Posts Tagged ‘defeat’

Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat

December 19, 2011

I watched the mainstream media’s news coverage of the last U.S. troops leaving Iraq.  And what a great day for Obama, on their presentation.

After all, didn’t Obama promise that the troops would come home?  And aren’t they in fact coming home?

A couple things are notably absent; first, that the departure of U.S. troops were in fact negotiated under George W. Bush and NOT Barack Obama; and second, that our military commanders are sick that we aren’t leaving a force behind similar to those that stayed behind in postwar Europe, Japan and Korea to protect the gains we fought so hard to attain.

The überliberal Huffington Post presents the Obama narrative this way:

Obama Announces Iraq Troops Will Be Withdrawn By End Of 2011
First Posted: 10/21/11 01:33 PM ET Updated: 10/21/11 05:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Fulfilling a long-held campaign promise, President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, as conditioned by the Status of Forces Agreement with the country.

“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama said. “So today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year.”

“After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he said.

In confirming his plans for troop withdrawal by the end of 2011, the president fulfilled the most memorable pledge he made in securing the nomination of president from his party. There had been reports the administration had been plotting ways to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government so as to prolong America’s presence in the country. Those rumors heightened concerns among Democrats who backed Obama in part because of his pledge to end the war in Iraq.

I mean, wow, it sounds like Obama is an amazing leader, doesn’t it?  And it should never occur to anyone that Obama would have pulled out U.S. forces three years ago when he first came into office if his rhetoric had any validity whatsoever.

But buried in the middle of the story is this:

Under an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in 2008, U.S. troops were due to end their mission in Iraq by the end of 2011. But for much of this year, Obama and his advisers have been trying to find a way to retain some troop presence in the country.

According to people familiar with the negotiations — which were conducted for the Obama administration by some of the same individuals who led the Bush-era process — the main sticking points in recent months were over the precise number of troops that would stay behind, and whether the Iraqi government would agree to provide them with legal immunity.

Experts on the mission in Iraq say that despite the public protestations on all sides, both parties were eager to come to an agreement over a continuing troop presence: the Iraqis because they hoped for help in providing stability, and the Americans because they wanted a futher bulwark against encroachment by Iran.

Which is to say very clearly that 1) why is Obama stupidly taking credit for a withdrawal of forces that he had nothing to do with apart from the fact that he is a man without shame or honor or dignity?  And 2) why is he deceitfully presenting thing pullout as a “win” for America when all we are doing is abandoning nine years of investment of blood and treasure?

I still remember the chutzpah of the Obama administration from this moment when Vice President Biden boasted:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this 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.”

Again, this is an administration characterized by a profound lack of honesty, or shame, or honor, as the FACTS reveal.

Of the Bush decision to employ a surge of U.S. forces in Iraq that turned the war around and resulted in victory, we have this from Obama:

Obama Web site removes `surge’ from Iraq problem
By NEDRA PICKLER – July 15, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

The AP – from which I snagged the article – purged that story from its site.  That is a dilemma I face again and again as leftwing media seem to keep articles that damage conservatives forever and ever, but conveniently lose those articles which paint liberals in a bad light.  It’s just another way the mainstream media demonstrates its naked media bias.  Years ago, conservatives were helpless; now, stories can be preserved even after the leftists purge them.

The fact of the matter is that the United States won the war in Iraq in spite of the idiocy and foolishness of one Barack Hussein Obama; and that Bush demonstrated wisdom and perseverence whereas Obama demonstrated weakness and cowardice.

And to claim credit for the very success he himself vigorously opposed is again an act of dishonesty and dishonor and shamelessness.

Obama tried to claim that the success that “coincidentally” directly accompanied the surge really had nothing to do with the number and courage of our warriors, but merely was the result of an “awakening” of sheiks in Anbar province.  The funny thing about that – apart that it denies American troops any credit whatsoever – was that all the mainstream media stories reporting this “awakening” took place AFTER the Bush surge, and that it was in fact the Bush surge that gave the sheiks the cover and the confidence to rise up against the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s forces.  And that we have faced the same dilemma in Afghanistan; that the locals won’t courageously rise up against terrorism if they don’t believe that America will be around to stand with them.

