Posts Tagged ‘strike’

What Obama Should Do About Syria: Do Nothing – Because He Chose To Do EVERYTHING Instead

September 6, 2013

First of all, we should not bomb Syria.

There are a whole host of reasons we shouldn’t, beginning with the fact that Syria has virtually nothing to do with America’s national interest.  In using chemical weapons against their own people, they did nothing that would threaten American security.  If that isn’t enough, let’s point out the fact that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep referring to “international norms.”  There’s a reason they do that; namely, because there is actually no violation of “international LAW.”  No nation that signed the treaty on chemical weapons is required to take military action against violators.  And Syria did not sign that treaty anyway.  Third, do you know which country WOULD be violating international law if Obama got his way?  That’s right – the United States of America.  The Secretary General of the United Nations has already stated categorically that our bombing of Syria would be illegal under international law.

Now, having stated those three problems for bombing Syria, let me continue pointing out still MORE problems with bombing Syria.  What is our specific goal?  None has been clearly (or actually even rather vaguely) stated.  A limited attack that would leave Bashar al-Assad in power would do nothing to dissuade him and would be just as emboldening to him as if we did nothing.  If he was still in power the day after the attack – and Obama has repeatedly assured the world Assad would still be in power – Assad would take to the airwaves and boast that he had withstood everything America could throw at him and he still remained to defy them.  The act of American imperialist aggression might literally even HELP Assad by rallying Arabs against the Great Satan.  Vietnam should survive as a lesson for us: if we’re going to go to war, “limited” is a bad word.  Either we need to utterly overwhelm with no restrictions and nothing off-limits, or we need to shut up and stay home.  But there’s more: what if our strike actually DID topple Assad?  Who would take over the country?  Al Qaeda, that’s who.  We can argue what percentage of fighters are radical al Qaeda soldiers, but the bottom line – that we have already learned the hard way in Egypt – is that the al Qaeda-types are better organized and would swiftly take over in any power vacuum the same way that the Muslim Brotherhood did.  Do you remember Obama assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood could NOT take over in Egypt?  Well, he did (as I documented here):

Obama downplayed the likelihood that the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood would take over if Mubarak were taken out of the picture:

Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.

“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.

And he was wrong then and he would be every bit as wrong now.  Toppling Assad almost definitely equals installing al Qaeda in his place and going from awful to even worse than awful.  We simply cannot afford more of Obama’s terrible mistakes that persistently derive from his ignorance and his failed world view.

If that isn’t enough, we face a Gulf of Tonkin moment all over again here.  What happens if Obama attacks Syria and Syria responds by using one or more of their Russian-provided state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles to sink a U.S. warship???  That’s right, thanks to Russia, Syria has state-of-the-art missiles that could easily sink one of our warships and drag us into a war that will cost us everything and benefit us nothing.  Would Obama just crawl away, or would we be in an endless Vietnam all over again?  If you’re going to tell me, “Syria wouldn’t DARE fight back while we were bombing them!”, well, you’re just nuts.

Iran is planning “revenge attacks” against the United States if we attack Syria.  What will Obama do about those attacks that he invited?

If you study Vietnam, what you learn is that LBJ kept setting “red lines” hoping that the North Vietnamese wouldn’t cross them, and they kept crossing them.  And every time they crossed one of those lines, LBJ felt compelled to crawl deeper into Vietnam.

It is frankly amazing to me that the same liberals who were the most frantic in their opposition to that war and other wars since are now the most loyal to Obama out of nothing short of fascist messiah-following loyalty.

Just in case you think that’s just some random token Democrat, try House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  Think of her utterly reprehensible actions back in 2007 in the new light of today:

Pelosi shrugs off Bush’s criticism, meets Assad
Democrat raises issues of Mideast peace, Iraq with Syrian president
Associated Press
updated 4/4/2007 9:28:36 AM ET

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country. […]

“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said. […]

Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.

Bush voices criticism

Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.

“A lot of people have gone to see President Assad … and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” he told reporters soon after she arrived in Damascus on Tuesday. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”

Pelosi did not comment on Bush’s remarks but went for a stroll in the Old City district of Damascus, where she mingled with Syrians in a market.

Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque. She made the sign of the cross in front of an elaborate tomb which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.

Now this googly-eyed moral idiot is singing a different tune, of course.  And of course now she’s siding with her messiah-Führer and agreeing that it wasn’t Obama who set any red lines, but “humanity.”  You see, Obama’s lips were only mouthing what the entire human race collectively said all at the same time.  It was beautiful, actually, Obama speaking for us all.

Nancy Pelosi is morally insane.  There is no other way to put it.  Bush knew Assad for the monster he was; but not the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Nope, complete moral idiot.

Just like abject moral idiot John Kerry.

Just like complete and utter moral fool Hillary Clinton.

Notice that Barack Obama handpicked two terrorist mass-murderer-loving radical extremists to be his Secretaries of State.  What are the odds that BOTH of Obama’s Secretaries of State – his highest foreign policy officials – would speak so kindly and well and fawn so deeply over a monster???  I’d say about 100 percent, when you understand what an America-hating radical Obama truly is.

