Posts Tagged ‘Surge’

Being A Democrat Means Never Holding Barack Obama Responsible for Anything After Coming Unglued Over Bush For Everything

February 12, 2013

This is just too funny.  Buzzfeed should give Benny Johnson a raise or a company car or something:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them
Obama’s national security policy has continued some of the most controversial moves of the Bush administration. Silence from much of the left.
posted on February 11, 2013 at 1:44pm EST
Benny Johnson, BuzzFeed Staff

Democrats were overjoyed when George W. Bush left office in January of 2009.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

Obama had promised to end Bush’s hawkish foreign policy and the “war on terror’s” detention and interrogation regime.Obama had promised to end Bush's hawkish foreign policy and the "war on terror's" detention and interrogation regime. View this image ›

But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama’s record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor’s in those areas.
But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama's record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor's in those areas.

1. Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.

Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.View this image ›

Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.

Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.View this image ›

You would think Democrats would react the same way they did to Bush’s surge policy:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they were really more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

2. American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office.

American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office. View this image ›

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this: View this image ›

So you would think Democrats would react like this:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they are much more like this.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

3. President Obama’s drones and special operators are working down “kill lists” of suspected terrorists.

President Obama's drones and special operators are working down "kill lists" of suspected terrorists. View this image ›

Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list.

Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list. View this image ›

Al-Awlaki [an American citizen] was killed under secret authorization from the justice department in 2011.

If Bush did this, the Democrats would be all like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But now they are more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

4. Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.

Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.View this image ›

If Bush did this, Democrats would literally hyperventilate.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

In Pakistan alone, the administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes. View this image ›

Pakistani civilian casualties due to these strikes are as high as 800 according to international estimates.

So the Democrats should be like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they are a lot more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

6. Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.

Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.  View this image ›

Image by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama’s security watch.

But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama's security watch.

Image by Andrew Burton / Reuters

When Bush did this, Democrats were like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

Now:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

7. Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Image by John Moore / Getty Images

When Bush did this, Democrats were all like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

And…

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them<

8. And…

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

But now they are much more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

“We may not be so different, you and I.”

"We may not be so different, you and I."View this image ›

Image by Courtesy of the Bush Center, Houston Texas.

We could add in stuff like the debt, the deficit and the debt ceiling.  But who’s counting?  Not the mainstream media, that’s for sure.

It is amazing how hypocritical the Democrat Party and the liberals who form their core truly are.  They are bad people and bad people always prefer lies just as they are always hypocrites.  You cannot have an honest argument with people who say one thing,do another – and then say something completely different without ever having acknoweledged how dishonest they were from the beginning.

In order to have a fair and honest debate, you simply have to have both sides have integrity.  We don’t have that as long as we have liberals with any power.

Advertisements

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

December 19, 2011

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

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

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

The überliberal Huffington Post presents the Obama narrative this way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

But buried in the middle of the story is this:

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

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

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

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

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

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…

Obama Jackbooted Blackshirt Fascist Thugs Alert

June 21, 2011

I’ve explained why I call Obama a fascist at great length.  And of course that article could actually have been a whole lot longer than it was (here’s a VERY recent addition, for instance).

Take this, for example:

June 20, 2011
TSA Now Storming Public Places 8,000 Times a Year
By Tara Servatius

Americans must decide if, in the name of homeland security, they are willing to allow TSA operatives to storm public places in their communities with no warning, pat them down, and search their bags.  And they better decide quickly.

Bus travelers were shocked when jackbooted TSA officers in black SWAT-style uniforms descended unannounced upon the Tampa Greyhound bus station in April with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and federal bureaucrats in tow.

A news report by ABC Action News in Tampa showed passengers being given the signature pat downs Americans are used to watching the Transportation Security Administration screeners perform at our airports. Canine teams sniffed their bags and the buses they rode. Immigration officials hunted for large sums of cash as part of an anti-smuggling initiative.

The TSA clearly intends for these out-of-nowhere swarms by its officers at community transit centers, bus stops and public events to become a routine and accepted part of American life.

The TSA has conducted 8,000 of these security sweeps across the country in the past year alone, TSA chief John Pistole told a Senate committee June 14.  They are part of its VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) program, which targets public transit related places.

All of which is enough to make you wonder if we are watching the formation of the “civilian national security force” President Obama called for on the campaign trail “that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded” as the military.

The VIPR swarm on Wednesday, the TSA’s largest so far, was such a shocking display of the agency’s power that it set the blogosphere abuzz.

