Posts Tagged ‘Petraeus’

CIA Begged For Help THREE TIMES And Were Denied Help THREE TIMES By Obama Administration As Terrorists Murdered Americans In Benghazi, Libya

October 27, 2012

This story gets worse and worse and proves Obama is more and more despicable every single day.

BREAKING: CIA Requested Help During Benghazi Battle, Were Denied Three Times (Updated)
by Bryan Preston
October 26, 2012 – 8:29 am

Fox’s Jennifer Griffin deserves a Pulitzer for the work she is doing to uncover what really happened during and after the assault at Benghazi. In her latest blockbuster, she reports on how American personnel were left without aid during the battle.

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”

Who gave those stand-down orders? Was the CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, aware of them? Did he approve them? Who specifically took any part on this decision?

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

“Monday morning quarterbacking”? They had a laser on the target. An F-18 could have reached the scene from Sigonella in about an hour and destroyed it.

The denial of aid is criminal. Whoever gave those multiple stand-down orders may be an accomplice to manslaughter, at least.

The notion that there was nothing they could have done is absurd. The military has binders and binders — note that word — of contingency plans to deal with breaking security issues and attacks. But our troops, according to Sen. John McCain, were not even put on alert, and field operators on the scene were ordered to stand down.

More: When the 3 AM crisis phone call came in, Barack Obama hatched a plot to attack American free speech rights. And then he went to bed.

Update from Bob Owens: There was an AC-130U gunship on the scene in Benghazi, but it was not allowed to fire.

Update: The CIA denies Fox’s report.

Clearly we need hearings with the president and his relevant cabinet officials either testifying or submitting comments, before the election.

You need to keep understand that the CIA denying this report is bad for Obama, because what we find out is that the CIA denies the report (that officials in the CIA chain of command ordered a stand-down with Americans being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi).  And we find out that CIA Director David Petraeus states, No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”  Given that we further learn that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had asked for more security in Benghazi prior to the attack but the request was denied.  The obvious question becomes, “Then who the hell DID order that stand-down?  Who DID deny that request for more security?”

And there is one and ONLY one answer: Barry Hussein, the first demon-possessed president.  The Predator drone video of the attack – that went on for seven damn hours – was shown to the White House.  There is VERY good reason to believe that Obama himself saw it; he certainly would have been notified that an American installation was under direct attack.  You have to ask yourself: how many people are authorized to go into a foreign country shooting that we are not at war with?  The president and who the hell else???  That is a crucial question because only somebody who had the authority to make that decision could have made that decision.  The White House is asserting that Obama didn’t make that decision not to send help to Americans under fire who desperately needed help.  Okay, then who the hell DID make that decison???  Who the hell ELSE apart from Obama was even authorized to make that call to send in the cavlary to start shooting Libyans in Libya???  Furthermore, CIA personnel had already wisely repositioned assets to make it as quick and easy as possible for Obama to give the order to rescue the Americans trapped in Benghazi and have that rescue effort be successful.  But no order was given.  Nothing was done.  And had it not been for the heroism of Tyrone Woods, the death toll would have been thirty rather than four.

Remember how much credit Obama gave himself for being in the White House Situation Room when the previously-supersecret-until-Obama-blabbermouthed-their-official-existence SEAL Team Six went in to kill Osama bin Laden???  Where the hell was THAT Obama???  Because he for damn sure won’t admit he was in that room when it mattered the most now.

From the very beginning, this White House, this administration, this president and this president’s stooges, have lied to the American people about a terrorist attack on American soil that resulted in the murders of four Americans including the first ambassador to be killed since 1979 when Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe.

Amazingly, Obama began to lie and instructed his top officials to lie immediately and concoct a “spontaneous protest” in place of a planned and well-executed terrorist attack and a stupid video in place of a completely failed president completely failing to listen to repeated warnings that the situation in Libya was massively deteriorating.  Obama – who has been campaigning the last four years – rarely ever bothered to attend his daily intelligence briefings and frankly couldn’t be bothered with anything that didn’t directly help him get re-elected.

Obama lied and lied and lied.

With all due respect to the truth, conservatives such as myself and such as John McCain immediately came out and pointed out what the attack was: a TERRORIST attack by al Qaeda.

Then the questions started to flow: why did Obama make Valerie Jarrett the first adviser to have a full secret service security detail even on her vacation to Martha’s Vineyard while the United States Ambassador in Libya was denied a Marine contingent???

We found out that there were 230 security incidents in Libya prior to the attack that resulted in our ambassador being murdered and the United States being humiliated.  We find that Britain wasn’t stupid and closed their embassy after repeated warnings that the situation was spiralling out of control.  We found out that before he was murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens BEGGED for increased security but was repeatedly denied.  We found out that on the very day that he was murdered Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security.  But rather than give him the security he needed, OBAMA ACTUALLY CUT THE POOR SECURITY AMBASSADOR STEVENS HAD.

We found out that the denials of increased security in Libya were completely unrelated to budget considerations:

Though Democratic members of the committee blamed Republicans throughout the hearing for cutting security State Department security spending, Lamb clarified for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who was invited to sit on the committee for the hearing, that the staffing denial was not linked to budget shortages, just the result of evaluating conditions on the ground.

And we know that Obama did all this because he was trying to deceive the American people with a completely bogus narrative that, by killing Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama had won the war on terror and shattered al Qaeda:

8:21PM EDT October 19. 2012 – The Obama administration rejected requests for more security in Benghazi amid growing signs of terror threats because it wanted to portray Libya as a calm country and foreign policy success, according to leaders of the House Oversight Committee.

The administration “made a policy decision to put Libya into a ‘normalized’ country status as quickly as possible,” starting in November, stated a letter to President Obama from Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and National Security Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz.

The apparent aim of this policy was to convey the impression that the situation in Libya “was getting better and not worse,” states the letter released Friday.

That policy was why State withdrew security personnel and resources from Benghazi, including a DC-3 aircraft, the letter says, citing an email from Miki Rankin, a State Department post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia.

The policy of “normalization” was described to committee members by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs. And late last year, a State Department diplomat issued an “action memo” on why the Benghazi consulate should remain in place.

Then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman wrote Dec. 27 that the U.S. presence in Benghazi was having “a salutary and calming effect” on people in Eastern Libya.

The normalization policy was being pursued at a time when al-Qaeda affiliated militias were becoming increasingly active in and around Benghazi, according to Issa and Chaffetz.

The committee members said the normalization policy trumped security concerns expressed by professional security officials working for State.

Obama lied and Americans died.  The attack on the US Consulate compound in Benghazi went on for seven agonizing hours.  Had the United States acted quickly and decisively, this horrifying and shocking disgrace to America would have been defeated.