Please don’t be a damn lemming.

Here’s the bottom line: Obama has been pushing for this strike against Syria for no other reason than he gave his “red line” statement and Syria crossed it (FOURTEEN TIMES!!!).  And Obama looks weak because he stuck his foot in his mouth all the way up to where his brain was supposed to be.  Nobody seriously doubts that.  Had Obama NOT given his “red line,” he would not be pushing the world, Congress, and literally invoking the world in an effort to attack Syria any more than he was when they were murdering  the other 119,000 of their own people that have perished these last two years.  And no, I don’t believe we should go to war to defend Obama’s shattered credibility.

Obama’s line –

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line.”

– is nothing short of pure rhetorical bovine feces.  Because, no, Obama, YOU DID set a red line.  And you specifically said:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also  to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start  seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being  utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my  equation.”

Your calculus.  Your equation.  YOUR RED LINE.

Again, THE WORLD DID NOT SET ANY RED LINES.  The international treaties do NOT call for signatories to attack countries that use chemical weapons; nor did Syria even SIGN any treaties regarding chemical weapons.  The only “international criminals” would be Obama and the America he dragged into war.

Now the Obama who first blamed Bush for everything until Republicans took over the House when he started blaming THEM for everything is literally blaming the WORLD for everything.  So now “earth” knows what it’s like to be the victim of Obama’s demagoguery where he blames his own failures on everybody but himself.

If all that isn’t enough, it appears unlikely that Obama’s Syria strike will make it through Congress.  As of last count, only 23 Senators had declared themselves in favor of such an action.  And it looks like even LONGER odds in the House.  And if Obama ignores this vote and strikes anyway, he will be inviting a true constitutional crisis.  I hope Obama isn’t that stupid, but as with all things Obama, “hope” is pretty much all you’ve got.

Okay.  I think I’ve made my point about bombing Syria being a stupid idea on just about every imaginable level.

We are playing a geo-political chess game here.  And thanks to Obama’s incoherent and frankly irrational Middle East policies that are impossible for anybody to enumerate, we are losing that game rather badly.

So what SHOULD Obama do?

He shouldn’t bomb Syria; but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be ready to bomb somebody.

No, Obama should bomb IRAN.  And blast their nuclear capability into ashes.  THAT’S what he ought to do.

Iran is Syria’s patron-state.  Syria matters only because Iran wants Syria to matter.  Iran has been Syria’s puppet master all along, and Iran is the reason that Assad is still in power after two years of vicious revolution against him.  Iran has been “all in” on Syria.

If we attack Iran’s nuclear program like the giant, jackbooted-foot of Allah, believe me, Obama would be off the hook for doing nothing against Syria’s use of chemical weapons.  And at the same time, Syria would get the most crystal-clear message imaginable.

People like me would be forced to say, “Obama was a truly TERRIBLE president.  Until he took out Iran’s nuclear weapons threat.”

Call it “Operation Go For The Jugular.”  Rather than “Operation Enduring Confusion” as a strike on Syria would be.

Russia’s president Vladimir Putin has threatened that he would send his best air defense system to both Syria AND IRAN if Obama attacks Syria.  We don’t have much time to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed nation, folks.  If Iran has such an air defense capability, it will be very bloody for us to attack Iran.  We’d better do it now.

And by the way, Mister president: DON’T go to Congress.  Follow Nike’s advice and “Just Do It.”  Make it a complete surprise.  Hit them hard and keep hitting them until it will take Iran another hundred years to build a nuke.

The day that Iran – which already has enough nuclear material to make several bombs – arrives at the capability to mass-produce nuclear weapons as they have been feverishly working and making successes to achieve, it will truly “change the calculus” for world peace.  Iran would be IMMUNE from attack even as Iran would be emboldened to carry out a war of jihad as it saw fit.  And if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and sent oil prices spiraling into the stratosphere, what would we do about it given that any attack would result in Armageddon?  Because “mutually assured destruction” doesn’t work very well with a country like Iran that believes in 72 virgins awaiting them for being psychotic jihadist martyrs.

The problem with attacking Syria is that Syria simply doesn’t matter to us.  Iran’s nuclear threat matters to us a great deal.  If we’re going to go to war, let’s fight where it matters.  Destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program is worth fighting for.  And unlike what Obama faces regarding Syria – with cricket’s chirping as he cries for allies – we would have Israel ready to join us in such a strike with everything they have.

We’re going to need to do this sooner or later.  Any fool ought to know that.  And sooner is far better than later, especially after Putin’s threat.

So how about it, Obama?  Will you stop thinking petty and start thinking right?

Advertisements

For The Record, Yes, Obama’s Dithering Delay In Syria Could Cost USA Dearly. In Fact, IT ALREADY HAS.

September 3, 2013

Two years ago, Obama told the world that Bashar al-Assad had to go.  For two years, Obama did NOTHING to bring that statement about.

One year ago, Obama said that any use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” for him.  Syria used chemical weapons FOURTEEN TIMES before cynical politics more than American credibility and prestige prompted Obama to finally do anything while 120,000 Syrians perished miserably.

