear weapons, you are the very worst kind of naive fool.  Neither Iran or Russia will join hands with the choir Barack Obama will be able to assemble to sing, “We are the world.”  The “harmony” and “unity” Obama has inspired will be proven to be completely artificial the moment the first real test comes along.  And it is coming.

Iran has demonstrated that it is utterly determined to develop its nuclear program to its logical conclusion: weaponizing.  US intelligence has said that it can “Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.”  In fact Iran has only blinked once: in 2003, immediately after the United States invaded Iraq over that country’s alleged WMD arsenal.  Bottom line: Iran didn’t want to be next.

By opposing the Iraq War, Barack Obama de facto opposed Iran’s halting its nuclear program, and opposed the only meaningful threat that would stop Iran from its determined course in the future.

John McCain – by standing on the principles of the Iraq War, and by standing by his commitment to employ the successful surge strategy to win that war – was the only hope the world had to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons without war.  Iran very likely would have believed an assurance from John McCain that he would attack Iran rather than allow it to possess nuclear weapons.  It is extremely unlikely that Iran will believe Barack Obama, given his history of opposing a virtually identical war with Iraq.  The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama was the assurance of military action versus the rhetoric of a meaningless threat.

And that is why it is highly likely that Israel will attack Iran.  The only thing that will prevent them from attacking before Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009 is the fact that their own government is in transition and may not be able to act effectively before then.  That is why I have said that a vote for Obama would be a vote for a nuclear Iran.  It’s why I ultimately believe that a vote for Obama will ultimately result in a vote for Armageddon.

A nuclear-armed Iran will be able to pursue both direct and indirect (via terrorist organization intermediaries) global jihad with complete impunity.  Again, that was exactly what President Bush feared would occur if Iraq was able to develop WMD.  For to attack them with such weapons at their disposal would be to risk a nuclear holocaust.

Israel is a tiny country.  A single nuclear weapon of sufficient megatonnage  could destroy the whole nation and produce in just one day a worse Holocaust than Hitler achieved in years.  And Iran’s leadership has clearly demonstrated that they are insane enough to do anything, given their apocalyptic religious fanaticism.  A nuclear Iran is far more terrifying than a nuclear Russia, or even a nuclear North Korea.  Both President Ahmadinejab and the Ayatollah Khamenei (who called for the destruction of “cancerous tumor” Israel) have made their position clear.  Iranian leaders have consistently voiced their determination to wipe Israel off the map.  Israel simply cannot take a chance.

Just as was the case with World War II – when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s aversion to war and determination to pursue dialogue (without preconditions, by the way) invariably resulted in a far greater and far more destructive global conflagration – President Barack Obama’s aversion to face a preemptive war with determined evil tyrants may well result in the deaths of untold millions.

I hope we’re ready.  We voted for it.

Just so you know, the Bible speaks of the war of Gog and Magog in the last days, with Russia and Iran leading an Arab-African coalition against Israel.  The Book of Ezekial chapters 38 and 39 spell it out to any who have ears to hear.  The Antichrist/beast of Bible prophecy won’t come in a time of prosperity and peace; he’ll come during a time of crisis.  And we are headed for the very crisis that will see the world welcome the son of perdition as a savior.

My personal view: President Barack Obama will be one of the “false messiahs” that Jesus described.  He too is seen as a savior, but he will lead the United States to catastrophe.  Ezekiel 38:13 describes the rest of the world as merely standing idly by and wondering what is going on as the Russian-Iranian-Arab/African confederation attack a lone Israel.  The nations are potrayed as worrying only about what the attack will have on the global economy.  And for the first time in the history of the Israeli-American alliance, the United States is virtually at that point right now.  Somehow, the United States – the historic ally and protector of Israel – had to be rendered unable or unwilling to come to Israel’s aid when it most counts.  I see the United States being too weakened to help Israel both in terms of its economy and its loyalty.

The pawns are all in position.  The board is nearly set.  The most terrifying game in human history is about to be played out across the global stage.

A Tale Of Two Joe’s: Battleground Poll Shows 1-Point Race

Just a week ago, the Battleground poll showed Barack Obama had a 13 point lead over John McCain (53-40, taken 10/8-10/13).  Their poll released just today shows that the race is 48-47.