If this had happened under George Bush’s watch, and there emerged the kind of evidence tying a cynical political policy to an abject national security and foreign policy disgrace and disaster, you can bet that the mainstream media would have been crawling all over it.  You can bet that EVERY SINGLE TIME Bush did an interview with ANYBODY this would have been the ONLY subject he was asked about.  You can bet that all the late night talk shows would have mocked Bush for this oh, the way they mocked Bush for Abu Ghraib.  You can bet that the networks would have figured out ways to include the shocking failure and debacle in Libya in their popular television dramas.  Like they did with Abu Ghraib.  And like they DIDN’T do with “Abu Ghraib moment” after “Abu Ghraib moment” when those moments were OBAMA MOMENTS.  It would have been the goal of the mainstream media and the networks that every single American be repeatedly told that George Bush had failed America, much the same way that virtually every single American had repeatedly heard the George H.W. Bush words, “Read my lips, no new taxes” in order to guarantee Bill Clinton’s election.

Instead it’s Obama, and so when Obama says the election has “nothing to do” with the Americans murdered in Libya, the mainstream media politely drops the subject rather than embarrass their messiah.

Charles Woods, the father of heroic former SEAL Tyrone Woods – the one who was making those requests for help that Obama repeatedly denied - had this to say about the Disgrace-in-Chief:

The grieving father also described his brief encounter with President Obama during the ceremony for the Libya victims.

“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”

“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”

Tyrone Woods is a hero who ignored Obama’s orders to basically let the thirty Americans in the US Consulate in Benghazi die.  He heard the gunfire and he sacrificed his own life so that other Americans could live. 

This disaster – and the cover-up of this disaster that has followed – is so much worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down Nixon it isn’t even funny.

The American people have a chance to hold Barack Obama responsible and accountable for this disgrace on November 6.

Obama REPEATEDLY IGNORED GENERALS As He Pursued His Political Policy Of First Surge Then Cut-And-Run In Afghanistan

June 29, 2011

Is Obama succeeding in Afghanistan?  Consider this little factoid: There are 280 provinces in Afghanistan; AND ONLY 29 OF THEM ARE UNDER U.S. OR AFGHAN CONTROL!!!

That’s what I call “failure.”  Obama is a failed president on every single front, both domestically and internationally.  More on that below.

What we have immediately below is documented proof that not only did Barack Hussein ignore his generals’ (and even both the senior Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers!!!) regarding military policy and strategy, but he that HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about it.

At what point do we demand the impeachment of this lying, corrupt dishonest fraud???

General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military’s Advice on Afghanistan
5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”

Allen: “It was not.”

Allen’s claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”

The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.”

The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.”

(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.)

So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military’s range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president’s policy was within that range of options. Who is right?

We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration’s decision was “more aggressive” than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan’s “fighting season” typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year’s fighting season.

Would Petraeus have made such a recommendation? No. He wants to win the war. When he was pressed last week to explain the peculiar timeframe, Petraeus said that it wasn’t military considerations that produced such a timeline but “risks having to do with other considerations.”

Which ones? Petraeus declined to say. But in a happy coincidence for the White house, the troops will be home in time for the presidential debates of 2012 and the November election.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks for doing the call.  I’ve got a couple, but I’ll be quick.  Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?  And as a follow-up, did Gates, Panetta and Clinton all endorse it?  Finally, will the president say about how many troops will remain past 2014?  And of the 33,000 coming home by next summer, how many are coming home and how many are going to be reassigned somewhere else?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, I’ll take part of that.  In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown.  There were certainly options that went beyond what the President settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out — so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number.

That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and has the full support of his national security team. I think there’s a broad understanding among the national security team that there’s an imperative to both consolidate the gains that have been made and continue our efforts to train Afghan security forces and partner with them in going after the Taliban, while also being very serious about the process of transition and the drawdown of our forces.

So, to your first question, I would certainly — I would characterize it that way. There were a range.  Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the President chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.

There is no question which side is lying and which side is telling the truth.  BARACK OBAMA IS A LIAR AND A FOOL.

Let’s go back and contemplate how cynical and dishonest the Obama administration has been all along in its political game plan played with the lives of American servicemen:

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.

More on this utterly hypocritical and cynical chutzpah here.  Which is even more maddening given the fact that the liberals who screamed about the two wars Bush got us in are almnost completely mum about the FIVE WARS Obama has us in.

And these same total pieces of cockroach scum who cynically pitched Afghanistan as “the good war” and Iraq as “the bad war” as a political ploy for Obama Democrats to demonize Bush and our American troops while pretending to remain pro-American security are now both taking credit for what they called “the bad war” in Iraq -

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.”

- while cutting and running in defeat from what they claimed was “the good war.”

By the way, Obama has NEVER bothered to listen to his generals in Afghanistan.  Which is why he is the clearest and most present threat to our national security.

Let’s consider what Obama did: after demonizing Bush – who was successful in Iraq where he chose to fight – Obama dragged us into the quagmire of Afghanistan.  He wanted a “political” surge.  Germany’s leftist Der Speigel rightly said Obama’s “new strategy for Afghanistan” “seemed like a campaign speech.”  And then they said:

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into  Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again.

Which reminds us that conservatives SAID the policy of “timetables” would never work and would fail.  And here we are now proving that assessment was 100% correct as we begin to cut-and-run having accomplished NOTHING but a “surge” of dead Americans and a “surge” in American bankruptcy.

What did I say back in December of 2009?  My title: “Obama’s Message To Taliban Re: Afghanistan: ‘Just Keep Fighting And Wait Us Out And It’ll Be All Yours’” should say it all.

Obama refused to listen to his generals when he refused to give them enough troops to begin with.  He compounded that stupid error by ignoring his generals and mandating a timetable for pullout that FURTHER guaranteed failure.  And now he’s AGAIN refusing to listen to his generals as he cuts-and-runs far faster than they can accommodate.

And the only thing more stupid that Obama can do is to export this policy of stupidly refusing to listen to his military experts.  Which is exactly what he did in Libya when he got us in there under utterly false pretenses:

“It was reported in March that Gates, along with Counterterrorism Chief John  Brennan and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, privately advised the  president to avoid military involvement in Libya — but they were overruled…”

Now we face an unmitigated debacle in Afghanistan as Obama cuts-and-runs.  We will be pulling troops out exactly when we most need them in the height of the fighting season.  And why?  Because Obama cynically wants to bring the troops home in time to bolster his pathetic campaign for a second term.

As a final comment about the Democrats’ fundamental hypocrisy, here’s a piece from 2004 Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry demanding that Bush “listen to his generals.”  Bush DID listen to his generals – which was why HE TURNED IRAQ AROUND INTO WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION NOW SAYS IS “ONE OF THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.”

Here’s my question: where are you NOW, Kerry, you hypocrite coward???

Obama and Democrats have owed George Bush and Dick Cheney abject apologies for their lies and demagoguery of these two men for years.

Democrats are VERMIN.  They have been vermin for most of the last 50 years.  They have been documented vermin on American foreign policy all over the world.  And we need to keep reminding Americans as to what verminous rat bastards they have been and continue to be.

Obama will be an abject disaster for American foreign policy for decades to come.  And fighting under Obama’s foreign policy is exactly like Vietnam (or shall we call it “echoes of Vietnam”?).

Just like conservatives warned all along.