In a massive flex of muscle most people didn’t know the TSA had, the agency led dozens of federal and state law enforcement agencies in a VIPR exercise that covered three states and 5,000 square miles. According to the Marietta Times, the sweep used reconnaissance aircraft and “multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams.”

When did the TSA get this powerful? Last year, Pistole told USA Today he wanted to “take the TSA to the next level,” building it into a “national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts.”

What few people realize is how far Pistole has already come in his quest. This is apparently what that next level looks like. More than 300 law enforcement and military personnel swept through a 100-mile stretch of the Ohio Valley alone, examining the area’s industrial infrastructure, the Charleston Gazette reported.

Federal air marshals, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the FBI, the Office of Homeland Security and two dozen other federal, state and local agencies teamed up to scour the state’s roads, bridges, water supply and transit centers under the TSA’s leadership.

What is remarkable about these security swarms is that they don’t just involve federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The TSA brings in squads of bureaucrats from state and federal agencies as well, everything from transportation departments to departments of natural resources.

The TSA had received no specific threats about the Tampa bus station before the April sweep, reporters were told.

They were there “to sort of invent the wheel in advance in case we have to if there ever is specific intelligence requiring us to be here,” said Gary Milano with the Department of Homeland Security in an ABC News Action television report. “This way us and our partners are ready to move in at a moment’s notice.”

Federal immigration officials from Customs and Border Patrol swept the station with the TSA, looking for “immigration violations, threats to national security” and “bulk cash smuggling.” (How the bulk cash smuggling investigation related to national security was never explained.)

“We’ll be back,” Milano told reporters. “We won’t say when we’ll be back. This way the bad guys are on notice we’ll be back.”

The TSA gave the same vague answers when asked about the three-state sweep this week. That sweep wasn’t in response to any specific security threat, either.

The purpose was to “have a visible presence and let people know we’re out here,” Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West Virginia told the Gazette. “It can be a deterrent.”

It might be — if Americans are willing to live this way.

Tara Servatius is a radio talk show host. Follow her @TaraServatius and on Facebook.

It has ALWAYS been under liberals and progressives that America has degenerated into the depths of a police state.  Go back and see all the fascist garbage that Woodrow Wilson beqeathed us with, for example.  Consider FDR putting the Japanese into camps and even LYING to the Supreme Court to justify doing so.

Or perhaps you prefer to stay modern: consider Barack Obama’s confiscating General Motors from the legitimate bondholders so he could hand it over to his union cronies.  Or consider Obama denouncing George Bush as violating the Constitution in an Iran War he never even got in –

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded [on December 20, 2007].

– prior to ripping up the Constitution and then urinating on it to get America into Libya and Yemen.

Liberals are hypocrites.  Hypocrisy is the liberals’ quintessential essence.  If you took the hypocrisy out of the liberal, you could not have liberalism.  You certainly couldn’t have Nancy Pelosi.  Oh, or John Kerry.  Or Charlie Rangel.  Or Al Gore.  Or Barack Obama.  Or Joe Biden.  Or Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Notice how these are pretty much all their top-level people; the rank-and-file march in goose-step behind them.  Democrats are the kind of people who demonize Republicans left and right for taking actions that are necessary in the face of direct threats.  And then they do far worse than the Republicans EVER did, and “It’s not fascism when WE do it.”

Barack Obama is of course the poster boy for the biggest hypocrite who ever lived.  Think of him demonizing Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan before keeping us in Iraq and Afghanistan and getting us in THREE MORE SHOOTING WARS to boot (Pakistan, Libya and Yemen).  Think of Obama on the Patriot Act.  Think of Obama on rendition.  Think of Obama on Gitmo.  Think of Obama on domestic eavesdropping.  Think of Obama on the surge strategy.  Think of Obama on the debt ceiling.  Think of Obama on transparency.  Think of Obama constantly assuring us of all the shovel-ready jobs to sell his massive stimulus boondoggle and then joking that “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected” when the evidence that he’d lied was beyond overwhelming.  Think of Obama assuring the American people that if you like your health care plan you can keep it in the face of the new Price Waterhouse study that shows HALF of all employers will dump their employees into ObamaCare.  Think of Obama on damn near EVERYTHING.

Liberals are people who say one thing and do another.   They are people who are capable of endless self-righteous selective outrage that dries up when THEY’RE running things.

This is the same reason why the world’s worst human rights abusers routinely get to sit on the human rights council at the überleft United Nations and then lecture the rest of us on “human rights.”

