Posts Tagged ‘this war is lost’

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.

.

Advertisements

Question: Should Democrats Confirm ‘General Betray Us’?

June 23, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Keeps Air-Raiding Villages And Killing Civilians

February 23, 2010

During the campaign, Obama attacked George Bush’s Afghanistan policy saying:

“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.”

So the question is, why is the man who demagogued George Bush for air-raiding villages and killing civilians air-raiding villages and killing civilians?

KABUL — American-led efforts to avert civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban suffered a new blow over the weekend when a NATO airstrike in southern Afghanistan killed about two dozen civilians.

U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the head of coalition forces in Afghanistan, sought to contain outrage Monday for the attack by delivering a personal apology to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He conceded, however, that the attack Sunday was likely to shake public confidence in his pledge to minimize civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

“We are extremely saddened by the tragic loss of innocent lives,” McChrystal’s statement said. “I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission. We will redouble our efforts to regain that trust.”

Sunday’s airstrike was the second in a week to kill Afghan civilians. A week earlier, U.S. Marines killed 12 Afghans during the ongoing offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in southern Afghanistan.

Sunday’s strike hit a three-vehicle convoy of civilians in a remote part of the country. There were conflicting estimates of the death toll. The Afghan Council of Ministers said that 27 civilians — including four women and a child — had been killed, while the local police chief said 21 had died. Two others were missing, he said.

The fact of the matter, for all of Obama’s demagogic rhetoric, is that civilians deaths are up significantly in Afghanistan since Mr. “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” took over the war.

Obama owes Bush a profound apology.

Obama is killing more civilians than Bush ever did in spite of the most perverse and self-defeating rules of engagement ever to be used by any military in the history of warfare:

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

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

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

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

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

Obama is so concerned with preventing the possibility of civilian deaths that he is displaying what amounts to depraved indifferent to our own warriors’ lives.

Which explains why American causalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled, and will keep going up and up and up.

There’s a part of me that says, “Hey, we should support our president at war.  We should recognize that the fog of war makes tragic outcomes unavoidable, but trust that our warriors and war planners are doing the very best they can.”

And then there’s that part of me that recognizes that Democrats never once considered any of that while they were tearing President Bush apart day after day while they gleefully demagogued the war and deliberately eroded public opinion and public support.

I remember Democrats like Jack Murtha – and Barack Obama – accused our soldiers of war crimes.  I remember Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, “Now I believe this war is lost” while our troops were in the field fighting to secure the victory that those same Democrats are now hypocritically and despicably calling “this administration’s greatest achievement.”

I can’t be like the Democrats.  That would be utterly vile of me.

Unlike the Democrats, I actually want our troops to WIN:

July 30, 2007: [Democrat] “House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.”

Barack Obama: “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”  As opposed to Ronald Reagan’s view: “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.”

For the record, I have a dramatically different take on the Japanese surrender (Hirohito was not present; Obama is wrong as usual) to the United States.  I welcome it.  I liked it.  I’m thrilled we won and the Japanese lost.  I think the American victory over genuine totalitarian evil was a great thing.  I actually have the “audacity of hope” to WANT my country to win.

Crazy, I know.  Damned politically incorrect of me.

I support our troops.  I support their mission.  I support their courage and their dedication and their respect for the sanctity of civilian lives.

And unlike their current commander-in-chief, I always have.

Cynical, Deceitful, Hypocritical Liberals On Display Again As Biden Takes Credit For Iraq Success

February 15, 2010

In a strange way, the Obama administration is obscenely consistent: they blame Bush for their failures, and take credit for Bush’s successes.  They are like parasites utterly dependent upon Bush for their political survival.

In one of the most outrageous and despicable things I’ve ever heard, Joe Biden said this about Iraq:

“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.”

Andrew Malcolm – of the uber-liberal Los Angeles Times, no less – responded to that partial birth abortion of reality this way:

“Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success.”

Malcolm included the (Youtube) video of Obama predicting that the surge would bring about MORE violence rather than result in victory:

Instead of wanting to win in Iraq, Joe Biden wanted to partition the country into three regions that would have constantly warred with one another.  And then incredibly lied about having done so.  And both Barack Obama and Joe Biden led the Senate effort to undermine what turned out to be such a successful war that Joe Biden would try to take credit for it.