The moment I saw the “Jeremiah Wright” videos I realized that Barack Obama was a truly evil human being who would lead America to ruin.  It was like an apocalyptic vision of warning.  And it has turned out to be even worse than I feared…

Yet Another Vile Anti-American Democrat Demonizes War Hero General Petraeus

March 16, 2011

Let me just add yet another factoid into my “If you are a Democrat, you are a vile piece of rodent filth” file.

From HotAir:

In what appears to be yet another desperate House Democrat attempt to stay relevant while in the minority, Rep. Lynn Woolsey accused General David Petraeus of using a “Charlie Sheen counter-insurgency strategy” in Afghanistan.  Speaking at the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force, Woolsey made the comments while hearing testimony from Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings and other military experts:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) on Wednesday sharply criticized David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and signaled agreement with an assessment from a Rolling Stone editor who likened the commander’s performance to that of Charlie Sheen.

Woolsey said the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force held a briefing on Tuesday with Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone and other panelists, where Hastings said:

“General Petraeus is giving us the Charlie Sheen counter-insurgency strategy, which is to give exclusive interviews to every major network, and to keep saying ‘we’re winning’ and hope the public actually agrees with you.”

Doesn’t that sound familiar?  In late 2007, Democrats openly accused Petraeus of lying to Congress when he told them that the surge in Iraq was succeeding.  Hillary Clinton in particular accused him of being dishonest, but that sentiment was widely shared among the Democrats in Congress and their supporters.  MoveOn bought an ad in the New York Times calling him “General Betray-Us.”

All of them ended up eating their words when events proved Petraeus correct.  In fact, the surge was so successful in Iraq, as was Petraeus’ application of counter-insurgency strategy (COIN), that one of the most vocal critics of the surge ended up applying the same strategy to Afghanistan once elected President.  Thus far, the increase in personnel and aggressive tactics has produced significant results, although the real question in Afghanistan is whether those will outlast the increase in personnel.

The Charlie Sheen reference is just another way of calling Petraeus a liar, and adding in a dig at his mental health as well.  Comparing a man who has dedicated his life to America’s security to a drug-addled celebrity in full meltdown is par for the course for “progressives” the last few years, although in this case it reflects far more on Woolsey’s questionable state of mind than on Petraeus.  Is Woolsey that desperate for a headline?  Maybe her constituents should send her to political rehab in 2012, and let her call that “winning”.

This is nothing new, of course.  Demonic un-American Democrats have been demonizing General David Petraues both before and since Obama asked him to bail out both his scrawny weasel butt and America’s butt in Afghanistan. 

Like I keep saying and they keep proving: Democrats are slime.

Great General Leaving Afghanistan So Fool President Can Be The Weakling His Leftist Base Demands

February 16, 2011

Here’s a stunner: did you think Afghanistan was going badly?  It’s about to get a LOT worse.  Because yet another top general under Obama – and probably the greatest field commander of this generation - is on his way out:

Gen. David Petraeus, the most celebrated American soldier of his generation, is to leave his post as commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, The (London) Times reported Tuesday.

The Times reported that the Pentagon aims to replace Petraeus, who was appointed less than eight months ago, by the end of the year.

Sources have confirmed that the search for a new commander in Kabul is under way. It forms part of a sweeping reorganization of top American officials in Afghanistan, which the Obama administration hopes to present as proof that its strategy does not depend on the towering reputation of one man.

[...]

Many of the moves are expected to coincide with a reduction in US troop numbers, which Obama has promised will start this summer, despite General Petraeus’s objections.

The news that the general himself would be leaving Kabul stunned close observers of US strategy, but the Pentagon insisted Tuesday it was a natural development, given the demands of running the war and Washington’s need for fresh blood in a crucial role.

“This is a heck of a demanding job,” Morrell said of General Petraeus’s central task of driving the Taliban from its strongholds in southern Afghanistan, which US commanders now claim is almost complete. “He will have to be rotated out at some point.”

Nothing to see here, folks.  Please return to your hovels at once.

You remember General Patton, of course, and how he was always whining about the all the stress and how he didn’t want to fight and all he wanted to do was go home.  Happens all the time.

You get to see the REAL REASON for this departure via Reuters:

The question is what this move, if confirmed, would mean for policy.  Petraeus, more than anyone else, has been identified with the intensified military campaign in Afghanistan which, according to critics of the policy,  has reduced prospects of a political settlement by alienating Taliban leaders who might otherwise be coaxed into peace talks

Petraeus has been a towering figure in Washington and difficult to challenge politically. He had what was seen in the United States as a good track record in Iraq. And he was backed by Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — making it very hard for those within the U.S. administration who disagreed with his assessment to win President Barack Obama over to their point of view. 

Moreover, Obama had already sacked two generals — Generals David McKiernan and Stanley McChrystal — and could hardly dismiss a third. (If I remember rightly — and no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong — no president since Abraham Lincoln has changed his generals so frequently in wartime.) Promoting Petraeus would be far easier.

His departure, especially with Gates on his way out, could create the space for Obama to recalibrate Afghan strategy, backing away from the military surge and focusing more on a political settlement - if he wants to do so.

Appeasement will work.  It has always worked before.  The best thing you can do is ignore the fact of history that weakness is a provocation and appease, appease, appease your enemy.

If it hadn’t been for Neville Chamberlain and his highly succesful policy of appeasement, it’s difficult to imagine how the world would not have erupted into war in 1939.  Thank the all powerful state that we listened to weakness and gave up Poland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler and gave up Manchuria and China to Tojo.  Strengthening our enemies by giving them land and materials while becoming weaker ourselves is invariably a certain path to peace and prosperity.

I’ll stop.  Pathetically ignorant and naive weakling moral idiot liberals will probably actually think I’m being serious.

It is stunning what an embarassment and what a disgrace the first community agitator ever to become president has been for this country.

Remember how Obama predicted Iraq would be a failure and said the surge strategy wouldn’t work?

The Fool-in-Chief said back when he was just another fool liberal US Senator:

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

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

But, of course, George Bush was right about Iraq and about the surge; Obama was the totally wrong moron he still is.  And in fact Iraq went so well that soon after Bush left office the Obama administration was crowing:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

You can see those and other statements from Obama in article documenting just what a cynical and manipulative liar this appeasing weakling truly is.

One of the many ways you can see how loathsome liberals are is their hypocritical turnabout on General David Petraeus himself.  Or should I say, “General Betray Us?”

As we get ready for Obama to show his liberal spots and cut-and-run as anyone not a moron always said Obama would do, consider that the same heroic General Petraeus who had previously been lambasted as General Betray Us simply because he commanded troops and fought for his country while a Republican was president essentially said that Obama’s 2011 cut-and-run timetable was merely a political decision.

And let’s not forget how Obama not only demonized the war in Iraq that Bush won only to claim credit for Bush’s victory, but also how Obama made Afghanistan “the good war.”  And allow me at the same time to take a trip down “I told you so” lane:

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.

I’m still waiting, you pathetic liberal vermin.