It’s a helluva lot easier for the oppressed locals to bravely “rise up” if you’ve got thousands of tall, strong and brave American troops coming in to help you.  That’s the bottom damn line that Obama doesn’t understand.

So, the war in Iraq was a huge Bush success – and the very fact that the Obama administration tried to take credit for a war that they did everything possible to undermine when it mattered PROVES that it was a great Bush success.  But what has Obama done with that victory?

He’s turned it into a likely defeat, that’s what:

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’
Others echo call for strength against Iran
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times
Sunday, October 23, 2011

President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

U.S. troops will be vacating Iraq at a time when neither Baghdad’s counterterrorism skills nor its abilities to protect against invasion are at levels needed to fully protect the country, say analysts long involved in the nearly nine-year war.

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

This is a sad day for America and not a victory at all.  It’s the day we walked away from 4,000 American dead and $800 billion in treasure to fight.  It’s no different than what we did in Vietnam, when we bloodied ourselves fighting to take a hill from the communists, AND THEN WALKED AWAY FROM THAT SAME DAMN HILL RIGHT AFTER FIGHTING SO HARD TO TAKE THE DAMNED THING.  Only this time instead of the Viet Cong immediately moving in to retake the hill that America had invested the lives of its soldiers taking, it will be Iran immediately moving in to take Iraq away from us.

Because we’re not there to do a damned thing to stop them, are we?

Hillary Clinton “warned” Iran to watch out as our troops pull out:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday warned Iran not to miscalculate the U.S. decision to withdraw its troops.

“No one, most particularly Iran, should miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the Iraqis going forward,” she said in an interview with CNN from Uzbekistan.

Yeah, that will do it.  A warning from Hillary Clinton has got to be worth at least as much as 100,000 American warriors dug in and ready to fight, right?

Charles Krauthammer sums up the great Bush victory become the miserable Obama defeat as follows:

Obama loses Iraq, as smart power becomes no power
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted: Sunday, November 6, 2011

Barack Obama was a principled opponent of the Iraq War from its beginning. But when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won. The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with American backing, by the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City.

Al-Qaeda decimated. A Shiite prime minister taking a decisively nationalist line. Iraqi Sunnis ready to integrate into a new national government. U.S. casualties at their lowest ebb in the entire war. Elections approaching. Obama was left with but a single task: Negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to reinforce these gains and create a strategic partnership with the Arab world’s only democracy.

He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, finally collapsed last month. There is no agreement, no partnership. As of Dec. 31, the American military presence in Iraq will be liquidated.

And it’s not as if that deadline snuck up on Obama. He had three years to prepare for it. Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated. And all major parties but one (the Sadr faction) had an interest in some residual stabilizing U.S. force, like the postwar deployments in Japan, Germany and Korea.

Three years, two abject failures. The first was the administration’s inability, at the height of American post-surge power, to broker a centrist nationalist coalition governed by the major blocs — one predominantly Shiite (Maliki’s), one predominantly Sunni (Ayad Allawi’s), one Kurdish — that among them won a large majority (69 percent) of seats in the 2010 election.

Vice President Joe Biden was given the job. He failed utterly. The government ended up effectively being run by a narrow sectarian coalition where the balance of power is held by the relatively small (12 percent) Iranian-client Sadr faction.

The second failure was the SOFA itself. The military recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead a level of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

A deployment so risibly small would have to expend all its energies simply protecting itself — the fate of our tragic, missionless 1982 Lebanon deployment — with no real capability to train the Iraqis, build their U.S.-equipped air force, mediate ethnic disputes (as we have successfully done, for example, between local Arabs and Kurds), operate surveillance and special-ops bases, and establish the kind of close military-to-military relations that undergird our strongest alliances.