From Fox News Special Report:

But Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said you cannot oppose the surge and then claim it for your legacy.

“When Joe Biden was in the Senate and Obama was in the Senate, they authored and were the chief architect of the resolution opposing the surge,” he said.

The vice president also took credit for the troop drawdown.

“You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer,” he said. “You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

But the drawdown was negotiated in the Status of Forces Agreement before the Obama administration took office.

“The reduction in U.S. forces that is under way right now is in fact important and it’s largely the continuation of the policy that President Bush had set in place when he negotiated the drawdown schedule with Prime Minister Maliki at the end of 2008,” Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution told Fox News.

In fact, the agreement called for having U.S. troops out of Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat troops out by the end of 2011.

“The timetable for withdrawing those troops had been worked on for a long time, way preceding this administration coming into power, and that timetable really centered on success in Iraq,” said Col. Bill Cowan, a Fox News contributor. “That success starting really after the surge that was implemented by the previous administration.”

Let me sum it up thusly:

The same Demagogue Party whose senior political figure at the time said on April 19, 2007…

[Youtube link]

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

… is now the party trying to claim credit for a success that they treasonously fought every single step of the way.

The one good thing about Vice President Biden’s incredibly deceitful statement is that it points out what a success Iraq turned out to be.  The Iraq War turned out to be such a success that Biden wants to claim it as “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  And it proves in hindsight just how right Bush was, and how profoundly wrong the Democrats were.

Biden Reveals Obama Administration Treating Afghanistan As Political Problem

October 19, 2009

The money quote in the New York Times’ story on Joe Biden’s view on Afghanistan:

Beyond Mr. Biden’s strategic concerns, some who participated in administration deliberations earlier this year said he was keenly aware that the country, and particularly his party’s liberal base, was growing tired of the war and might not accept many more years of extensive American commitment.

“I think a big part of it is, the vice president’s reading of the Democratic Party is this is not sustainable,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s review [of Afghanistan] early this year. “That’s a part of the process that’s a legitimate question for a president — if I do this, can I sustain it with political support at home? That was the argument the vice president was making back in the winter.”

For any Democrat who ever wants to claim that Bush or Cheney “politicized the war,” remember this and shut the hell up.

Biden is saying, “If we send more troops to augment our force, we won’t get the votes we want.  And our votes are a lot more important than our troops, aren’t they?”

Biden, apparently Obama’s new new “expert” on Afghanistan, is described in the New York Times as being “deeply pessimistic” about the war.  I’m reminded of when Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq.  Cut and run cowards will ever be cut and run cowards.

I’m also reminded of Democrat House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn saying that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  It was a “problem” only because the Democrats were more interested in their demagoguery and political games than they were in our soldiers’ lives or the victory they were trying to win for the country.

Joe Biden is an “expert” in foreign policy the way I am an “expert” in neurosurgery: no one in their right mind would ever want me doing it.  The Times story continues:

But Mr. Riedel said the public could be persuaded to stick by the war with a well-articulated argument by the president. And others, more harshly, argue that Mr. Biden’s judgment on foreign policy has often been off base.

They point out that he voted against the successful Persian Gulf war of 1991, voted for the Iraq invasion of 2003, proposed dividing Iraq into three sections in 2006 and opposed the additional troops credited by many with turning Iraq around in 2007.

“When was the last time Biden was right about anything?” Thomas E. Ricks, a military writer, wrote in a blog on Sept. 24. Mr. Ricks is affiliated with the Center for a New American Security, a research organization founded by Democrats.

Stacked up against Biden are people who actually have some kind of basic clue about military reality — men like General David Petraeus, General Stan McChrystal (the nation’s foremost special operations expert who would know better than anyone if the counter-terrorism strategy favored by Biden would work), and General Dan McNeil (who has served as commander in Afghanistan in multiple capacities).

Charles Krauthammer a) slams Biden’s incompetence to make such decisions in juxtaposition to the incredible competence of the generals who profoundly disagree with Biden; and b) slams the incredibly cynical Obama strategy to create a new “expert” to justify his undermining of his generals and his troops:

KRAUTHAMMER: I think it’s hard to believe this sudden media inflation of the wisdom of Joe Biden is accidental. It’s clear that there is a debate inside the White House.

You got McChrystal, a man of incredible authority and stature, who says you got to go this way with a heavy troop involvement, and you’ve got Petraeus, the man who saved Iraq, saying the same, saying otherwise we’re going to lose.

And the administration obviously is resisting, and it has to have a champion of the other side, and it’s the hapless vice president. So some way you have to inflate his status and to make it at least somebody that will be a credible alternative.

I’m not sure that the Biden plan is a plan. It’s an idea, and the administration obviously in its leaks is tending towards the Biden idea. But it needs to have some stature on that side, and that’s why I’m little bit skeptical about the discovery of the vast storage of military wisdom in a guy, if you remember, opposed the Gulf War and opposed the surge and supported the Iraq war, which he now says was one of the great mistakes of American history — 0 for three.

Obama will lose more than twice as many American soldiers this year than George Bush lost last year.  And his strategy seems to be to blame George Bush rather than honor his own repeatedly publicly stated commitment to the security of Afghanistan.

Even liberals are now publicly calling Obama the “whiner-in-chief.”  The Washington Post is asking, “Does Obama have the backbone?” and pointing out that:

This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe.

The sorry fact of the matter is that terrorists don’t have a lot of respect for affection, but only for the awe that Obama is woefully lacking.

They are resurgent, because they believe they have a weakling in the White House that they can intimidate and defeat.

And I fear that they are right.

I am actually updating this before I even publish it, but the loathsome extent of Democrats’ playing with the war like a toy to benefit themselves is further revealed in a Washington Times article entitled, “U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects“:

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

What can you even say to such treasonous betrayal of our troops?

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

September 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

In March 27, 2009, President Obama roared:

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

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

Here’s the current situation:

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

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

Here’s the current situation:

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

Here’s the current situation:

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

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

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

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

Clear implication to McChrystal: Talk to the hand.

A recent article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

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

Charles Krauthammer points out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He pissed his opportunity away, and drove NOTHING.

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

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

As for Israel?

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

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

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

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

Alas, America won’t be so fortunate.

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

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

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

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

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

Harry Reid Calls George Bush AND His Mom A B*TCH

May 30, 2009

Let’s hear it for bipartisan unity and cooperation.

Well, how about let’s NOT and just say we did?  How about if Democrats are as nasty and vile as fermented pig manure instead?

Senate Majority Harry Reid – the man who bravely called for an American surrender even as George Bush was pushing for the strategy that would win the war in Iraq – demonstrated the Democratic standard of graciousness.

Harry Reid has his memoir out, entitled The Good Fight: Hard Lessons from Searchlight to Washington. Thank God, Mark Hemingway read it so no one else has to.

He notes one particular passage that leaps out within the first three pages:

While no one expects Reid to praise George W. Bush, the degree to which he is judgmental and catty regarding the former president pretty much speaks for itself. Three pages in, after lamely trying to establish his bipartisan bona fides by talking up George H. W. Bush, Reid shares this charming anecdote about his early days in the Senate: “[Former Texas senator and vice-presidential candidate Lloyd] Bentsen went on and on effusively about what a quality man President-elect [H. W.] Bush was. Then he paused and said, ‘But watch out for his wife; she’s a bitch.’ I have never had anything against Mrs. Bush, but guided by Bentsen’s crude advice, I’ve always said that our forty-third president is more his mother than his dad.”

What’s the purpose of recording for posterity a bit of hearsay defaming a woman Reid admits he has no cause to dislike? Is Reid really so petty as to insult someone’s mother? Why yes, yes he is.

Now THAT’S just truly classy coming from the leader of the United States Senate: “You’re mother is a bitch, and you take after her.”

I once had a guy try to goad me by calling my mother a bitch.  He got exactly what he wanted, if what he wanted was a trip to the emergency room on a stretcher with blood pouring out of his face and his neck in a brace.  There’s something called “fighting words.”  And what Harry Reid said – vicariously through the mouth of someone else like the coward and weasel he truly is –  is right at the top of the list.  Bentsen may or may not have told you in confidence that he didn’t like the first lady, Harry.  But you are the one who shared the statement that Barbara Bush was a bitch with everyone else.

Too bad George Bush probably won’t follow my example.

And just realize it’s people like Harry Reid who tell conservatives that we have to support Obama and not be divisive – not that calling a former Republican first lady and mother to another president is divisive or anything.

Now, it’s particularly ironic that a guy like Harry Reid would call a guy like George Bush “a bitch” by proxy would be particuarly ironic.  Hemingway continues:

Here’s another unintentionally revealing anecdote describing Reid’s relationship with Bush. In a passage describing a meeting the two men had at the White House on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Reid writes: “That day he wore on his face a look of bravado that we’ve all come to know, and said something I will never have the words to adequately describe. But to understand what he said is to understand something profound about the problem at the heart of the administration. Speaking of the fact that the war was being used by radical Islamists for jihadi recruitment, Bush said, ‘Of course, al Qaeda needs new recruits, because we’re killin’ ’em.’ He then gave a smirk — that ‘Bring em on’ smirk — that we’ve all come to know. ‘We’re killin’ ’em all,’ he said.”

Oh, the horror. Naturally, this comment of Bush’s is followed up with pages of Reid recollecting the perfectly composed monologue he gave in response. (It also helpfully explains in exacting detail why the surge plan then being considered wouldn’t work, with no acknowledgment in retrospect that it did.)

And here’s what happened two days later: “I publicly said that the war is lost.” Perhaps Reid should have worried that one of the United States’ most powerful politician’s declaring the war lost would be a ginormous jihadi-recruitment tool. But no, after pages of describing what a dangerous, shoot-from-the-hip, totally-unwilling-to-genuflect kind of guy George W. Bush is, Reid responds to the remark that will forever define his political career by reiterating that he won’t apologize for having said it.

Let’s see: one man whines, “This war is lost” and tries to surrender.  The other man – who stands up and stands behind a strategy that ended up reducing the number of American casualties even as it turns the tide – wants to stand up and fight the enemies of America who would murder her citizens and soldiers.   And the one that says, “This war is lost” is saying the guy who stood and fought is a bitch?

Perhaps Harry Reid’s next memoir can be entitled, The Manly Art of Surrendering To Terrorist Murderers.

You want to look at a “bitch,” Reid, find yourself a mirror.

Wanda Sykes: Anything Less Than Blind Devotion To Obama Is Treason

May 11, 2009

Barack Obama greeted the White House Press Corespondents by saying, “My name is Barack Obama.  Most of you covered me.  All of you voted for me.”

I don’t know how funny that was, but it certainly had the virtue of being true.  The media is so completely biased today, and has turned into such a pro-liberal, pro-Obama propaganda operation, that it is positively unreal.

But it was Wanda Sykes who expressed the unspoken zeitgeist of the mainstream media.

Youtube link

Sykes said:

Rush Limbaugh, one of your big critics, boy, Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So, you’re saying “I hope America fails,” it’s like, I don’t care about people losing their homes, or their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, Sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was just so strung out on oxycontin he missed his flight.

And you’ll notice if you watch the video that Obama clearly laughs at the rabid punchline.

And then Sykes says:

Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how ’bout that? Needs a little waterboarding, that’s what he needs.

And the President of the United States thinks it’s also quite hilarious that one of his fellow citizens’ kidneys fail.  Because that’s just the kind of guy he is, I guess.

And waterboarding is only torture when it is applied to terrorist murderers who want to kill Americans by the millions.  It is most definitely NOT torture if its done to conservatives.  Obama laughs at the thought of Rush Limbaugh being waterboarded.  But the waterboarding of a terrorist responsible for over three thousand American lives is a proof that we have lost our moral bearings.

Let me contrast Obama with a President that actually had some class.  Show me footage of George Bush laughing at the idea of a terrible wasting disease befalling, oh, I don’t know, Wanda Sykes.  The fact of the matter is, we used to have a President who was above that kind of rabid and clearly hateful partisanship.

And its the sheer, total, all-encompassing hypocrisy of the left that will never cease to continue to surprise me.

These same people who were for that war before they were against it, who literally hoped Bush would fail in Iraq and our troops would lose (recall Harry Reid’s proclamation of surrender when our troops were still fighting for victory: “I believe that this war is lost“), used to call dissent “the highest form of patriotism” when it suited them.

Dissent has NEVER been “the highest form of patriotism,” of course, and liberals had to butcher Thomas Jefferson the same way they butchered the Constitution to obtain that understanding.  But Democrats had a “standard” that they clung to when it suited them, only to show their hypocrisy by turning on the same standard they had just held.

Kind of like the war in Iraq itself.  Wanda Sykes speaks of conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh somehow betraying our soldiers in Iraq.  Let’s look at who REALLY undermined and betrayed our soldiers in Iraq.

This is what these cut-and-run-cowards USED to say before they publicly claimed “this war is lost” while our troops were still in the field fighting to win:

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

These liberals, who backstabbed, undermined, blocked, obstructed, demonized, and demagogued Bush and his agenda at every single turn – including hoping we failed in time of war – now have a frankly terrifying view of loyalty and patriotism.

If we are against Obama, we are against the country.  Because Barack Hussein Obama is our Fuhrer, and in him does the destiny of the new Reich lay.  He is our Big Brother, and we owe our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor not to our principles, but to our messiah.

You tell me: was that these hypocrite liberals’ view of the Bush presidency during the last eight years?

Obama is NOT America.  He is NOT our Big Brother, he is NOT our messiah, and he is most certainly not MY Fuhrer.  And I will fight with words, with fists, or even with weapons if anyone tries to take away my right to say otherwise.

Rush Limbaugh has very patiently explained to some incredibly stupid and immoral people that he hopes Obama fails FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.  Obama is a hard core socialist who has already spent more money than every single president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.  He is imposing a debt upon us that we and our children can never hope to repay.  The average 30 year-old planning to retire at age 70 will have to pay $136,932.75 just for the interest on President Obama’s 2010 budget.  And that doesn’t include the MUCH greater cost of paying for the overal deficit black hole to which Obama has added $12.8 TRILLION.  The interest on the national debt–interest alone–currently amounts to over $800 million a day, and about $300 billion per year.  In ten years we will be paying more than $800 billion a year in interest to finance our debt.

And we are already at a position that in order to make payments on the debt, we have to borrow more money.  A Washington Post article entitled, “U.S. Debt Set to Soar This Year” points that factoid out:

But about 40 percent of the debt held by private investors will mature in a year or less, according to Treasury officials. When those loans come due, the Treasury will have to borrow more money to repay them, even as it launches perhaps the most aggressive expansion of U.S. debt in modern history.

We’re broke, but that doesn’t stop Barack Obama from trying to nationalize another one-sixth of our economy (health care) at the cost of another $634 billion – just for starters.  He wants to nationalize our energy industry.  He wants to nationalize the student loan program.  He’s already nationalized the banks and the auto industry.

Obama’s spending will go on and on and on.  If all goes well, he will only put us $9.3 trillion in the hole. Even the Congressional Budget Office acknowledges that such reckless spending is totally unsustainable.

And I’m supposed to be akin to Osama bin Laden for hoping that Barack Hussein fails in his task of bankrupting the country?  Excuse me?

This was all been predicted before the election by men and women who knew a hell of a lot better than Wanda Sykes.

In a poll of chief executive officers taken prior to the election, 74 percent of the executives said they feared “that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”  And some of the CEOs predicted that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.”  And with the Congress in nearly total Democratic control, they ARE being implemented.

Rush Limbaugh explained what he meant in an address that is worth reading.  He explained why we should ALL hope Obama fails.

I hope Obama fails – and fails big – and that the people recognize his failure and turn on him before America goes into a hole that it will never be able to claw its way out of.

And in the meantime, I’ll wear Democrats’ charges of treason as a badge of personal honor.  Being called a “traitor” by Democrats bothers me about as much as it would bother me if a child molester (whom Democrats protect as sacred cows, btw) called me “a bad person.”