Bush won in Iraq; he changed the entire dynamic in the Middle East.  And if anything is contributing toward the movement toward democracy in the Middle East, it is the fact that George W. Bush built a democracy in the very heart of the Arab and Muslim world.  Barack Obama demanded that we fight in Afghanistan – where Bush had essentially mounted a containing operation because Afghanistan is and always has been the grave yard of empires.  And he has been losing there miserably ever since he dramatically and massively escalated the war there.

Obama insisted that we cut-and-run where we could win; and he demanded that we fight to the bitter end where we would bog down.

I’ve tried to explain that to liberals.  But better to teach physics to my dog than common sense to a liberal.  Iraq was perfect terrain for the US to mount a successful military operation; and Afghanistan is the worst terrain imaginable for our tactics while serving as the best terrain imaginable for the guerrila tactics of the Taliban.  You ever try to drive a tank up a mountain or fly a gunship into a cave?  Bush succeeded in Iraq largely because he wasn’t a fool and fought in the right geography.  Obama is losing in Afganistan because he’s a fool.  Plain and simple.

Look at the casualties in Afghanistan: Obama more than doubled the 2008 casualties in Afghanistan under Bush in his first year.  And then he took that figure that he doubled from Bush and increased it by over 57% his next year as Failure-in-Chief.

And now here we are in “preparation-t0-cut-and-run” mode after Obama utterly failed.

And we now already know that the whole war fiasco was nothing but cynical politics from the get-go for Obama:

… the president decided to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because, he said, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

And liberals are the kind of scum – and “scum” is if anything to weak of a word – who continue to denounce Bush’s victory even as they cheer Obama for first losing and then cutting and running in defeat and disgrace.

Cynicism piled on top of more cynicism.  A sauce of weakness poured over that.  And then – like the cherry – appeasement on top.

Obama will almost certainly offer General Petraeus the Chairman of the JCS position.  I hope General Petraeus turns him down and resigns.  But General Petraeus will likely believe that he’s better serving his country by taking the top military position.

Here’s why I believe he’s wrong to do so, and NOT serving the country’s interests at all.  Suppose you are a master mechanic and you take a job at a repair shop.  I’m the owner of the shop, and I am a total disgrace who is determined to screw the customers and ruin their cars.  You take the job because you think you can at least mitigate the disaster I create.  But can you, if you’re carrying out my orders?  You’re going to end up doing nothing more than assisting me while I screw the customers and ruin their cars.  If you REALLY want to help the customers, your best bet is to quit and then blow the whistle on all the harm I’m causing.

And that’s what General Petraeus should do.

Most generals don’t want to do that.  They don’t want to make that unfamiliar transition from military strategy to political policy.  But as long as General Petraeus continues to serve a fool, he’s only going to end up implementing foolish and unworkable policies.

Why Aren’t The Ground Zero Mosque ‘Religious Freedom’ Liberals Celebrating The Koran Burning?

September 9, 2010

Better put your mats down.

Not your Muslim prayer mat, but your roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Mocking liberals for their massive hypocrisy can be a dangerous sport; you don’t want to hurt yourself laughing at them by falling on the hard ground.  Take precautions.

We’ve been told by the American left – including Obama – over and over and over again that the Ground Zero mosque issue was a “religious rights” issue.  You may or may not like what the Cordoba Initiative is doing building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, but they have the right to do it, and if you don’t celebrate their “religious freedom,” you’re a bigot.

Conservatives have been saying over and over again that it isn’t and never was about “religious rights” or “religious freedom.”  We’ve said that we recognize that they’ve got the right to build; but that just because you’ve got the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

I wrote this the last time I dealt with this issue:

This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution.  It’s about right and wrong.

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying.  In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs.  I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat.  But I shouldn’t do it.  And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.

On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.

But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.

And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.”  You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”

So how DARE you criticize me.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way.  I have some black people to go shout at.

But the left were too fundamentally morally stupid to understand that.  Teaching liberals good ethics is like teaching cockroaches differential equations; they’re just not very good pupils.

An all-too-typical liberal moral moron wrote in the Huffington Post:

“The core American ideal of religious freedom has been put at risk…  These protests, diatribes, and campaigns against Park51 violate the ideals of religious freedom to which our country has long aspired.”

And then he proceeds to lecture us on the First Amendment.

Which is exactly what the Ground Zero mosque protest isn’t about, of course.

I will be looking forward to reading this guy’s column angrily demanding that we all support Pastor Terry Jones’ Koran burning day and lecture the left that if they don’t support it, they are all a bunch of religious bigots and freedom-hating anti-Constitutionalists.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Because I’d pass out.  And probably miss my roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Sarah Palin Twittered her view that the Ground Zero mosque should be moved because it represented an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts,” and that it should be rejected by Muslims “in the interest of healing.”  And the despicable, vile left demonized her for it, and made her “the face of intolerance” for taking a very legitimate moral stand.

Now we’ve got Pastor Terry Jones and his in-your-face Koran burning day.  And what are the left saying but that it is an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts” and should be rejected by Christians “in the interest of healing.”

Because hypocrisy defines the left; it is what they are to the core of their shriveled souls.

Where’s Obama to endorse the controversial plan to burn Korans? Where is that little weasel now to tell us “that a nation built on religious freedom must allow it”?  I want our moral coward in chief to be consistent for just once in his life.

And where’s the ACLU flocking to Florida and making sure nobody interferes with Pastor Terry Jones and his team of Koran burners?  I mean, my Lord, these people celebrated the rights of Nazis to march through a town filled with Nazi Holocaust death camp survivors.  With that kind of company, can’t they give a Koran-burner just a little love?

This nutjob Pastor Terry Jones has a tiny little congregation of just 50 lunatics.  And yet the way the Obama administration is going after them, you’d think they were the ones who were way ahead of schedule developing the nuclear bomb, rather than Iran.

Attorney General Eric Holder is calling the Koran burning “idiotic and dangerous.”  But this same slimeball was out with the rest of the left celebrating the Muslims’ right to build that Ground Zero mosque which was the VERY DAMN THING that provoked this pastor to start showing that Korans burn at Fahrenheit 451.

Why does the left only care about the feelings and fear the provoking of Muslims?  Maybe if they had a functioning brain cell they’d think twice about that idiocy.

Hillary Clinton and her State Department went even farther, calling American citizens “un-American” for their participation in this exercise of the same religious freedoms and First Amendment rights they were celebrating when Muslims were sticking their thumbs in Americans’ eyes.

General Petraeus found it necessary to tell us that this act could provoke a response against our soldiers.  But where was either he or anyone anywhere on the left worrying that the Muslim Ground Zero mosque could provoke a response by Americans, and that it therefore it shouldn’t be built there?

And just who is more depraved and intolerant: the guy who burns a Koran, or the guy who commits an act or mass acts of murder because someone burned a book?

I don’t doubt that Petraeus is right, that the Koran burning would incite terrorists.  But on the other hand, you kind of have to laugh at this line of reasoning, too.  I can just see Al Qaeda saying, “We only kind of hated Americans when we flew passenger planes into their biggest buildings and murdered 3,000 of them.  But now we REALLY hate them!”

