Posts Tagged ‘Petraeus’

Obama’s Outright, Apalling LIE As He Avoids Responsibility For HIS Appallingly Poor Decision Covered Up By Mainstream Media – But Here It Is

August 22, 2014

Obama is the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race, bar NONE.  NO HUMAN BEING in the entire history of the world has been seen by so many telling so many lies.

I stated that fact after Obama had “fundamentally transformed” America’s health care system based on lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.

But I’m going to add the word “treasonous” to “liar.”  Because when you lie about the national security of the United States of America, that’s what you are: a traitor.

It wasn’t that long ago that Barack Obama angrily denounced as a lie the allegation that he was responsible for the decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq - which of course facilitated the invasion from across Syria into Iraq by ISIS/ISIL:

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. — is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq. [link]

Well, there is not only video after video after video after video of Obama claiming credit for ending the war in Iraq:

If you go to this recent article, I’ve got Obama’s “I got us out of Iraq” boasts ad nauseam.  And they SHOULD make you nauseous.  One of the quotes I cite is this one when Obama boasts that he is pulling out all forces from Iraq in 2011:

“I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.”

So we already knew that when Barack Obama claimed that it wasn’t HIS decision to pull US forces out of Iraq and leave a vacuum for the next terrorist organization to occupy, Obama was a liar without shame, without decency, without honor, without integrity, without courage, without virtue of any kind.

Barack Hussein Obama is a pathologically wicked man.  And I believe that it is clear that he is a truly demon-possessed man.

But we have more now: which the mainstream media would have long since dug up had the president been a Republican liar rather than a Democrat liar.  We actually have Obama in a national debate specifically disavowing any status of forces agreement and arguing that he was hell bent on cutting and running and would not allow American troops to remain in Iraq:

In fact, Obama very clearly objected when Mitt Romney declared during a debate that both he and Obama would have preferred a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) that left a residual force in Iraq:

“With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,” Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. “That’s not true,” Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

So when Obama tries to disavow and duck his personal responsibility for his incredibly godawful, outrageous, immoral decision to pull our troops out of Iraq rather than leave a residual force that would have kept Iraq as safe and as secure as Obama and Biden BOASTED it had become after George Bush won the Iraq War after Democrats did EVERYTHING they could to thwart him and undermine him and demonize him and slander him for doing so, HE IS A LIAR.

Joe Biden said the following about the Iraq War that President Bush had won:

“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.”

So we have it on documented historical record that Obama and his administration weren’t just claiming credit for ending the war and pulling all our troops out; they were claiming credit for the safe, stable, peaceful Iraq that had been left behind as Bush left office.

We’ve got Obama’s own words to confirm that FACT from 2011 when he was pulling all our troops out:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

We also know that the military was BEGGING Obama to change his mind with his incredibly stupid, depraved and evil decision to pull all out troops out and piss away all the sacrifices we had made:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

The generals KNEW this disaster would happen as terrorists swept back in.  But Barack Obama, reckless, demon-possessed Democrat FOOL that he is, ignored them and overrode them.

One of the architects of the successful surge strategy that turned the war around in Iraq PREDICTED the following AT THE VERY TIME THAT OBAMA WAS ANNOUNCING HIS WITHDRAWAL:

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.”

How could Obama lie like this?  How could the Democrat Party so circle their wagons around such a clearly wicked and dishonest liar???

I submit to you that there is no possible way that Barack Obama and his Democrat Party and the media propaganda machine that protects him are all truly possessed by demons.  You cannot be that stupid, that blind, that depraved or even that dishonest without Satan owning your soul.

Barack Obama is the worst kind of coward there ever was.  He is a coward and a malignant narcissist who cannot face up to taking responsibility for his disgraceful decisions.

Now we’re back into Iraq and we can’t fight these brutally vicious people after Obama stupidly allowed them to gain a stranglehold over Iraq.

Obama’s handpicked Secretary of Defense just admitted this:

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel dramatically upgraded the U.S. government’s estimation of the threats America faces from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on Thursday, saying its jihadi network represents ‘an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else.’

ISIS is ‘as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen,’ Hagel told a group of reporters during a joint press conference he held with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

‘They’re beyond just a terrorist group.They marry ideology and a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well funded. …This is beyond anything we’ve seen, so we must prepare for everything.’

‘And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and – and – and get ready.’

Obama stupidly, arrogantly, narcissistically, had called this group “junior varsity.”  And they are so much better and so much stronger and so much better organized than we are – thanks to the pathological disgrace wicked, vile Democrats put in office TWICE – that it should make you want to scream and rip out every shred of your hair.