There was a time to act in Syria.  The problem is that it was a long damn time ago.  Tragically for the world, Obama dithered and demagogued rather than led and acted.

Now we face nothing a series of impossible choices.  If we do nothing, we embolden Syria and worse – Iran – to continue to not only use weapons of mass destruction, but to build nukes so we can REALLY face a global crisis.  When Obama was elected, it amounted to a 100% money-back guarantee that Iran would get its nuclear weapons program because Obama and Democrats would not stand up strongly when we needed a red damn line that actually had some giant fangs in it.

And yes, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is all about Democrat dithering (see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).  You literally can’t shake a stick at all this evidence against Democrats and against the Obama regime.  We saw all this coming a long time ago but Obama dithered.  Now we’re seeing Islamic jihadism resurgent around the Islamic world; we’re seeing strong stable allies like Egypt fall and Jordan jeopardized.  Obama has emboldened our enemies at the very same time he has caused all of our former friends and allies that George W. Bush certainly had to distrust us and refuse to back us.

One of the things that is going on is the dismissal of U.S. intelligence proof that Syria was behind the use of chemical weapons.  Do you want to know WHY?  Go back to Democrats doing everything they could to undermine American intelligence JUST BECAUSE GEORGE W. BUSH WAS PRESIDENT and you’ll see why we distrust our intelligence now.  If that isn’t enough, just take a look at all the evidence that Obama massively and illegally expanded these intelligence programs after deceitfully and sanctimoniously saying he wouldn’t be like Bush and he would end these things that he instead made far larger and far more dangerous.

Obama claimed that Bush had no right to authorize an attack on another country without congressional approval.  But apparently that was because he felt that Bush was merely a man while Obama views himself as some kind of a pharaoh god king who transcends the limitations he asserts for mere mortals.  Because he claims that by virtue of his deity he has the authority that he said that Bush did not have.  Obama argued that Bush had to have a United Nations mandate then and thinks that he doesn’t have to get one now because it turns out that with countries like Russia and China it’s just as impossible for Pharaoh god king Obama to get UN backing as it was for George W. Bush.  Obama claimed that Bush was some kind of rogue cowboy who acted alone when Bush had 48 allies who were willing to put BOOTS ON THE GROUND while Obama can’t even get England to back us in lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria.

Let’s go back and remember what Obama said when George W. Bush was president and Obama was just another dishonest and dishonorable demagogue rather than THE dishonest and dishonorable demagogue-in-chief:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Replace the name “Saddam Hussein” with Bashar al-Assad and explain the difference to me.  Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on his own people to an even greater extent than Bashar al-Assad has done.  There were at least 300,000 in mass in mass graves in Iraq.  If it wasn’t right to go then it isn’t right to go now.  Which is why the rest of the world – by its isolation of Obama – is pretty much telling us with their silence that this is “A dumb war.  A rash war.”  And they’re doing so by the same despicable arguments that one Barack Hussein Obama once employed when he was doing everything he could to undermine one George W. Bush.

You kind of want to know why “an outrageous chemical attack” is only “outrageous” when a Democrat president who used to say it doesn’t matter suddenly decides for his own naked political interests comes to the opposite conclusion from what he thought when a Republican was running things.  You want to know why John Kerry as Secretary of State asserts that doubts about the intelligence amount to cowardice and treason when he was one of the many Democrats who publicly doubted the intelligence when a Republican president’s picture hung in the CIA and NSA buildings.

That’s why the question as to whether chemical weapons were used isn’t “settled.”  And of course, it’s why even IF the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, it’s no reason to believe Bashar al-Assad authorized it.  And if you think otherwise, liberal, then explain to me how the IRS used the equivalent of chemical weapons against Tea Party conservatives but Obama can’t be blamed for it.

You start to see how Obama’s constant double-standards has undermined his own perch at the top of the wobbling pole.

Obama needs to finally OWN his disgrace.  HE disgraced the presidency both BEFORE and WHILE he was president.

The sheer weakness and complete lack of honor of this man who sits in our White House makes me sick.  But Democrats have been despicable for decades now.

Obama assured us “that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.”  I would argue that is hogwash.

A news article has a sentence that pretty much puts the kibosh to the Obama lie (quickly butt-kissed by the career butt-kissers at the Pentagon) that delaying the strike against Syria won’t compromise anything:

Pentagon officials say strike won’t be hurt by delay
Jim Michaels and Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY 11:12 a.m. EDT September 1, 2013

WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials said Saturday that U.S. intelligence capabilities allow the military to track any movement of Syrian targets, which means a missile attack against Syria would be effective despite President Obama’s decision to delay a strike until Congress gives its approval.

Obama said Saturday that waiting would not weaken the U.S. ability to strike Syria if he gives the order. He said Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people deserves a military response.

If Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces try to hide its military assets, U.S. intelligence capabilities can find them, defense officials told USA TODAY. The U.S. military will also likely target buildings.

The United States has powerful signal intelligence capabilities, with the use of drones and satellites, and has the ability to monitor communications.

“Our intelligence and targeting capabilities offer the president and the nation tremendous advantages,” said a defense official who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak about a potential strike.