In all actuality, the fact that we’re worried about what Muslims will likely do just goes to demonstrate that the actual intolerant people are the very Muslims that the left has so ardently supported.  And if they’re as violent and evil as the left are now warning us about due to this Koran burning, then maybe we shouldn’t be encouraging these people to come to our country and burn mosques as close as possible to a Muslim act of mass murder just 10 years ago.

For the record, I think this Pastor and his “flock” are profoundly wrong for burning Korans.  Because – unlike the liberals, I am actually consistent.  I think it is wrong for Muslims to build a mosque right next to Ground Zero because it was nothing more than a provocation that resolves nothing, and I think this Koran burning would be a provocation that resolves nothing.

I don’t mind being labeled as “anti-Islam,” because I don’t believe for a second that “Islam is a religion of peace.”  It is, rather, a religion that boasts, “We will win, because we love death more  than you love life.”  But I am most definitely NOT anti-Muslim.  I’ve talked with quite a few Muslims, and generally found them engaging and polite.  If I saw a Muslim being assaulted I would come to his or her aid and help.  And if I saw a Muslim’s property being vandalized I would call the police.

I think Islam is evil, and I believe that we should document its evil teachings and its evil deeds.  But I don’t think that we should just insult Muslims with meaningless symbolic gestures merely for the sake of provoking them.  Which is why I earlier called Terry Jones a “nutjob” and his congregation “lunatics.”

On the other hand, the one thing Terry Jones and his band are accomplishing is demonstrating how vile liberals and most Democrats are.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, New York Maybor Bloomberg, and many other liberals have endorsed and supported the Ground Zero mosque.  And now they have now provoked at least one man (and probably others) to commit outrageous acts.  Americans overwhelmingly oppose this provocation.

Liberals are hypocrites to argue that the provocative Ground Zero mosque is a legitimate exercise of religious freedom and First Amendment rights, but that the provocative Koran Burning day is not.  And they are moral cowards for cheering the mosque which deliberately provokes Americans, but crying over the provocation of Muslims via the Koran burning.

If you support the Ground Zero mosque, I hope you support the Koran burning with every bit as much zeal.  But personally, I think you’re a moral idiot.

P.S. Speaking of true moral idiocy in the most blatantly morally idiotic sense of the word, Hillary Clinton’s State Department just came out with the following statemen comparing Pastor Terry Jones with the 9/11 terrorists:

“We hope that between now and Saturday, there’ll be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot – with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11.”

Only a liberal could be so profoundly stupid and fundamentally depraved to compare burning some books to murdering 3,000 innocent human beings.

Why Fighting For Our Country Under Obama Is Different Than Any Other Time – Except Maybe Vietnam

July 5, 2010

Fighting a war under the command of Barack Obama is very different than fighting under the command of any president who has ever come before.  Up until president #44, commanders-in-chief actually had some degree of trust in the soldiers under their command.  They put them into battle for one reason, summed up by President Ronald Reagan’s statement: “We win, they lose.”  They sent them with commonsensical rules for civilized warfare, and then they gave them the mandate to go out and win.  Today we have a commander-in-chief who would prefer not to talk about actually winning:

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.”

In order to avoid the potential for some kind of awkward “victory,” our soldiers and Marines are literally unable to shoot when every element of common sense and the entire history of warfare tell them to shoot:

Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive
By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann – The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said Marine Lance Cpl. Travis Anderson, 20, of Altoona, Iowa. “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

“This is difficult,” Lance Cpl. Michael Andrejczuk, 20, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”

That mindset doesn’t just apply to our fighting men on the ground, who are put in a position in which they can’t defend themselves if their enemy flouts Obama’s miserable rules of engagement.  The pilots flying overhead and the artillerymen on surrounding positions are prevented from supporting our soldiers if they get pinned down, too:

Family calls U.S. military goals ‘fuzzy’
Parents of soldier killed last week criticize firepower restrictions

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
First published in print: Thursday, June 24, 2010

QUEENSBURY — The parents of a Lake George soldier killed in Afghanistan attacked the Obama administration Wednesday for “flower children leadership,” and said they would work to change U.S. rules of military engagement in the nine-year conflict.

Hours before holding a wake for their 27-year-old son in Glens Falls, Bill and Beverly Osborn heavily criticized a military policy implemented last year that places some restrictions on when American troops can use firepower in Afghanistan. The new rules were set when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the Afghanistan effort, and have reportedly made it harder for troops to call in for or initiate air power, artillery and mortars against the Taliban.

The counterinsurgency policy is intended to reduce civilian casualties and win the allegiance of Afghans, McChrystal had said. But echoing criticisms from the Vietnam era, Bill Osborn said Wednesday that it’s tied the hands of service members on the ground.

“We send our young men and women to spill their blood and we won’t let them do their job,” he said from his Queensbury home. “Winning hearts and minds is wonderful, but first we have to defeat the enemy.”

And then we wonder why Obama doubled the American body count from Bush in 2009, and is now on pace to double his own total (which means four times the Bush 2008 Americans KIA).

We just suffered the highest number of American causalities for a single month in the history of the war.  Mind you, EVERY month becomes the new “deadliest month” under Obama.

From icasualties.org:

For those who are historically ignorant, America firebombed Tokyo and Dresden in World War II.  We didn’t make sure that every single person who could possibly get killed during an attack was a 100%-confirmed “militant” before we sent a wave of death at our enemies.  If we’d resorted to that form of liberal moral stupidity, we would have lost – and the only question would have been how many of us would have ended up speaking German, and how many of us would have ended up speaking Japanese.

Thank God we didn’t have Obama leading us back then.

But our rules of engagement still weren’t getting enough American soldiers killed, so Team Obama came up with a better idea: how about ordering soldiers to go into battle with unloaded weapons? That’s right. Soldiers are now told to wait until they actually start falling down on the ground dead before they can actually be allowed to fumble a round into the chamber.

Fighting a War without Bullets?
by  Chris Carter
05/25/2010

Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.

American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.

When a weapon has a loaded magazine, but the safety is on and no round is chambered, the military refers to this condition as “amber status.” Weapons on “red status” are ready to fire—they have a round in the chamber and the safety is off.

The source stated that he had been stationed at the base for only a month, but the amber weapons order was in place since before he arrived. A NATO spokesman could not confirm the information, stating that levels of force are classified.

In other words, our guys can’t prepare their weapons to actually fire until they are already under attack.

Imagine sending our police into a building filled with armed gang members like that.

And you want to know how to win a medal in Obama’s army? Don’t do anything. Certainly don’t actually shoot at the enemy.

Hold fire, earn a medal
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 15:51:31 EDT

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

The proposal is now circulating in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, a command spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

Soldiers are often recognized for non-combat achievement with decorations such as their service’s commendation medal. But most of the highest U.S. military decorations are for valor in combat. A medal to recognize a conscious effort to avoid a combat action would be unique.

It used to be that the hero was the guy who took on the enemy. Now it’s the guy who crawls into the fetal position and walks away from a battle with an unfired weapon.