A CNN poll has McCain tied in five key battleground states.  A week ago McCain was behind in all of them.

Obama isn’t a good finisher.  He limped across the finish line against Hillary Clinton, and he’s starting to limp now.

Two issues have fallen into John McCain’s lap like golden nuggets from heaven in the form of two Joe’s: Joe the plumber and Joe the Biden.

Barack Obama revealed in his impromptu discussion outside of Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher’s house that, yes, all rhetoric aside, he IS a socialist who wants to “spread the wealth around.”  People are more interested in the details of Obama’s tax plan.  And, like a cheap auto paint job, it doesn’t look so good on a close inspection.

And Joe Biden revealed in his speech at a fund raiser that, yes, all rhetoric aside, Barack Obama IS young and untested and the world is most definitely growing to throw an international crisis at him to see what he’s made of.  People are going to think about Obama as a Commander-in-Chief ready to step in and deal with a real crisis.

And if that isn’t enough; the William Ayers issue just got fed a whole bunch of fresh raw meat:

And the issue of Barack Obama writing a positive “blurb” for William Ayers’ book is getting some fresh legs as well.

We’ve got more reasons to talk about Barack Obama’s Marxist/anarchist/terrorist buddy who helped him get his start in politics than ever.

We’ve got the momentum, Republicans.  It all depends on you getting out the message, and even more importantly, getting out and voting.

Experience: Where Sarah Palin Is Sorely Lacking

You may have heard that one or two liberals believe that Sarah Palin is “dangerously lacking” in certain essential features that would qualify her to be our next Vice President.

Peter from Dover, New Hampshire helped me to realize that Sarah Palin is lacking in a number of important experiences.  To many, this list is more than enough to disqualify her from high office:

1) You have probably heard about Sarah Palin’s baby born with Down Syndrome, her daughter who became pregnant at age 17, and maybe even about her son who is about deploy to Iraq as a U.S. Army infantryman.  Unfortunately,  Sarah Palin lacks a kid who lobbies her for sweetheart deals the way Joe Biden’s son lobbied him for the 2005 Bankruptcy law “overhaul” that has been recognized to be directly responsible for causing the foreclosure crisis that screwed hundreds of thousands of poor suckers out of their homes.

2) Sarah Palin is sadly lacking in terrorist friends who that helped her get her start in politics and wish they blew up more of the country like Barack’s friend William Ayers.

3) Sarah Palin – in spite of all hope to the contrary – is lacking in criminal friends who helped her buy a million dollar house amidst extremely suspicious circumstances and are on their way to jail like Tony Rezko.

4) Sarah Palin – in spite of her known religious beliefs – is lacking a reverend and long-time mentor who harbors profound racist prejudices and anti-American views like Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright.  If that isn’t bad enough, she chose to attend a church which worshipped Jesus rather than one that pursued radical Marxist theology and black separatism.

5) Sarah Palin is lacking a spouse who says he has never been proud of his country in his adult lifetime, says that America is downright mean and guided by fear, and says that Americans hold on to ignorance and stereotypes.

6) Particularly troubling for many liberals is the fact that Sarah Palin actually chose to keep a baby with Down Syndrome instead of leaving it in a storage closet to slowly die of neglect, as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Barack Obama voted against and would not allow to come up for a vote was written to prevent.

7) And what may be the worst of the worst – Sarah Palin is lacking a penis.  It is only appropriate to be a successful female politician if you are a Democrat, and only Hillary Clinton can run for the executive branch.  All Republican women desiring to make history must be destroyed by any means necessary.

For these and other reasons, Sarah Palin is clearly not qualified to run for Vice President according to Democrats.

It’s a shame, really.  I thought she would make a great VP.  But this lack of so many crucial experiences is simply devastating to her candidacy.

Experience: Obama Opened Can Of Something He Doesn’t Want To Eat

Early on after the Palin announcement, the Obama campaign went after her on her limited experience.  They seem to have backed off of the charge, but they left it hanging right over the plate like a bad change-up.

There’s questions like this on voters’ minds: Why does Obama have more experience than Palin? Well, put on your thinking caps.