Moreover, the official pointed out, buildings that could be hit by missiles do not move.

However, the extra time will let Assad move weapons, such as artillery or rocket launchers, into populated areas and use civilians as human shields, said Charles Wald, a retired Air Force general who led the planning of the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban.

“It’s almost immoral to give the enemy more time to prepare,” Wald said.

Moving weapons from “a remote air base to a building near a school … does change the military calculations,” said Colin Kahl, an associate professor at Georgetown University and former Pentagon official. “But that was happening already,” he said.

A delay may add some complexity to the mission, said a second defense official speaking on condition of anonymity for the same reason. But the delay does not translate into protection for Syria’s military assets. U.S. intelligence and targeting technologies provide “tremendous advantages,” the official said, adding that if the Syrian regime thinks it will gain by a delay, it would be sorely mistaken.

Obama said Saturday that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.”

The Navy has positioned five destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean, within cruise missile striking distance of Syria. The ships can each carry up to 90 cruise missiles, though typically they carry less in order to make room for other weapons and personnel. A Marine troop-carrying ship has joined them.

U.S. military officials and analysts have said any attack will be aimed at military and intelligence targets, particularly units linked to the Aug. 21 chemical attack. It will not be designed to remove the Assad regime.

“We continue to refine our targeting based on the most recent intelligence, and the chairman assured the president that we would have appropriate targeting options ready when he called for them,” said Air Force Col. Ed Thomas, a spokesman for Dempsey.

Here’s the sentence:

Moving weapons from “a remote air base to a building near a school … does change the military calculations

Yes, smarmy, arrogant Obama-worshipers: you’re right that Syria would probably not be able either move many of the targets that military planners are targeting in a manner that would keep us from re-locating them.  But Syria doesn’t HAVE to move the targets.

Syria has two other things they could move while keeping all of their precious targets in plain view.

One would be his chemical weapons.  If the U.S. were to hit any of those chemical weapons, we would send giant lethal clouds of WMD in whatever direction the wind was blowing.  Thanks to Obama’s dithering, Syria has plenty of time to do that.

If you think the Arab world isn’t ALREADY pissed off enough at Obama’s incompetence, well, we’d find out pretty quick that nope, they’re capable of being even MORE pissed off if Obama ignites any poison gas.

The other would be civilians – a.k.a. “human shields.”  Syria could chain a bunch of crying women and children to every one of their chemical weapons located at every single one of the locations the U.S. has targeted.  Thanks to Obama’s dithering, Syria has plenty of time to do that.

And it would be Obama murdering them, wouldn’t it?  I mean, it wouldn’t have been Syria that detonated those chemical warheads; it would have been Obama and his God Damned America that did it.  American cruise missiles would hit, and then all of a sudden there goes tons of poison gas from the very sites that those missiles had just hit.

What would our “plan B” look like if Syria were to use all the time and heads-up that Obama has given them to pull off that trick???  What would Obama’s “narrow” option be then???

Now, we can hope that Syria’s leaders are as incompetent and stupid as OUR leaders are.  And we can hope they won’t think of that.  But according to the article above, it pretty much sounds like they already have.

But it’s just hard to imagine anybody else would be as incompetent and stupid as our leaders have proven themselves to be.

Obama’s delaying could also give Russia more than enough time to position weapons capable of sinking a U.S. warship, if that’s what Russia wanted to do through its proxy Syria.  This isn’t the same Russia that was weak when Bush I and Bush II were presidents; it is a Russia resurgent under the weakness of Obama and it is a Russia that seems quite willing to let Obama know what it thinks of him.

That’s one reason why we shouldn’t compare Syria to Iraq, as Obama says we shouldn’t: Syria is armed with more recent Russian weaponry given to them by a far more dangerous and aggressive Russia.

What would happen if Obama tried to act tough to cover himself for his “red line” idiocy and Syria attacked us right back?  Would Obama skulk home with his tail between his legs or would it be Gulf of Tonkin, part deux???

I’m going to guess one of the reasons the U.S. strike will be utterly feckless and ineffective will be that there just won’t be any target we can strike that something really bad wouldn’t happen were we to hit it.

Any strike against Syria frankly already should have HAPPENED.  Any strike on any target should be a) massive and b) by as much surprise as we can attain.  Thanks to Obama’s weakness, we shall have neither.

What should Republicans do?  How should they respond?

Well, if they want to win this POLITICALLY they should be like Democrats were with Bush.  Do you notice Obama is going to Republicans trying to find somebody to help him?  I mean, where are the damn Democrats?  That’s because no Democrats have anywhere near the courage and integrity needed to do the right thing in this nation of God Damned America.  Here’s a statement in a Reuters article about which party has that integrity to do the right thing and which one has its finger to the political winds:

No one knowledgeable about Congress was willing to predict with any confidence how it would deal with a resolution to permit strikes in Syria.

The uncertainty is compounded by Obama’s often strained and distant relationship with Congress.

A House Democratic aide, on condition of anonymity, said “the vote will depend on the Republicans” because Democrats “will be split down the middle.”