We can only wonder what Obama’s version of Audie Murphy will look like.

And Iran sure doesn’t have to worry about Obama shooting at them as they develop their nuclear arsenal so they can cause Armageddon.

About the only thing regarding the military Obama is actually determined to fight for is gay rights. You can bet that the same political weasels who won’t let our soldiers actually shoot at the enemy will fight tooth and nail for the right of homosexual soldiers to be able to buttrape their buddies. Because we don’t have nearly enough gay rape in the military. That’s going to be the new meaning to “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Don’t tell, because that homosexual is the new protected class.

And if all of the above doesn’t beat all, you probably don’t want to hear about the fact that Obama’s timetable for a cut-and-run had nothing whatsoever about satisfying military issues and everything about satisfying political ones within Obama’s radical leftwing base.  The military wasn’t even consulted, according to General David Petraeus:

McCain: “General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the President when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?”

Petraeus: “Uh, there was not.”

McCain: “There was not – by any military person that you know of?”

Petraeus: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Nobody knows what the hell is going on over there.  Are we going to stay and fight?  Or cut and run?  Most of the Obama administration is saying that we are most definitely going to cut and run in July 2011.  Take Vice President Biden, who says, “In July of 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”  All Obama will say is that “We didn’t say we’d be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.” which isn’t really saying anything.

All the money is on a pullout, as Obama cuts and runs.  The Afghan people know that, know that the Taliban will soon be their landlords, and aren’t about to risk any kind of meaningful alliance with America that would be necessary to actually winning over there.

Do you remember FDR telling Churchill, “I’ll give you a year, and then we’re running with our tail between our legs where it belongs”???

If it’s a war worth fighting, it is a war worth sticking around to fight.

We will win when we allow our fighting men to fight.  And not until then.

If you wonder whether Afghanistan is going to become like Vietnam, stop wondering: it already has.  Because we’re fighting Afghanistan the same way we fought Vietnam – with the mindset of putting our troops in danger while simultaneously preventing them from securing victory.

Critical Failure Overload: Which Obama Failure Should We Focus On?

June 30, 2010

There seems to be a genius to Obama’s incompetence.  He is failing on so many levels, in so many ways, all at the same time, that nobody can possibly keep track of them all.

Which means, paradoxically, that the more failures Obama accumulates, the better he looks, as coverage of all the failure is dissipated such that nothing receives the focus it needs to penetrate the American culture of distraction.

A few days ago, the media hailed Obama’s firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and replacement by Gen. David Petraeus as a magnificent act of presidential leadership and decision-making.  Let’s not mention that the same figures on the left who were hailing Petraeus yesterday were demonizing him when Bush appointed him to take control over the Iraq War and the surge strategy that won that war.

Obama is turning to Bush’s general and Bush’s Secretary of Defense in order to overcome the failure created by utterly failed Democrat Party ideas.

Chief among those utterly failed Democrat ideas is the timetable for cut-and-run.  Democrats wanted to impose this guaranteed-to-fail strategy for Iraq, but Bush prevailed and won the war.  Now they want to make sure we lose in Afghanistan, as Afghans who want to stay alive realize who will still be there a year from now (i.e., the Taliban), and who won’t (i.e., the United States), and that they’d better not ally themselves with their “timetable for withdrawal” all-too-temporary American allies.

We find that the July 2011 timetable for withdrawal was a purely political decision that had no military justification or support whatsoever.

Of course, the failure in Afghanistan comes as a welcome relief to day 72 of the even bigger failure in the Gulf of Mexico.

The leftwing media is essentially shouting, “Hey, take your eye off that total failure over there on the Gulf Coast.  Look over here!!!  Obama fired a guy that pricked his thin-skin and appointed Bush’s general to save his liberal ass.  And he gave a speech!!!  Don’t waste your time thinking about the fact that BP took the cap off the leaking hole so that 104,000 gallons of oil per hour could pour out of the sea floor.  Don’t look at the possibility that as much as 4.2 million gallons of oil are pouring out of that damn hole Obama can’t plug every single day!!!

Come on!  Obama’s got Bush’s general now!!!  The one whom Obama and every other Democrat demonized three years ago while he was winning in Iraq!!!”

Well, go ahead and take a look at how terribly Obama is failing in Afghanistan.  Look at how Obama doubled Bush’s last body count in 2009, and how he is now on pace to double his own doubling of Bush’s body count this year.  Look at how terrible a job Obama is doing mismanaging the various top-level civilian and military personnel who are clearly not on the same page with one another as personal fiefdoms rather than the mission dominate (see also here).  The divisions – which underscore that Obama’s entire Afghanistan plan is in freefall – aren’t pretty.  And don’t forget to look at the fact that “Those divisions are of Obama’s own making, stemming from his lack of leadership and failure to make a firm commitment to victory in Afghanistan.”

While you’re at it, take a look at the fact that, by the standards Democrats used to attack Bush in 2004, Barack Hussein is the worst president in American history bar none.

The Obama-failure in Afghanistan is a distraction for the Obama-failure in the Gulf of Mexico.  And the Obama-failure in the Gulf of Mexico is a distraction for the Obama-failure in the economy.

Look at the fact that a full year and a half later, jobless claims continue to go up “sharply.” Look at the fact that new home sales have plunged to the lowest level ever recorded.   Look at the fact that that disaster followed the news that Obama’s mortgage modification program had officially imploded.  And look at the fact that bank foreclosures have doubled under Obama’s “wreckovery.”

One in four homeowners are underwater in their mortgages, and are increasingly just bailing out and walking away from their responsibilities in Obama’s God-damn-America.  Consumer confidence is down dramatically.    And oil prices are way down for the very bad reason that our economy is in such bad shape no one can afford to go anywhere.  And, of course, our stock market just took a very cold bath yesterday.

Where are we supposed to look to see an area in which Obama HASN’T failed?

Look at everything, if you have time to contemplate all the failure that Obama has brought.  But don’t be distracted from taking time to watch the spill cam footage every day, or following the latest tracking of Obama’s oil spill and its contamination of the Gulf Coast, or following the Obama-regime-caused inability to clean up the mess.

As you watch the daily disaster unfolding, don’t forget to remember that Obama is the guy running the show.  Or that the show looks like a chicken running around after its head has been cut off

Rolling Stone Broke Journalistic Ethics In Publishing McChrystal Remarks

June 27, 2010

It’s ironic.  Barack Obama said that Gen. Stan McChrystal showed “poor judgment” in his comments to Rolling Stone.

I can’t disagree.  But I would hasten to add that he showed even worse judgment in his vote for president.

And now Obama is firing probably the only senior general in the US military who had the terrible judgment to vote for him.

We can breathe easy.  Now that the pro-Obama general is gone, we have Bush’s general running the war to go along with Bush’s Secretary of State running the military.

It appears that we have – in the case of Rolling Stone devouring Gen. McChrystal – yet another case of liberals eating one of their own.

And we have yet another case demonstrating that liberals and legitimate journalism simply do not mix.

That said, let’s see what integrity Rolling Stone threw away in order to have its “gotcha! moment”:

Rolling Stone broke rules over Stanley McChrystal interview
By Toby Harnden World Last updated: June 26th, 2010

So now we know. It is mind-bogglingly inexplicable why this is only emerging now (though I have one theory on that – see below) but it turns out that Rolling Stone did not run all its quotations past McChrystal’s staff as their editor said they did. The general’s staff now say that all the offensive quotations were clearly off the record. So far from this being “terrific journalism” as my colleague Harry Mount put it, the Rolling Stone piece now looks much more like a disgrace to the profession.

I say mind-boggling because if McChrystal’s staff had come out with this in the first few hours of the furore on Tuesday morning then the entire narrative of the week would have changed and the general might very well still be in his job today.

My hunch as to why it didn’t come out earlier? Basically, because McChrystal is an honourable man who thought it would be unseemly to quibble about the details. There could have been a tactical element to that, certainly – perhaps he or his staff calculated that trying to wriggle out of things would not be viewed kindly by Obama and that it could have fuelled a row with Rolling Stone that might have made things worse (if so, how wrong they were).

Politico has a list of the 30 fact-checking questions submitted. The most interesting one is number 30 in which Rolling STone asks whether McChrystal did indeed vote for Obama. The reponse – irony of ironies – was this:

IMPORTANT — PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS — THIS IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE INFORMATION AND UNREALTED TO HIS JOB. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SHARE. MY REASON FOR THIS IS IT WOULD PRESENT AN UNDUE COMMAND INFLLUENCE ON JUNIOR OFFICERS OR SOLDIERS WHO SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN POLITICAL DECISIONS. THERE ARE VERY STRICT RULES IN THE MILITARY ON SEPARATING CHURCH AND STATE ON THIS SORT OF STUFF – HAVE TO KEEP OUT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE AND PERSONAL CHOICE.

But, of course, they left it in. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that Rolling Stone did not care a hoot about the agreed journalistic ground rules or about McChrystal. They were out to get him and get him they did.

This is sadly all history now and nothing can change Obama’s decision. But it would be interesting to know if anyone in the White House even inquired into whether the profane and juvenile quotations about civilian officials were really on the record or if they just took Rolling Stone’s word for it.

If they didn’t, think about what this means: the Obama administration accepts the word of a counter-culture magazine and doesn’t even bother to check with the four-star general commanding 100,000 troops in wartime whose career the magazine is seeking to destroy.

We can endlessly speculate whether the Fool-in-Chief was right in canning his record-setting second general.  We can’t know for sure whether Obama canned McChrystal because he is at heart a vain, arrogant, petty, thin-skinned, vindictive man – as I listed as the reasons in predicting that Obama would fire McChrystal – or rather because there truly was some better reason.

What we DO know is that when one actually reads the Rolling Stone article, there really wasn’t a whole lot of “there” there.  The very worse thing McChrystal’s staff did was to reveal that Obama’s civilian leadership team in Afghanistan were in complete chaos.  It does seem that nothing can be worse in the Obama administration than telling the truth.  But that’s where we are.

Liberals in the mainstream media hailed the firing of Stanley McChrystal as though it were the most brilliant and courageous act of presidential leadership in world history.  It wasn’t.  It was a sad and tragic situation – even if Obama did the right thing.

The best thing that will come from this change is likely this: that General David Petraeus will change General McChrystal’s godawful rules of engagement and actually give the soldiers and Marines under his command the ability to carry the fight to the enemy.

What Do McChrystal And BP Have In Common – Aside From Fact That Both Were Democrat Supporters?

June 26, 2010

The following article by Mark Steyn is brilliant.  My title isn’t an accurate summary of Steyn’s point (but maybe it got you to read an article you otherwise wouldn’t have read!).

It is certainly beyond hilarious that pro-Obama Democrat Stanley McChrystal and pro-Obama BP are now on the outs in a cloud of self-destruction, while George Bush’s Secretary of Defense and George Bush’s general have been called upon to save the day.

But the real meat of the article gets to the heart of one issue: Barack Obama is an empty suit who stands for nothing beyond self-promoting Barack Obama.

Published: June 25, 2010
Updated: 10:57 a.m.
Learning the rules of an unengaged president
By MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist

What do Gen. McChrystal and British Petroleum have in common? Aside from the fact that they’re both Democratic Party supporters.

Or they were. Stanley McChrystal is a liberal who voted for Obama and banned Fox News from his HQ TV. Which may at least partly explain how he became the first U.S. general to be lost in combat while giving an interview to Rolling Stone: They’ll be studying that one in war colleges around the world for decades. The management of BP were unable to vote for Obama, being, as we now know, the most sinister duplicitous bunch of shifty Brits to pitch up offshore since the War of 1812. But, in their “Beyond Petroleum” marketing and beyond, they signed on to every modish nostrum of the eco-Left. Their recently retired chairman, Lord Browne, was one of the most prominent promoters of cap-and-trade. BP was the Democrats’ favorite oil company. They were to Obama what Total Fina Elf was to Saddam.

But what do McChrystal’s and BP’s defenestration tell us about the president of the United States? Barack Obama is a thin-skinned man and, according to Britain’s Daily Telegraph, White House aides indicated that what angered the president most about the Rolling Stone piece was “a McChrystal aide saying that McChrystal had thought that Obama was not engaged when they first met last year.” If finding Obama “not engaged” is now a firing offense, who among us is safe?

Only the other day, Florida Sen. George Lemieux attempted to rouse the president to jump-start America’s overpaid, overmanned and oversleeping federal bureaucracy and get it to do something on the oil debacle. There are 2,000 oil skimmers in the United States: Weeks after the spill, only 20 of them are off the coast of Florida. Seventeen friendly nations with great expertise in the field have offered their own skimmers; the Dutch volunteered their “super-skimmers”: Obama turned them all down. Raising the problem, Sen. Lemieux found the president unengaged, and uninformed. “He doesn’t seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers and domestic skimmers,” reported the senator.

He doesn’t seem to know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t care. “It can seem that at the heart of Barack Obama’s foreign policy is no heart at all,” wrote Richard Cohen in The Washington Post last week. “For instance, it’s not clear that Obama is appalled by China’s appalling human-rights record. He seems hardly stirred about continued repression in Russia.

The president seems to stand foursquare for nothing much.

“This, of course, is the Obama enigma: Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?”

Gee, if only your newspaper had thought to ask those fascinating questions oh, say, a month before the Iowa caucuses.

And even today Cohen is still giving President Whoisthisguy a pass.

After all, whatever he feels about “China’s appalling human-rights record” or “continued repression in Russia,” Obama is not directly responsible for it. Whereas the U.S. and allied deaths in Afghanistan are happening on his watch – and the border villagers killed by unmanned drones are being killed at his behest. Cohen calls the president “above all, a pragmatist,” but with the best will in the world you can’t stretch the definition of “pragmatism” to mean “lack of interest.”

“The ugly truth,” wrote Thomas Friedman in The New York Times, “is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge. The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it.”