In the same article cited above, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also gave his input on the consequences of Barack Obama’s incredibly stupid and pathologically evil decision to allow ISIS beheaders to first overwhelm Syria – which Republicans had begged Obama to contain – and then overwhelm Iraq:

Gen. Dempsey warned that America’s involvement in Iraq will continue for years to come, citing the intensity of hatred among ethnic, religious and tribal groups there.

‘The conflict against those groups – most of which are local, some of which are regional, and some of which are global in nature – that’s going to be a very long contest,’ he said.

‘It’s ideological. It’s not political. It’s religious in many cases. So, yes, it’s going to be a very long contest.’

At the same time the decorated general cautioned that the ‘required participation’ of the U.S. would remain one of coalition leadership ‘to provide the unique capabilities that we provide, but not necessarily all the capabilities’ – a suggestion that an unlimited release of military might to crush ISIS is off the table.

Dempsey added later in the briefing that ISIS can’t practically be contained in Iraq, since it also has deep roots and tremendous resources across the Syrian border.

The terror group ‘has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,’ the general explained.

‘Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.’

Do you understand this?  Obama caused this.  This is BECAUSE of Obama.  We had WON in Iraq.  We had a chance to defeat Assad in Syria and aid a pro-democracy takeover of that country.  Obama lost both for us.

Let’s go back to the could haves, would haves and should haves, to the president we COULD have had if we didn’t have demon-possessed people destroying the soul and body of America (Democrats), if they hadn’t elected a complete fool for our president (Obama).  Let’s go back to John McCain’s strategy for securing Iraq:

[Voter at forum dubbed “EH” by McCain due to his likeness to Ernest Hemingway]: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –-

Mr. McCain: Maybe a hundred.

We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.

That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

John McCain rightly pointed out that having won the war – which we did – we needed to secure and maintain what we had won.  That’s what we did in Japan.  That’s what we did in Europe.  That’s what we did in Korea.  That’s what we needed to do in Iraq.

The New York Times captured the exchange in a transcript form (same link as above).  The same “EH” had previously said:

E.H.: I want to say at the outset I’m not going to be voting for you. I’m going to be voting in the Democratic primary in order to defeat the senator from new york, who I refer to as a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

I have listened to Hillary Clinton say probably a hundred times that she will end the war and I’ve heard you say we can’t leave Iraq.

And you see, the thing is that McCain was RIGHT and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were WRONG.  We CAN’T leave Iraq.  It is stupid and in fact morally depraved to leave Iraq after we fought so hard to win there.  Weakness invites thugs, withdrawal invites and literally incites terrorists.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might as well have said, “Please come in and take over and create a caliphate.”  Because that’s what their policy guaranteed.

The above discussion took place January 6, 2008.  At that time John McCain already understood that the corner had been turned in the war – which ultimately resulted in an exultant Joe Biden claiming victory in Iraq.  And McCain pointed out:

But the fact is it’s American casualties that the American people care about and those casualties are on the way down rather dramatically.

And the option, and I’ll say this again because you’ve got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I’d look you in the eye and tell you Al Queda would have said we beat the United States of America. If we’d gone along with Harry Reid and said the war was lost to Al Queda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East, and I am convinced of that and so is General Petraeus as well as others.

The Washington Post fact checker – a liberal paper, mind you – documented the disgraceful lies and frankly slander that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made of John McCain’s clearly wise policy.

John McCain was right.  The entire Democrat Party machine – including the Senate Majority Leader who had disgracefully said, “I believe the war is lost,” and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were united behind the defeat of America.  It is simply a fact that in hindsight anyone who isn’t a truly demon-possessed fool can see now.

And yes, ye demon-possessed Democrat who thinks Hillary is still anything other than a fool’s choice for president, Hillary Clinton JOINED Obama in betraying America in 2008 and slandering John McCain’s common sense wisdom regarding US policy in Iraq.