That’s it, dishonorable Democrats.  Vote “present,” just like your messiah did when he was a senator.  Vote just like the despicable, dishonorable cowards you are.  Vote just like the despicable, dishonorable cowards you’ve been for well over forty years.

Do you want to know where Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is on Syria?  Good luck finding out where that cynical coward stands:

One voice in Washington that has been remarkably absent from this week’s Syria debate has been that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t said anything at all about President Obama’s plans for military strikes against the dictatorship in Damascus. As someone who dominated the US foreign policy landscape over the past four years, Clinton’s silence on Syria is striking. What explains this?

I mean, hey, other than the Benghazi debacle where somehow HRC was strangely completely absent and to this day nobody knows where the hell Obama was, wasn’t Hillary Clinton supposed to be the greatest Secretary of State in the history of the world???  Surely such a great statesperson has something to say.  But what we’ve got from her instead is this.

And what are key Obama figures doing on Syria?  Playing naked politics even as their false-messiah boss keeps disingenuously asserting that stuff like this transcends politics.  As soon as Obama got through meeting with his political advisers and decided to “punt” to Congress, David Axelrod – who basically CREATED “Black Jesus” Obama – immediately came out and wrote:

“Big move by POTUS.  Consistent with his principles.  Congress is now the dog that caught the car.  Should be a fascinating week!”

Of course, just the day before getting congressional approval had NOT been “consistent with Obama’s principles” because Obama had repeatedly said he didn’t need to do it and had no intention of doing it.  Maybe Axelrod was describing “Obama’s principles” when BUSH was president???  And note how politically and how cynically politically Axelrod puts this act of cynical presidential hand washing.

And keep in mind that Obama punted to Congress when Congress won’t be back to do anything about it until at least September 9.  When they DO come back, they’ll have their hands more than full dealing with the budget and the sequester and the debt limit.  And I’ll bet you anything you want that Obama will be politicizing the hell out of the whole godawful mess.  Because that’s the only thing he can do well.

You see, if Republicans want to win, they need to be the same sort of naked gutless and soulless political opportunists that Democrats have been.  They need to hold back on the vote until AFTER the Democrats have voted.  If the Democrats split down the middle, defeat the damn authorization bill and blame Democrats and say that the president couldn’t even convince his own damn party.  You know, the same way Democrats would have done if Bush were president.  And then start pounding the airwaves with the “Obama has isolated himself and isolated America” rhetoric.  You know, the same way Democrats would have done if the shoe were on the other foot.

Republicans – if they were like Democrats – would be flooding the airwaves crying that Obama is taking us to war only because his foolish “red line” bluff was called and he looks like a weakling and a fool now.  The only difference is they would actually be RIGHT to say that whereas the Democrats really don’t give a rodent’s posterior about the actual facts when they demagogue.

The biggest political problem Republicans have is that, unlike Democrats, they actually care about their country rather than using every issue as an opportunity to hurt the other side.  And in this God Damn America that Obama and Democrats have forged, doing the right thing morally is the wrong thing politically.

The day Republicans start acting like the Democrat Party, America will fall.  Because the Democrat Party is the party of Pandering via-socialist giveaways and it is the party of weakness and suicide.

In the meantime, Obama’s dithering and delays and weakness have already irreparably harmed America.  This is the Arab consensus of Bush v. Obama:

Mohammed Yassin, a 45-year-old Palestinian in Gaza said Obama did not look like  the “tough guy Bush was”. Employing an Arab nickname for Obama, derived from his  Kenyan father’s name, Yassin said, smiling: “Abu Hussein has no balls.”

“No balls Obama.”  This is a particularly dangerous attitude in a part of the world where ONLY dictators can govern because only strength and power are respected and any hint of weakness is something to exploit and attack.

Even the überüberliberal Los Angeles Times acknowledges “No Balls Obama’s” lack of resolve with their headline:

To Mideast, U.S. policy on region seems adrift
Middle East friends and foes alike seem to find President Obama’s lack of decisiveness confounding.
By Patrick J. McDonnell, Jeffrey Fleishman and Paul Richter
September 2, 2013, 7:00 a.m.

Is there any wonder the Arab world believes Obama has no balls when even his most ardent, most partisan, most ideologue supporters (i.e. leftwing journalists) don’t think he’s got any balls???

In the Middle East in particular, what Obama just did is tantamount to a man backing down from a fight in front of everybody after doing a lot of tough talking, but saying he’d come back later (with his friends from Congress – and THEY’D show you!).  Oh, and when Obama and his friends finally show up sometime later, they won’t be kicking ass because that would involve them putting their boots on the ground, wouldn’t it?  Nope; they’ll come in with a little token show of force and a lot more tough posturing.  The obvious conclusion to everybody who watches Obama cringe away to Congress is that he’s a coward and a weakling.

That’s why Obama is less respected and more hated by Arabs in the Middle East than George W. Bush ever was.  That is why Obama’s approval in the Middle East is lower than Bush’s EVER was.  That is why the United States is less popular under the failed regime of Barack Obama in the Middle East than it EVER was during the Bush administration.

For the record, Bush demanded that Libya dismantle its chemical weapons, and Gaddafi took one look at what he’d just seen Bush do to Saddam Hussein and he dismantled his chemical weapons.  THAT’S the only way to deter a threat in the Middle East.

Obama projected abject weakness and indecision and wavering in the Middle East at a time that we needed to project strength and stability and resolve.  And the Middle East has dissolved into chaos as a result of Obama.

America’s image as a nation of strength and resolve has been pissed away.  And we are back in the days that Bill Clinton created when one Osama bin Laden watched years of Clinton’s cowardice and concluded that:

As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press

That was before the last massive attack against America.

Next up, a nuclear armed Iran with no fear of America and a rabid desire to strike at the Great Satan.  Because, let’s suppose Republicans come through when coward Democrats won’t and Congress authorizes the “very limited strike” against Syria that Obama wants.  Is anybody truly so stupid that they think that a “very limited strike” will frighten Iran away from crossing the finish line with its nuclear program and becoming IMPERVIOUS to such strikes?  Does anybody actually believe that a few cruise missiles will do anything other than EMBOLDEN Iran?

The day that America elected the weakling Obama was the day that America voted for ultimate nuclear Armageddon.  And every day that passes makes that fact more and more clear.

P.S. For the record, I am dead set AGAINST the kind of strike that Obama has called for because it would do nothing save allow Obama to declare that he’d lived up to his “red line” bovine feces.  That said, I’d be FOR a strike in Syria: provided it was a DECISIVE strike that truly made Syria rue their use of chemical weapons and Iran think twice and then think twice again about their nuke program.  I would like to see John Boehner present TWO bills authorizing the use of force, with one representing Obama’s gutless limited approach and the other representing the kind of sustained ass-kicking that the situation calls for.  And within that latter bill a clear statement declaring that anything SHORT of a sustained ass-kicking has been specifically banned by that bill.  And we would put boots on the ground ONLY to establish a perimeter around and then remove the chemical weapons stockpiles from Syria.  And let’s vote and see what happens.

Btw, if you want to know why we didn’t find Saddam’s wmd stockpile when we invaded Iraq, it was because Saddam sent them to his fellow Ba’athist thugs in Syria.

As part of any resolution to attack Syria, we would have to have a contingency plan for dealing with the al Qaeda element taking over if our strikes collapsed Assad’s regime.  We would be voting to hang in there and help – by whatever means were necessary – to secure a democratic successor to the thugs who now run the country.  Or at LEAST a “pro-democracy thug” such as what we’ve now got and frankly had before with Mubarak in Egypt.

Nothing less is adequate.  Nothing less will do anything but create more harm and more havoc than good.

Furthermore, given that the United Nations Secretary General has already stated that anything Obama does SHORT OF ABSOLUTELY DAMN NOTHING would be illegal, either do nothing or stomp enough to leave a nice big splash.  If we lob so much as ONE missile into Syria, it will be an act of war.  Don’t be half-assed when you play at war, Obama.  If you want to send “a shot across the bow,” please do it here rather than with your toys stationed in the Mediterranean.

Also for the record, I think the reason the world has so completely isolated Barack Obama is that the world wants to back a winner.  Forty-eight nations got behind Bush and put boots on the ground because Bush was a winner and they could count on him to hang tough.  Nobody is backing Obama because they know that he is a loser who will abandon both his positions and his friends who got behind his positions the moment it serves his political posturing to do so.

Chicago Teachers Striking Against Students As A Metaphor For Obama Democrats Striking Against America

September 11, 2012

Teachers are striking and preventing some 400,000 students from having a chance of an education.  In their own words they say their chief gripe is that somebody would have the unmitigated gall to rate or evaluate their performance; as if they don’t rate their STUDENTS’ performance every single day.  They are also demanding that if teachers get laid off, they must be rehired not on the basis of MERIT but on the basis of union seniority.

Some facts you ought to know:

The smartest parents in Chicago right now are those whose kids attend charter schools, private schools, or parochial schools. Those institutions don’t employ Chicago’s unionized public-school teachers, who went out on strike this morning for the first time in 25 years.

The coverage of the strike has obscured some basic facts. The money has continued to pour into Chicago’s failing public schools in recent years. Chicago teachers have the highest average salary of any city at $76,000 a year before benefits. The average family in the city only earns $47,000 a year. Yet the teachers rejected a 16 percent salary increase over four years at a time when most families are not getting any raises or are looking for work.

Source: nationalreview.com

Are Chicago teachers bothering to do their damn jobs?

(CNSNews.com) – In the Chicago Public Schools, where the teacher’s union is now seeking a 30 percent raise over the next two years, only 21 percent of 8th graders tested at grade-level proficient or better in reading in 2011 and only 20 percent tested at grade-level proficient or better in mathematics, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests administered by the U.S. Department of Education.

The reading and math scores of Chicago public-school 8th graders not only ranked below the national average and the Illinois average, they also ranked below the average for 8th graders attending public schools in other large cities around the country.

It gets even WORSE if your kid is a 4th grader:

Small wonder. Just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading and only 56 percent of students who enter their freshman year of high school wind up graduating.

In spite of earning 62% more in salary than the parents of the kids who trust their children to these “teachers,” we find that:

The city is being bled dry by the exorbitant benefits packages negotiated by previous elected officials. Teachers pay only 3 percent of their health-care costs and out of every new dollar set aside for public education in Illinois in the last five years, a full 71 cents has gone to teacher retirement costs.

Did you hear that?  There’s no room in the education budget for stuff like BOOKS because 71 cents out of every single dollar that goes to education in Chicago ends up in the bloated Chicago teacher pension system.

Do you know what Illinois’ unfunded pension liability is?  Well, that wasn’t a fair question, given that NOBODY does.  But it was estimated at $210 BILLION going on a year and a half ago.

Fellow überliberal California’s unfunded pension anvil that is queued over our collectivists heads is estimated at $500 billion.  And we can’t even figure out how to pay 1/20th of that!

When these blue states implode they will take the rest of America down the toilet drain and into the sewer right along with them.

Your child CAN’T have any educational resources.  Because we’ve got vile liberals running the system in so many of these big cesspool-cities and they take care of themselves at the peoples’ expense year after year even as they demonize Republicans whose “crime” is wanting to break these damn unions.

Where are public school teachers putting their own kids?

In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.

Michael Pons, spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study’s findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment.

Public school teachers told the Fordham Institute’s surveyors that private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement and offer overall a better atmosphere.

Across the states, 12.2 percent of all families — urban, rural and suburban — send their children to private schools,” says the report, based on 2000 census data.

In Chicago, 39% of public school teachers get their kids the HELL out of public school hell, which is 220% higher than the rate of non-public teachers.  If that doesn’t scream how bad the public school system is and scream that public school teachers recognize it more than anybody, you are too deaf to hear ANYTHING.

These Chicago teachers are simply godawful.  You could literally argue that by striking and refusing to teach the children, they might actually be doing the kids a service.  Because they’re just that bad at their jobs.

But damn it, they are liberals, they are Democrats, they are bureaucrats.  And that means they are bloated leeches sucking taxpayer money like the parasites that liberals are.

They actually had the balls to turn down their noses at a SIXTEEN PERCENT PAY INCREASE.  When non-union-government-school-teacher families are count themselves lucky to get ZERO raises if they just HAVE a job.  So these pathetic failing teachers who frankly should have their asses fired so they can finally understand reality are demanding that they get MORE pay and benefits while demanding that they NEVER be held accountable for their failure to teach our children.  Which is another way of saying they are PERFECT DEMOCRATS.

And, of course, their “official position” is just a meaningless posture of lies.  This is what they REALLY demand:

In public, the Chicago Teachers Union uses generalities to describe its demands, with the union president, Karen Lewis, saying the teachers want a “fair contract.” But according to one senior Chicago official with direct knowledge of the negotiations with the union reps, “Their public rhetoric has almost nothing to do with what’s happening at the table.” Media accounts indicate that the city’s latest offer was to raise teacher pay 16% over the next four years, but the senior city official and other sources with knowledge of the negotiations say the union demanded raises that would amount to at least a 35% salary increase over three years as well as guaranteed jobs for any teachers who get laid off as Chicago’s schools downsize. The city does not have that kind of money, and other changes the union is demanding would essentially render meaningless a new law in Illinois that mandates improved teacher evaluations there.

Rahm Emanuel has already caved.  He’s already offered them the keys to the business.  Only union teachers don’t just want the keys to the business; they’re demanding the entire damn BUSINESS DISTRICT.  It’s ALL or bust.

To be a Democrat is to be an entitlement pig.  It is to demand a society in which they get more at somebody else’s expense.

Illinois is already the worst deadbeat state in the country.  Ordinary residents (i.e., that’s people who DON’T belong to a government union) are getting I.O.U.s from the state to the tune of millions of dollars being stiffed while the teachers unions fight for the entire farm.  Watch this 60 Minutes video if you don’t believe what I’m saying.

It’s just like what Obama just did to welfare (as the Government Accounting Office has stated for the record): these people don’t want to be held accountable; they don’t want to work.  They want to be able to keep collecting more and more and more because they were able to force somebody else to pay for it.

Under Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s leadership, overall crime in New York City fell 57%, murder was reduced by 65%, shootings dropped 72% and New York was recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for five consecutive years.  Under Democrat Obama thug Rahm Emanuel, the exact opposite has happened.  The murder rate is skyrocketing so fast under liberalism that it is beyond crazy.  Just don’t let those kids work in a Chick-Fil-A; better that they embrace gangbanging instead.

The only thing that Chicago public school teachers seem to be able to teach is that if you tilt your gun sideways, it looks cooler when you’re shooting bullets into a crowd.  And they think they should get a raise for that success.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for more stupid and more evil.  And you’re going to get plenty of both if you get four more years of Obama.

Update, 9/11: Obama promised that he would walk the picket line of any union that went on strike in 2007 “as president of the United States of America”:

I hope Obama finds those shoes and actually fulfills JUST ONE promise he made and walks that picket line. So the American people can see once for all that Obama stands with the rabid union agenda and against America’s children.

Get out there and WALK for your fellow Marxists like you cynically promised, Obama.  Let us see you for the radical and rabid community organizer you truly ARE.

Company Takes On SEIU Anti-Business, Anti-Job Extortion

March 22, 2011

the Largest Food Service Company in the United States is suing SEIU for extortion under RICO (Racketerr Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

I have to admit, I prefer the Redstate article title to my own: “Sodexo Slaps SEIU Cockroaches With RICO Suit.”

Services Leader Seeks to End SEIU’s Campaign of Extortion

GAITHERSBURG, Md., March 17, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Sodexo USA today filed a civil lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other defendants under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, to stop the illegal campaign of extortion that the SEIU has been waging in the U.S. for over a year.

“This is about protecting the Company’s business and the rights of our employees to vote freely about union representation,” said Robert Stern, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Sodexo USA.  “We work constructively with unions every day but the SEIU has crossed the line by breaking the law. We will not tolerate the SEIU’s tactics any longer. Their campaign jeopardizes our Company and our employees’ jobs, and ultimately would rob our employees of their right to vote.”

Sodexo USA has filed the lawsuit seeking to halt the SEIU’s extortionate threats and barrage of unlawful tactics. The complaint alleges acts of SEIU blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from Sodexo USA and harm the company.

Sodexo USA recognizes the value of union activity and has built positive relationships with more than 30 different unions.  Over 15 percent of Sodexo USA’s workforce is unionized, which is more than twice the national average for the private sector, and the Company has more than 300 collective bargaining agreements.  Despite this positive record, the SEIU has engaged in a vicious campaign to force the Company into broadly recognizing the SEIU to the exclusion of other unions without allowing its employees in the U.S. to exercise their right to vote for or against the SEIU in a federally supervised secret ballot election.

The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA’s executives that it would harm Sodexo USA’s business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

  • throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
  • scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
  • lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
  • violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
  • harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.

The complaint, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeks an injunction against the SEIU and its locals and executives, as well as monetary damages to be determined by the court.Sodexo, Inc. (www.sodexoUSA.com), leading Quality of Daily Life Solutions company in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, delivers On Site Service Solutions in Corporate, Education, Health Care, Government, and Remote Site segments, as well as Motivation Solutions such as Esteem Pass. Sodexo, Inc., headquartered in Gaithersburg, Md., funds all administrative costs for the Sodexo Foundation (www.SodexoFoundation.org), an independent charitable organization that, since its founding in 1999, has made more than $15 million in grants to fight hunger in America. Visit the corporate blog at www.sodexoUSA.com/blog.

Unions invariably talk about standing up for the “little guy.”  But nobody tears down the little guy like unions today:

But workers at the Dana Corporation Auto Parts plant in Albion, Ind., say the card check process has nearly torn the 50-person plant apart after harassment and intimidation from the United Auto Workers union forced them to a secret-ballot vote.

A union organizer came to the plant two years ago to ask employees to join the UAW because the company had signed a neutrality agreement with the union.

The meeting, however, did not go well, according to plant employee Larry Guest.

“He was using real rough language — cursing. It didn’t go over well with the women at all. There were a couple that just got up and left,” Guest told FOX News.

Employees said union representatives approached them in the break room, at the plant doors and even followed them to their cars.

“He was just like an itch that you couldn’t scratch. He just wouldn’t go away,” said employee Rita Murphy.

“After a while we realized he was going to be here morning, noon and night until he got his numbers that he needed,” said Betty Pop.

Dana employee Jamie Oliver told FOX News that she was approached at her home.

“We’re here in a little town and we’re a plant of 50 some people — you know the last thing you need is to have the union coming to your door saying I want your name,” Oliver said.

The union’s relentless approach, she said, eventually wore her down.

“When they approach you every day — every day, every day,” she said, “after a while it’s like ‘Okay. Fine. I’ll sign the card.’”

Unions have become genuinely evil.  And in point of fact, they have been evil for a very long time.  And we have just witnessed this vile behavior in Wisconsin, as the same people who constantly demonized the Tea Parties are showing that THEY are the true demons – even as the Tea Parties try to clean up the massive damage the union rioters left behind.

Right now, public school teachers (i.e., government unionized schools) are threatening an illegal strike in Michigan.  Their claim is that what the state is doing to avoid financial catastrophe will hurt children, so these union thugs want to REALLY hurt children and families by violating the law to shut down the schools so they can force their agenda.

Detroit – where much of this battle is going on – is in ruins.  Some of it looks like a war-zone; other parts have been abandoned for decades.  And these labor unions that destroyed a thriving industrial city and the life that depended on the jobs created by those industries will not stop until they have sucked the life out of every city in America.  That is the legacy of unions today.

All I can say is that if you think the SEIU’s tactics of destroying a business so they can force their union in is good for jobs, you are a serious, serious fool.

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

November 9, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden went on to say:

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

“Gird your loins,” Biden warned.

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

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

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

The interview with Bolton continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope we’re ready.  We voted for it.

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

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

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