Palin has led a city (albeit a small one) and a state (an ENORMOUS one with a small population – about the size of Biden’s Delaware, by the way).  Obama, meanwhile, has never run a city, never run a state, and never run a budget.

It’s frankly easier to do the same sort of thing on a larger scale than it is to start doing an entirely different sort of thing.  Obama has a short career as a legislator; Palin has a slightly longer one as a leader.  Palin was actually in elected politics 5 years before Obama.

Obama claims that his opposition to Iraq proves his judgment is better.  But if that is the test for good judgment, why did he pick Biden, who vigorously argued for the war?  And he showed terrible judgment in opposing the surge strategy.  And he didn’t really do so great with his “nuanced” statements about Russia’s invasion of Georgia, either.

Obama is out there now having to argue he has more experience than Palin, which really merely further underscores his lack of experience.

If anything, it’s kind of like standing in front of a mirror and shouting, “YOU’RE UGLY!”  I mean, dude, so are you.

Meanwhile, John McCain, who has a lifetime of valuable experience from both his military and government service, is the guy on the top of the Republican ticket.

Obama, Democrats attack of Bush Knesset Speech Reveals Appeasement

President Bush gave a speech on 15 May 2008 before the Israeli Knesset that has drawn condemnation and outrage from Democrats. The most “outrageous” position he expressed – in context – is presented here:

Some of the reactions:

Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said, “Obviously, this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It’s quite frankly sad and astonishing that the President of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. … We have come to expect, and seen from this administration over the last eight years, this type of cowboy diplomacy. We’ve come to expect it, but over the past eight years it’s made this country far less safe than we were. … I think people are going to ask themselves in this election, are we safer than we were eight years ago, under this president, and I think the answer is going to be a resounding no” (“American Morning,” CNN, 5/15).

A listing of similar cries of angst and outrage:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

Senator Joe Biden responded with unusual eloquence:

This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”…
“He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.

Senator John Kerry said, “[Bush] is still playing the disgusting and dangerous political game Karl Rove perfected, which is insulting to every American and disrespectful to our ally Israel. George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset.”

There is no escaping what the president is doing,” said [Dick] Durbin, who supports Obama. “It is an attack on Sen. Obama’s position that we should not be avoiding even those we disagree with when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy.

“I am shocked and, actually, very, very saddened by what the President has done,” [Tom] Daschle said during an interview he gave to Fox News.

“This is an unprecedented political attack that we’ve never seen a president do before.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she, “would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments…

The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

What on earth did the President say? I mean, it must have been really, really awful. He must have said that Democrats were all direct descendants of Satan, or that Barack Obama was secretly in direct communication with Osama bin Laden to plot against the United States or something. I mean, it had to be really despicable to generate such a reaction, right?

Wrong. We are dealing with people who have no moral compass, and think only in terms of self-serving political rhetoric.

Here is the statement that President Bush actually made, in context (the full speech is available online):

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is the ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. That is why the followers of

Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance, freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all of the world because they are a gift from Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. And societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners for peace.

In an article titled, Appeasement, the Democrats, and Shakespeare, posted 10:23 AM (today, 15 May 2008), Mike Volpe points out what hypocrites the Democrats truly are in the fact that there own went to foreign soil to say far, far worse. He cites Democratic Representatives Jim McDermott (Wash.), David Bonior (Mich.) and Mike Thompson (Calif.) going to Iraq to attack President Bush from foreign soil – in a visit that turns out to have been financed by Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service.

He cites former President Jimmy Carter’s statement from England.

And he cites remarks made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she took it upon her self to go to Syria.

Given the fact that President Bush did not name a single Democrat by name, given the fact that his only allusion to any American political figure was an unnamed American senator back in 1939, and given the fact that Barack Obama claims the remark did not in any way resemble his own foreign policy position, why say anything at all? Why all the outrage?

President Bush didn’t attack Democrats or Barack Obama. They attacked themselves, and blamed him for it.

These Democrats shrilly proclaim that President Bush is beyond contempt for attacking them, when he didn’t, and then demonstrate that they are not in the least beyond launching vicious personal attacks themselves. It’s really a quite remarkable act of hypocrisy.

While watching Fox News with Megyn Kelly interviewing an Obama spokeswoman this afternoon, I heard the Obama camp first claim that Bush’s policy of refusing to talk with our enemies was causing political instability, and then almost immediately thereafter claim that Bush had dialogued with leaders of countries such as Sudan to show that it’s Bush – and not Obama – who is dialoguing with enemies. You wonder how these people’s heads don’t explode trying to contain all the contradictions.

Barack Obama has famously said that he would be willing to have direct dialogue with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, without any preconditions. His website says, “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” It was a position that her Democratic rival Hillary Clinton repeatedly pointed to as an example of his inexperience and naiveté. It is a substantial departure from the policy of every American president over the last fifty years.

I point out in an earlier article that:

The Bush administration – like all U.S. presidential administrations before it – had the policy of refusing to directly engage with terrorist states and rogue totalitarian dictatorships. Doing so, they argued, gives these states credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the world while doing little to change their despicable ways.

In other words, by dialoguing with terrorists, we implicitly recognize them, and thereby recognize the acts that they commit. We abandon the belief that some acts are so heinous, and so deplorable, that anyone who commits them should be shunned and reviled instead of being rewarded with recognition and legitimacy. Instead, we tacitly acknowledge that using violence and suffering to advance one’s cause is a valid path to international recognition. Otherwise, we would not have allowed their violent approach to succeed.

In an article detailing Jimmy Carter’s recent visit to the terrorist entity Hamas, Katarina Kratovac wrote the following:

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who brokered Israel’s historic peace agreement with Egypt three decades ago, is on what he calls a private peace mission. He contends the U.S., Israel and other Western states should stop isolating Hamas if they want peace efforts to succeed.

Heading the Hamas delegation in Cairo were Gaza leaders Mahmoud Zahar and Said Siyam. “This meeting is a message to those who don’t recognize Hamas’ legitimacy as a movement,” Zahar said as he left for Egypt, according to Hamas’ Web site.

In Cairo, Hamas spokesman Taher Nuhu told The Associated Press that the purported Thursday meeting would be “a recognition of the legitimacy” of Hamas’ victory in the Palestinians’ parliamentary election in 2006.

Hamas obtained the desired prestige and international attention it wanted, and gave up absolutely nothing in return, which is exactly what American conservatives and Israelies said would happen.

Barack Obama – and prominent Democrat’s – argument that the President of the United States must be willing to talk directly to our enemies because otherwise there will be no communication and no possibility for compromise or peace is simply a straw man. In reality, the United States has constant lines of communications with countries such as Iran through other countries, through lower level diplomats, and through various other “back channel” sources. A meeting with the President of the United States should be reserved as a conditional reward for abandoning behavior harmful to the interest of the United States; not as a reward for engaging in that very behavior we find despicable.

Do you want to know the real reason why all these Democrats are so livid?

Because – in talking about the colossal errors of the past – President Bush showed why liberals are so terribly wrong in the present.

In a speech by Newt Gingrich which I have available on this blog (under the title, “Fighting For Survival Means Fighting For Truth – by Newt Gingrich”), Gingrich, in discussing what he learned from his reading of a book titled, Troublesome Young Men, says, “And we tend to understate what a serious and conscientious and thoughtful effort appeasement was and that it was the direct and deliberate policy of very powerful and very willful people. We tend to think of it as a psychological weakness as though Chamberlain was somehow craven. He wasn’t craven. Chamberlain had a very clear vision of the World, and he was very ruthless domestically.”

Ultimately, Bush wasn’t attacking Barack Obama or any other Democrat for being willing to speak to this leader or that, even without preconditions. Such is the allegation by Democrats attempting to divert attention to what Bush really was criticizing, which was: the historic tendency to dismiss genuine moral evil on the part of leaders of rogue regimes, and the historic tendency to be all-too-willing to appease to such leaders.

If Democrats truly agreed with these two basic positions, they merely had to affirm that they too embrace these ideas, and will be true to them if elected.

In demonizing Bush’ position, they implicitly proclaim that the spirit of appeasement from 1938 is still alive and well in 2008.