Where are all the liberals demanding Obama be impeached for all his wars?  Where are all the liberals demanding Obama be impeached for all of his secrecy and his lies?  It was all over the place (and all over the front pages of the mainstream media) throughout the years of Bush derangement syndrome.  Remember how they were out in force every single day in front of the televesion cameras?  Where are all the Cindy Sheehands and the Code Pinks and the coverage of them NOW???

Where is all the outrage over our civil liberties as Obama’s thugs and goons fondle our junk???

Try to sort through the Democrats’ basic premise: the party that is trying to grow the size of goverment more and more and put government in charge of more and more of our lives ISN’T fascist; while the party that is trying to reduce the size and scope and power of government ARE the fascists.

Democrats are FINE with fascists and fascism, as long as the fascists are UNION fascists.

Obama – Who Demonized Iraq And Afghanistan During Bush Administration – Now Warns Against Sending ‘Mixed Messages’ In His ‘Kinetic Action’ In Libya

June 16, 2011

Obama’s mouthpieces are warning Congress not to send “mixed messages” over Libya:

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the more than 30-page report and analysis will be sent to Congress Wednesday afternoon.

Carney also issued a warning, saying it is “important for Congress not to send mixed signals about a goal… we all share.”

Maybe he could stop doing that himself by finally calling the damn thing he’s doing what it clearly is: a WAR.

The problem is that Obama is a liar, a demagogue and a hypocrite without shame.

Even DEMOCRATS are now beyond pissed with Obama’s lies and deceit:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

Of course, if Democrats actually believed the stuff they’re saying, they would impeach Obama and vote him right out on his butt.

But let’s spend a little time on the profound hypocrisy that characterizes Barry Hussein.

This was our Hypocrite-in-Chief when he didn’t give a rat’s ass about sending “mixed messages” when he condemned Bush for Iraq:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

I’m sure that Libyans parachuted into your neighborhood just like they did in mine.  We’ve got the whole “Red Dawn” thing playing out here, only its Libyan paratroopers invading us instead of Russians.  I’m actually typing this in the hills as I partiicpate in the heroic resistance being led by our brilliant president Barry Hussein.  Either that, or Obama is so full of fecal matter that he could fertilize Brazil all by himself.

It also didn’t matter if President Bush had Congressional approval for that war.  Obama doesn’t give a DAMN about the Constitution OR Congress.

Obama also didn’t have a problem undermining President Bush or sending plenty of “mixed messages” when he said about Afghanistan:

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

And of course he was doing everything he could to send mixed messages and undermine the Iraq War when he said things like:

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.”

Obviously he was 100% wrong about the surge strategy that turned the Iraq War around.  But why should a lying weasel like Obama worry about being right, or worry about being a hypocrite???

And Obama also said things like

“Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world”

– to send mixed messages galore.  Again, he couldn’t have been more wrong.  Which is why this loathsome weasel later tried to take credit through his vice president for what he had spent all his time undermining and condemning:

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

This little weasel is not only still in Iraq and Afghanistan after running as the fraud who would messianically end all our wars and bring our troops home; he is now in FIVE wars, having added Libya, Pakistan and Yemen to his total.

Because Obama is the kind of fool who thinks he can eat his cake and have it too – with the full cooperation of a mainstream media that might as well be under Goebbel’s Ministry of Propaganda to keep us distracted while he does it.

Obama is ignoring the War Powers Act which was PASSED BY DEMOCRATS IN 1973 to restrain Nixon’s adventurism.  He is a fascist who doesn’t give a damn about our Constitution or our laws as he “fundamentally transforms” America into something it never has been and never should become.

Obama’s dishonest argument is that he doesn’t have to give Congress a voice because he already surrendered American sovereingty to NATO.  Not only was that utterly depraved to begin with, but it is also cynical and dishonest: because NATO is merely the politically correct version of American military power.

In his speech, Defense Secretary Gates excoriated NATO as a hollow sham.  It’s not Europe leading while America supports in Libya, because Europe is too cowardly, weak and weaselly to take responsibility for anything under the sun.  Just like Obama himself.  Defense Secretary Gates pointed out that without MASSIVE US involvement, NATO not only wouldn’t exist, but can’t even provide the resources for a TINY military campaign.  Which is to say that Obama using NATO as a cop-out to dodge the law is about as lame as lame can get.

Pajama’s Media has a nice piece detailing the sheer moral fraud of the Democrat Party.  After playing videos of Democrats – including Obama – being treasonous little vermin while Bush was president – they point out:

No, heavens no, they’re whining about Libya, a war they won’t call a war which has nothing to do with our national interests. The Democrats were cool with sending all kinds of mixed signals when we were battling a fierce Islamic insurgency in the heart of the Middle East. But on the fringes, in the NATO kinetic whatever against Daffy the Dictator? You’d better watch what you say.

I’m past sick of this crap.

You want to hear my Middle East policy?

It consists of three parts: 1) We support the only democracy in the history of the entire region as well as the people with whom we share profound moral and spiritual heritage – Israel.  Any attack on them is an attack on our vital national security interests.  2) any country we deem a threat to our security will be bombed into the stone age.  No “hearts and minds” campaigns, no “nation building,” no aid and most definitely no costly rebuilding campaigns that will drain our treasury and cost our lives.  And if they threaten us again, we will come back and bomb the pieces into even smaller pieces.  And if they threaten us a third time, we will “fundamentally transform” their country into a lake.  And 3) that means YOU, Iran.

Remember How Liberals Said Every Aggressive Move Against Terrorists Was ‘A Provocation’? Why Is It A Good Thing Now?

May 3, 2011

I remember how Obama and the rest of the left decried every agressive move President George W. Bush made as being a provocation that would only result in more violence and make the new wave of terrorism being waged against America even worse.

The war on terror was a provocation.  The Iraq War was a provocation.  The terrorist prison facility at Guantanamo Bay was a provocation.  The surge strategy was a provocation.  And “provoking” the terrorists was the worst possible way to react, we were constantly told.

On the surge strategy that won the Iraq War, Obama had said:

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.”

Sending more troops to win the fight will increase the violence.  And that is a bad, bad thing. 

On the Iraq War as provocation (and therefore a bad thing), a critique of Obama’s apology in his Cairo Speech says it all:

On “violent extremism” Obama clung to the meme of “Afghanistan War good/Iraq War bad.” Obama said, “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.”

This does not make sense. Iraq was not a “war of choice.” Saddam Hussein, for a variety of reasons (not just on WMDs, which everyone believed Hussein had and which he was certainly pursuing) had made himself intolerable. And Saddam was certainly not responding to diplomacy; that was the main reason the coalition forces marched.

Obama also made his first cringing apology. “The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.” Well, no we did not. That is a flat out lie and a pander not only to liberal opponents of the war on terror but to the Muslim extremists Obama says he abhors.

It doesn’t matter that because of the very surge strategy that Obama personally demonized that Obama’s vice president was able to actually say the following about the Iraq War that Obama also demonized:

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

I would point out that George Bush won his “war of choice” that “provoked strong differences.”  And Obama – even after eventually abandoning his own demqgoguery on the “surge” to implement a surge of his own in Afghanistan, and even after using Bush’s own general which the left demonized to implement that surge – is floundering badly in “the good war” of Afghanistan.  Which is why Afghanistan sure won’t be “one of the great achievements of the Obama administration.”

George Bush “stupidly’ chose to fight a war against a tyrant in a terrain that the United States could actually win.  The vastly more brilliant Obama chose to put all his marbles in an Afghanistan that has been the graveyard of empires for a thousand years.  Afghanistan also happens to feature a terrain that almost entirely nullifies our vast tactical and strategic advantages.  But that’s what you do when you think you’re too damn smart for your own good, I guess.

On Guantanamo Bay as a provocation, Obama said:

Guantanamo is probably the No. 1 recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations,” Obama said. “And we see it in the websites that they put up. We see it in the messages that they’re delivering.”

It didn’t matter that Guantanamo Bay was absolutely necessary, no matter how much it provoked people who were determined to be provoked.  That is just a fact, and facts don’t matter to demagogues.  It’s just an “inconvenient truth” that Gitmo is still open, and WILL REMAIN OPEN as long as Obama is president.

Then there was that nasty rhetorical phrase “war on terror” that was clearly too provocative, so Obama rebranded it as an “overseas contingency operation.”

The one thing that couldn’t be more clear: don’t you dare provoke these people.  It’s bad to provoke.  The mainstream media would crawl all over you if you dared to provoke.

So I’m left sitting here wondering how provocation suddenly went from a bad thing to a good thing just because the guy doing all the provoking was a Democrat.

Obama’s Middle East policies have resulted in dramatically escalated increases in violence throughout the Arab world.  Which would have been terrible if Bush had had anything to do with it, but which is okay because a liberal did it.  So the mainstream media has refused to harangue Obama on that unintended consequence of his budding Utopia.

In Libya, you’ve got a lot more of this “untended consequence” regarding Obama’s nearlty forgotten little third war he started in Libya:

TRIPOLI, Libya – Libyans shouting for revenge buried Moammar Gadhafi’s second youngest son to the thundering sound of anti-aircraft fire Monday, as South Africa warned that the NATO bombing that killed him would only bring more violence.

Libya’s leader did not attend the tumultuous funeral of 29-year-old Seif al-Arab, but older brothers Seif al-Islam and Mohammed paid their respects, thronged by a crowd of several thousand. Jostling to get closer to the coffin, draped with a green Libyan flag, mourners flashed victory signs and chanted “Revenge, revenge for you, Libya.”

Three of Gadhafi’s grandchildren, an infant and two toddlers, also died in Saturday’s attack, which NATO says targeted one of the regime’s command and control centers. Gadhafi and his wife were in the compound at the time, but escaped unharmed, Libyan officials said, accusing the alliance of trying to assassinate the Libyan leader.

NATO officials have denied they are hunting Gadhafi to break the battlefield stalemate between Gadhafi’s troops and rebels trying for the past 10 weeks to depose him. Rebels largely control eastern Libya, while Gadhafi has clung to much of the west, including the capital, Tripoli.

But of course NATO is denying that we’re hunting Gadafi in violation of United Nations policies against targeting political leaders.  After all, we’ve even denied we’re at war at all, preferring the nicer-sounding euphamism of “kinetic military action.”  “War” sounds so mean, and hardly something a brilliant liberal would do, after all.  The far more erudite liberals launch wave after wave of “kinetic military actions” instead.  And no matter how many of Gaddafi’s compounds somehow accidentally get targeted and blown up, that’s clearly all it is.

Now we’ve got Obama (almost as though Obama were himself one of the machine-gun toting SEALs) killing Osama bin Laden.  That clearly won’t provoke anybody.

America’s relationship with Pakistan was already at an all-time low due to Obama incessantly flying Predators over their country and launching rocket attacks on them.  But so what?  Provocation is a good thing now, because Obama is doing it instead of George Bush.  And if you’re brilliant, you don’t have to kowtow to such trivialities as consistency.

And so what if Obama ordered American troops to launch a military attack on Pakistani soil without bothering to even inform the Pakistanis?  No harm, no foul.  So what if we violated their sovereignty?  Obama is the leader of the world, and the sooner the world recognized that he is an imperial president, the better.  If you don’t like Obama pursuing “cowboy” tactics, or engaging in “you’re either with us or you’re against us” policies, well, you’re just not very enlightened.  Because it’s not fascist unless Republicans do it.

And al Qaeda, whom the left was so worried about provoking when George Bush was the guy doing the provoking?  They’ll get over it.  So we can ignore the little threat they just made less than a week ago about unleashing a “nuclear hellstorm” upon America if we killed or captured Osama bin Laden.

You think of Gitmo, the surge strategy, rendition, domestic eavesdropping, the Patriot Act, indefinite detentions, military tribunals and a host of other things Obama demonized George Bush and Dick Cheney over, and not only are they doing the same things, but they’re doing even worse.  But the same mainstream media that tore into George Bush like pitbulls going after raw bloody meat don’t seem to have time to dwell on Obama’s blatant hypocrisies.

Nor does Bush get any credit for having been right when Obama and the Democrats were so completely wrong by their own massive reversals to the Bush policies now.

We are watching a level of propaganda and fundamental hypocrisy overtake the United States of America by both the media and the White House that ought to simply stun you.

Obama, I Demand You Apologize To George Bush And Dick Cheney For Your Lies And Demagoguery

April 4, 2011

Today we had Obama sucking the sewer scum with his crazy straw in a different way.

Barack Obama is a serial liar, and the only time he isn’t lying is if he says he’s lying.

Today we find out officially that Obama is backpedeling on two lies: one to close Guantanamo Bay, and the other to try the worst terrorists in civilian court.  As the LA Times reports via the AP:

Professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators are being referred to the system of military commissions for trial, a federal law enforcement official said Monday.

The decision by the Obama administration is an about-face from earlier plans to have the five go on trial in civilian federal court in New York.

You know that Obama is going to go back on his promises.  That’s what liars do.  Obama is the type of slimeball who first broke his word to serve his Senate term, and then broke his promise to use public campaign financing if his Republican opponent did so.  Anyone but a fool should have known the man is a lying weasel on his noblest day.  But what you hope is that he will now keep breaking his stupidest and most despicable promises.

I pointed out the blatant reality that was readily obvious to anyone but the worst of fools nearly a full year ago:

Renditions? Obama got his butt kicked.  Eavesdropping programs? Obama got his butt kicked.  Patriot Act? Obama got his butt kicked.  Gitmo? Obama got his butt kicked.  Surge strategy? Obama got his butt kicked.  Iraq War? Obama got his butt kicked.  Iranian nuclear threat? Obama got his butt kicked.  That sort of thing.

You stupid, arrogant poodle, Obama.  You’d be completely ashamed of yourself if you weren’t such an arrogant narcissist.

Again and again, on issue after issue, Obama demagogued and demonized Bush policies on the campaign trail.  But when it came time to put up or shut up, and actually DO something, Obama’s “poodle policies” ended up on their back with Bush policy fangs around their throat.

And now we see it yet again.  Military Tribunals?  Another Obama butt kicking…”

But just when you think Obama has finally accepted reality, the idiot climbs back on his winged unicorn and flies off in another cloud of magic fairy dust.

By finally relenting – after 17 months of wasted time and God only knows how many millions of dollars spent fighting reality – to try the terrorists at Gitmo, Obama is acknowledging that Guantanamo Bay will not be closed as long as his loathsome character pollutes the White House.

Here’s the worst of it.  Obama cowardly and despicably went overseas and demonized his predecessor for his atrocities such as Gitmo and trying terrorists in military tribunals.  The contemptible rat bastard-in-chief even said he would consider holding Bush criminally responsible.  And now Obama will be embracing the very “atrocities” that he himself personally demonized.

The left has been saying that Gitmo and military tribunals would give al Qaeda ammunition for recruiting terrorists.  Riddle me this: how much more will they gain ammunition by replaying the very words of Obama and his attorney general Eric Holder as saying Gitmo and military tribunals were immoral?!?!??

I like the way Lyflines puts it:

Reality squashes yet another Democrat storyline…

Do you remember how the left demonized George W. Bush for eight years? Remember how he was trampling all over the Constitution with his military tribunals? Remember how Guantanamo was a scourge upon the face of humanity, a veritable second Auschwitz? Remember how Obama was going to close Guantanamo within his first year in office? Remember the “fierce moral urgency of change?”

Yeah, never mind…

Here’s one typical example of Obama being the cynical lying fool that he is.  After wrapping himself in the Constitution and the principles of our founders (both of which he has actually in fact mocked in a way that George Bush NEVER would have) – And I also can’t help but think of the many Democrats who have openly mocked our founding fathers, our Constitution and the conservatives’ love of both – Obama went on to say:

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.  Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.  In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law — a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected.  Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause.  Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear:  Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.  It is a rallying cry for our enemies.  It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries.  By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.  That’s why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

Now, you vile liberals, you explain to me how al Qaeda will not be playing Barack Obama’s and Eric Holder’s speeches and saying, “You see?  America is evil even by its very own president’s and attorney general’s standards.”

And the only thing that makes America evil is that we voted for a truly evil man to be our president.  Not to mention an illegetimate imposter who should not even be regarded as a legitimate citizen at this point.

Dick Cheney has repeatedly said that Obama couldn’t be more naive or more wrong and that he would ultimately be forced to abandon his immoral positions on both Gitmo and the military tribunals.

You owe George Bush and Dick Cheney a personal apology.  When Dick Cheney stood up to your lies and denounced your terrible policies, he rightly confronted you on the very issues that you just backed down from today in an implicit acknowledgment that he was right and you were totally wrong.  And if you had so much as a single shred of personal honor or decency, you would offer that apology.

The fact that you DON’T have any honor or decency is why we can know that you won’t bother.

On How Obama Will Damage America For Decades To Come

September 30, 2010

Obama is a disaster in every possible sphere of leadership.

But the question then becomes, “In which particular sphere does Obama’s disastrous failure of leadership represent the greatest danger to America?”

Thomas Sowell answers the question:

September 28, 2010
A Warning from Thomas Sowell
Anthony Kang

Frankly, there aren’t enough words or superlatives in the English dictionary to describe the great Thomas Sowell. With an unparalleled gift to explain even the most complicated subjects in simple and easily understandable terms, few can match the pedigree and contributions of the Hoover Institute senior fellow. Author of the new book, “Dismantling America,” Sowell recently sat down for an interview with Investors Business Daily’s David Hogberg. And along with a few priceless jabs at Michelle Obama, sociology, Newsweek, and the public education system, Dr. Sowell discussed why he (like Niall Ferguson) believes America may be entering a prolonged period of decline.

“The only analogy I can think of from history is when the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French for an English-speaking nation,” Sowell says about the Obama administration’s governing style, a style he characterizes as unconstitutional.

As someone who, if forced to, would label himself as more libertarian than conservative — though he has irked many with his support of American combat missions in Iraq — most noteworthy (and a bit shocking) about the interview is what Sowell believes the greatest threat is — terrorism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the international scene. Questioned as to what some of the current markers of national decline are, it isn’t “huge bills that fundamentally change the way the economy operates,” reckless government spending, social engineering programs and the national debt which worry the economist the most, it is national security and President Obama’s foreign policy.

And Sowell makes a few not-so-subtle Neville Chamberlain analogies that are almost impossible to ignore:

Of course, the one that trumps them all is on the international scene. That’s where Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons. I’m just staggered at how little attention is being paid to that compared to frivolous things. If a nation with a record of sponsoring international terrorism gets nuclear weapons, that changes everything and it changes it forever.
Someday historians may wonder what were we thinking about when you look at the imbalance of power between the U.S. and Iran, and we sat there with folded hands and watched this happen, going through just enough motions at the United Nations to lull the public to sleep. That, I think, is the biggest threat.

Sowell also condemns the president for affronting our allies (in particular, the British and Israelis) in “clever” yet unmistakable ways the general public may not notice, further hastening America’s decline:

His first foreign policy gambit was to fly to Russia and offer to renege on the American commitment to put a missile shield in Eastern Europe…All he really got out of that was a demonstration of his amateurishness and of his willingness to sell out allies in hopes of winning over enemies. That ploy was tried in the 1930s and didn’t work all that well.

These are no ordinary times, with no ordinary president. Leading up to the historic “Hope and Change” election, commentators on the Right could not possibly have attacked Obama and his intentions to fundamentally change the identity and economy of America more than they already had. Even so, not only has President Obama fulfilled every single “fear-mongering” indictment down to a tee, he’s exceeded them — making even some his most extreme opponents look clairvoyant. So with keeping that in mind, and considering all the new challenges we face domestically, that one of the greatest economic minds of our time would still elevate national security and terrorism to such a level truly speaks volumes about the reality and situation of Iran.

Also citing the lack of expertise and national discussion in international issues, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton confirmed to Greg Gutfeld that he was seriously considering a presidential run on Red Eye last week. Bolton-Sowell 2012? One can only dream. But hey, if a community organizer can get elected, why not someone with ten times the accomplishments and wisdom?

I’ve said many of the same things, myself.  Just not as well, and not as succinctly.  For example, I said:

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up the price of oil.  The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

Just as I also pointed out that Obama was enraging our enemies even as he alienated our allies.

It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Iran is employing a lot of rocket scientists to create a ballistic nuclear missile capable of striking the United States and Israel.  But when Democrats are in charge, even the most trivial aspects of common sense are akin to the most sophisticated form of theoretical mathematics.

It is a fact – a FACT – that George Bush tried to deal with the threat of Iran when it was possible to avert their nuclear ambitions; but that Democrats did everything they could to prevent him from succeeding against the insane jihadist regime.  I quoted an LA Times article from just three years ago in which every single Democrat presidential candidate stated that Iran was not a meaningful threat, and in which they denounced Bush’s efforts to draw attention to the danger posed by Iran:

“DES MOINES — Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.”

But the fact that the failure to deal with Iran rests ENTIRELY in Democrats’ hands won’t stop them from blaming Bush when Iran rears its vicious head against the world.  Any more than it stopped them from blaming Bush for the 2008 economic collapse in spite of the fact that they had had total control of Congress for the previous two years, and even though they had repeatedly prevented Bush from regulating and reforming GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which were at the epicenter of the disaster.

It’s just what cowards do.  And the Democrat Party is the party of moral cowardice going back to at least the Carter years, if not dating back to the waning days of the LBJ administration.

You can go back and review the record.  Nearly 60% of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate (29 out of 50) voted to authorize the Iraq War Resolution.  Furthermore, virtually every single top Democrat was on the factual record agreeing with George Bush and supporting his reasoning to attack Saddam Hussein –

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

– and yet Democrats en masse cowardly, despicably, and I would argue treasonously, turned on Bush and turned on our troops in time of war.  For no other reason than to treacherously obtain a cheap political advantage aided and abetted by a mainstream media propaganda apparatus that could have come right out of the vile brain of Joseph Goebbels.

In addition to their opposition to the Iraq War (which again 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them), Democrats opposed the Patriot Act; opposed Domestic Surveillance which allowed the US to track calls from international terrorists into the United States; opposed Gitmo, even though it is the clearly the ONLY reasonable place to hold incredibly dangerous terrorists that no country wants; opposed allowing terrorists to be tried in military tribunals to safeguard intelligence techniques and personnel, and to prevent the court system from being hijacked by enemies of freedom; opposed  even the most reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists intent upon murdering Americans; and even declared surrender in the vile “I believe that … this war is lost” statement of Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader.  I could go on.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

"RUN AWAY!!!"

"RUN AWAY!!!"

To the extent that Barack Obama has done anything – ANYTHING – right at all in the war on terror, it has only been because he repudiated himself and demonstrated that he was either an incompetent fool or a lying hypocrite.  Obama – after publicly denouncing, undermining and alienating the CIA – has continued the policy of “torture” by continuing the policy of “rendition” in which terror suspects are sent to other countries that use torture.  Obama – after continually denouncing Bush over Gitmo – has STILL not closed the facility down two full years after usurping the office of the presidency with lies.  Obama is using a surge strategy in Afghanistan after denouncing Bush’s successful surge strategy in Iraq and blatantly predicting it would fail.  And Obama is now continuing the Bush policy of using predator drones to attack terrorist positions inside Pakistan that US Special Operations forces cannot reach.

That said, Obama – in denouncing Iraq (the war we could and did win) while demanding we massively build-up in Afghanistan (our second Vietnam) may well prove to be the most disastrous military quagmire since the LAST time Democrats led us into the actual Vietnam.

Iran WILL get the nuclear bomb.  Democrats guaranteed that Iran would be able to do so.

Iran will become a plague upon global peace and security unlike anything the world has ever seen at least since the rise of the Nazis and the abject failure of FDR and Neville Chamberlain to deal with the clear and present danger.

And when that day comes, America will be unable to meaningfully deal with it because Barack Obama and the Democrat Party made us economically incapable of rising to any significant occasion.

A Review Of Obama’s Lies, Incompetence As He Gives His Iraq Speech

August 31, 2010

National Review has a record of Obama’s pretzel twisting flat-out LIES.  We should review them as Obama gives his speech celebrating the troops coming home.

First, let’s listen to Obama administration spokesman Vice President 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.

Now first see how Obama massively contradicted himself, all while assuring us that he’d been predicting the surge would control violence all along:

Rush noted Obama’s position in January 2007:

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

And then there was this:

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.”

And:

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration’s new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

“Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”

Contrasted with this statement after the surge worked:

Democratic debate, January 5, 2008:

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

No you didn’t, you LIAR, Obama.

The mainstream media – the official propaganda arm of the Democrat Party – have repeatedly refused to hold Obama accountable for his lies and his contradictions.

Now let’s go back, remembering that Joe Biden said Iraq would literally be “one of the great achievements of this administration,” and see how Obama did everything he could as candidate to make it a failure, to cause the United States to lose in Iraq so that we would be forced to withdraw in humiliation and defeat.

Dan Riehl notes Obama’s position in July 2007:

Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan.”

A Democratic debate in September 13, 2007:

After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he’s been on for several years now.  It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.

“It is a course that will not succeed.”

Versus:

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

And, of course, there is the all-time statement of treason from Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, quoted in an MSNBC article titled, “Reid: Iraq War lost, U.S. can’t win”:

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” said Reid, D-Nev.

What we’re going to see tonight in Obama’s speech is “an enormous demonstration of lack of class and grace,” predicts Sean Hannity.  That because Obama has a despicable tendency to blame everything that goes wrong on his predecessor, rather than taking personal responsibility for his presidency.  We already know that Obama will not give Bush or the surge credit for the success in Iraq.  A success which is documented in the Obama’s claiming credit for “one of the great achievements of this administration” and a success which is documented in our soldiers coming home in victory rather than in defeat.

Barack Obama is a liar, a demagogue, and a truly classless human being.

Let’s not forget that Obama will be congratulating our soldiers for their participation in what he called “a dumb, rash war”:

Barack Obama: “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

“You soldiers were so wonderful and so heroic in your dumb, rash victory that I did everything I could to undermine.  I want to personally thank you for your useless sacrifice.”

When the only ideologue who is ramming an ideological agenda down our throats – judging from the enormous American disapproval of first his stimulus boondoggle and then his ObamaCare boondoggle – is YOU, Hussein.

Which is to say, it’s a shame that we got rid of one lying despot Hussein in Iraq, but now must suffer an even worse one here.

For the record, our military disapproves of Obama and his handling of Afghanistan and Iraq at a far higher margin than the overall American people.

Iraq War veterans are saying:

“It’s frustrating to see both the president and vice president jumping up and down saying, ‘Look what we did, look what we did,’ when if we actually followed the policies they were calling for … we would have left early and we would have left in shame,” Mr. Hegseth said, noting their opposition to the surge of forces in Iraq.

.

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

June 26, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The president seems to stand foursquare for nothing much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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