You need to understand that when you vote for the Democrat Party, YOU ARE VOTING FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL.  You are voting for evil to prevail in foreign policy and national security – as is clearly documented here.  You are voting for evil to prevail in the murder of more innocent babies (already surpassing 56,662,169 and counting) than were killed on all sides, civilian and military, throughout the entirety of the worst and bloodiest war in all human history (“only” 56,125,262 killed).  You are voting for homosexual sodomy which is the rock bottom low that the Bible clearly teaches in Romans 1:18-32 is the nadir of culture and guarantees the full wrath of God on that culture.  You are voting for evil to prevail in your socialism, which is the replacement of God with your State and the death of the dignity of the human spirit as you plunge people into government dependency when they should be dependent upon God their Savior and upon His people rather than your bound-for-hell Bureaucrats.  Your precious “separation of church and state” is nothing more than a perversion of everything that this nation has stood for and is nothing short of the separation of God from America.  And it shows in everything you do and in everything you stand for.

If you are a Democrat you have radically rejected Jesus Christ and you will scream in the fire of hell for all eternity for your wickedness.  And even eternal hell will not last long enough for you to suffer for all that you did on earth for the blasphemous crimes you committed against God and against the image of God and against humanity.

 

Obama Presidency ‘Bogus And Wrong’ As He Dishonestly Claims It’s Not His Fault He Abandoned Iraq After Bush Secured Victory There

August 13, 2014

For those of you who don’t have time to read this full article and for the quickest possible proof that Barack Obama is a liar, just read this article dated February 2, 2009 (which I cite below if the link is ever broken) and tell me that the decision to bail out of Iraq wasn’t Obama’s baby and Obama’s baby ALONE.  You can also read the prediction of this general who said in 2011 – the very time when Obama was claiming so much credit for ending the war – that Obama’s pullout from Iraq was an “absolute disaster.”  And yu can digest the fact that Obama had the leader of ISIS in detention and FREED HIM.

Now, you tell me that Barack Hussein Obama is not a demon-possessed liar without honesty, shame, integrity, virtue, or decency of any kind.  And reveal YOURSELF to be a demon-possessed liar without honesty, shame, integrity, virtue, or decency of any kind.

For the rest of you, let’s introduce Barack Obama the pathologically dishonest liar and coward at length:

Let’s start with the present and work our way back to expose Barack Obama for the giant liar and disgrace of a human being that he truly is:

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. — is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006 — if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.

So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.

For starters, this worthless turd of a president passes more buck than the most frequented ATM machine on planet earth.  The man has been president for six years, and he has YET to take responsibility for ONE thing that’s happened during his failed presidency.

Okay.  You heard it from Obama.  He says he didn’t want to end the war but the end of the war was FORCED upon him and he’s a victim of Bush and he’s a victim of al-Malaki and he’s just a victim.  He never wanted to end the war in Iraq.  He never wanted to get our troops out.

LIAR!!!  Just watch this video and tell me that this demon-possessed man didn’t say JUST THE DAMN OPPOSITE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN:

The Freebeacon rightly puts it this way:

It was an applause line during almost every campaign address made by President Obama in 2012: “I promised to end the war in Iraq, and I did.”

Now, he’s backing off.

President Obama ordered a full troop withdrawal from Iraq, which was completed in December 2011. But the country did not stabilize, as was predicted by Obama and key members of his administration. Instead, it has descended into greater chaos with the violent al Qaeda offshoot ISIL threatening to take over the country.

The only thing they got wrong was this notion that Obama’s “backing off.”  He is OUTRIGHT LYING.

Another site – the IJReview – gets it more right.  Their title nails it: “As ISIS Terrorists Bury Women & Children Alive, Obama Lies That Ending Iraq War ‘Wasn’t His Idea’”  And they point out more crystal clear footage of Obama in the past to document what a lying hypocrite weasel he truly is:

It’s pathological. Saturday morning, President Obama followed up on a message that he had uttered a few months ago: Withdrawing from Iraq wasn’t his idea.

This is what the president responded after being asked: “Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. — is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?”

What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision…

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

Does the president realize that the U.S. went to war in Iraq and has a vested stake in that nation’s security? The president doesn’t get “told” by the post-Hussein government whether or not the U.S. will protect Iraq from al Qaeda or other terrorists. Period.

Here is what the president said along the same lines in June 2014, when asked about maintaining a residual force in Iraq (hint: it’s someone else’s fault):

Never mind that it was a campaign pledge in 2007 to “end the war” in Iraq within 16 months of being in office. And by the way, “you can take that to the bank”:

Never mind that his backtracking began almost immediately after he was elected. Here is Obama circa December 2008:

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq.”

The president then “spiked the football” about single-handedly pulling troops out of Iraq in 2011. Here is what he said, followed by video of his speech:

“I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.”