The Obama proposal was an unmistakable signal of unseriousness. It became clear that he simply wanted out, leaving any Iraqi foolish enough to maintain a pro-American orientation exposed to Iranian influence, now unopposed and potentially lethal. Message received. Just this past week, Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurds— for two decades the staunchest of U.S. allies — visited Tehran to bend a knee to both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

It didn’t have to be this way. Our friends did not have to be left out in the cold to seek Iranian protection. Three years and a won war had given Obama the opportunity to establish a lasting strategic alliance with the Arab world’s second most important power.

He failed, though he hardly tried very hard. The excuse is Iraqi refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. forces. But the Bush administration encountered the same problem, and overcame it. Obama had little desire to. Indeed, he portrays the evacuation as a success, the fulfillment of a campaign promise.

But surely the obligation to defend the security and the interests of the nation supersede personal vindication. Obama opposed the war, but when he became commander in chief the terrible price had already been paid in blood and treasure. His obligation was to make something of that sacrifice, to secure the strategic gains that sacrifice had already achieved.

He did not, failing at precisely what this administration so flatters itself for doing so well: diplomacy. After years of allegedly clumsy brutish force, Obama was to usher in an era of not hard power, not soft power, but smart power.

Which turns out in Iraq to be … no power. Years from now we will be asking not “Who lost Iraq?” — that already is clear — but“Why?”

If you don’t think that General Keane – the author of the successful surge that turned Iraq around – doesn’t completely agree with Krauthammer’s assessment, you are almost as big of a fool as Obama.

Even New York Slimes Admits That ‘Hope And Change’ Likely Means An Obummer Dumbocrat Butt-Kicking

October 25, 2010

America’s disillusioned liberal elites are already conceding defeat to the conservative revolution
By Nile Gardiner Last updated: October 24th, 2010

The New York Times’ headline today, “GOP is poised to seize the House, if not the Senate,” says it all, just 10 days ahead of the November 2nd mid-terms. America’s most powerful newspaper, and standard bearer of the liberal elites that have run the United States in the Obama era, for the first time appears to be accepting the likelihood of defeat and acknowledging the scale of the conservative revolution sweeping America.

The Times is now talking of a Washington “on the brink of a substantial shift in the balance of power”, a momentous change driven by a “highly energized grass-roots conservative movement.” As the Grey Lady of US journalism puts it:

President Obama campaigned for a fourth consecutive day on Saturday as the Democratic Party threw its full weight into preventing a defeat of historic proportions in an election shaped by a sour economy, intense debate over the White House’s far-reaching domestic agenda and the rise of a highly energized grass-roots conservative movement…

A wave of anxiety swept across Democrats, regardless of seniority, geographic region or whether they voted for Mr. Obama’s agenda on the hot-button issues of health care, economic stimulus or climate change legislation.

This latest assessment from The New York Times is strikingly different to its analysis exactly three weeks ago when it bullishly declared that “enough contests remain in flux that both parties head into the final four weeks of the campaign with the ability to change the dynamic before Election Day.” In the defiant words of The Times on October 2:

Republicans carry substantial advantages as they move into the final month of the fall campaign, but the resilience of vulnerable Democrats is complicating Republican efforts to lock down enough seats to capture the House and take control of the unsettled electoral battleground.

By now, Republicans had hoped to put away a first layer of Democrats and set their sights on a second tier of incumbents. But the fight for control of Congress is more fluid than it seemed at Labor Day, with Democrats mounting strong resistance in some parts of the country as they try to hold off a potential Republican wave in November.

The New York Times has at last joined the ranks of The Washington Post and Time Magazine, other key pillars of the media establishment, in acknowledging the scale of the impending conservative revolution, and the dire state of the Obama presidency. Perhaps the last outpost of the liberal elites that still believe victory is possible next week is the imperial White House itself, out of touch with reality and public opinion, and clinging to the myth that the midterms are really about “local issues”. When even The New York Times has all but abandoned ship, you know the Left is in serious trouble.