Well, that’s certainly ugly, but is it the truth? Afghanistan, you’ll recall, was supposed to be the Democrats’ war, the one they allegedly supported, the one the neocons’ Iraq adventure was an unnecessary distraction from. Granted the Dems’ usual shell game – to avoid looking soft on national security, it helps to be in favor of some war other than the one you’re opposing – Candidate Obama was an especially ripe promoter. In one of the livelier moments of his campaign, he chugged down half a bottle of Geopolitical Viagra and claimed he was hot for invading Pakistan.

Then he found himself in the Oval Office, and the dime-store opportunism was no longer helpful. But, as Friedman puts it, “no one knew how to get out of it.” The “pragmatist” settled for “nuance”: He announced a semisurge plus a date for withdrawal of troops to begin. It’s not “victory,” it’s not “defeat,” but rather a more sophisticated mélange of these two outmoded absolutes: If you need a word, “quagmire” would seem to cover it.

Hamid Karzai, the Taliban and the Pakistanis, on the one hand, and Britain and the other American allies heading for the check-out, on the other, all seem to have grasped the essentials of the message, even if Friedman and the other media Obammyboppers never quite did. Karzai is now talking to Islamabad about an accommodation that would see the most viscerally anti-American elements of the Taliban back in Kabul as part of a power-sharing regime. At the height of the shrillest shrieking about the Iraqi “quagmire,” was there ever any talk of hard-core Saddamite Baathists returning to government in Baghdad?

To return to Cohen’s question: “Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?” Well, he’s a guy who was wafted ever upward – from the Harvard Law Review to state legislator to United States senator – without ever lingering long enough to accomplish anything. “Who is this guy?” Well, when a guy becomes a credible presidential candidate by his mid-40s with no accomplishments other than a couple of memoirs, he evidently has an extraordinary talent for self-promotion, if nothing else. “What are his core beliefs?” It would seem likely that his core belief is in himself. It’s the “nothing else” that the likes of Cohen are belatedly noticing.

Wasn’t he kind of unengaged by the health care debate? That’s why, for all his speeches, he could never quite articulate a rationale for it. In the end, he was happy to leave it to the Democratic Congress and, when his powers of persuasion failed, let them ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.

Likewise, on Afghanistan, his attitude seems to be “I don’t want to hear about it.” Unmanned drones take care of a lot of that, for a while. So do his courtiers in the media: Did all those hopeychangers realize that Obama’s war would be run by Bush’s defense secretary and Bush’s general?

Hey, never mind: the Moveon.org folks have quietly removed their celebrated “General Betray-us” ad from their website. Cindy Sheehan, the supposed conscience of the nation when she was railing against Bush from the front pages, is an irrelevant kook unworthy of coverage when she protests Obama. Why, a cynic might almost think the “anti-war” movement was really an anti-Bush movement, and that they really don’t care about dead foreigners after all. Plus ça change you can believe in, plus c’est la même chose.

Except in one respect. There is a big hole where our strategy should be.

It’s hard to fight a war without war aims, and, in the end, they can only come from the top. It took the oil spill to alert Americans to the unengaged president. From Moscow to Tehran to the caves of Waziristan, our enemies got the message a lot earlier – and long ago figured out the rules of unengagement.

Too bad we elected a president who has a narcissism complex where his conscience should be and a vacuum where his soul should be.

Question: Should Democrats Confirm ‘General Betray Us’?

June 23, 2010

General David Petraeus earned the legitimate title of “hero” for his incredible work in leading the surge-based turnaround in Iraq.

A work that Democrats did everything they possibly could to undermine and destroy.

When General Petraeus came to Washington to appear before Congress to defend the progress he’d made in Iraq, the leftist MoveOn.org greeted him with the title, “General Betray Us,” which ran at a vastly discounted rate by fellow liberal attack dog The New York Slimes.

Hillary Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief,” all but calling Petraeus a liar.

The Senate voted to condemn the “General Betray Us” sliming of David Petraeus.  None of the Democrat presidential candidates supported it.  Obama had voted on another bill half an hour earlier, but didn’t have the courage or integrity to vote to condemn those who attacked a great general at war.  He essentially voted “present” yet again.  And Hillary Clinton literally voted in agreement with MoveOn.org.

And, of course, how did Barack Hussein analyze the Iraq strategy that Petraeus championed?

“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.”

What did Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have to say about General David Petraeus’ competence to turn around a difficult situation in Iraq?

“Now I believe myself … that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything”

Obama spent his entire seven minutes at the Petraeus hearing whining about how awful everything Petraeus was doing was, in basic agreement with Harry Reid’s words of surrender:

It is to suggest that if the American people and the Congress had understood then that after devoting $1 trillion, which is what this thing optimistically will end up having cost, thousands of American lives, the creation of an environment in which Al Qaida in Iraq could operate because it didn’t exist prior to our invasion, that we have increased terrorist recruitment around the world, that Iran has been strengthened, that bin Laden and Al Qaida are stronger than at any time since 2001, and that the process of Iraqi reconstruction and their standard of living would continue to be lower than it was pre- invasion, that if that had been the deal, I think most people would have said that’s a bad deal, that does not make sense, that does not serve the United States’ strategic interests.

And so I think that some of the frustration you hear from some of the questioners is that we have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation, to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006 is considered success, and it’s not.

I mean, Petraeus didn’t accomplish anything in Iraq, and actually added to the needless violence, according to now-President Barry Hussein; he’s a flat-out dishonest liar, according to now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; we actually lost the Iraq War during Petraeus’ leadership, according to Harry Reid; and he betrayed this country, according to the leftwing machine that largely got this administration elected. And now this same general is all of a sudden the go-to-guy for these very same Democrats? I mean, excuse me?

History has proven that it was Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the entire liberal establishment who demagogued and demonized the Iraq War, who were the liars. The surge strategy and the Iraq war that General David Petraues led was such a monumental success that Joe Biden (rather appropriately nicknamed Joe “Bite Me” by General Stanley McChyrstal’s staff) tried to claim credit for it, saying:

[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.”

Democrats never admit how terribly wrong and in fact shockingly immoral they were when they did everything they possibly could to undermine General Petraeus and the Iraq War. But that doesn’t mean they won’t cynically and hypocritically take credit for both Iraq and Petraeus now. That’s just the kind of weasels Democrats are.

David Petraeus was the general that Democrats and their leftist allies despised.  Petraeus was Bush’s general.  Petraeus was “the surge general.”  And the fact that the same liberals who hated Petraeus are now cheering Obama’s selection of him makes me want to barf.

All I’m doing here is pointing out that by the twisted, vile, hypocritical, loathsome standards by which Democrats evaluated General Petraues, there is no way they should confirm him now.

They should find someone like the Pied Piper of fairy tale lore and confirm him instead.

And if Democrats do in fact now vote to confirm the man they attacked, it will be an open acknowledgment that they were rabid little treasonous vermin back in 2007.

Update, June 30, 2010: Democrats unanimously voted today to confirm as a matter of fact that they were treasonous liars in 2007.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 495 other followers