Now here is the reality of what’s going on in Iraq, since the U.S. left a gaping power vacuum for ISIS terrorists (aka “al Qaeda’s JV squad“). Breitbart picked up on the story, which originally came via Reuters:

Islamic State militants have killed at least 500 members of Iraq’s Yazidi ethnic minority during their offensive in the north, Iraq’s human rights minister told Reuters on Sunday.

Mohammed Shia al-Sudani said the Sunni militants had also buried alive some of their victims, including women and children. Some 300 women were kidnapped as slaves, he added.

The ISIS terrorists told the Yazidis to convert to Islam or die. In at least some cases, those who “convert” are still killed in a horrific manner. This follows upon weeks of gruesome reports of Christians and other minorities being killed in awful ways, such as by crucifixion and decapitation.

14075174371961_700

As President Obama takes yet another vacation at an incredibly inopportune time for America (not to mention for the Iraqis being summarily executed by terrorists), even the media seem to be noticing that this “Commander-in-Chief” is not only weak, but incapable of taking responsibility.

Maybe they should have noticed that while they were promoting a community organizer with the gift of gab to leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

Update: Joel Gehrke at National Review Online wrote in-depth about the “it’s all Bush’s fault” rejoinder (re: the “status of forces” agreement):

A report in The New Yorker showed how President Obama failed to secure the status of forces agreement necessary to leave the troops in place after 2011.

Imagine that – the buck actually stops with Obama.

But even this doesn’t go quite far enough in exposing Obama.  I mean, for instance, it doesn’t provide the now infamous quote from Obama’s VP Joe Biden:

“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.”

So we have it on documented historical record that Obama and his administration weren’t just claiming credit for ending the war and pulling all our troops out; they were claiming credit for the safe, stable, peaceful Iraq that had been left behind as Bush left office.

We’ve got Obama’s own words to confirm that FACT from 2011 when he was pulling all our troops out:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

But again, this still doesn’t get to the gist of Obama’s rhetoric now, that he tried to leave troops behind but al-Malaki wouldn’t have it (so Obama of course being a true pathological liar claimed over and over and over again to the American people that it was his idea even when it wasn’t and boasted of the success of something that has now so wildly failed it is beyond unreal).  No, for that, you have to go back even further.

Read this article that was written in the first few days following Obama’s taking office and YOU TELL ME WHO WANTED TO PULL U.S. TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ AND WHOSE DAMN IDEA IT WAS:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

I cited Obama blathering about how he ended the war in Iraq from 2011.  Here is the prediction of a key US general at the same time Obama was patting himself on the back:

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.”

You tell me who history proves was right and who history proved was catastrophically WRONG.

I pointed this out previously citing world opinion of Israel as my example: the Democrat Party is the party of demon-possession.  You can’t be this stupid, this blind and this depraved on your own because God created us with rational minds capable of seeing truth.  Satan is behind the Democrat Party and that is why such idiocy has become America’s policy.

The decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq was the morally idiotic, demon-possessed decision of one fool: Barack Hussein Obama.  PERIOD.

And Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are now LYING to claim anything otherwise.  Period.

Get this one: Obama actually FREED the man who is the leader of ISIS as it murders its way across Syria, Iraq and now Lebanon.

BOMBSHELL: ISIS leader was US prisoner. Obama released him.

The US government once offered a reward of “up to $10 million” for the capture of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He was captured and interned at Camp Bucca.

In 2009, Barack Obama shut down the camp and freed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Since 2011, Barack Obama has been providing money and support to Sunni Jihadists in Syria, where Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was based.

Many of the Sunni Jihadists fighting in ISIS have directly benefits from US money and arms.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is believed to be the mastermind behind a series of large scale jail breaks in Iraq that have freed about 2,000 Jihadists over the past year.

His present army stretches from The middle of northern Syria to northern and central Iraq. The core of his army is made up of former FSA Jihadists that received money and weapons from the USA, freed Iraqi veteran Jihadists, and Sunni militias that are now flocking to join him.

That is simply documented history.

We literally have it from the sneering, arrogant lips of the Obama administration PUKES that Bush wouldn’t have done this insanely evil thing and that General Petraeus wouldn’t have done this insanely evil thing and that the Pentagon didn’t want to do this insanely evil thing, but Obama is the Pharaoh-god-king now so you’ll have to realize that a god among men has taken over and just bow down before him.

Barack Obama is a LIAR.  Democrats are LIARS.  If you vote for them you will one day very soon find yourself burning in hell forever and ever and ever.  And it will be a GOOD thing that you are burning in hell because of all the wickedness that you perpetuated by keeping these truth-murdering thugs in office.