Afghanistan and Iran: Weakling President Obama Confronted By ‘Strong’ Candidate Obama

September 28, 2009

Anne Bayefsky yesterday characterized Obama’s foreign policy as “the mouse who roared.”

Words don’t mean anything unless a leader has the character, integrity, courage, and resolve to stand behind them.

In July 15, 2008, candidate Obama roared regarding Afghanistan:

I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month,” Obama proclaimed in a major foreign policy address on July 15, 2008. “And that’s why, as president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

In March 27, 2009, President Obama roared:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

But now, just six months later, Obama is hiding from his generals and refusing to even LOOK AT his own General’s (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) troop request which will be necessary to carry out Obama’s own strategy.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Obama doesn’t even want to look at it yet.

Here’s the current situation:

Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal’s team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn’t given sufficient resources (read “troops”) to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:

“Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.”

Here’s the current situation:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House. Then, while Obama indicated in television interviews Sunday he isn’t ready to consider whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, someone gave The Washington Post a classified Pentagon report arguing more troops are necessary to prevent defeat.

Here’s the current situation:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

The roaring mouse has been replaced by a timid, weak, pandering, patronizing, appeasing – and most certainly DITHERING – president.

Bush used to talk to his troop commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq every week; Obama has spoken JUST ONCE with Gen. McChrystal in the last seventy days.

Obama has spent more time talking with David Letterman than he has his key general in Afghanistan!!!

Clear implication to McChrystal: Talk to the hand.

A recent 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.”

Which answers the question as to why our troops so overwhelmingly supported Bush, and sat on their hands when their new commander-in-chief addressed them.

Charles Krauthammer points 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.

Reminds me of Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who said, “I believe myself that … this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything.”  Reminds me of Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn openly acknowledging the fact that good news for American troops in Iraq would actually be bad news for Democrats.

The party of cut-and-run is already preparing to cutand run.  On the war they said we needed to fight and win in their campaign rhetoric.

By the way, Obama’s refusal to use the word “victory” is right here.  Nearly a year to the day after Obama said “This is a war we need to win,” Obama said (you can go here for the interview):

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.

Well, first of all, Obama is factually wrong in his history: Hirohito didn’t sign the surrender to MacArthur.  Secondly, he is utterly morally wrong in his foreign policy.

Let’s compare Obama’s refusal to pursue victory with the strategic vision of a great president:

“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” – Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s America: winner; Obama’s America: loser.

Let’s turn now to Obama’s abject failure in Iran.

In his April 16th, 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama roared:

“I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

But he did nothing.  NOTHING.  And now Iran already has them at their whim.

And  in The Jerusalem Post, we get a picture of the REAL Obama:

The Iranians have already called Obama’s bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 26 this way: “[T]he Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran… They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran… Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Obama had a historic opportunity at the United Nations gathering: he was the first American president EVER to serve as the chair of the UN Security Council.  He had the power to shape the agenda, and confront Iran over its now overwhelmingly clear nuclear weapons program.

He pissed his opportunity away, and drove NOTHING.

Anne Bayefsky described how Obama utterly failed to force any kind of showdown with Iran – even when the opportunity was literally handed to him.  She concludes by saying, “There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.”

Remember that pandering, appeasing, pathetic weakness when Iran gets the bomb and the ballistic missile system to deliver it.  Remember that when they launch wave after wave of terror attack with impunity.  Remember that when they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send the price of gasoline skyrocketing to $15 a gallon.

As for Israel?

Only a brain-dead and witless minority of 4% of Israelis believe Obama hasn’t sold them down the river; by contrast, 88% of Israelis believed Bush was pro-Israel.

Hearkening back to the Carter Administration which Obama’s frighteningly resembles, Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wants to make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

Apparently, Saudi Arabia is a better friend of Israel than the United States.