And now this pathological COWARD doesn’t have the courage, or the integrity or the decency or the honesty or the virtue or ANY other positive moral trait to just tell the American people the truth: that he well and truly FUBARed Iraq after he FUBARed in Syria and for that matter after he FUBARed in Libya and before that in Egypt - and will can all already see that Obama will ultimately FUBAR in Afghanistan – to ignite the entire Middle East into a conflagration that mark my words will end at Armageddon.

When Iran – a rabid Islamic totalitarian fascist state that literally believes it will be serving Allah by forcing the last days to come with an orgy of violence and bloodshed – gets the nuclear bomb, it will be ENTIRELY Barack Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s fault.

It is stunning to see the degree that Obama has brought America to its ruin while we sit like the proverbial frogs in the pot of water that is beginning to slowly come to a boil.

Democrats are now demanding Republicans explain how they would fix the mess that Obama created for America.  And the only answer is to invent a time machine so we could go back to 2008 and hunt down every single Democrat with dogs and burn them alive.  Because Obama has so obliterated all options in Iraq and all American credibility in the world that both are broken beyond repair.

If we had kept troops in Iraq the way we kept troops in Okinawa and Europe after World War II and in South Korea after the Korean War, we would not be in this mess.  ISIS would not have been able to gain a foothold.  Iraq would still be the stable, safe, peaceful country Obama and Biden boasted about.  But no.  Obama failed.  Had Obama showed some resolve in Syria after his cowardly retreat from his “red line,” had Obama armed the pro-Democrat Syrian rebels when Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham were BEGGING him to do, ISIS would not have been able to spread like a cancer from Syria.  I mean, had Obama just bombed ISIS when they were besieging Mosul in Iraq instead of mocking them as “JV,” we could have stopped this bloodshed fiasco.  But no.

Obama failed America.  Obama failed Iraq.  Obama failed the Middle East.  Obama failed the world.  And the entire human race will pay dearly for Obama’s failure just as the entire human race paid dearly for Neville Chamberlain’s failure when that fool and coward employed the same identical strategy as Obama is now.

I’m going to state for the record again how I believe the United States will catastrophically collapse.  It begins with the fact that this is now officially “God DAMN America!” because of Obama’s “fundamentally transforming” this nation into a homosexual sodomy-worshiping perverter of God’s principles.  God is not mocked.  He has turned His back on this nation and it shows to anyone who isn’t a radical FOOL.  Add to that our stratospheric debt which is – if you actually COUNT it – is currently very near $250 TRILLION.  No nation in the history of planet earth has EVER been as immoral with money as the United States of America.  And Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” there, too.  By the time Obama leaves office, he will have DOUBLED the nation’s debt and literally surpassed the total of every single American president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.  If you believe that a bankrupt nation can spend its way out of bankruptcy, you are as insane and as demon-possessed as your false messiah president is.  And, again, to document what an appallingly dishonest hypocrite Barack Obama and Democrats are, let’s remember how Obama demonized Bush for what we now know Obama quintupled down on himself.

What goes up must come down.  And America’s artificially inflated economy – allowed to metastasize into the cancer it has become by virtue of America’s status as the Reserve Currency which enables us to literally keep printing money when NO OTHER NATION IN HISTORY COULD GET AWAY WITH THAT – will most assuredly come crashing down.  You are a fool not to understand that fact.  As the reserve currency of the planet, all commodities are bought and sold with U.S. dollars.  That has allowed us to get away with fiscal policies that no other nation has EVER been allowed to get away with.  We are literally able to create money out of thin air by adding zeroes to our Federal Reserve computers with the devaluation of our currency split among every inhabitant of planet earth.

But here’s the thing: America will crash catastrophically – and the American people will suffer as no people in the history of the world have EVER suffered simply because the depth of our collapse will be so far beyond anything that has ever happened in all of human history – when we lose that Reserve Currency status.  And I guaran-damn-TEE you that that will happen in the not-very-distant future now.  America’s abuse of that status guarantees it.  Already, the next five largest economies, the so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are demanding that the United States dollar be severed from reserve currency status.  And I can now assure you that former allies such as Germany – enraged by Obama – won’t stand in the way of that move.

Obama’s gutting of our national security and his incredibly weak and cowardly foreign policy have made us appear weak and actually BE weak in the world.  There is NOTHING to stop our allies from abandoning us just as there is NOTHING to stop our enemies from being emboldened against us.  We maintained our status as Reserve Currency by serving as the policeman of the world.  No matter how much they bitched about it, the rest of the free world was glad that we were there to back them up so they didn’t have to provide powerful militaries themselves.  Those days are OVER because of Obama.  And there is no reason to keep a strong, powerful America around anymore as we reneged on OUR end of the deal.

The night before our complete economic collapse, the talking heads will tell you that everything will be okay and your money will be fine.  You mark my words.

The United States is nowhere mentioned in Bible prophecy.  But you should already be able to see that there will be no strong, powerful America to prevent the degeneration of the world into rabid evil.  If anything, in fact, the United States is now LEADING the world into evil.  And God will put an end to this blasphemous, heretic nation very soon.

The Antichrist is coming out of the soon-coming ruins.  And Democrats will worship him and take his mark because he will promise the ultimate big-government Utopia that they have dreamed of.

History will ultimately prove that Barack Hussein Obama and every Democrat who supported him were the Useful Idiots who ushered in the Antichrist and the coming hell on earth.

 

 

 

The Blame Game Masters: Iran’s Plan B Has Always Been Obama’s Plan A-Z. Consider How Obama Blames Bush For His Iraq Failure.

June 18, 2014

This is almost funny it’s so sad.  Iran has mastered how to defeat America by watching the master at defeating America at work: Barack Hussein Obama.

Analysis Iran maneuvers to win blame game if nuclear talks collapse
By Paul Richter
June 17, 2014, 4:46 AM|Reporting from Vienna

Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has come to this city hoping to seal a deal on its disputed nuclear program that will finally remove the international sanctions crippling its economy..

But just in case they don’t win that diplomatic victory, they are carefully positioning themselves to come away with a valuable second prize: a win in the ugly blame game that would follow the collapse of negotiations.

Tehran’s team wants to make sure that if its talks with six world powers collapse, many nations would conclude that Iran had been prepared to compromise and the obstacle was the maximalist demands of the United States and its hawkish Israeli and Persian Gulf allies.

The Iranians hope that if many countries come to that view the countries will begin to shed sanctions, allowing Tehran to sell its oil again, and to continue pursuing a nuclear program.

What happens to the sanctions, the world’s great point of leverage on Iran, “depends on who wins the blame game,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who follows Iran for the Eurasia Group risk consulting firm.

Iran’s last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, liked to project an image of thunder and fire. He didn’t look reasonable to the world audience, and didn’t much care.

But the smiling team of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif seek to come across as reasonable representatives of a country that deserves more than pariah status.

In the run-up to this fifth round of talks, Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has put considerable effort into convincing the world that they are not the threat to a diplomatic solution to the 2-decade-old dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

At a news conference last Saturday, Rouhani stressed Iran’s “goodwill and flexibility” and his hopes that a deal could still be wrapped up by the current deadline of July 20.

He seemed to signal that he was prepared to set aside Iran’s longstanding enmity with the United States, saying it might cooperate with the U.S. on the struggle against Sunni extremists in Iraq. Of course, as a responsible world power, any Iranian step would be consistent with “international law,” he emphasized.

Rouhani also argued that the sanctions are unraveling anyway. “Conditions will never go back to the past,” he said, in an apparent effort to convince oil-consuming nations they will soon be able to resume oil purchases.

Foreign Minister Zarif, meanwhile, has been building a case that Iran’s goals in the nuclear negotiations are reasonable and that the West’s are extreme.

In a Washington Post Op-Ed article last week, Zarif wrote that in 2005, he and Rouhani floated a plan to the West that would have allowed an international panel to regulate Iran’s nuclear program based on whether they thought it was peaceful. Instead, the George W. Bush administration demanded a halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment, undermining diplomacy and leading to a huge expansion of the Iranian nuclear program.

“They were mistaking our constructive engagement for weakness,” Zarif wrote.

He argued that “small but powerful constituencies” in the West have been calling for tough action against Iran by saying that the country is only a couple of months from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

In fact, Zarif wrote, Iran would still need “several years” of work to complete all the complex processes needed to turn the fuel into a bomb.

He pointed out that 2005 and 2012 National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the U.S. intelligence community consensus, concluded that Iran wasn’t trying to build a bomb.

The Iranian team is hoping that if the talks collapse, the defection of a few non-Western oil-importing nations, such as China, Turkey or India, might begin an accelerating unraveling of the sanctions.

Obama administration officials contend the sanctions have remained strong since the signing of an interim nuclear deal last November that eased some of the penalties on Iran.

Many countries remain wary of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, in part because of evidence that Iran for years was secretly expanding the program.

Yet the administration has some vulnerabilities in the public relations battle.

One is that many countries are increasingly skeptical of the U.S.’ heavy use of its powerful economic sanctions, which the White House this spring has imposed on Russia because of the dispute over Ukraine.

Many countries, including some in Europe, see Congress’ use of sanctions as excessive.

A senior administration official, asked in a briefing this week about Iran’s efforts to win over world opinion, may have bolstered its argument by warning that if Tehran didn’t yield in negotiations it would be clobbered by more sanctions legislation.

“If Iran does not feel it can make the choices that are necessary, I have no doubt that Congress will take action,” warned the official, who declined to be identified under administration ground rules.

We’ve never seen such a demagogue in the White House.  EVER.  This wicked man ran promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Obama deceived and lied his way into office, pure and simple.  And dug in like a disease-bearing tick, he proceeded to “fundamentally transform America” by abandon any and all compromise and ramming home his Stalinist partisan ideology by whatever means necessary (usually Stalinist means through “executive orders” and simple lawlessness, mind you).

Everything was Bush’s fault.  And as that myth started to wear out, everything was the Republicans’ fault.  Obama is a one-trick pony, and the blame game is his one trick so he keeps doing it over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

Our enemies have taken notice of how pathologically weak and cynical Obama is.  And they have taken note of how to be like Obama and use rhetoric to delegitimize truth.

Obama demonized George Bush over EVERYTHING.  Except the way Bush won the Iraq War.  Obama didn’t demonize that; nope: he tried to take credit for it (as I documented in a recent article).  Joe Biden put it this way when Bush was long out of office and everything seemed to be going so, so well:

“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.”

Obama BOASTED in 2011 about how wonderfully HIS plan had worked to produce a stable Iraq:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

Of course, NO ONE in the Pentagon had agreed with Obama’s plan.  They had BEGGED Obama to keep the sort of residual force in Iraq that John McCain had described America as needing to ensure true long-term security:

QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.

QUESTIONER: Is that — is that –

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea — we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans –

QUESTIONER: So that’s your policy?

McCAIN: — As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it’s fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day.

Had we remained in Iraq the way we remained in South Korea and the way we remained in Japan and the way we remained in Europe, WE WOULDN’T BE WHERE WE ARE NOW.

And where we are now is a complete disaster, with Iraq collapsing to terrorists who are – get this – WORSE than al Qaeda while we beg our ENEMY Iran – which is responsible for one third of all American deaths and casualties suffered in Iraq – to help us because we are too weak to help ourselves now.

Let’s look at the timeline of what the military said was wise and what they said was idiotic.  Let’s start with Feb 2, 2009 only days after Obama took office:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Obama was a fool.  He still IS a fool.  He will ALWAYS be a fool.

Note that we DID have an end-run around the just-as-stupid-as-Obama Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: just re-categorize the troops as “support troops.”  And there are PLENTY of such end runs if Obama had wanted them: for example, now, if Obama sends in ANY troops, he could provide cover for them by declaring them to be under the protections of embassy personnel.  He could have ALWAYS played such games had he wanted to.  The fact of the matter is, Obama wanted OUT of Iraq.  He cut and ran, just as we said.  He never TRIED to negotiate anything but his ass not hitting the door on his way out.

Note that back in 2009, literally one day after taking office (January 21), Obama was already IGNORING the superior knowledge and wisdom of the military and frankly even his own experts in his own cabinet that he had chosen.  And he imposed his idiot liberalism on America and now we’re paying for it and will pay far MORE for it soon.

Note that American military commanders ALWAYS assumed that Obama wouldn’t be such a fool as to do what he did, as this article underscores:

Despite Obama’s declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that “military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.” Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama’s orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy. Then there’s the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.

The fact is this: the military demanded that we need to have at least 20,000 men as a residual force; Obama refused to listen to wisdom and ordered the military to draw up a new plan.  So the military scratched their heads at Obama’s arrogant idiocy and returned, asking for at least 10,000 troops.  Again, Obama refused common sense.  Obama was only going to allow a way-too-small force of 3,000.

And when Obama came to the Iraqi Prime Minister with that clearly-too-small-to-do-any-good number, Nouri al -Maliki understood that Obama had absolutely no intention of truly remaining as a stabilizing force in Iraq, that he was cutting and running, that America under Obama was useless, and that he would need to run to the Iranians instead of relying on the Americans.

In other words, Obama lost the war right then and there.  Obama – who wanted OUT – offered absolutely nothing whatsoever that al-Maliki could use, which made it easy for al-Maliki to refuse Obama’s “assistance.”  Hence no status of forces agreement.

Let’s go to a period – April 10, 2011 - after the Obama-King-Dumbass-of-the-Universe policy on Iraq is on the verge of being implemented:

WASHINGTON — Eight months shy of its deadline for pulling the last American soldier from Iraq and closing the door on an 8-year war, the Pentagon is having second thoughts.

Reluctant to say it publicly, officials fear a final pullout in December could create a security vacuum, offering an opportunity for power grabs by antagonists in an unresolved and simmering Arab-Kurd dispute, a weakened but still active al-Qaida or even an adventurous neighbor such as Iran.

The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace. This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

Note how the media slants and distorts the story.  The military wasn’t having “second thoughts” about this idiotic move by Obama; THEY HAD ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

Also, note that they feared not only terrorists taking over Iraq, but the terrorist State of Iran taking over Iraq.  Under Obama’s wicked, demon-possessed stupidity, BOTH ARE NOW HAPPENING.

We learn – if we care about history rather than liberal’s fact-warping rhetoric – that:

Obama’s plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to “conditions on the ground,” meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama “assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. … The president assured him that there was a Plan B.”

In other words, Obama made the call.  He made the call AFTER Bush had secured victory.  And Obama foolishly made THE WRONG CALL.  And now the Middle East is melting down around us as a result of our Idiot-in-Chief.

Of course, we now know what Obama’s “PLan B” was: to blame Bush for Obama’s idiotic failures and count on the mainstream media to sell it.

As another example of how the Fool-in-Chief annihilated American influence in the Middle East, consider how Obama – after his “red line” debacle - refused wisdom in sending aid to the pro-democratic rebels in Syria as John McCain and Lindsey Graham begged Obama to do a good two years plus ago.

We had a chance to topple Syrian dictator Assad AND install a government friendly to us, but Obama dithered too long and blew any chance we had.  And then – because Obama is a true fool – he involved Russia and Putin who takes Obama to school every time they negotiate.  And Putin maneuvered Obama into literally NEEDING Assad to remain in power to secure a WMD deal that Putin and Assad held over Obama’s head like a carrot while Assad murdered now well over 160,000 of his own people.  And while a vicious terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – ISIS – metastasized first across Syria and now into Iraq.

These are all just facts.  It is what happened.

But the way Obama – using his “Iran Plan B” strategy as per the top article above – has handled his debacle is to blame Bush for it.  If Bush hadn’t started the war, we wouldn’t be here.

You know, just like “If I didn’t have an opposable thumb, I wouldn’t have smashed my finger with this hammer.”

It is significant that BOTH of Barack Obama’s Secretaries of State – first Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry – voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq.  Because they looked at the clear and present danger that Iraq posed and they looked at the intelligence evidence that Bush was also looking at, and they came to the same decision that any rational human being would come to faced with such overwhelming evidence.

History records THAT as a fact as well.  It also records the fact that nearly sixty percent of DEMOCRATS in the United States Senate (29 of 50) supported Bush’s policy on Iraq in the form of something called “the Iraq WAR Resolution.”  That’s right, kids: “The Iraq WAR Resolution.”  Only to turn on him like treasonous dogs the moment that politics and unbelievable dishonesty and cynicism on the part of the Democrat Party entered into the picture.

Again, note that the two people who served as Obama’s Secretaries of State – Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – both voted “YES.”

Democrats are demonic, backstabbing traitors.  And if you give them power, they will undermine America every single time.

So Obama is trying to play games and blame pretty much all of the scandals that HIS administration is responsible for on Bush.  Like the VA scandal.

Now Obama’s – OBAMA’S – failed policy is coming home to roost.  And the man who just a few years ago was claiming total credit for Iraq is now using his army of media cockroaches to suggest that Bush so screwed up Iraq that it’s wrong to blame Obama.  BULLCRAP.

The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush secured victory in Iraq and handed off a safe, stable, secure nation to Barack Obama.  Barack Obama claimed credit for what he received and in so doing claimed ownership of it.  Had his policy not been so wrong, had he not so completely and so arrogantly IGNORED his wise military advisors, we would not be in this mess.

Don’t let Obama play his “Iranian strategy” on this one.

 

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 537 other followers