I believe God will supernaturally protect Israel when they are attacked by an enemy that will be emboldened because of American abandonment of Israel and a perception of American weakness.

Alas, America won’t be so fortunate.

I had crystal clear clarity when I heard that Barack Obama’s pastor of 23 years shouted:

“No, no, no!  Not God bless America, God damn America!”

And Barack Obama’s incredibly weak and pandering response was that:

Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”

I believe that God WILL damn America under this President.  And I believe that that damnation has already began.

Democrats Finally Blink On Oil Drilling After Decades Of Obstruction

September 24, 2008

“Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.”

It is a frankly stunning victory, coming on the heels of an incredibly cynical Democratic proposal that was literally intended to effectively kill offshore drilling even as it gave Democrats running for re-election the pretense of having “voted to allow offshore drilling.”  Republicans rightly held firm against the proposal, recognizing that by not allowing any revenue sharing with the states, it would have provided no incentive for the states to allow new drilling, and it would have continued to keep 90% of our oil off limits.

To understand the extent of the House Democratic collapse on offshore drilling, it is important to replay the words and actions of its leadership.  Not very long ago, Nancy Pelosi was single-mindedly committed to an ideological and frankly megalomaniacal effort to obstruct American energy development:

With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

I wrote a story on this available here.

According to a Fox News story titled, “Democrats to Let Offshore Drilling Ban Expire, Conceding Defeat in Battle With GOP“:

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

“If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Democrats had clung to the hope of only a partial repeal of the drilling moratorium, but the White House had promised a veto, Obey said.

The House is expected to act on the spending bill Wednesday. The Senate is likely to go along with the House.

If the Senate Democrats allow the moratorium on offshore drilling to expire, we will see a similar miracle of reversal on the part of Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said things like:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

In other words, they either never believed the sheer bull poop they were spouting, or else they are the kind of people who would cynically dump out “saving the planet” or stopping oil which is “making us sick and ruining our country and our world” for the sake of their political skins.  Either way they are a bunch of cowards and liars.

Mind you, I’m glad that the Democrats are caving in.  I’m glad that the American people are finally beginning to realize that we need to harness our energy resources if we want to separate ourselves from foreign oil.  But I’m not willing to kiss and make up with the people who have demagogued oil for over two decades, and who have so screwed up our energy along with so much else that we’ll be years trying to recover even if we begin to act intelligently.

We’ll finally be able to quit hearing the summer-long mantra, “Even if we start drilling now we won’t have more oil for ten years.”  The biggest problem with that mantra is they were saying the exact same thing ten years ago during the Clinton years.

If you think that the Democrats will finally allow commonsense oil drilling to prevail so you can vote for them now, think again.  The Fox News story points out that:

While the House would lift the long-standing drilling moratoriums for both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a drilling ban in waters within 125 miles of Florida’s western coast would remain in force under a law passed by Congress in 2006 that opened some new areas of the east-central Gulf to drilling.

And:

The Interior Department estimates there are 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil beneath the Outer Continental Shelf, about half of it off California.

While the ban on energy development will be lifted if the Senate goes along with the House action, it doesn’t mean any federal sale of oil and gas leases in the offshore waters — much less actual drilling — would be imminent.

The Interior Department’s current five-year leasing plan includes potential leases off the Virginia coast but probably would not be pursued unless the state agrees to energy development. And the state is unlikely to do so without Congress agreeing to share federal royalties with the state.

The congressional battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Democrats are expected to press for broader energy legislation, probably next year, that would put limits on any drilling off most of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to fight any resumption of the drilling bans that have been in place since 1981.

If you want to put gas in your car’s gas tank, and if you don’t want to keep paying OPEC $700 billion every year for the privilege, you have to vote Republican.  Don’t think that Nancy Pelosi won’t still try to save the planet, or that Harry Reid has stopped thinking that oil is ruining our world.  After the election, you can rest assured that they will be right back to their old tricks.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers